Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Place your bets!

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Place your bets!

    So here's the thread for predictions of results. As I write this, we're in the middle of the Second Round, so seems early on enough to make calls and place bets ...

    I'll go out on the limb, and start this off ...

    1] Douglas DC-3/C-47 Skytrain/Dakota/Gooney Bird .... An 80+ year old design with many examples nearly as old still flying, this is "the airframe" of the 20th century when it comes to multiple roles, multiple uses, multiple users and collectively the largest hand for roles and uses/users as well as longest span of use ... overwhelming case IMO for the most significant and influential of aircraft designs.

    2] Lockheed C-130 Hercules ~ The "Herc" is nearly as legendary and varied in uses~applications as the Dakota, lacking only in length of service, though still over half a century since designed and flown!

    > My call here is that among those offered in this poll, none others come close to matching the record of performance and versatility these two aircraft have shown. Moving on to a 'Final Four' ...

    3] Douglas AD-1, Skyraider/'Spad' ~ A close contender with the next aircraft, longer length of service and near equal mix of uses/variations means this airframe beats out the next contender. Icing on the cake is the better design for "aircraft carrier" capability!

    4] de Havilland 'Mosquito' - ~ With numerous other twin engine/twin prop competitors, the "Mossy" could face a contest, but along with the many roles/uses it filled and users it supported, the 'Mossy' underscored the usage of "composites" in place of metal in modern aircraft design, hence filling a vital part of the "significant/influential" qualification here!

    The next two could be a close toss-up, but the border-line longer service life, current and potential, of one gives it the edge over the other, IMO.

    5] MD/Boeing F-18 Hornet/Super Hornet - Maybe not five star in ever category, but versatility in uses, longevity of service, future potential, and better design for 'carrier ops' gives it a slight edge over the following ...

    6] MD/(Boeing) F-4 Phantom (II) - An earlier twin engined and designed for twin crew fighter~fighter-bomber~special aps airframe, this one set a pattern that many other aircraft designers~nations would seek to emulate.

    The next two, 'semi-final eight' I haven't a pick for yet. Haven't thought through or projected this poll/survey to that scope. Maybe later. For now, something for others to play against ...

  • #2
    Upon reflection, I do have a 7] ~ 8] contender, that would be the Consolidated PBY Catalina flying boat.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_PBY_Catalina

    Between the variety of roles and users, and longevity of service~ "still flying". it is another "benchmark" design of "significance and influence" coming out of the mid 20th Century of aviation designs and concepts.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
      So here's the thread for predictions of results. As I write this, we're in the middle of the Second Round, so seems early on enough to make calls and place bets ...

      I'll go out on the limb, and start this off ...

      1] Douglas DC-3/C-47 Skytrain/Dakota/Gooney Bird .... An 80+ year old design with many examples nearly as old still flying, this is "the airframe" of the 20th century when it comes to multiple roles, multiple uses, multiple users and collectively the largest hand for roles and uses/users as well as longest span of use ... overwhelming case IMO for the most significant and influential of aircraft designs.

      2] Lockheed C-130 Hercules ~ The "Herc" is nearly as legendary and varied in uses~applications as the Dakota, lacking only in length of service, though still over half a century since designed and flown!

      > My call here is that among those offered in this poll, none others come close to matching the record of performance and versatility these two aircraft have shown. Moving on to a 'Final Four' ...

      3] Douglas AD-1, Skyraider/'Spad' ~ A close contender with the next aircraft, longer length of service and near equal mix of uses/variations means this airframe beats out the next contender. Icing on the cake is the better design for "aircraft carrier" capability!

      4] de Havilland 'Mosquito' - ~ With numerous other twin engine/twin prop competitors, the "Mossy" could face a contest, but along with the many roles/uses it filled and users it supported, the 'Mossy' underscored the usage of "composites" in place of metal in modern aircraft design, hence filling a vital part of the "significant/influential" qualification here!

      The next two could be a close toss-up, but the border-line longer service life, current and potential, of one gives it the edge over the other, IMO.

