Quote:
Originally Posted by Azimech
Did you even read the whole article? I strongly doubt that! It involves LOGIC, and that's the glue in that whole damn reading. Using my own brain, I found it perfectly plausible.
|
I did, it's not the first time I've been pointed to it. I assume I am entitled to my opinion as much as you are, live with it dude. I am not saying you shouldn't believe it, but please don't come around telling me what is right or wrong.
Quote:
|
B17 is a very good example, but that's no fighter. Anyway, the way A2A simulations has implemented the features into FSX is a nice guide how the complexity of military simulation could become.
|
There are fighters that have very complicated electronics like the Me110 night fighters and successors.. anyway I agree about the A2A stuff, it seems really interesting!
Quote:
I read them at breakfast for my entertainment. Don't bother, i've got enough lying around.
The FW190 itself is not very interesting. The only thing that's worth to me is the internal operation and structure of the Kommandogerät, although I've got a very good hunch how it operates.
|
lol I read only newspapers and email in the morning, but each to their own
Quote:
|
You seem to be the only one having a problem with how i'm expressing myself.
|
dude, I'm just saying that the way you put things originally sounded a bit wrong, then you got all wound up and started enumerating a lot of babble that had nothing to do with what I said, don't take it personally..
Quote:
|
I've never cared for aerodynamics. I've always been interested in hydraulics, electrics and internal reciprocating engines. In those ways the Mustang is a very standard beast. Give a stone brick a big enough engine and it will fly. Do I like the engine? Then I'll like the brick. I don't really like the carburetted V12, it's all injected radials for me.
|
I say that you can't look only at certain aspects of an aeroplane and say "I don't care about the rest". The Mustang and Spit Mk.IX had pretty much the same powerplant, but the Mustang had the edge on performance because of its extremely clean aerodynamics and build. Uh and only the early marks of Merlin engines weren't fuel injected. Having dealt with radials and inline engines I tend to agree with you: radials have a different fashion appeal and they're VERY sturdy, but the performance and technology of a Merlin (or a DB605) is something superior.
Quote:
|
Yes, and the point was/is YOU DON'T DISCONNECT YOUR BATTERY FROM YOUR SYSTEM WHILE FLYING UNLESS YOU REALLY NEED TO!
|
I never said you do, the electrical plant does it for you automatically.
Quote:
|
Man, you're a joke. I've confronted you with a lot of errors in your statements, often with material from the era, and you twist & turn the whole time and ultimately insult me with copy & paste work, while I write using my own friggin' brain.
|
I'm sorry, but where are my "lots of errors"? I don't need to insult you man, you're just going off topic talking about stuff that had nothing to do with the original point. Relax, we're all adults here (or are we?)..
Quote:
I don't give a Flying F*$^ whatever plane you've driven, that doesn't make you a technical expert all of a sudden and it shows. You think you're smart while you ignore evidence I place under your nose and suggest that I am trying to avoid the subject? Get lost.
Now go fly your plane and don't waste any more of my time.
|
whoa, that's harsh.. I'm not a technical expert, but I spend a lot of time with our mechanics in the hangar and I think I have enough
on hand experience to be confident enough about what I'm saying.
I don't mean to waste anyone's time, and if anything you should show some respect to people that you don't know and are trying to have a civilised conversation. Uh and another thing, accept the fact that despite all of your breakfasts with manuals and internet knowledge you might still be wrong man. Now relax and go back to your manuals while I'll get my hands dirty on a real aeroplane...
Peace out..