Jon,
Jon, you said:
"Sal Monella Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 10:49 pm
Jon, with respect to your assertion that, "Fuel in the wings, and the fuselage extension did not benefit the '47's aerobatic performance; although the increased power, fuselage extension (2"), wing air flow improvements did increase its speed."
Please see http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Seversky-Republic8.html"
Again, the excerpt itself makes no mention of any "J" data. Please note that the "Please see
http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Seversky-Republic8.html comment referred not to what preceeded that cite but what came after which was the cut and pasted excerpt itself. Otherwise I would have just made a conclusory statement and added a cite which I clearly did not do. The purpose of cutting and pasting the excerpt was to point you to that very section of the cited material. Not anything about the "J" climb rate. Otherwise, in keeping with the precedent of my cut and paste, I would have cut and pasted the "J" data as well which I clearly did not do. The "J" climb data has no relevance in a discussion of the relative merits between the "D" and "N" or the accuracy of the "N" data that you are relying on aka "the garbage".
You said, "As for this site's info appearing on my tables, I can't seem to remember listing it... "
You are right. My point that it was a site you sourced from is incorrect. However, my point about the absolute irrelevance of the "J" climb data which was NEVER referenced by me still stands.
Yes I make mistakes. Again, a half dozen of one or six of the other. I erased that small portion of my post within ten minutes of posting it so frankly, I don't see any foul. I could have left it up and made a follow up post but it's just easier to edit the existing post. Sorry of your feelings were hurt. I promise that if you erase something ten minutes after posting it because you realized that it is wrong, I won't get my drawers in a bunch. OK? As far as mistakes, I have no problem admitting to mistakes. I never said that I didn;t make those comments ten minuyes earlier before I erased them. Again, I think you'tr trying to make a case here about nothing. As for colorful comments, I think you're as moron. Happy? I promise I won't delete that.
I am ot the one defending the use of data that I know is wrong. You have already made it clear that you feel that some of the differences that I have pointed out are too minor to make a difference rather than admit that your data is wrong, regardless of the margin. Why would anyone defend the use of data they know is incorrect? Why ekse would you make light of what you assert to be small differences? For the record, some of those differences aren't so small. Like your asserted climb rate being 2,770fpm when it's 2,950fpm.
Just admit that your data is wrong. Do that without colorful references to filling the tires with air or referring to my data as having eminated from my "bible". Like I said, you should strive to collect yout data from primary source "bibles" as well. To do otherwise is intellectually lazy. This ain't rocket science. You can do this. Just get a hold of the correct primary source data and stop wasting energy defending garbage. Hell, your dimensional data is even incorrect!
Your several websites don't even agree with each other and none of them get it correct! Hmmm. Every one of your sites have conflicting informatrion but that shouldn't set off any warning bells - if you're not really interested in accurate data that is.
You said, " In fairness, had I posted something from a web site, it doesn't mean that I go through the whole dam site, checking its references."
Well, how exactly, when you go through all these websites, do you select which data to use since many of the sources vary with each other? Some of them apparently even give rise to false memories. You crack me up. You read a typo (I think I was being too generous. I think it was probably just another instance of garbage data) regarding a difference in length between the "D" and "N" models and then suddenly have a "recollection" that the "N" model was lengthened 2" to move the center of gravity. You and I and everyone else reading our little exchange here know that that is a vat of bullshit.
You have no such "recollection" because you have NEVER read or heard it anywhere. You made it up to support the use of your erroneous data because you can't admit that you're wrong. Talk about character.
You said, "My apologies, you are correct there are 3 radios, and this weight is for all 3, in total. Thank you. "
Not so fast Mr. Magoo. Thank you for acknowledging that I am correct about the three radios but no, you are still WRONG on their weight. (surprise surprise) I don't have the "N" specs in front of me right now but I can tell you that the radios on the D-25 were as follows:
SCR-274N @ 82lbs.
SCR-522 @ 96lbs.
SCR-695 @ 54lbs.
