WW2 Spitfire Pilot Mary Ellis Dies(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
WW2 Spitfire Pilot Mary Ellis Dies
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44962253
60 comments
I found the segment in the video where she recounts an encounter with a German plane while flying, and attempts to wave it away (shoo!) to be hilarious.
I would recommend for any HN user that hasn't done it before, to go and fly a plane.
There's something so surreal about flying, having the freedom to move across 4 axes (and more if you fly a helicopter), compared to the two that your car gives you.
Getting up in an aerobatic plane is even more fun. The feeling when you're in the middle of a barrel roll, pulling 1 G so you still feel stuck to the seat, but when you look outside everything is upside down, it's amazing.
There's something so surreal about flying, having the freedom to move across 4 axes (and more if you fly a helicopter), compared to the two that your car gives you.
Getting up in an aerobatic plane is even more fun. The feeling when you're in the middle of a barrel roll, pulling 1 G so you still feel stuck to the seat, but when you look outside everything is upside down, it's amazing.
> I would recommend for any HN user that hasn't done it before, to go and fly a plane.
'When I were a lad' I was in the Air Training Corps had got to fly in quite a variety of military aircraft. I thoroughly enjoyed it and at the time pretty much took it for granted, it's only as I've got older I appreciate the experiences I had.
I've since flown in civilian small aircraft and helicopters a few times since and now appreciate how much more 'fun' the military stuff was. Even the Chipmunk, originally a 1940s two seat basic trainer, was so much more exciting to fly than a modern Cessna.
Sadly I didn't get a fast jet flight, I was 1st reserve for a Hawk flight and went through all the ejector seat training but sadly the cadet in front of me stayed healthy and spent a couple of hours blasting through the Welsh mountains.
'When I were a lad' I was in the Air Training Corps had got to fly in quite a variety of military aircraft. I thoroughly enjoyed it and at the time pretty much took it for granted, it's only as I've got older I appreciate the experiences I had.
I've since flown in civilian small aircraft and helicopters a few times since and now appreciate how much more 'fun' the military stuff was. Even the Chipmunk, originally a 1940s two seat basic trainer, was so much more exciting to fly than a modern Cessna.
Sadly I didn't get a fast jet flight, I was 1st reserve for a Hawk flight and went through all the ejector seat training but sadly the cadet in front of me stayed healthy and spent a couple of hours blasting through the Welsh mountains.
Paragliding is cool too - much slower process, but you are really out there, not behind any glass, hearing the wind in your ears. And the stuff you can make with the wing is beyond ability of any machine. Equipment is super cheap compared to planes, and once you have it flying is basically for free.
There are some drawbacks - its passive flying, so you are at mercy of the weather, wind and your skills much more than rigid construction with powerful engine.
There are some drawbacks - its passive flying, so you are at mercy of the weather, wind and your skills much more than rigid construction with powerful engine.
This gliding in a plane-like structure (http://www.milehighgliding.com/) was a pretty good substitute for this non-pilot. The glider was towed up to 12k feet by another plane and then let go - the resulting 10 or so minutes of near-silent gliding in the mountains of Boulder, CO was pretty amazing.
Airplanes are generally considered to have 3 degrees of freedom: Pitch (elevators and or ailerons), yaw (Rudder), roll(ailerons).
Speed can increase lift but so that might count, but pulling back on the stick does the same thing as moving the wheel to adjust elevator trim.
Speed can increase lift but so that might count, but pulling back on the stick does the same thing as moving the wheel to adjust elevator trim.
6 kinds of freedom: rotation for all 3 axes, and change in velocity along each of the 3 axes.
Cars have two kinds: steering and change in speed. Planes have about 4: pitch, yaw, roll and thrust.
Cars have two kinds: steering and change in speed. Planes have about 4: pitch, yaw, roll and thrust.
There's also something amazing about seeing an area from the sky, especially one you know well at ground level. All sorts of topographical features and structures which you didn't know about are revealed.
Almost all flying clubs / schools offer "trial" or "experience" flights. Even if you have no interest in getting your own license, it's a great way to spend an hour or two!
Almost all flying clubs / schools offer "trial" or "experience" flights. Even if you have no interest in getting your own license, it's a great way to spend an hour or two!
