Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I was actively engaged in flying, maintaining and building from scratch many aircraft. I was an EAA Menber, I flew at every Base that had a Flying Club and often rented interesting planes on the open market after leaving the Service and becoming an "Independent Contractor and Civilian Consultant to the DoD, State Department and Various foreign governments" when I had such "Disposable income" that I could afford it.
As to your post, I would not think that different Squadrons with different types of planes would constitute a "Combined fleet", but that is just my opinion?
From Bungays "The most dangerous enemy"Fine! How many Spits were lost just to take off and landing during the BoB and how many to actual combat?
I'll bet you $1,000.00 against $100.00 that, either this claim, "more losses to accidents than to combat" is either true given the most thorough modern research, or is stated as fact in more books published at the time, than is disputed at the time!
Willing to put your money where your mouth is?
How about if I fly along in a helicopter at 5000' and hose sharks basking in the Gulf of Tonkin with an M-60?
Oi, you, Its my $1000"Fine! How many Spits were lost just to take off and landing during the BoB and how many to actual combat?
I'll bet you $1,000.00 against $100.00 that, either this claim, "more losses to accidents than to combat" is either true given the most thorough modern research,..."
Pick any day between Wednesday 10th July and Thursday October 31st 1940 and I can give you Fighter Command operational squadron losses and damages for that day. I absolutely guarantee that those to enemy action exceed those due to all other causes by a large margin.
I will gladly take your bet, because I have the data in front of me
Cheers
Steve
don't forget Los Alamitos, El Toro, March, Long Beach, San Diego and I think 29 Palms?I'm assuming military flying clubs. Let's see - Point Mugu? China Lake? EDW? Vandenberg? What years?
hey hey, I get some of that!Oi, you, Its my $1000
When do I see the receipt for $1000 paid to the RAF benevolent fund?I have answered every one. See the colored replies above. Your problem is that you came in late and have confused things I wrote with things other people said I wrote???
I have answered every one. See the colored replies above. Your problem is that you came in late and have confused things I wrote with things other people said I wrote???
No - I have read everything you posted and for the most part I think you're a full of shit poser. If you flew at EVERY aero club, tell me the arrival and departure procedures out of EDW - they've been about the same for as long as the aero club has been there.I have answered every one. See the colored replies above. Your problem is that you came in late and have confused things I wrote with things other people said I wrote???
Your argument is weak...don't rely on Google as a source nor excuse.My Google foo is weak, so I'll leave that up to you.
When do I see the receipt for $1000 paid to the RAF benevolent fund?
Funny old world, I had just read that chapter this afternoon while the tennis was on, I did quote a time period and losses damged for the RAF.You didn't choose a day or days or a squadron or squadrons so that I can actually give you their losses and damage
I guess you'll have to take my word for it!
Cheers
Steve
No, you said the more spitfires were lost to take off and landing accidents than to enemy action, if that were true the BoB would have been lost. It may well be true of the seafire, that is a completely different plane and theatre.Please feel free to partake! It is an open challenge.
I feel bad when people either misquote me, or twist what I say to something that is not related to the argument at hand. And I fall back on the time honored tactic of all nerds throughout time, make the challenge a wager!
This all started because I posted a picture and a list of things that could be done to make the 109 a better plane. Very few have actually addressed any of the other ideas, and many have used part of what I said to change the topic, like the Spitfire hade the same narrowly spaced landing gear and that somehow made it OK on the 109? Then some guy states that the accident rate was 20% and that it was because of "Night Opps" as if that makes it all right? Then I get blamed for the 20% statement. Right!
I would have thought that 10% would have been horrendous and enough to cause great worry?
Very true. I have a good 650+ hours of combat time, and almost all of it was spent 25 to 100 ft over the ground.
Being up at 5000 ft. would just make you a juicy target.
Why, I have not seen the reply that proves the point was wrong?
againWhy, I have not seen the reply that proves the point was wrong?
Not a single person has taken a word you've said and "twisted" it or taken it out of context.I feel bad when people either misquote me, or twist what I say to something that is not related to the argument at hand. And I fall back on the time honored tactic of all nerds throughout time, make the challenge a wager!
No, it all started because you're posting bullsh!t and backing up your claims with nothing.This all started because I posted a picture and a list of things that could be done to make the 109 a better plane. Very few have actually addressed any of the other ideas, and many have used part of what I said to change the topic, like the Spitfire hade the same narrowly spaced landing gear and that somehow made it OK on the 109? Then some guy states that the accident rate was 20% and that it was because of "Night Opps" as if that makes it all right? Then I get blamed for the 20% statement. Right!
I would have thought that 10% would have been horrendous and enough to cause great worry?