Pre-WW2 Carrier Comparison

[Nick Sumner]

Sure you can. The origin of this argument was in a comparison between "contemporaries". The overwhelming majority of people who havve chimed in have pointed out -- repeatedly -- the when discussing contemporary types, one is implicitly limitting discussion to similar technologies. Only you and the person who made the original blanket statement that got this ball rolling have insisted that unlike technologies be considered contemporary. IOW, your interpretation is out of the oranges to oranges context that most other people find reasonable to discuss the subject.

 

You are completely missing my point, you are a smart fellow and it is by no means a tortuous or arcane point so I can only conclude that this is a wilful refusal to grasp it. I have no idea why you would want to do so and speculation on that subject would be pointless and a waste of time - rather as this discussion has become. I will agree to disagree with you.

 

All the best, and see you next time.

[Guest aevans]

You are completely missing my point,

 

1. you are a smart fellow

 

2. and it is by no means a tortuous or arcane point so I can only conclude that this is a wilful refusal to grasp it.

 

3. I have no idea why you would want to do so and speculation on that subject would be pointless and a waste of time - rather as this discussion has become. I will agree to disagree with you.

 

All the best, and see you next time.

 

1. Don't patronize me.

 

2. I understand your point perfectly well. I also understand that you are choosing ot insist on an interpretation of "contemporary" that very few adhere to. While the majority is not always right, I think it would be pretty hard to argue that the consensus view in this case is all that wrong.

 

3. Since I am not missing the point -- I'm just not agreeing with it, for good and sufficient reason -- you can speculate all you want, because you're not speculating about anything in the real world that could possibly make a difference to me.

[Mk 1]

Contemporary

(1) Belonging to the present time; "contemporary leaders" (Princeton.edu)

(2) Persons, events, or movements that overlapped in time. (Wikipedia)

(3) Living or occurring at the same time; a comparison of time between two things (people or events) indicating that they exist or did exist simultaneously. (Angelfire)

 

There are several legitimate sources that define "contemporary" as refering to different items, people, events, etc. that have an overlap in time. No reference to where the contemporaries are in their own life-cycles.

 

Contemporary

(4) Characteristic of the present (Princeton.edu)

(5) Obviously concerned with the here and now, current, relevant to its time. (Nexus)

(6) A synonym for modern, frequently preferred because it suggests that which is distinctly of today (Thewarnerco.com)

 

There are also many sources that define "contemporary" as being relevant to time, rather than to other items. Contemporary in this case would mean of modern, or current, technology or design.

 

It is a question of what you relate the term "contemporary" to. Relate one plane to the other, and they are contemporaries. Relate each plane to the march of time, and once you take one as being a contemporary design, you can dismiss the other as not.

 

However, this is not the essence of the original debate that sparked this side-light. So perhaps we can leave the pendantics behind now?

 

The question of the definition of "contemporary" only arose due to the underlying question of whether carrier-based fighter aircraft are typically, or necessarily, inferior to land-based fighter aircraft.

 

Even if we accept (according to whichever definition we prefer) that the Me-262 is "contemporary" to the F4U-1D or F4U-4, or SeaFury, or Bearcat, the presences of a single new-technology land-based plane does not in any way prove the issue of the inferiority of carrier-based fighters. One could as easily look at the Me-262 as evidence that German fighter aircraft are typically, or necessarily, superior to all other fighter aircraft. Both arguments (land-based vs. sea-based, or German vs. non-German) are supported by examining the case of the Me-262 in 1944/45. Both are refuted by dozens of other examples over the many other years of the 1930s and 1940s.

 

A single data point does not prove a trend line.

 

-Mark 1

[Guest aevans]

Contemporary

(1) Belonging to the present time; "contemporary leaders" (Princeton.edu)

(2) Persons, events, or movements that overlapped in time. (Wikipedia)

(3) Living or occurring at the same time; a comparison of time between two things (people or events) indicating that they exist or did exist simultaneously. (Angelfire)

 

There are several legitimate sources that define "contemporary" as refering to different items, people, events, etc. that have an overlap in time. No reference to where the contemporaries are in their own life-cycles.