      5] MD/Boeing F-18 Hornet/Super Hornet - Maybe not five star in ever category, but versatility in uses, longevity of service, future potential, and better design for 'carrier ops' gives it a slight edge over the following ...

      6] MD/(Boeing) F-4 Phantom (II) - An earlier twin engined and designed for twin crew fighter~fighter-bomber~special aps airframe, this one set a pattern that many other aircraft designers~nations would seek to emulate.

      The next two, 'semi-final eight' I haven't a pick for yet. Haven't thought through or projected this poll/survey to that scope. Maybe later. For now, something for others to play against ...
      A good and thoughtful post, David; with some sound reasoning.
      It'll be interesting to see how close your predictions are, when the last 3 Rounds are done.
      It'll also be interesting to see if other members are in accord with your general outline or, if they are not, then what their reasoning will be.
      I'm guessing there could be some who will make equally compelling cases for outcomes that are at least slightly different?
      For example, I wouldn't be surprised to see the F-15 among the last 8 left standing; and possibly in lieu of one of the types you have mentioned?

      Btw, (I'm sorta "nit-picking" here; but ... ) "semi-final eight" should be "quarter-final eight". There will only be 4 planes in the semi-final.
      Last edited by panther3485; 30 Jan 16, 23:46.
      "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

      Comment


      • #4
        I'm still rooting for the F-15. That plane is a beast. Never lost a single combat. NEVER!
        Also the only plane I know of that lost a wing and still got its crew home safely...

        For your viewing pleasure.
        Last edited by Bwaha; 31 Jan 16, 02:12.
        Credo quia absurdum.


        Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

        Comment


        • #5
          Hmm, I am going along with GDB on many of his. C-47, C-130, AD, F-15, F-18. Catalina, Mosquito - I'll add the Liberator to make my #8

          Susie
          Will no one tell me what she sings?--
          Perhaps the plaintive numbers flow
          For old, unhappy, far-off things,
          And battles long ago:
          -William Wordsworth, "The Solitary Reaper"

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
            I'm still rooting for the F-15. That plane is a beast. Never lost a single combat. NEVER!
            Also the only plane I know of that lost a wing and still got its crew home safely...

            For your viewing pleasure.
            Du~oh!

            You've got me rethinking~reconsidering and yes, F-15 Eagle is a better candidate then the F-4 Phantom(II), so Phantom out and Eagle in.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Desiree Clary View Post
              Hmm, I am going along with GDB on many of his. C-47, C-130, AD, F-15, F-18. Catalina, Mosquito - I'll add the Liberator to make my #8

              Susie
              I think you've nailed it!

              Comment


              • #8
                Hi, G David Bock;
                + a note to all participating members, please:

                Apologies for merging these two threads but we can't afford to have too many extra/miscellaneous threads, whether they be mixed with the poll threads or "pushing them down the page" as stickies.

                We now have the following threads stickied at the head of our polls:
                • Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft: Working-up thread
                • Introduction - Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft
                • Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft - QCC thread (title changed - see below)
                • Soviet/Russian poll performance
                • Place your bets! & Should have been/could have been (originally two threads)

                This gives us more additional threads than would have been ideal; especially considering that nearly everything - if not absolutely everything - in the most recent new threads should really have gone into the QCC (Questions, Comments and Concerns) thread which was specifically created at the beginning of this tournament to cater for comments, suggestions, questions etc.

                Could members please confine any further questions, comments suggestions or discussion points regarding this tournament to one or another of the five threads we now have at the head of these polls.
                Otherwise, if such questions etc are specific to any particular pairing then they can be posted in that poll thread, if the member prefers.
                Please do not create any more new threads. There is nothing relevant to this tournament that anyone could ask, say or want to discuss that wouldn't fit into at least one of the existing threads. (If any more new threads are created here, I'll have little option but to delete them.)
                Hope everyone understands.

                EDIT: For better clarity regarding intended purpose, I shall change the name of the QCC thread so everyone can see at a glance what it's for.
                Henceforth it will simply be called, Questions, Comments and Concerns.