That's a total weight of 232lbs. (The "N" had a HEAVIER total radio weight. Can you guess why?) Now I realize that 232lbs is not really that much different than 75lbs in the scheme of the entire aircraft's weight so I fully expect you to now argue that it's OK to use the 75lb data. By the way, where did you get that 75lb figure? Did you pull it out of your rectum too?
I don't have the time to check item by item all of your other assumptions but I know that total ammunition load weights at different loadings is in my materials as well. I wouldn't place much stock in what appears to be your practice of multiplying the weight of a single round (As evidenced by your assertion that "1296 lbs of bullets (5.184 oz/round) @ 500 rpg) by the number of rounds.
Excuse me but different types of rounds have different weights. An armor piercing round has a diferent weight than an incindiary round. In addition, your computation (which, I might add actually goes out to the thousanth of an ounce) fails to include the steel belt linkage weight as well.
And who told you thst an M2 weighs 66.1 lbs? More of that data that has been residing in your ass! It is 72.5lbs per gun on the D models up to D-25 and 68.5lbs for the M2's installed on the D-25 series onwards.
Lastly, you said on an earlier post, "By the numbers, at sea level a P-47N @ 50% fuel from Combat weight, is at its Max Designed Performance Weight."
Again, where are you getting this shit? That's WRONG!
I did make that bomb analogy so thank you for pointing it out. The point (which I stand by) is that an extra 2,500lbs of bombs or fuel will have a devastating effect on performance. I knwo that you and I agree on this point, just not on whether this extra 2,500lbs of fuel should be included when comparing the relative dogfighting abilities of the "D" and "N" models in a head to head match up. As I have already indicated, we are just going to have to agree to disagree. Neither of us is going to make any additional points that convinces the other. it's an argument about fairness and not reducible to an argument like if 2+2 = 4. (I have a feeling though that if your data on 2+2 came out to 4.2, you in keeping with your established pattern, would argue that it's too small of a difference to be of any consequence.)
I got my manuals over the course of many years from a bunch of sources but I understand that there is an outfit called Essco where you can ourchase flight performance and dimensional/weight data for a bunch of different aircraft. Read up and we'll talk some more.
You said, "Seems I tuckered you out; sorry. Where I work, they say I'm one of the most difficult (anal) persons to argue with, that I should have become an attorney instead of the lighting intergration department head, high profile job designer programmer for one of the largest 'smart house' companies out there (I have a gallery I finished in Mexico City for my company coming to the Robb Report). I do not find the attorney comment a compliment, share this with you to show that you are not alone. I am quite a handful."
A handful? The only handful you're wielding is your pecker. Look, I have the accurate stats. I have the facts. You do not. I'm not the one defending the data I have. You are the one playing defense here. That's because as between your data and mine, mine is from reliable primary sources. It's easy to argue when the facts support you. It's too bad you don't have the luxury of occupying that position here. You have no claim to facts. Yeah, you're anal all right. That's how you're so good at pulling garbage out of your ass.
You said, "I actually hate stats."
Yeah from looking at your charts, I can see that. Obviously the product of someone who hates stats. Yep.
To be fair, it does explain why you're so mentally lazy by using your web search engine rather than seeking out prmary sources which no one can argue with. (Well, except you.) I mean, hell, as long as you can plug numbers in, who cares if they are accurate right?
Go out and get a hold of primary source accurate data Jon. You'll see that many of our differences as well as those "false memories" about fuselage lengthening will fall by the way side. This debate is over whether the "N" or "D" would be a superior contender against the F4U-4. You say "D" and I say "N". Neither of us are going to convince the other as at the heart of the debate is whether the "N" should be compared with a full internal fuel load and even you will concede that under the same fuel loads, the "N" will wax the "D" under all circumstances.
Hope you had a good Thanksgiving. I'm sure you have a chart somewhere on the proper mashed potatoes to gravy ratio that you pulled out to to argue with the family over. Lucky for you and unlike with this debate, none of your family can respond with factual data.