The tiny problem is you go for the experience flight and come down addicted. At least that's what happened to me. :)
This so much! There was this amazing aerobatics squadron in Aurora, IL named the Gauntlet Warbirds that would take you up in an Extra 300L and teach you aerobatics for 30 minutes. I managed to do it and it was simply unbelievable.
One quote really put her age in perspective: "Older than the RAF by one year." Remarkable.
Dan Snow, the historian behind the History Hit Podcast coincidentally interviewed her last week. You can get a link to the podcast here: https://www.historyhit.com/podcasts/
Quite a lady and a sad loss.
Quite a lady and a sad loss.
from the obituary at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-43518517 :
The work was "exhilarating and sometimes very dangerous", she recalled. Pilots often flew unfamiliar aircraft, guided by the "Ferry Pilots notes", which gave landing instructions.
"We'd say to each other, 'Oh look what I've got, look what I've got'. And that was terribly exciting. Sometimes frightening as well because the aeroplanes were all different. You'd get out of a Tiger Moth into a Wellington bomber and then into a Spitfire."
Based at an all-women's ATA pool in Hamble, Hampshire, she recalled that she flew "about 1,000" aircraft during the war including 76 different types.
Mary Ellis came close to death on several occasions.
She was shot at over Bournemouth, possibly by friendly fire, and had a near-miss as she landed in fog at the same time as another Spitfire coming in the opposite direction.
She also survived a crash-landing when the undercarriage on her Spitfire jammed, causing the engine to overheat.
The work was "exhilarating and sometimes very dangerous", she recalled. Pilots often flew unfamiliar aircraft, guided by the "Ferry Pilots notes", which gave landing instructions.
"We'd say to each other, 'Oh look what I've got, look what I've got'. And that was terribly exciting. Sometimes frightening as well because the aeroplanes were all different. You'd get out of a Tiger Moth into a Wellington bomber and then into a Spitfire."
Based at an all-women's ATA pool in Hamble, Hampshire, she recalled that she flew "about 1,000" aircraft during the war including 76 different types.
Mary Ellis came close to death on several occasions.
She was shot at over Bournemouth, possibly by friendly fire, and had a near-miss as she landed in fog at the same time as another Spitfire coming in the opposite direction.
She also survived a crash-landing when the undercarriage on her Spitfire jammed, causing the engine to overheat.
> She also survived a crash-landing when the undercarriage on her Spitfire jammed, causing the engine to overheat.
That is interesting. How is the undercarriage and engine of a Spitfire linked together, such that jamming the undercarriage could cause the engine to overheat?
That is interesting. How is the undercarriage and engine of a Spitfire linked together, such that jamming the undercarriage could cause the engine to overheat?
It must involve airflow to the radiator but it’s hard to see how when you look at pictures, though some models have intakes that could possibly get blocked.
https://www.quora.com/World-War-2-What-was-that-box-under-th...
It’s quite tricky to Google as there are simulators that have users experiencing problems with overheating Spitfires.
https://www.quora.com/World-War-2-What-was-that-box-under-th...
It’s quite tricky to Google as there are simulators that have users experiencing problems with overheating Spitfires.
Indeed, if the wheels are stuck half open, they disturb the airflow to the radiators. Radiators where of course as small as possible [1], since they cause a lot of drag.
[1] They also used pressurized glycol-water cooling, coolant temp was something like 135 degC, allowing a smaller radiator than atmospheric pressure water.
[1] They also used pressurized glycol-water cooling, coolant temp was something like 135 degC, allowing a smaller radiator than atmospheric pressure water.
On the contrary, the radiator on the spitfire could actually provide positive thrust, simply because it took in cold air at the front and put out hot air at the back.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meredith_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meredith_effect
Well, yes, but for the same engine with the same waste heat removal, a bigger radiator doesn't help. It would be worse, actually, since you have the larger drag, and the Meredith effect would also be smaller since you'd have a larger volume of air passing through, but heated less.
Its amazing what war can do to equal rights. Britain had the planes but it was short on pilots- the battle of Britain was a war of attrition.
WW2 military planes were at the limits of a man's strength. Flying those airplanes in combat or in an emergency is very physical.
For example, a B-17 could fly with only one outboard engine running. But the pilot could barely hold the rudder in position to do it, and would trade off with the copilot. Women don't have the lower body strength to do it. Flying a damaged B-17 is just not possible without the leg and upper body strength.
