buffnut453
Captain
Not holding my breath on that one. He knew better than "Buzz" Wagner, so the odds of any of us mere mortals being credited as knowledgeable (perhaps, perish the thought, even more knowledgeable than him) are slim to non-existent.
XP-39 II - The Groundhog Day Thread (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Shortround6
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
Not holding my breath on that one. He knew better than "Buzz" Wagner, so the odds of any of us mere mortals being credited as knowledgeable (perhaps, perish the thought, even more knowledgeable than him) are slim to non-existent.
windhund116
Senior Airman
- 360
- Jul 3, 2017
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
fubar57
General
Didn't they remove the wing guns on the F-15 as well?
buffnut453
Captain
Yes, but they kept the armour plate around the gearbox.
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
From what I heard tell it turned the F-15 from mediocre into a real scorcher, except it apparently would tumble backwards through its own contrails.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Great. Now I'm learning English here too!
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
Every single time I have been proven wrong in this thread I have replied "You are correct" to acknowledge. I was wrong about the propeller size on the P-40E and was wrong about the oil tank protruding slightly (a few inches) into the engine compartment on the P-39. But I have been absolutely right on everything else discussed here and backed my statements up with facts and sources.He is a dual engine commercial pilot. I think he understands critical engine very well.
People might be less snarky with you if you would stop pretending that you are a know it all, and listen to what people are telling. Your inaccuracies have been pointed out by many people here, and you clearly continue to blow them off. At first it was humorous, but now it's lil insulting really.
As I said you can regurgitate book knowledge all day long, but you clearly are incapable of putting it together.
The first step is to admit you are wrong. It's ok, we all are from time to time. Besides it might humble you a lil.
My intent here is to not insult you, but damn man... Admit when you are wrong, listen to people with experience and knowledge in the matter and learn something.
I get the feeling you would argue withBiffF15 about Eagle tactics just to be "right".
I really hope I am not irritating your members here. I shouldn't have made my handle "P-39 Expert", I thought it would be funny like FUBAR. But there is very little humor in this group.
The point I am attempting to make is a whole lot of the information on the P-39 that we have heard for 75 years is absolutely false. And every time I make a statement on here and back it up with facts someone gets mad and comes back with a snarky reply telling me I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm the one being insulted here. That's okay, people don't like being contradicted. But this is a forum so discussion should be permitted, even with people who don't necessarily agree with you. Everything I say here is backed up by wwiiaircraftperformance.org or another verifiable source. Most of the information on the P-39 in wwiiaircraft is new since 2012 and contradicts most of what has been published prior to that.
I sure don't mean to insult anyone here and have made every effort to avoid snarky comments. Sorry if I have offended anyone.
buffnut453
Captain
The physics of twin engine performance with an engine out hasn't changed since Moby Dick was a minnow. Your sources are either misinformed or you don't understand them; probably the latter. None of my former multi engine students have managed to kill themselves in an airplane yet, so it could be I know what I'm talking about.
Cheers,
Wes
You have not been absolutely right. Especially when it comes to WB, CG, how moving weight in an aircraft is affected, critical engines, etc. You regurgitate knowledge and data without understanding it. That is what people are correcting you on. People who actually work and do these things. You have a guy in here who has actually worked on one, and you argue with him. You have a twin engine commercial pilot telling you that your understanding of critical engines is wrong. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds when you do that? It sounds like a War Thunder video gamer telling a pilot how his aircraft works. That is why people get snarky with you. You invite it. Go back and look at your exchange with X XBe02Drvr . He is a commercially licensed twin engined pilot. He used to fly 1900D's a notoriously tail heavy aft CG twin engine turboprop aircraft. He has reached out to you on multiple occasions to correct you, and you blow him off. Of course he got snarky!
It's obvious you have read a ton of books, and have a lot of knowledge from those books, now let people help you put it all together.
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
What we need, is a MiG pilot (one em) to get into a debate with Biff (two effs) - I would pay money to see that!
"Don't let it fly you! Five degrees bank into the working engine. HOLD YOUR HEADING! DON'T let it creep around toward the dead engine! Right leg getting a little tired? Trim it out! Zero or positive rate? Gear up. HOLD HEADING! Got VYse yet? Alright, now EASE those flaps up. HOLD HEADING, HOLD VYse! Positive rate? Yes? Now identify: 'dead foot, dead engine'. Say it out loud, 'left engine'. Confirm: ease LEFT throttle back; any change? No? LEFT throttle, IDLE; LEFT prop, FEATHER; LEFT mixture, IDLE CUTOFF. Now HOLD HEADING AND VYse, and execute engine shutdown checklist." As the treetops whiz by the wingtips.
A light piston twin is a pretty marginal flying machine on one engine. If you can't be in a clean VYse climb before you reach the departure end, you'd be better off to put it back down after a takeoff engine failure and get on the brakes. Better to go off the end rightside up at 1/3 to 1/2 flying speed than into the treetops beyond the overrun inverted at full flying speed. This decision needs to be made and rehearsed based on local conditions before you push the throttles up for takeoff. "THIS is the time I will lose an engine at Vr, and this is what I'm going to do." Shortens your "deer in the headlights" freeze time when it actually happens.
Last edited:
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
Debate hell, I'd pay good money to see them go at it in simulators.
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
Bruh... have you read this thread?
P.S. I for one think you're pretty well read and have a good book knowledge of your subject, also kudos for keeping it civil, not easy when several are pointing out flaws with your arguments. I have found this thread both informative and entertaining and I urge you to take to heart what the other denizens here are saying to you. You can learn a lot from them and I do believe you have much to share with this group, just dial up the humble meter a bit and you'll be fine.
Cheers.
Well said. No one thinks P39 Expert is an idiot with no value to the forum. He is very well read, it is just a matter of putting it all together. He adds a lot to this forum and the discussion. This thread is very informative.
but...
When one person corrects you, you can have a debate, when multiple people with working knowledge of the subject begin to correct you maybe its time to think maybe you could learn a thing or two.
He needs a little actual hands-on stick time. Betcha he's never flown in anything but an airliner. Any volunteers? I would if I could still pass a physical. Except it's nigh impossible to find a rental plane or small airport flight school or instructor any more. Insurance costs and the university affiliated "pilot factories" have put them out of business.
- Status
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