 

Contemporary

(4) Characteristic of the present (Princeton.edu)

(5) Obviously concerned with the here and now, current, relevant to its time. (Nexus)

(6) A synonym for modern, frequently preferred because it suggests that which is distinctly of today (Thewarnerco.com)

 

You're playing the "English is low-context language" game. As a general rule that's true, but in certain discussions, especially technical ones, there is definitely a lot of context that has to be understood or agreed about for the discussion to make any sense. This is one of those cases. Refuse to accept it as much as you want, but when talking about aircraft, or any technology that undergoes evolution, "contemporary" has a specific technological as well as a literal meaning. For example, one couldn't talk in any meaningful way about the 386 and the Pentium as contemporary processor technologies, even though they could certainly be found in the same office at the same time for a while. And that's talking about two examples of essentially the same technology from the same evolutionary tree. When you're discussing comaprisons between jet propulsion and piston engines, you're talking about significantly different technologies that were only "contemporary" in overlapping periods of service and in very little else. Heck, going your hyper-literal route, once could discuss the DC-3 and the 747 as "contemporaries". How you could do that in a meaningful way I have no clue...

[Mk 1]

Refuse to accept it as much as you want, but when talking about aircraft, or any technology that undergoes evolution, "contemporary" has a specific technological as well as a literal meaning.

Got nothing to do with refusing to accept on my part, although that comment may well apply to others I could name.

 

For example, one couldn't talk in any meaningful way about the 386 and the Pentium as contemporary processor technologies, even though they could certainly be found in the same office at the same time for a while. And that's talking about two examples of essentially the same technology from the same evolutionary tree.

Well yes, that is talking about two examples from the same evolutionary tree. And two examples that were, in fact, sequential rather than contemporary. Do you need help with a definition there, too?

 

This example is a very good illustration of the failure of your premise. The Pentium is a further evolution OF the 386. There could be no Pentium if there was not a 386 to preceed it. There was nothing between them that was not sequentialized.

 

A better example might be to look at the ARM7 compared to the Pentium. They were roughly contemporary, meaning that they both came out at about the same time, and were both used at about the same time. Yet they were quite different in approach, and made use of seperate technology developments. Both also continued their development, and while we can still see renditions of the Pentium produced in volumes similar to what was built when they first came into service, that combined volume of all Pentiums built in in history is less than the number of ARM processors built just last year alone.

 

Contemporaries, even though of differing technologies, different evolutionary paths, and different destinies.

 

When you're discussing comaprisons between jet propulsion and piston engines, you're talking about significantly different technologies that were only "contemporary" in overlapping periods of service and in very little else. Heck, going your hyper-literal route, once could discuss the DC-3 and the 747 as "contemporaries". How you could do that in a meaningful way I have no clue...

Trying to assert some sort of parallel in comparing the DC-3 to the 747 is a rather remarkable comment, coming from one who berates others for playing the "English is low-context language" game. I thought the context was a comparison of aircraft that were in widespread service in the same timeframe. I didn't know that we were comparing the Me-262 to the Sopwith Camel.

 

Wasn't it you who were saying that the propellor-driven fighters entering widespread service in the timeframe of the Me-262 were highly developed, nearing the apex of their developmental potential? Not that I wish to disparage the redeaming qualities of the DC-3 (nor the Sopwith Camel, for that matter), but I must disagree with your clear implication that the DC-3 was among the most highly developed propellor-driven airliners to see widespread service, at the apex of the evolutionary line, and in widespread service at about the same time as the 747. How you could do that in a meaningful way I have no clue ... I don't think you have that story quite right.

 

A closer analogy would be to compare a B727 to an An-26. Even though those two are of greatly different technologies, and belong to very different evolutionary paths, I can easily see someone who understands the common use of English describing one as being a contemporary of the other (meaning there is a meaningful overlap in time between them).

 

-Mark 1

[KingSargent]

I must disagree with your clear implication that the DC-3 was among the most highly developed propellor-driven airliners to see widespread service, at the apex of the evolutionary line, and in widespread service at about the same time as the 747.

-Mark 1

[quibble] Well, IMHO the DC-3 WAS the acme of the small medium-range airliner. It certainly outlasted most attempts to replace it, and I have seen more DC-3 types flying (in active service) lately than Fokker F27s (for example).

