Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Samm on August 13, 2002, 01:06:22 AM
-
Is a logical impossibility, the most you can have of anything is 100/100 . Noticed this while trying to equip drop tanks at a field that had 100% fuel, appearantly it wasn't enough fuel because drop tanks were disabled . When I asked what the deal was someone told me that the base must have 125% fuel, I thought he was just being a wise bellybutton but when I checked other bases I found they had 125% fuel !! Too funny .
Or should I have put this in bug forum ?
-
its not a bug.
with 100% you get to fill your plane with fuel. the extra 25% is accounted for by external fuel system, ie. drop tanks.
F.
-
I didn't know that. But when you have drop tanks on an aircraft, isn't it like having more than 100% fuel? Your aircraft has 100% fuel, plus 25% more fuel in your drop tanks. Having more than 100% is possible.
Gunner
-
You cannot have more than 100% of your capacity . Even if your guitar amp volume goes to 11 it still only goes to 100% .
-
Samm,
I am just your average engineer, but I will try to explain it :) It is just a number thing. You pick what ever unit you want to call 100%, if you exceed that unit, you have more than 100%
If your guitar amp has a rated output of 10, and you get 11 out of it, you are at 110% of the rated output. If you want to call 11 the max output, and you have it on 11, then you are at 100% of the max output.
Gunner
-
I don't have a guitar, I was alluding to Nigel of Spinal Tap.
Max output or capacity is allways 100% . You could arbitrarily call 4/5's (80/100 or 80%) of your capacity 100%, but then you'd be wrong .
-
Samm, take your agenda to HTC, write to them and let them decide what to do (if there is anything that needs to be done...)
-
When talking about industrial machinery (at least where I'm working) there's 100% efficiency which means machines fastest "safe" speed.
There's also possibility to use overspeed settings and then efficiency would be 110-115% thought then the machines would worn out faster and they will need more TLC (tender, loving care).
-
Yep. It's the same with aircraft engines, but some confuse 100% output at which longevity can be maintained with 100% output .
-
Originally posted by GunnerCAF
I didn't know that. But when you have drop tanks on an aircraft, isn't it like having more than 100% fuel? Your aircraft has 100% fuel, plus 25% more fuel in your drop tanks. Having more than 100% is possible.
Gunner
No it isn't.
If your internal tanks are 100% full and you add drop tanks that are a 100% full you just have 100% of a higher volume of fuel .
-
Originally posted by GunnerCAF
Samm,
I am just your average engineer, but I will try to explain it :) It is just a number thing. You pick what ever unit you want to call 100%, if you exceed that unit, you have more than 100%
If your guitar amp has a rated output of 10, and you get 11 out of it, you are at 110% of the rated output. If you want to call 11 the max output, and you have it on 11, then you are at 100% of the max output.
Gunner
You are absolutely right. But we are not talking about energy output, we are talking about physical space . Fuel supply or more specifically container volume . In this case the percentage is a ratio of fuel volume to container capacity .
Try filling your coffee cup to 125%, just don't do it on your lap .
-
this thread is 100% ridiculous.
Bozon
-
i 125% agree
-
johnnys car holds 15 gal of fuel ,
johnny fills his car up , his car now has 100% fuel
but johnny is going to the outback so he fills up a 5 gal can of fuel and puts it in his trunk
johnny now has 130% fuel
johnny can hold 6 cans of beer
johnny drinks 12 cans of beer
johnny is now at 200% beer capacity and passes out and dosn't make the trip
-
Thinking about those percentages I don't like them at all. Not because they confuse some ;)
Wouldn't it be fun for gameplay purposes, if an absolute mass of fuel was available per takeoff at a field? e.g. you could get 2000 lbs of fuel when everything is fine (i hope that's enough for the 262 ;) ), if some fuel tanks are destroyed, this number goes down. So when fuel is down it would no longer be the planes with good milage that could still be used (pony...), but those that need the least amount of fuel (probably eary war planes).
-
"but those that need the least amount of fuel "
Don't people already complain about the Spits and LA7's being too common?
J_A_B
-
When ur coffee cup is filled to 100% and u add a little drop coffee cup then u have more than 100% (regarding the main coffee cup) right?
