mdiehl
Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000 Status: offline
|
@treespider quote:
You miss quoted him again... He said round trip. That is incorrect. I did not misquote him. His claim is that fatigue from an 1100 mile trip caused increased losses. The distance from Rabaul to Lunga is 565 miles. It logically follows (to anyone except those who try to avoid the point) that a pilot flying from Rabaul to Lunga, and then engaging in combat, has only flown 565 miles. 565 miles is not a "round trip." It's a "half trip." That pilot has logged only about 3 hours of flight time, and this after a fine night's rest, prior to combat. Of that 3 hours, about 2.5 hours of it is routine flying with no threat of contact prior to the engagement, and 2.5 hours of routine flying (if the aircraft has not suffered substantial damage) after the combat. If one wishes to claim that fatigue induced by more than 565 miles worth of flight time affected Zero losses on a day to day basis, then one has to assume that substantial numbers of pilots were lost after breaking off combat at Lunga and on the way home to Rabaul. The thing is, that is a logical (it would seem straightforward) implication of what Nickledimus writes. But as he has made pretense of being a victim of "distortions" of his claim, it seems reasonable to ask him or anyone else who holds that pov to state directly how that 2.5 hours of flying prior to combat equates with higher losses concomitant with 5 hours of flying.
< Message edited by mdiehl -- 9/16/2005 1:58:20 AM >
_____________________________
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics. Didn't we have this conversation already?
|