There was an episode of "Aviation Disasters" where a piston airliner had some severe damage, I don't remember just what, just that the pilot had to desperately muscle the controls for a couple hours.
This all changed, of course, with the advent of hydraulic boost. With fully powered surfaces, the "feel forces" on the stick were faked by the "feel computer". By the time I worked on the 757 flight controls, the "feel forces" had been dialed back substantially to accommodate female pilots.
For example, a B-17 could fly with only one outboard engine running. But the pilot could barely hold the rudder in position to do it, and would trade off with the copilot. Women don't have the lower body strength to do it. Flying a damaged B-17 is just not possible without the leg and upper body strength.
There was an episode of "Aviation Disasters" where a piston airliner had some severe damage, I don't remember just what, just that the pilot had to desperately muscle the controls for a couple hours.
This all changed, of course, with the advent of hydraulic boost. With fully powered surfaces, the "feel forces" on the stick were faked by the "feel computer". By the time I worked on the 757 flight controls, the "feel forces" had been dialed back substantially to accommodate female pilots.
I would be careful to say Women, as a group, cannot do something because of their physiology. Sure, many women have a hard time flying older planes. I would think many men would have had the same problem. If a woman really wanted to, I should think she could work hard and overcome those difficulties.
Generalizations are a necessary part of communications. Listing the exceptions to every statement made would unnecessarily complicate our speech to the point of incomprehension.
Everyone knows there are some strong women out there. Common knowledge shouldn't need to be repeated at every opportunity in order to prevent imaginary slights.
Everyone knows there are some strong women out there. Common knowledge shouldn't need to be repeated at every opportunity in order to prevent imaginary slights.
But in this specific example - women in aviation - we do need to be careful, because for many years when people said "women can't do this" they did mean "no woman can do this, no matter how hard they train".
See for one notable example see the First Lady Astronaut Trainees (also called the Mercury 13). For years the route to become a pilot for NASA included being a military test pilot, and that was forbidden to women, and so women were unable to become NASA pilots even if they outperformed men on NASA's tests.
https://history.nasa.gov/printFriendly/flats.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_13
https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/29/17393698/netflix-document...
See for one notable example see the First Lady Astronaut Trainees (also called the Mercury 13). For years the route to become a pilot for NASA included being a military test pilot, and that was forbidden to women, and so women were unable to become NASA pilots even if they outperformed men on NASA's tests.
https://history.nasa.gov/printFriendly/flats.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_13
https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/29/17393698/netflix-document...
>I would think many men would have had the same problem
But not on average. The average woman is physically weaker than the average man. Which means, on average, women lack the body strength needed.
Why is HN getting infested with "muh feelings"? I don't know why people get so offended by basic facts.
But not on average. The average woman is physically weaker than the average man. Which means, on average, women lack the body strength needed.
Why is HN getting infested with "muh feelings"? I don't know why people get so offended by basic facts.
The previous poster said "women", not "women on average".
Touche. But let's be honest here, it's an implied average. Blame English, or comprehension skills.
He also did not say "literally all women" but I don't see anyone here making the case for that either.
He also did not say "literally all women" but I don't see anyone here making the case for that either.
I took their language to be implying a weakness in women that I did not think was warranted (emphasis, mine)
>WW2 military planes were at the limits of a man's strength.
> Women don't have the lower body strength to do it. Flying a damaged B-17 is just not possible without the leg and upper body strength.
> By the time I worked on the 757 flight controls, the "feel forces" had been dialed back substantially to accommodate female pilots.
The final quote seeming to imply the mechanical feedback from the controls of more modern aircraft were lessened to accommodate female pilots, instead of more likely making it easier for all pilots to operate the aircraft.
>WW2 military planes were at the limits of a man's strength.
> Women don't have the lower body strength to do it. Flying a damaged B-17 is just not possible without the leg and upper body strength.
> By the time I worked on the 757 flight controls, the "feel forces" had been dialed back substantially to accommodate female pilots.
The final quote seeming to imply the mechanical feedback from the controls of more modern aircraft were lessened to accommodate female pilots, instead of more likely making it easier for all pilots to operate the aircraft.
> imply
I thought I stated it quite plainly, not by implication. It's what I was told by the engineers that worked on it.
There was also some concern that by lessening the feel forces, men would then be likely to overcontrol the aircraft, but this concern didn't pan out.
