Why do people deny evolution?

actually the Mustang first used an Allison engine. Im aware of all you've said but I still submit tht the North American Aviation team that was hired by the Brits to design a plane came up with the XP-46 a poor performing version of an "intermediate fossil" of both the Spit nd the P51. (It was like the common ancestor)
The fuselage of the XP46 and the P51 and the Spitfire can show little "Archeopteryx" The XP 46 had the stubby wings of the Spit and the canopy nd forward wingset of the Mustng. I can show you from Eden's book thatseveral of the same guys that worked on the XP46 also worked on the first P51. The Xp 46 was a base for the Spit.



The design CTULLY GOES BACK TO THE COMMITTEE THAT (DESPITE THE CLAIM THAT the Mustng ws a "90 day design) went back to the mid 1930s.

The Mwrlin mde the Mustng the long range, high climbing favorite of the units like the Redtails. But it was rather laTE IN THE European THEATER mostly because the Mustang went through about 5 major revisions.
Cladistics ,

But cladistically modern cladistics is of the same taxa as a heated hair curler because they both have a common ancestor in electricity.

The discipline has been challenged by scientists on the basis that it involves subjectivity and circularity which has something to do, I think, with the choice of which conditions are homologous.

A Spitfire might be said to be homologous with a tin opener because steel production is one of the common ancestors of both. With choices like that available in a far more murky subject of observation it looks as if cladistics is a licence to print money.

Ill have to think about that and get back to you. Have a pint of lunch (oops its supper time over there)

Who are you trying to impress with your fake expertise on killing machines?

Does they excite you? Washing machines would likely be a better vehicle to carry your bullshit. Cladistically tracing back to skid marks and sweaty nooks and crannies.

You should start a tripe franchise operation.

Well, yes you can. As a purpose-designed ground support fighter, it had an imperative for a long operational range. In the case of the original design, it had to be agile because it was a ground support fighter, but it also had to be in the air for a long period of time to be of any real use to a ground commander calling in air support. The original design produced an aircraft wich would spend six or seven hours over the battlefield, and still have the fuel to return to a base well behind the lines, out of enemy artillery range. No other single-engine, single-seat, propeller driven aircraft had the operational range of the P51--not even close.

As for clades, if one were to look at it that way, the Mustang and the Spitfire could not be further apart. The Spitfire's ancestry was in pylon racers. They had to be fast, and they had to be agile. But they only needed to be in the air for 15 or 20 minutes. Vickers-Armstrongs bought Supermarine in the late 1920s, and they continued to make pylon racers. The aircraft designer Mitchell at Vickers is often given credit for the Spitfire design, but he was actually using designs from the pylon racer. The wings were thin in cross section, which made them faster, and were relatively wide, to assure the necessary lift. The fuselage behind the wings was a short as possible--long enough so that turbulence from the trailing edges of the wings did not interfere with the tail assembly, but short enough to keep weight to a minimum, so as to retain high speed.



The Spitfire could not carry fuel in wing tanks, and it was limited to the small amount of space in the fuselage behind the pilot for fuel tanks. That was why it only had about 40 minutes operational time. Using the Rolls Royce Merlin made it faster, and because of the supercharger on that engine, it could still operate effectively at higher altitudes (useful for hunting bombers), but it still was a local CAP (combat air patrol) fighter.

The Mustang, with its Allison engine was only "underpowered" if one imagined a different operational use than it had originally been designed to fulfill. I do believe it was the RAF who suggested using the Merlin engine in the Mustang. This gave it much more power and speed, and because it was fuel-injected, it did not decrease its operational range, and it did give it the ceiling to be an effective escort fighter for the bomber streams going to Germany and Austria. (Asked after the war when he knew it was lost, Goering said: "When i saw the first Mustang over Berlin.")

This is what the Mustang looked like in the first production model:



The fuselage is much larger proportionally than that of the Spitfire, and the wings are thicker. This allowed for the wing tanks and the tanks behind the pilot which gave it its great operational range. These features were, in fact slightly exaggerated in later models to maintain high operational range.



As for clades, the Spitfire is a sparrow--the Mustang is a sparrow hawk.

I have no more expertise than anyone ellse who reads about em. Ive been doing paintings of Spits and Mustangs for years. Ive done a couple of large airbrush works for the owners of 2 P51 warbirds from The "Confederate Air Force". Ive been in one and taken for a ride .
Ive not been sitting on my ass sucking down brewskies and complaining about the lives of others.

you win. Ill back off cause we aint never gonna agree on this one.

And in a nuttshell, farmerman can't do math!

Incidentally my series of sensational threads (as PoorOldSpike) have notched up over 4 million views so far, i'm kool..

