Author Topic: Crumpp's book (Read 2182 times)

Bronk · « **Reply #15 on:** December 31, 2007, 11:57:56 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Badboy
I took a look at that thread and apart from Crump's obvious issues he is also technically incorrect on some points. That he no longer posts here has saved so much wasted time, we should all be grateful.

Badboy

Him and the other cherry picker of information.

Karnak · « **Reply #16 on:** December 31, 2007, 11:57:57 AM »

I recall Crump arguing that the Spitfire could not follow the Fw190 in a climp because the Spitfire climbed at ~4,500fpm at 170mph and the Fw190 climbed at ~3,750fpm at 190mph. He could not grasp that the Spitfire's climbrate at 190mph was still better than the Fw190's and it could just lower its climb to match the 190's. He insisted that the angle of the climb would be off and the Spit couldn't get a gun solution that way.

He didn't understand how the Fw190 had to utilize its speed and climb to escape from the Spitfire. He thought it happened at best climb speed, not at the point where the Spitfire had no spare thrust and the Fw190 still had some, 321mph at sea level for the Mk IX, 338mph for the VIII, 344mph for the XVI and 358 for the Mk XIV. Well, a bit sooner as the Fw190's excess thrust would exceed the Spit's before the reached their max speed, but you get the idea.

eddiek · « **Reply #17 on:** December 31, 2007, 12:39:33 PM »

Just more of the same ole Crumpp.........manipulating the numbers to project his idea, and then demeaning others when they don't jump on board with him or dispute/refute his figures.
I especially loved the other guy who used Crumpp's own formula to point out his flawed thinking and reasoning. The F-15 comparison was on the edge, but it did demonstrate (to me at least) how he was trying to manipulate the formulas. His classis stand by response of "you obviously have no aeronautic education" left me with this mental image of a cockroach racing around trying to find a place to hide from the light................

Benny Moore · « **Reply #18 on:** December 31, 2007, 08:42:03 PM »

You should have seen the time he "proved" that no P-38s or P-47s ran at the higher boosts in the field.

moot · « **Reply #19 on:** December 31, 2007, 08:46:52 PM »

For what it's worth, he's made references to official documents that no one has seen. So, short of fabricating them, his book will have some value.

eddiek · « **Reply #20 on:** January 01, 2008, 01:46:55 AM »

I was around Benny, I just didn't respond to his posts much.
My favorite, and I may be remembering Kurfurst rather than Crumpp, was the thread about how much more fuel efficient the DB engines were than the Merlins and Allisons.......
I read along, figuring I would learn something, then he popped off about how outdated and outmoded the Allison engines were, citing the use of the huge turbocharger in the P47's to achieve their high altitude power. When I remarked that I was under the impression that the Thunderbolts used P&W radials, he came back with a less than complimentary remark.
Was I baiting him? Of course I was. This guy is never gonna be happy until he can convince everyone that Germany should have won WW2 as they were the world leaders in technology, not just in aviation, but ALL technology. It was kinda fun watching him do the BBS equivalent of a temper tantrum whenever anyone disagreed with him.
I had this little mental image of a Hitler look-a-like jumping up and down in his computer chair, typing away furiously at our "ignorance".

MiloMorai · « **Reply #21 on:** January 01, 2008, 05:19:43 AM »

eddiek, Barbi has a big hate on for the British and anything British (Spitfire is #1 on his hate list) so it would be him who was going on about fuel efficiency. He got pwnd over at Ubi several times when he brought up that subject.

One must question Barbi's political affiliation.

moot, yes Crumpp's book might be OK if it contains documentation and he keeps his 'The World According to Crumpp' comments to a minimum.

Any remember the 150 fuel discussions?

MiloMorai · « **Reply #22 on:** January 01, 2008, 06:12:44 AM »

Question for real pilots.

Crumpp is talking about the weight of the 190 and says a 'overload' condition "means all the oil and other disposables have been topped off". "Overloaded is a term used when doing weight and balance sheets for when these consumables weights are maximized."

For me, an overload condition is an a/c loaded over and above its normal flying weight.

Is he confused, again?

eddiek · « **Reply #23 on:** January 01, 2008, 09:47:00 AM »

Ahh....thanks Milo.....
Yes, I remember the 150 fuel thread.....funny, then sad, then pathetic.....
I knew he had a thing against the Allies, was sure it was just the British or what.

Viking · « **Reply #24 on:** January 01, 2008, 02:42:40 PM »

See Rule #4

Bronk · « **Reply #25 on:** January 01, 2008, 02:50:46 PM »

They could do just like you and shade it up after the PNG.

leitwolf · « **Reply #26 on:** January 01, 2008, 02:52:40 PM »

You have to admit that he brought this on himself.
And if he wanted to post here, it's not that creating a new account is that complicated, eh Viking

leitwolf · « **Reply #27 on:** January 01, 2008, 02:53:13 PM »

doh!

mensa180 · « **Reply #28 on:** January 01, 2008, 02:53:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
See Rule #4

If you feel it necessary, you could PM him informing him of this thread so that we may continue the badmouthing.

Viking · « **Reply #29 on:** January 01, 2008, 02:54:18 PM »

Creating a new account is complicated when your IP has been banned. Thrust me.