I thought I stated it quite plainly, not by implication. It's what I was told by the engineers that worked on it.
There was also some concern that by lessening the feel forces, men would then be likely to overcontrol the aircraft, but this concern didn't pan out.
[deleted]
"Women don't have the lower body strength to do it."
"The average woman is physically weaker than the average man."
Excellent motte and bailey (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey).
"The average woman is physically weaker than the average man."
Excellent motte and bailey (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey).
I don't see how this is a Motte and Bailey. The first quote is just a more specific statement than the latter. They both say the same thing: that the average woman's physical capacity is not as much as the average man.
The original statement was, "[All] Women don't have the lower body strength to [fly any WWII-era military airplane]." This is a very strong statement, clearly too strong to be supported. (I mean, the article. And all the aircraft delivered from factories by female pilots. And those Soviet combat pilots. (But everyone knows Soviet women were big and beefy, right? Right?))
The second statement, on the other hand, "But not on average. The average woman is physically weaker than the average man. Which means, on average, women lack the body strength needed," is much easier to support (in fact, I'll accept it as true). It also looks like it offers support for the original position.
Unfortunately, it doesn't. It serves only to divert the argument from an unsupportable position to a supportable one. That is why it is a logical fallacy.
The second statement, on the other hand, "But not on average. The average woman is physically weaker than the average man. Which means, on average, women lack the body strength needed," is much easier to support (in fact, I'll accept it as true). It also looks like it offers support for the original position.
Unfortunately, it doesn't. It serves only to divert the argument from an unsupportable position to a supportable one. That is why it is a logical fallacy.
> "[All] Women don't have the lower body strength to [fly any WWII-era military airplane]."
No. You're significantly altering the statement with the words you're injecting. Consider this:
"Dogs have four legs."
Would you correct people and point out that there are amputee dogs with fewer than for legs? Most wouldn't, because referring to a group without a qualifier is understood to refer to the majority or state that something is the norm, not that it applies to literally every single item in that group.
No. You're significantly altering the statement with the words you're injecting. Consider this:
"Dogs have four legs."
Would you correct people and point out that there are amputee dogs with fewer than for legs? Most wouldn't, because referring to a group without a qualifier is understood to refer to the majority or state that something is the norm, not that it applies to literally every single item in that group.
So you are arguing that the original statement should be interpreted as something like, "[Normal] women don't have the lower body strength to [fly normal (?) WWII-era military aircraft]?" That doesn't seem to be a wildly meaningful statement without an addition, "[but normal men do]."
Unfortunately, that latter addition doesn't work; according to [1] (an interesting document), 60% of RAF crews were rejected on medical grounds.
So we are seemingly left with, "[Normal] women don't have the lower body strength to [fly normal (?) WWII-era military aircraft], [but superior men do]," which once again is approaching the "so what?" stage.
Unfortunately, that latter addition doesn't work; according to [1] (an interesting document), 60% of RAF crews were rejected on medical grounds.
So we are seemingly left with, "[Normal] women don't have the lower body strength to [fly normal (?) WWII-era military aircraft], [but superior men do]," which once again is approaching the "so what?" stage.
Again you're finding objections not in the words that were actually written, only in the in the ones you have injected. Here's the full paragraph in the original comment:
>For example, a B-17 could fly with only one outboard engine running. But the pilot could barely hold the rudder in position to do it, and would trade off with the copilot. Women don't have the lower body strength to do it. Flying a damaged B-17 is just not possible without the leg and upper body strength.
It's clear that the commenters recognizes that flying the aircraft pushed male pilots to the extremes of their physical ability, "...the pilot could _barely_ hold the rudder in position..." Furthermore this is in reference to combat situations (a plane with 3 of 4 engines damaged). You're complaints about this comment do far have been that it:
* Denied the existence of _any_ women that could perform these tasks. This wasn't claimed, see the "dogs have four legs" comparison.
* Claimed that women couldn't fly "normal" WWII aircraft. No, the commenter highlighted a combat scenario of flying a damaged plane that pushed pilots to their physical limit.
* That the average man could be a pilot. I don't see where this is claimed in the original comment. It actually states the opposite, that piloting in combat demanded peak physical performance.
Again, the Motte and Bailey only exists if you're injecting some other message. The point is simply that piloting a WWII aircraft in combat was physically extremely intense and demanded physical ability beyond typical women (a point corroborated by your evidence that even most men were rejected for their physical condition).