WW2 MIXED BAG
http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?104031-WW2-Photos

WW2 AIRCRAFT
http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=ForumsPro&file=viewforum&f=92

1920's/30's AIRCRAFT
http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=ForumsPro&file=viewtopic&t=16352

WW1 AIRCRAFT
http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=ForumsPro&file=viewtopic&t=16323

FM, Quahog wants you to pay attention to him. That's the reward for a troll.

lol, strange,.I don't want any attention from a person like him!
He is a logical, irrational, dishonest and can't think so....
Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeee may he leave me alone and in peace!!

Pleeaaaasseeee!!!!

The contract the RAF let to North American was for a fighter bomber. They were satisfied with the Spitfire, they weren't looking for a replacement for it. The 73X from North American met their specs for a ground support aircraft.

The Hawker Typhoon, which was headed for the scrap heap, proved to be the only aircraft the RAF had that could catch the FW190 at low altitudes. It was immediately redesigned as a fighter-bomber, what the Americans called a ground support aircraft. It filled that role well. It was eventually widely used in a ground support role, carrying bombs and wing-mounted rockets.

Incidentally the Mustang's 6x 50-cal MG's were okay but most Spit versions had 4 x MG's and 2 x CANNONS, so the Spit could definitely outpunch the Mustang when attacking both air and ground targets because cannon shells exploded on impact and did a ton more damage than MG bullets.

Then I submit you need to learn the meaning of cladistics .

The original mustang was developed as avariant FOR the brits before we were into the war. The design sat around for several years and when submitted to the Brits there were several changes requested that included forward air frame changes and the "laminar wings' that the Spitfires introduced. Later the addition of the Merlin, to me,(and finally,the addition of the Spitfire cockpit design of the P51D) seals, AT LEAST 3 UNIQUE features of the Spit that NAA incorporated into the P51.(Seems to me you cant make these big dditions to a unique airframe if there weren't ny allowances from a previous design (hint: the Spit)

P51 was ultimately all over the S pit but not originally, When it's prototype the NA 73X was a flying turd. Ive got a huuuge bag of design stuff ND FCIMILES OF PRINTS AND PHOTOS FROM THE cONFEDERATE af GUYS WHO know more about these planes than all of us hanging round here put together.
One guy, Ken Blackmore, flew a p51-D's , which he called an american spitfire


being designed in 90 days is also false legend cause it took em a little less than 3 months to even get the contracts approved

why are wa talking airplanes?

Can't people follow the information about the evolutionhoax anymore?


Figures!

hey Quahog, you know what cladistics means?
LEaving you in"peace" Is not possible as long s youre spreading your crappola

What is mathematically and logically indefensible is the argument made by your author.

He starts from a premise that is logically unsound. He assumes that evolution is like a series of coin tosses with only 2 outcomes. That is clearly untrue. There are several possible outcomes as a result of a mutation. I can list 4. The mutation can be so devastating that the creature is destroyed before it even is born. The mutation can be detrimental so the creature is born but doesn't have the opportunity to reproduce or is less likely to reproduce. The mutation can be neutral and allows the creature to compete on equal terms in reproduction. The mutation can be beneficial allowing it to be more likely to reproduce.

The next logically unsound argument is that any failure to mutate beneficially restores the organism to it's originally starting point. He argues that there must be 200 mutations in a row or the whole process starts over. Once again he ignores several things that can happen in evolution. First of all there can be neutral mutations that exist in a population that can later become beneficial if they mutate again. He also ignores that a lot of species reproduce by combining the DNA of 2 different sexes. This allows for the addition of changes rather than the need for them to be successive.

The next logically unsound argument is that the coin toss analogy doesn't allow for propagation by a beneficial mutation. A beneficial mutation may take over a population thus locking in that mutation. That would eliminate the possibility of going back to the start of the 200 successive coin tosses.

Finally, the author makes some statements about the earth that don't match reality. He uses the figure of 10^14 sq feet for the biosphere of earth. That is nonsense. The biosphere encompasses far more than just the solid surface of the earth. The actual surface of the planet including the oceans is 5.5 x 10^15. Then we have to remember that organisms are not restricted to the sq footage but rather they occupy cubic footage. The author would have us assume there is no life in the oceans and no life under the surface of the earth. But to top off even that he assumes only 1 billion organisms per sq foot. The human body is said to contain or have on it 100 trillion bacteria. Your author uses a figure of 10^23 of organisms that might mutate. There are 6 x 10^23 of microbes just in and on human bodies on the earth. Your author isn't even close to the number of organisms in the world.

The contract the Brits let was for a fighter-bomber. As i've already mentioned, they weren't looking for a replacement for the Spitfire. I know what cladistics means, you pompous smart ass. When one has an interceptor and compares it to a fighter-bomber, a ground support plane, the only characteristic the two aircraft have in common is that they are aircraft.

LOL

It really sounds you have a RELIGIOUS mission to fullfil!

It's laughable, that's all.

What a ridiculous thing to say.