 

The DC-3 was however in another line of evolution than the DC-6, the Connie, and the Boeing Stratocruiser, not to mention the jets. [/quibble]

[Guest aevans]

Got nothing to do with refusing to accept on my part, although that comment may well apply to others I could name.

 

Actually, it has everything to do with it. I've been accused of being inflexible from time to time, but your insistance on a literal interpretation of a single word to characterize and entire discussion goes above and beyond.

 

Well yes, that is talking about two examples from the same evolutionary tree. And two examples that were, in fact, sequential rather than contemporary. Do you need help with a definition there, too?

 

This example is a very good illustration of the failure of your premise. The Pentium is a further evolution OF the 386. There could be no Pentium if there was not a 386 to preceed it. There was nothing between them that was not sequentialized.

 

Uhhh...Mark, I intentionally used two examples from the same family to point out that if artifacts so close to each other in function and design can't be described as contemporary, it beggars credulity to suggest that significantly different technologies could be, in the technological sense, despite being in use at the same time.

 

Trying to assert some sort of parallel in comparing the DC-3 to the 747 is a rather remarkable comment, coming from one who berates others for playing the "English is low-context language" game. I thought the context was a comparison of aircraft that were in widespread service in the same timeframe. I didn't know that we were comparing the Me-262 to the Sopwith Camel.

 

The comparison was intentionally absurd, in order to clearly illustrate that overlapping service lifetimes does not make two artifacts technologically contemporaneous.

[DKTanker]

I thought the context was a comparison of aircraft that were in widespread service in the same timeframe.

-Mark 1

I wasn't aware that the Me 262 and Meteors were in wide spread service. Was an allied pilot flying over Europe between Sep 44 and May 45 very likely to see an Me 262, at least as likely as a Bf109 or Fw190? How many Me262s were stationed on Germany's eastern front? I thought none.

 

By the same token, Meteor IIIs were used for limited recon and ground interdiction. How likely would it have been that radar operators in Germany would have picked up Meteors as opposed to Mosquito's? Just what was the threat to Axis ground units from Meteor IIIs as opposed to P47s, P51s, Typhoons, and Tempests?

 

The fact is the Me262, Me163, Meteor I II & III, and Ar234 are all interesting aircraft, not one of which saw widespread use, none of which contributed in any significant way to their owners war effort. Moreover, it is a matter of debate whether the Me262 was indeed better than contemporary prop fighters.

 

Of all the debates about which was the best fighter of Europe during WW2...P51, Fw190, Fw152, Spitfire, Yak 7 etc, I can't recall anybody that suggested the Me262 except as an interesting side story. That being the case, why on earth would somebody introduce the Me262 to the debate against WW2 carrier aircraft when they wouldn't think of introducing the Me262 in a discussion of best land based fighters over Europe? I can think of only one reason, a red colored fish named Herring.

Edited July 26, 2007 by DKTanker

[DesertFox]

Of all the debates about which was the best fighter of Europe during WW2...P51, Fw190, Fw152, Spitfire, Yak 7 etc, I can't recall anybody that suggested the Me262 except as an interesting side story. That being the case, why on earth would somebody introduce the Me262 to the debate against WW2 carrier aircraft when they wouldn't think of introducing the Me262 in a discussion of best land based fighters over Europe? I can think of only one reason, a red colored fish named Herring.

 

Besides, even assuming that the Me262 is held out as en example as a superior plane to naval aircraft, the concept has to be that ground aircraft have to have a pattern of being consistently better than naval aircraft. Jets were first introduced as ground aircraft due to being considered a higher priority. The US Navy was working on naval jets at the same time but the aircraft were considered a lower priority. It must be more than ground designs having a higher priority but something in terms of carrier operations.....

[Chris Werb]

[quibble] Well, IMHO the DC-3 WAS the acme of the small medium-range airliner. It certainly outlasted most attempts to replace it, and I have seen more DC-3 types flying (in active service) lately than Fokker F27s (for example). [/quibble]

 

And at least one is still in use with the USAF*! How's that for longevity?!

 

*A Basler BT67 with 6th SOS at Hurlburt Field, Florida - IIRC it's a 1944 airframe.