>For example, a B-17 could fly with only one outboard engine running. But the pilot could barely hold the rudder in position to do it, and would trade off with the copilot. Women don't have the lower body strength to do it. Flying a damaged B-17 is just not possible without the leg and upper body strength.
It's clear that the commenters recognizes that flying the aircraft pushed male pilots to the extremes of their physical ability, "...the pilot could _barely_ hold the rudder in position..." Furthermore this is in reference to combat situations (a plane with 3 of 4 engines damaged). You're complaints about this comment do far have been that it:
* Denied the existence of _any_ women that could perform these tasks. This wasn't claimed, see the "dogs have four legs" comparison.
* Claimed that women couldn't fly "normal" WWII aircraft. No, the commenter highlighted a combat scenario of flying a damaged plane that pushed pilots to their physical limit.
* That the average man could be a pilot. I don't see where this is claimed in the original comment. It actually states the opposite, that piloting in combat demanded peak physical performance.
Again, the Motte and Bailey only exists if you're injecting some other message. The point is simply that piloting a WWII aircraft in combat was physically extremely intense and demanded physical ability beyond typical women (a point corroborated by your evidence that even most men were rejected for their physical condition).
Right, because subtlety and implication aren't a part of communication, especially in English, which is so precise that sentences in it are practically computer code.
I wholeheartedly agree that implication is important. That's why the interpretation of the original comment you have made in this reply chain is ineffective. It fails to adhere to the commonly understood implication that unspecified references to a group refers to the majority or the norm - not every single member of that group.
"Dogs have four legs" != "Every single dog that exists has four legs"
"Dogs have four legs" != "Every single dog that exists has four legs"
Pilots also were put through boot camp (which has a heavy emphasis on physical strength building). Being a pilot was in demand for its prestige (first with the ladies!) and extra pay, so the Air Corps had their pick of the finest men. Retaining flying status meant passing regular physicals, too.
"The point is simply that piloting a WWII aircraft in combat was physically extremely intense and demanded physical ability beyond typical [people]."
So, why was the original statement limited to women, if it applies to everyone?
So, why was the original statement limited to women, if it applies to everyone?
> And all the aircraft delivered from factories by female pilots.
That's true. But delivering aircraft is not the same thing as flying combat maneuvers, nor is one flying in emergency situations like damaged flight controls or extreme weather. Many of those delivery flight airplanes were lost anyway.
> And those Soviet combat pilots.
True. Perhaps the Soviets designed their combat planes with lower control forces in mind because they were meant to be flown by women. But the US planes were designed for male strength. Keep in mind that those planes were not designed for any notions of equality or fairness, they were designed as killing machines needing maximum performance. Even a 1% edge meant victory rather than death. And that meant being constrained by the limits of what the pilot could do.
That's true. But delivering aircraft is not the same thing as flying combat maneuvers, nor is one flying in emergency situations like damaged flight controls or extreme weather. Many of those delivery flight airplanes were lost anyway.
> And those Soviet combat pilots.
True. Perhaps the Soviets designed their combat planes with lower control forces in mind because they were meant to be flown by women. But the US planes were designed for male strength. Keep in mind that those planes were not designed for any notions of equality or fairness, they were designed as killing machines needing maximum performance. Even a 1% edge meant victory rather than death. And that meant being constrained by the limits of what the pilot could do.
Honestly, I think that if you look into the history, you'll find:
- Those aircraft that required large control forces were disliked for that reason, no matter the pilot's sex, age, race, religion, or choice of favorite vegetable. It was regarded as a flaw in the design. (The B-17 in particular had a long history of changes to its control surfaces and aerodynamics.)
- No engineer is going to say, "Yeah, we cocked that one up." The response to criticism will be, "We made the best trade off of conflicting requirements that was possible at the time."
- The reason women didn't fly combat missions in WWII was that women don't fly combat missions except in extraordinary circumstances. The Soviet Union being the exception that proves the rule: the "girlies" (as described by one general) seem to have done as well as anyone else, but were pulled out of service following the war.
