General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA great example of how the obvious answer is not always the correct one
Obviously the places that needed to be up-armored are the wingtips, the central body, and the elevators. Thats where the planes were all getting shot up.
Abraham Wald, a statistician, disagreed. He thought they should better armor the nose area, engines, and mid-body. Which was crazy, of course. Thats not where the planes were getting shot.
Except Mr. Wald realized what the others didnt. The planes were getting shot there too, but they werent making it home. What the Navy thought it had done was analyze where aircraft were suffering the most damage. What they had actually done was analyze where aircraft could suffer the most damage without catastrophic failure. All of the places that werent hit? Those planes had been shot there and crashed. They werent looking at the whole sample set, only the survivors.
https://www.facebook.com/scott.osborn.71/posts/10216165377540963
Dennis Donovan
(18,770 posts)empedocles
(15,751 posts)Need a candidate that, 'will make it home'.
watoos
(7,142 posts)I do agree that I only have one criteria that I use to judge who I will vote for. He/she must be tough as nails, I don't even care about anything else right now. So far I have 2 people in mind.
no_hypocrisy
(45,769 posts)What is obvious is not necessarily correct and considered investigation is necessary.
rickford66
(5,497 posts)MyOwnPeace
(16,887 posts)for messing up my day.
I had forgotten how much I miss that show!
greymattermom
(5,751 posts)He lives in Minnesota and doesn't "believe" in climate change. I told him that it's an observation, not an opinion. His response was a blank stare. I worked in basic science research for 50 years. He's a salesman.
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,021 posts)Stupid universe still doesn't believe my arms are as good as a bird's wings.
Javaman
(62,435 posts)that landed fine.
they were able to take an unbelievable amount of punishment.
Mr. Wald was correct. you could have a flying sieve but without pilot and engines, you don't get very far.
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/military-vehicle-news/incredible-images-of-damaged-b-17-bombers-that-miracilously-made-it-home.html
Wounded Bear
(58,436 posts)If a plane crashes on the American/Canadian border, where do you bury the survivors?
Think about it.
PatrickforO
(14,514 posts)Thanks for this.
Hamlette
(15,388 posts)eppur_se_muova
(36,227 posts)Losing a lifting surface should decrease the performance by some increment. Losing a critical component can mean a total loss of the plane and crew.
Most of the areas shot up in the survivors were little more than sheet metal, not even essential structural elements. Seems like a common-sense conclusion.
I'd even guess the white areas on the wings indicate the fuel tanks pretty well, or at least their most vulnerable parts.