                Back to G David Bock:
                With all due respect, can I please suggest to both yourself and the membership, to keep this thread purely for "Place your bets" posts from now on; and anything along the lines of "Planes that should have been included" could be posted either in Questions, Comments & Concerns or as follow-up content in the working up thread?
                If you agree, I can change the title of this thread back to simply "Place Your Bets" and the couple of posts you made here regarding missing planes could be copied over and then removed from here?

                This would help "tidy up" after the merging and keep the number of extra threads to a desirable minimum.


                Best to all,
                panther3485
                Last edited by panther3485; 01 Feb 16, 03:27.
                "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by G David Bock
                  1] Boeing B-29/B-50; ~ KB-29/KB-50, +, etc. ... <snip>
                  Hi GDB,

                  Forgive me please but I have already responded to somebody bringing this one up!
                  I admitted my oversight in missing the B-29 and its derivatives, which was arguably more deserving of a place in these polls than some others that "made the cut".
                  It's not the only such oversight.
                  For example, I have also admitted to kicking myself for overlooking the Avro 504.

                  And the following comments are not specifically for G David Bock. They are posted for the general consideration of participating members:

                  No doubt, members will be able to think of some more types that (arguably) might have been included in lieu of a few of the types that made it across the line.
                  After all, 100+ brains should certainly better than one; and better even than the (approximately) 8 to 10 members who actually came forward and offered some useful help with my preparations.

                  I ran a working-up thread for about two months prior to the commencement of this campaign, in the Weapons of War forum, showing anyone who cared to look a list of about 150 aircraft types I was proposing to cull down to 128 starters for this campaign.
                  I also made it obvious that I was open to suggestions not only as to which aircraft should be culled but also any additions for more deserving aircraft types that anyone might care to mention.
                  That thread has been transferred to this tournament and it appears at the top of page 1.
                  It is called Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft: Working-up thread.

                  But let me be clear about this: I do accept primary responsibility for my omissions. After all, I am the author of this tournament and that's where the buck stops.

                  That said, it is still somewhat disconcerting to me that nearly all of the members saying I should have included plane X, Y or Z were conspicuously absent when I was asking for help to put this thing together.

                  Finally, I would add that I do nevertheless still want members to come forward and point to any aircraft type that I missed which they believe should have been included. I am most definitely not unwelcoming to constructive criticism.

                  However, if I have already admitted to missing a particular aircraft type and apologized for said oversight, what I don't expect is for it to be brought up again as if I had never responded.
                  Same applies if I state that I deliberately excluded any particular aircraft type; because some of the ones that are missing were culled because I thought they should be.

                  Thank you, guys.
                  Last edited by panther3485; 01 Feb 16, 03:15.
                  "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by G David Bock
                    1] Boeing B-29/B-50; ~ KB-29/KB-50, +, etc. ...
                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-29_Superfortress
                    EXCERPT:
                    The Boeing B-29 Superfortress is a four-engine propeller-driven heavy bomber designed by Boeing and was flown primarily by the United States during World War II and the Korean War. It was one of the largest aircraft operational during World War II and very advanced for its time. It featured a pressurized cabin, all dual wheeled, tricycle landing gears, and a remote, electronic fire-control system that controlled four machine gun turrets. A manned tail gun installation was semi-remote. The name "Superfortress" continued the pattern Boeing started with its well-known predecessor, the B-17 Flying Fortress. Designed for high-altitude strategic bomber role, the B-29 also excelled in low-altitude nighttime incendiary bombing missions. One of the B-29's final roles during World War II was carrying out the atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
                    Due to the B-29's highly advanced design for its time, unlike many other World War II-era bombers, the Superfortress remained in service long after the war ended, with a few even being employed as flying television transmitters for the Stratovision company. The B-29 served in various roles throughout the 1950s. The Royal Air Force flew the B-29 as the Washington until phasing out the type in 1954. The Soviet Union produced an unlicensed reverse-engineered copy as the Tupolev Tu-4. The B-29 was the progenitor of a series of Boeing-built bombers, transports, tankers, reconnaissance aircraft and trainers including the B-50 Superfortress (the first aircraft to fly around the world non-stop) which was essentially a re-engined B-29. The type was finally retired in the early 1960s. The B-29 production total was 3,970 aircraft. Dozens of B-29s remain as static displays but only one example, Fifi, remains on flying status. As of 2015, another B-29 is being restored for flight.
                    A transport developed from the B-29 was the Boeing C-97 Stratofreighter, first flown in 1944, followed by its commercial airliner variant, the Boeing Model 377 Stratocruiser in 1947. This bomber-to-airliner derivation was similar to the B-17/Model 307 evolution. In 1948 Boeing introduced a tanker variant of the B-29 as the KB-29, followed by the Model 377-derivative KC-97 introduced in 1950. A heavily modified line of outsized-cargo variants of the Stratocruiser is the Guppy / Mini Guppy / Super Guppy which remain in service today with operators such as NASA.
                    ....
                    B-50;
                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-50_Superfortress