I don't happen to know specific details about any of the aircraft, particularly those flown by the 588th Night Bomber Regiment[1], but I suspect the 586th Fighter regiment[2] flying Yak-1s, -7s, and -9s would face more physical stresses than bomber crews and dive bombers like the 125th Guards[3] are notorious for their pull-out g-forces. (Bonus, cute quotes:
"While the Pe-2's flying characteristics were generally favorable once it was airborne, it took a good amount of force to pull the elevators up to rotate the plane for takeoff. Russian night bombing missions often flew with female pilots and some of the women were not strong enough to get the airplane airborne by themselves. When such a situation occurred, the procedure was to have the navigator get behind the pilot's seat and wrap her arms around the control wheel and help the pilot pull the wheel back. Once the aircraft was airborne, the navigator returned to her duties and the pilot continued to fly the plane without assistance."
"The 587th's Petlyakov Pe-2 dive bombers also required a tall person to operate the top rear machine gun, but not enough women recruited were tall enough, requiring some men to join the aircrews as radio operator and tail gunner." So there's that.)
- Aircrew's sex was not a parameter in aircraft design at any point; I find a certain entertainment in the image of the response to "Well, the control forces are too high with all but one outboard engine out, so we'll have to limit it to male pilots."
I mean, if you're judging solely by physical attributes, the idiots (I mean, airmen) in the ball turrets should have been women---you could have fit in more ammunition.[5]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Witches
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/586th_Fighter_Aviation_Regimen...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/125th_Guards_Dive_Bomber_Regim...
[4] https://web.archive.org/web/20120225213451/http://etd.lib.fs... looks like a good read.
[5] https://www.evblog.virginiahumanities.org/2012/09/they-washe...
- Those aircraft that required large control forces were disliked for that reason, no matter the pilot's sex, age, race, religion, or choice of favorite vegetable. It was regarded as a flaw in the design. (The B-17 in particular had a long history of changes to its control surfaces and aerodynamics.)
- No engineer is going to say, "Yeah, we cocked that one up." The response to criticism will be, "We made the best trade off of conflicting requirements that was possible at the time."
- The reason women didn't fly combat missions in WWII was that women don't fly combat missions except in extraordinary circumstances. The Soviet Union being the exception that proves the rule: the "girlies" (as described by one general) seem to have done as well as anyone else, but were pulled out of service following the war.
I don't happen to know specific details about any of the aircraft, particularly those flown by the 588th Night Bomber Regiment[1], but I suspect the 586th Fighter regiment[2] flying Yak-1s, -7s, and -9s would face more physical stresses than bomber crews and dive bombers like the 125th Guards[3] are notorious for their pull-out g-forces. (Bonus, cute quotes:
"While the Pe-2's flying characteristics were generally favorable once it was airborne, it took a good amount of force to pull the elevators up to rotate the plane for takeoff. Russian night bombing missions often flew with female pilots and some of the women were not strong enough to get the airplane airborne by themselves. When such a situation occurred, the procedure was to have the navigator get behind the pilot's seat and wrap her arms around the control wheel and help the pilot pull the wheel back. Once the aircraft was airborne, the navigator returned to her duties and the pilot continued to fly the plane without assistance."
"The 587th's Petlyakov Pe-2 dive bombers also required a tall person to operate the top rear machine gun, but not enough women recruited were tall enough, requiring some men to join the aircrews as radio operator and tail gunner." So there's that.)
- Aircrew's sex was not a parameter in aircraft design at any point; I find a certain entertainment in the image of the response to "Well, the control forces are too high with all but one outboard engine out, so we'll have to limit it to male pilots."
I mean, if you're judging solely by physical attributes, the idiots (I mean, airmen) in the ball turrets should have been women---you could have fit in more ammunition.[5]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Witches
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/586th_Fighter_Aviation_Regimen...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/125th_Guards_Dive_Bomber_Regim...
[4] https://web.archive.org/web/20120225213451/http://etd.lib.fs... looks like a good read.
[5] https://www.evblog.virginiahumanities.org/2012/09/they-washe...
The average young man has about the same hand-grip strength as an elite female judo player. A woman at the 90th percentile has similar grip strength to a man at the 5th percentile. No amount of training can overcome that level of difference unless you're a massive outlier or you're using anabolic steroids.
We should be careful to avoid attributing innate differences to traits that are really socialised, but we can't simply overlook the vast gender differences in many traits.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00421-006-0351-...
We should be careful to avoid attributing innate differences to traits that are really socialised, but we can't simply overlook the vast gender differences in many traits.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00421-006-0351-...
