hi illo, if your experiences of early fh can be reproduced now, that would be fine! and i will certainly have nothing against otto-devrease... but will it be restrengthened after a test-time, which shows, that it is not like you (we) hope it will be? hi ho-hun, i was talking about your statement, that your 10(13) sorties prove something about the "vast majority of fh pilots" i think, they don't, not in hard facts and also not in "hardest"...
Hi Ledada, >i was talking about your statement, that your 10(13) sorties prove something about the "vast majority of fh pilots" [...] i think, they don't, not in hard facts and also not in "hardest"... At least, I have some facts. You don't. Easy win for me. Go ahead and record "10(13) sorties" for yourself. If I'm wrong, you'll have different results, and we can argue on opinion level again. If you have similar results, don't hesitate to post them either since they'll be a welcome confirmation of my findings. Regards, Henning (HoHun)
come on... ... hi ho-hun, pls: i see your facts and they are facts about 10 sorties and how ottos worked during them! i don't disregard that... but those facts tell nothing about the "vast majority", only 13 contacts with (more or) less successful fighters, that's all. i highly appreciate your patience while doing worthful tests for development of fh, and also i won't doubt that otto is quite unrealistic here. but for me there is sense in making them pretty strong and if illo is right witzh his opinion, that people will escort buffs, when there are no more ottos, that would be great. but for testing this, ottos should be (maybe exceptions) disabled at all... decreasing otto-power to some half or so will make buffs easy target for the "vast majority" (that's what i think )
Re: come on... Hi Ledada, >but those facts tell nothing about the "vast majority", only 13 contacts with (more or) less successful fighters, that's all. OK, I can re-formulate my statement so that it delivers objective numbers. Each otto-fighter engagement is a test of whether the fighter has problems with otto. If he shoots me down, he has none, if he doesn't, he has some. For objective results, I only look at the first fighter to engage my otto in each sortie since those who are attacking later (or at the same time) have an obvious advantage. I count 8 fighter-otto engagements with 0 successful fighters as my bombers survived the first contact every time. Now I formulate the hypothesis "75% of the Freehost fighter pilots have problems with otto." The probability of having 8 consecutive engagements with fighters 0 of which are successful is 10%. That means that the confidence factor for my hypothesis is 90%, which is too good to be ignored. So there you are: "With a 90% probability, at least 75% of the Freehost fighter pilots have problems with otto!" Regards, Henning (HoHun)
and i wanted to go online... hi ho-hun, during some studies i have taken protein-probes of 1200 cow- and 280 sepia-eyes and made some 10000 electrophoretic-gels of them. i know in many ways how to use statistics and also where to reask them. i gave that up after 8 years and i will gladly give that point to you for i am here for playing
Re: Re: come on... That's not exactly a correct assumption. I expended my entire ammo load in a max-ammo P47 to down a Ju-88...and he darn near survived it. Otto had nothing to do with that, my own horrible aim did. Likewise, there are other factors affecting the outcome, such as if the fighter had seen combat before and been damaged/expended ammo, or is running out of fuel, or whatever. Simply stating bomber dead = bad otto and bomber alive = good otto is ignoring a lot of other variables. But then you seem to be into oversimplification anyway
Re: Re: Re: come on... Hi Mekh, >Simply stating bomber dead = bad otto and bomber alive = good otto is ignoring a lot of other variables. But then you seem to be into oversimplification anyway And you seem to be into ignoring facts. The original records show that only one fighter of the eight fighters that made first contact survived while the seven others were shot down. I've already posted my original records twice on this board for your benefit (including once in this thread), so you could easily have found out this for yourself. If I'd change the definition to include only killed fighters, the confidence factor would drop from 90% to 87%, which is entirely undramatic. However, I'm not going to change my definition since the main reason a fighter's fire against a bomber is ineffective is otto who keeps him at an ineffective firing range. Regards, Henning (HoHun)
