Should be interesting to see how this one plays out.
No doubt you guys have access to reference materials that I can only dream of, but can you honestly call a test document from that era wrong?
Just a supposition, but is not most if not all of the "Biblical"(i.e. America's Hundred Thousand) data everyone quotes based on tests conducted back then?
These guys put their hands on, laid eyes on, the planes. I am sure they knew what engine and prop the birds had.
What gets me the most about topics like this, is there is always someone saying "nope, that is wrong. I have numbers from (insert info source) that says differently." Sounds to me like F4UDOA has stumbled onto a treasure of info, and some don't like what they are hearing.
Since the Jug is my plane of choice, any historical info on her is welcome, pro or con. I have seen accounts of the pilots themselves discounted as unreliable, men who flew these birds in combat and knew what they could and could not do. "Give us hard numbers, real test data" is always the reply.
Well, here are those numbers.
As a Jug lover, what I would love to see is how many of them received the "in the field" MAP tweak. Robert Johnson was quoted in another thread on the BBS as saying that his Jug could put out 72" MAP. If this was a common field mod, and I have little reason to doubt that it was, why not include it in AH, maybe as a perk mod or something of the sort.
Widewing, Daff, if I ticked ya off, I apologize. This, the Jug, is a sore spot with me.
BTW, what books/documents are you getting your numbers from? Just curious........
[This message has been edited by eddiek (edited 02-28-2001).]