[deleted]
Russian Air Force had a number of female combat pilots during WW2. Some flew fighters and even Pe-2 dive bombers. The last one had controls so hard to move that two women (pilot and navigator) had to join the forces to pull the stick back on take-off.
>WW2 military planes were at the limits of a man's strength.
Citation needed, not all planes were B-17s.
Instead of relying on dogmas, the USSR had a very successful all-women night bomber regiment[1]
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Witches
Citation needed, not all planes were B-17s.
Instead of relying on dogmas, the USSR had a very successful all-women night bomber regiment[1]
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Witches
From your source:
"The regiment flew in wood-and-canvas Polikarpov U-2 biplanes, a 1928 design intended for use as training aircraft (hence its original uchebnyy designation prefix of "U-") and for crop dusting, which also had a special U-2LNB version for the sort of night harassment attack missions flown by the 588th, and to this day remains the most-produced wood-airframed biplane in aviation history. The planes could carry only six bombs at a time, so eight or more missions per night were often necessary.[6] Although the aircraft were obsolete and slow,"
Not exactly the heavy, high performance aircraft flown by the other powers.
> Citation needed
In various accounts I've read, sometimes a pilot will remark how he pulled at the controls with all his strength to recover. Sorry I don't have anything specific.
And besides, aircraft designers are well aware of the control forces designed into the aircraft. Since they expected the pilots to be men, why wouldn't they design it at the limit of men's strength if that meant they could take advantage of that strength to make the plane perform better? If I were a combat pilot, I'd want the designer to give me every goddam advantage possible. Wouldn't you?
It'd be like telling the Roman soldier "we made your swords shorter and lighter for women soldiers, too bad that puts you at a disadvantage when faced with the enemy who has longer and heavier swords."
"The regiment flew in wood-and-canvas Polikarpov U-2 biplanes, a 1928 design intended for use as training aircraft (hence its original uchebnyy designation prefix of "U-") and for crop dusting, which also had a special U-2LNB version for the sort of night harassment attack missions flown by the 588th, and to this day remains the most-produced wood-airframed biplane in aviation history. The planes could carry only six bombs at a time, so eight or more missions per night were often necessary.[6] Although the aircraft were obsolete and slow,"
Not exactly the heavy, high performance aircraft flown by the other powers.
> Citation needed
In various accounts I've read, sometimes a pilot will remark how he pulled at the controls with all his strength to recover. Sorry I don't have anything specific.
And besides, aircraft designers are well aware of the control forces designed into the aircraft. Since they expected the pilots to be men, why wouldn't they design it at the limit of men's strength if that meant they could take advantage of that strength to make the plane perform better? If I were a combat pilot, I'd want the designer to give me every goddam advantage possible. Wouldn't you?
It'd be like telling the Roman soldier "we made your swords shorter and lighter for women soldiers, too bad that puts you at a disadvantage when faced with the enemy who has longer and heavier swords."
I provided a single counter-example to invalidate your claim that WWII-era aircraft required strength that is unreasonable to expect from a woman.
The burden of proof is still on you.
> Sorry I don't have anything specific.
Thank you, that concludes the argument.
The burden of proof is still on you.
> Sorry I don't have anything specific.
Thank you, that concludes the argument.
1928 designs are not WW2 designs.
"With hydraulic flight control systems, the aircraft's size and performance are limited by economics rather than a pilot's muscular strength."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_flight_control_system
The first airplane with hydraulic boost was the 1943 Constellation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Constellation
There you go. The B-17, P-51 and P-47 did not have hydraulic boost.
"With hydraulic flight control systems, the aircraft's size and performance are limited by economics rather than a pilot's muscular strength."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_flight_control_system
The first airplane with hydraulic boost was the 1943 Constellation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Constellation
There you go. The B-17, P-51 and P-47 did not have hydraulic boost.
>1928 designs are not WW2 designs.
How is this relevant? You said - quote: "WW2 military planes". That is, planes operated during the war. These Polikarpov bombers were not just operated during the war, they were highly successful in their missions. Please stay on topic here.
Again, we know that women were OK piloting fighter planes like the Spitfire, or attaining the ace status on planes like Yak-1[1] (1940 design, by the way), or flying bombers like Pe-2 (also a 40's design).
That's yet more specific counter-examples to your claim, for which you haven't yet provided any support.