                    The Boeing B-50 Superfortress strategic bomber is a post–World War II revision of the Boeing B-29 Superfortress, fitted with more powerful Pratt & Whitney R-4360 radial engines, stronger structure, a taller fin, and other improvements. It was the last piston-engined bomber designed by Boeing for the United States Air Force. Not as well known as its direct predecessor, the B-50 was in USAF service for nearly 20 years.
                    After its primary service with SAC ended, B-50 airframes were modified into aerial tankers for Tactical Air Command (KB-50) and as weather reconnaissance aircraft (WB-50) for the Air Weather Service. Both the tanker and hurricane hunter versions were retired in March 1965 due to metal fatigue and corrosion found in the wreckage of KB-50J, 48-065, which crashed on 14 October 1964.[2]
                    ...
                    While the Boeing B-17 is a trend setter in establishing the ideal of a four-engined, long-ranged heavy Bomber design, which many of the major combatants of WWII followed, the B-29/B-50 took things another level beyond that of the mid-1940's into something on the edge of 20th and later 21st century design concepts ~ with pressurized crew-compartments and remote controlled gun turrets, the B-29/B-50 design was a next generation idea that would impact long-ranged heavy bomber designs for decades to come.*

                    IMO, perhaps one of the most "significant and influential" designs to come out of the 1940's era.

                    * See the B-35, B-36, and B-47, B-52 programs for further examples.
                    The B-29 was truly a marvel, revealing a quantum leap over the B-17, a heavy bomber par excellence-but "multi-role" ?
                    "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
                    Samuel Johnson.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
                      Hi GDB,

                      Forgive me please but I have already responded to somebody bringing this one up!
                      I admitted my oversight in missing the B-29 and its derivatives, which was arguably more deserving of a place in these polls than some others that "made the cut".
                      It's not the only such oversight.
                      For example, I have also admitted to kicking myself for overlooking the Avro 504.

                      And the following comments are not specifically for G David Bock. They are posted for the general consideration of participating members:

                      No doubt, members will be able to think of some more types that (arguably) might have been included in lieu of a few of the types that made it across the line.
                      After all, 100+ brains should certainly better than one; and better even than the (approximately) 8 to 10 members who actually came forward and offered some useful help with my preparations.

                      I ran a working-up thread for about two months prior to the commencement of this campaign, in the Weapons of War forum, showing anyone who cared to look a list of about 150 aircraft types I was proposing to cull down to 128 starters for this campaign.
                      I also made it obvious that I was open to suggestions not only as to which aircraft should be culled but also any additions for more deserving aircraft types that anyone might care to mention.
                      That thread has been transferred to this tournament and it appears at the top of page 1.
                      It is called Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft: Working-up thread.

                      But let me be clear about this: I do accept primary responsibility for my omissions. After all, I am the author of this tournament and that's where the buck stops.

