Best piston engined fighter of 1945?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

[URL='https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/'][B]Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary[/B][/URL] said:
backwater
noun
a part of a river where the water does not flow:

a place that does not change because it is not influenced by new ideas or events that happen in other places:

a place that does not seem to know much about the world and its ways:




Continued use of this word makes clear that, despite all of your protestations to the contrary, you do consider the PTO insignificant, unimportant to following world events, and not worthy of study.
 
"...the B-29 development & the Manhattan Project being unrelated..."?

Hey G-G, Project Silverplate just called, they want me to hold their beer!
 
'Back burner' is another antonymic term - you'd perhaps prefer instead? (I think Curtis Le May just might've).
 

Whether you intend to or not, by using this inapt word you do millions who fought, suffered, and died a disservice. Here's what the word means:



backwater

noun

back·wa·ter ˈbak-ˌwȯ-tər
-ˌwä-

Synonyms of backwater


1
a
:
water backed up in its course by an obstruction, an opposing current, or the tide
b
:
a body of water (such as an inlet or tributary) that is out of the main current of a larger body



2
a
:
an isolated or backward place or condition
b
:
an unpopular or unimportant field (as of study or business)



PTO doesn't fit any of those denotations. Your argument is with Merriam-Webster. The fact that something is not #1 priority doesn't imply that it is unimportant, inactive, or isolated.
 
Last edited:
"...the B-29 development & the Manhattan Project being unrelated..."?

Hey G-G, Project Silverplate just called, they want me to hold their beer!
The B-29 was proposed to the USAAC (Army Air Corps) in early 1940 in response to the Army's December 1939 request for a "super long range bomber".

Three other companies responded as well: Lockheed (XB-30), Douglas (XB-31) and Consolidated (XB-32).

Boeing's XB-29 was selected with the XB-32 as a back up, and the first B-29 flew in summer 1942.

At this point in 1942, the Manhattan Project was still in the process of selecting various sites for developing material, research, testing and so on.

It was by 1943, that the Atomic program had an idea of what the bomb shape would be and what aircraft might be capable of carrying it. The Lancaster was briefly discussed as an option due to the size of the first bomb (Thin Man), but was ruled out. A preproduction B-29 was tested for the Atomic bomb tests in November 1943 under the code name "Silverplate".

By May 1944, the B-29 was accepted into USAAF (Army Air Force) service.

In August 1944, "Operation Silverplate" pulled 17 B-29s off the assembly line for Atomic Bombing modifications.

In December 1944, the 509th Composite Group was formed.

The rest is history.

So no, the B-29 and Atomic program were not the one and the same.
 
Yes, I remember watching the film Iwo Jima and seeing the Marines rotate between vulnerable positions to relatively safer positions and thinking no way would I want to do that...
 
Or indeed, the totally revised P-51H.

It'd be a curious thing if reliable flight-test data were available to make a fair comparison - of all 4 Griffon powered late-war prototypes to fly.

(CAC-15, Fury I, M-B V, Spiteful).
The big advantage was the contra-rotating prop, eliminating torque issues, especially on takeoff.

Handling was praised, with control harmonisation said to be particularly good.

Another MB5 advantage was the accessibility designed into the airframe and the consequent ease of maintenance.
 

Users who are viewing this thread