Hundreds of designs[2] took part in air combat in WW2. You'd have to crunch a lot of data for your claim to have any footing (to even argue about most planes of that era, which were all wildly different).
Is this an issue of pride? Can't you simply admit being wrong about women being too weak to fight in these machines? The history is not on your side here.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_women_in_World_War_II#P...
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_World_War_...
How is this relevant? You said - quote: "WW2 military planes". That is, planes operated during the war. These Polikarpov bombers were not just operated during the war, they were highly successful in their missions. Please stay on topic here.
Again, we know that women were OK piloting fighter planes like the Spitfire, or attaining the ace status on planes like Yak-1[1] (1940 design, by the way), or flying bombers like Pe-2 (also a 40's design).
That's yet more specific counter-examples to your claim, for which you haven't yet provided any support.
Hundreds of designs[2] took part in air combat in WW2. You'd have to crunch a lot of data for your claim to have any footing (to even argue about most planes of that era, which were all wildly different).
Is this an issue of pride? Can't you simply admit being wrong about women being too weak to fight in these machines? The history is not on your side here.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_women_in_World_War_II#P...
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_World_War_...
> How is this relevant?
1928 stringbags are not what I was talking about. If you can't see that, that's ok.
> we know that women were OK piloting fighter planes like the Spitfire
For transport use, which is straight and level flying. It's utterly different from combat maneuvering or emergency situations.
> Can't you simply admit being wrong about women being too weak to fight in these machines? The history is not on your side here.
If you can find women fighting air-to-air combat in Spits, P-51s, or P-47s, and winning, you'd have history on your side.
The Soviet women flew Yak-1s, which were only about 2/3 the weight of a P-51. This translates into lower control forces needed. Yak-1s were also much slower, again translating into lower control forces.
It's no surprise that hydraulic boost was added after WW2 as weight and speed increased further.
If you want to believe that control forces have nothing to do with weight, speed, and performance, that women are as strong as men, that hydraulic boost was added just for fun, that's your privilege.
1928 stringbags are not what I was talking about. If you can't see that, that's ok.
> we know that women were OK piloting fighter planes like the Spitfire
For transport use, which is straight and level flying. It's utterly different from combat maneuvering or emergency situations.
> Can't you simply admit being wrong about women being too weak to fight in these machines? The history is not on your side here.
If you can find women fighting air-to-air combat in Spits, P-51s, or P-47s, and winning, you'd have history on your side.
The Soviet women flew Yak-1s, which were only about 2/3 the weight of a P-51. This translates into lower control forces needed. Yak-1s were also much slower, again translating into lower control forces.
It's no surprise that hydraulic boost was added after WW2 as weight and speed increased further.
If you want to believe that control forces have nothing to do with weight, speed, and performance, that women are as strong as men, that hydraulic boost was added just for fun, that's your privilege.
>If you can find women fighting air-to-air combat in Spits, P-51s, or P-47s, and winning, you'd have history on your side.
If you said that women weren't strong enough to fly these specific aircraft in combat missions, we would be having a different argument.
I don't doubt that it would be very hard to find women who would have the strength to pilot some WW2 aircraft in combat missions. That is not what you wrote.
It may well be the case that the Spitfire is an example of such aircraft, but the Yak is not, as evidenced by the provided links.
But if you prefer to fight straw men all day long, that's your privilege.
If you said that women weren't strong enough to fly these specific aircraft in combat missions, we would be having a different argument.
I don't doubt that it would be very hard to find women who would have the strength to pilot some WW2 aircraft in combat missions. That is not what you wrote.
It may well be the case that the Spitfire is an example of such aircraft, but the Yak is not, as evidenced by the provided links.
But if you prefer to fight straw men all day long, that's your privilege.
Women were simply not allowed roles in these positions in many countries.
Your point?
My source on WW2 aircraft is my father, a B-17 (and later P-47 Thunderbolt and P-51) pilot. The Thunderbolt is a very heavy airplane, you can imagine what it took to fly that beast at its limits.
Yes. This is why WWII pilots were chosen and trained like NFL offensive linemen. Monsters, the lot of them.
Non-combat
What is the point of this comment? The title is completely accurate in stating that she was a WW2 Spitfire pilot. There isn't any implication that she was a combat pilot.
That goes without saying. I doubt any WWII vet has flown a combat mission in 30 years.
(From the video embedded in the article)