Author Topic: Mosquito is fixed!!! (Read 4831 times)

evenhaim · « **Reply #60 on:** August 30, 2007, 02:02:01 PM »

Huh? How did this get into a "Krusty's voice doesn't count" issue?

[Edit: I mean to say, I didn't see an attack on my post or anything from yarble's response. Seemed more like he was directing it to HTC than to me. *shrug*]

FYI: 1/3 of a very large number is somewhat representative, in my book. We're not talking 30 special one-off planes, we're talking hundreds of planes.

So what, to you, would be the cut-off-point for "representative"?

1/2? 2/3? 3/4? 100%?

1/3 of all 109G6s had 30mm, and we had that option (before it was decided to give us the "early" G-6, where it wasn't so representative). We might just as well campaign for a 190A8 without the aux tank to horribly destabilize its flight patterns -- only, a sizable chunk of all 190A8s had this tank. Either way, what we WANT is nicer, but what we HAVE is still fairly accurate.

Like I said, it would be nice, but I think some folks are blowing the argument out of proportion.

very well put and agreed;)

Yarbles · « **Reply #61 on:** August 30, 2007, 02:03:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
Huh? How did this get into a "Krusty's voice doesn't count" issue?

[Edit: I mean to say, I didn't see an attack on my post or anything from yarble's response. Seemed more like he was directing it to HTC than to me. *shrug*]

FYI: 1/3 of a very large number is somewhat representative, in my book. We're not talking 30 special one-off planes, we're talking hundreds of planes.

So what, to you, would be the cut-off-point for "representative"?

1/2? 2/3? 3/4? 100%?

1/3 of all 109G6s had 30mm, and we had that option (before it was decided to give us the "early" G-6, where it wasn't so representative). We might just as well campaign for a 190A8 without the aux tank to horribly destabilize its flight patterns -- only, a sizable chunk of all 190A8s had this tank. Either way, what we WANT is nicer, but what we HAVE is still fairly accurate.

Like I said, it would be nice, but I think some folks are blowing the argument out of proportion.

Maybe it means allot to them

Anyway who is saying your opion doesnt matter, if it didn't matter it would be ignored. Dont say it was an atack on HTC though unlees you want to get me nicked. It was consructive respectfull criticism

Yarbles · « **Reply #62 on:** August 30, 2007, 02:05:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by evenhaim
very well put and agreed;)

hitech · « **Reply #63 on:** August 30, 2007, 02:12:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
Our B-25C has flame dampers too. The square bumps on each nacelle are the exhaust fairings, designed to remove the flame glare. Before those were put on (so I've read) they were so visible that night missions were banned on the early models.

So, doesn't matter if they FLY at night. I see it as a valid part of the plane, even if flown in daytime. It's not like you can just take it off when the sun rises.

Is it representative? 1/3 is a pretty big chunk. Sure, NOT having them would be nicer, but I think the uproar over them is a bit overblown. It might be nice to (eventually) have an earlier model WITH the dampers, and a middle-to-later model WITHOUT them.

It would make them a little more destinct from each other (assuming we ever get more variants of the mossie!)

response by Yarbles:

I thought this was a get the best most realistic day fighter bomber mossie society post not a lets make excuses for HTC outing

HTC gets $15 a month from us I think thats enough.

So you in one quick post basically told krusty to be quite and his opinion does not mater because you both pay $15? And crusty was just supporting HTC's current molding?

Quote

Yarbles wrote:
Maybe it means allot to them Anyway who is saying your opion doesnt matter, if it didn't matter it would be ignored.

And now you are trying to say, you did not imply krustys post did not matter?

The wise move would be to lay down that shovel.

HiTech

Wes14 · « **Reply #64 on:** August 30, 2007, 02:17:12 PM »

Dang, hitech is on a roll!

Simaril · « **Reply #65 on:** August 30, 2007, 02:21:14 PM »

In fact, he's rolling so fast that he's turned off the spell checker!

(At least we know its really him -- its like an electronic dcument signature.)

Yarbles · « **Reply #66 on:** August 30, 2007, 02:24:22 PM »

Deleted Rule #4, try again.

evenhaim · « **Reply #67 on:** August 30, 2007, 02:26:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Yarbles

sorry i meant krustys statement:aok

Yarbles · « **Reply #68 on:** August 30, 2007, 02:30:28 PM »

Deleted Rule #4

Krusty · « **Reply #69 on:** August 30, 2007, 02:32:39 PM »

I'm not cool enough to have groupies. Usually when folks agree with me it's through gritted teeth. Nobody agrees with me just because of the name on my profile.

Yarbles · « **Reply #70 on:** August 30, 2007, 02:32:49 PM »

See rule #4, I really suggest you read it.

Yarbles · « **Reply #71 on:** August 30, 2007, 02:37:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
I'm not cool enough to have groupies. Usually when folks agree with me it's through gritted teeth. Nobody agrees with me just because of the name on my profile.

Precisely, It was a joke (was being the opperative word), not suggesting your a joke mind;)

moot · « **Reply #72 on:** August 30, 2007, 02:39:22 PM »

No Joy Yarbles! You're just going to exceed HT's patience.

Yarbles · « **Reply #73 on:** August 30, 2007, 02:42:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by moot
No Joy Yarbles! You're just going to exceed HT's patience.

Aye long live HTC and the flame dampers, we dont have all these rules in the UK try to leave it alone unless someone complains, but we are not allowed guns either.

hitech · « **Reply #74 on:** August 30, 2007, 02:54:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Yarbles
Aye long live HTC and the flame dampers, we dont have all these rules in the UK try to leave it alone unless someone complains, but we are not allowed guns either.

How did that response go from top gun?

Maverick, the rules of engagement exist both for your safety and the safety of your wingman?