Friday Update, February 10, 2012

[Osprey]

Depends who is suspicious doesn't it?

I'm happy to go with results data from wartime testing though, I don't think you'll get more believable than that, and if that is still something we cannot believe to be true then forget any progress in WW2 flight simming forever.

[csThor]

Problem is too many people take such websites and the tests they publish as eternal truth and ignore that circumstances have to be taken into consideration. I, personally, take any website with a pinch of salt because you never know who made it and what motives that person has. I mean it's so damn easy to leave out data that doesn't fit an agenda ...

[Al Schlageter]

So very true about the Hungarian's site.

[csThor]

Careful or we're going to fall into a "topic pit" which we wouldn't want. Okay?

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by csThor

Problem is too many people take such websites and the tests they publish as eternal truth and ignore that circumstances have to be taken into consideration. I, personally, take any website with a pinch of salt because you never know who made it and what motives that person has. I mean it's so damn easy to leave out data that doesn't fit an agenda ...

Agreed 100%

Even when the whole report is provided (read not just the cherry picked data) little things can be missed that can make a big difference in the results. Things like ballest to simulate ammo loads, fuel loads, fuel type, carb jetting, etc just to name a few.

Therefore when the website does not provide the whole report for review, these little things will surly be missed