                      That said, it is still somewhat disconcerting to me that nearly all of the members saying I should have included plane X, Y or Z were conspicuously absent when I was asking for help to put this thing together.

                      Finally, I would add that I do nevertheless still want members to come forward and point to any aircraft type that I missed which they believe should have been included. I am most definitely not unwelcoming to constructive criticism.

                      However, if I have already admitted to missing a particular aircraft type and apologized for said oversight, what I don't expect is for it to be brought up again as if I had never responded.
                      Same applies if I state that I deliberately excluded any particular aircraft type; because some of the ones that are missing were culled because I thought they should be.

                      Thank you, guys.
                      Paul, you have done a great service for ACG with these polls and I as well as others thank you.
                      "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                      Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                      you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                        Upon reflection, I do have a 7] ~ 8] contender, that would be the Consolidated PBY Catalina flying boat.

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_PBY_Catalina

                        Between the variety of roles and users, and longevity of service~ "still flying". it is another "benchmark" design of "significance and influence" coming out of the mid 20th Century of aviation designs and concepts.
                        The CAT is one of my all time favorites but...I don't see the significance and influence part.
                        "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                        Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                        you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                          So here's the thread for predictions of results. As I write this, we're in the middle of the Second Round, so seems early on enough to make calls and place bets ...

                          I'll go out on the limb, and start this off ...

                          1] Douglas DC-3/C-47 Skytrain/Dakota/Gooney Bird .... An 80+ year old design with many examples nearly as old still flying, this is "the airframe" of the 20th century when it comes to multiple roles, multiple uses, multiple users and collectively the largest hand for roles and uses/users as well as longest span of use ... overwhelming case IMO for the most significant and influential of aircraft designs.

                          2] Lockheed C-130 Hercules ~ The "Herc" is nearly as legendary and varied in uses~applications as the Dakota, lacking only in length of service, though still over half a century since designed and flown!

                          > My call here is that among those offered in this poll, none others come close to matching the record of performance and versatility these two aircraft have shown. Moving on to a 'Final Four' ...

                          3] Douglas AD-1, Skyraider/'Spad' ~ A close contender with the next aircraft, longer length of service and near equal mix of uses/variations means this airframe beats out the next contender. Icing on the cake is the better design for "aircraft carrier" capability!

                          4] de Havilland 'Mosquito' - ~ With numerous other twin engine/twin prop competitors, the "Mossy" could face a contest, but along with the many roles/uses it filled and users it supported, the 'Mossy' underscored the usage of "composites" in place of metal in modern aircraft design, hence filling a vital part of the "significant/influential" qualification here!

                          The next two could be a close toss-up, but the border-line longer service life, current and potential, of one gives it the edge over the other, IMO.

                          5] MD/Boeing F-18 Hornet/Super Hornet - Maybe not five star in ever category, but versatility in uses, longevity of service, future potential, and better design for 'carrier ops' gives it a slight edge over the following ...

                          6] MD/(Boeing) F-4 Phantom (II) - An earlier twin engined and designed for twin crew fighter~fighter-bomber~special aps airframe, this one set a pattern that many other aircraft designers~nations would seek to emulate.

                          The next two, 'semi-final eight' I haven't a pick for yet. Haven't thought through or projected this poll/survey to that scope. Maybe later. For now, something for others to play against ...
                          Some great choices there.

                          So far I'd go:
                          WW1 and Intra War: Bisfit.
                          WW2 : Mosquito.
                          Jet: F-15
                          General: C-47 and Herc.

                          The last two probably should be in the final.
                          How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                          Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Given the example of the total incompetence of pundits during the last US presidential election and the last UK general one I think I'll wait until the exit poll thanks.
                            Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                            Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
                              Paul, you have done a great service for ACG with these polls and I as well as others thank you.
                              Agree 100%

                              Susie
                              Will no one tell me what she sings?--
                              Perhaps the plaintive numbers flow
                              For old, unhappy, far-off things,
                              And battles long ago:
                              -William Wordsworth, "The Solitary Reaper"

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X