Cool thread :D
-
CCVI brings up some thing i've been thinking about, measure fuel in gals , liters, pounds, etc, instead of %
field fuel bunkers will each have XXXXX gals of fuel , when you put XXX gals in your plane, the fuel at the field reduced by that much. field fuel bunkers are resupplyed by convoy and/or C47, ammo could be treated same way.
if a fuel bunker is destroyed , fuel is lost.
this makes more sense than %, this also gives a field a finite amout of fuel over a set time period (unless resupplyed by players, C47, M3 ), this may slow down the endless reupping from fields.
44MAG
-
I'm 215% fed up with this chit. Suave you spent 2 hours in the MA yapping about this. Now it's on the bbs? FFS!
-
Originally posted by Duedel
When ur coffee cup is filled to 100% and u add a little drop coffee cup then u have more than 100% (regarding the main coffee cup) right?
Cool thread :D
Then your coffee cup wasn't at 100% if it could hold more .
-
Originally posted by Samm
Then your coffee cup wasn't at 100% if it could hold more .
Ah, but the extra drop overflowed into the auxiliary...er, I mean the saucer. So the pilot...er, I mean the coffee drinker has more than 100% coffee he/she can consume, if they don't mind slurpping out of the saucer :D.
-
Originally posted by john9001
johnnys car holds 15 gal of fuel ,
johnny fills his car up , his car now has 100% fuel
but johnny is going to the outback so he fills up a 5 gal can of fuel and puts it in his trunk
johnny now has 130% fuel
johnny can hold 6 cans of beer
johnny drinks 12 cans of beer
johnny is now at 200% beer capacity and passes out and dosn't make the trip
You're confusing increasing max capacity with percentage of capacity filled . If johnny can drink 12 beers then we know that 6 beers was at most 50% of his capacity . Adding more container space increases max capacity, his car now has 100% of 20 gallons of fuel. If the 5 gal can was empty he would be at 75% capacity, 15gallons/20gallonscapacity 15/20 or 75/100 or 75% It's very simple .
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Ah, but the extra drop overflowed into the auxiliary...er, I mean the saucer. So the pilot...er, I mean the coffee drinker has more than 100% coffee he/she can consume, if they don't mind slurpping out of the saucer :D.
It doesn't matter where the excess coffee goes, the cup is still only 100% full, it can't get any fuller.
We don't know how much the coffee drinker can consume so we have no idea what percentage of that the volume of the coffee cup is .
-
Originally posted by john9001
CCVI brings up some thing i've been thinking about, measure fuel in gals , liters, pounds, etc, instead of %
44MAG
It just a matter of how you want to express it. Percentage is just a ratio of how much of the whole you have or don't have .The whole will allways be 100% So lets say a field has 5 fuel bunkers of 2000 gallons, a total of 10,000 gallons . One of the fuel bunkers is emptied (destroyed) you now have 8,000 gallons of fuel, or 80% fuel supply .
-
Who the f__k cares?
Don't you think they have another things to do than play with percentage numbers?
-
Define "whole" please Samm? Are you speaking the universe in its entirety, or are you taking only a part of it (much like one might do seperating internal storage from external)?
-
Originally posted by Staga
Who the f__k cares?
Obviously, anybody who replies here .
-
Originally posted by Fatty
Define "whole" please Samm? Are you speaking the universe in its entirety, or are you taking only a part of it (much like one might do seperating internal storage from external)?
I mean the maximum value of the given subject . Which when expressed as a percentage will allways be 100, regardless of how much the maximum capacity waxes or wanes .
-
Originally posted by john9001
johnnys car holds 15 gal of fuel ,
johnny fills his car up , his car now has 100% fuel
but johnny is going to the outback so he fills up a 5 gal can of fuel and puts it in his trunk
johnny now has 130% fuel
johnny can hold 6 cans of beer
johnny drinks 12 cans of beer
johnny is now at 200% beer capacity and passes out and dosn't make the trip
.... jonny opened the door and crouched out of his car
jonny found a tree and jerked against it
jonny hit a couple that had ... under it
jonny now has 2 blue eyes a broken nose and a big hangover.
jonny is now at 125% beatings capacity and will never think about
percentages
-
The given subject in this case being clean fuel capacity. That does not change, though you may carry more than that if you want.
Or at least I can, I just add another tank or two increasing capacity. Sometimes I bring a gallon of beer, then I have over 500% beer mug capacity.
-
Suave, let me guess:
You just learned yesterday how percentages work and you want to share your new knowledge with us, right?
Btw, I fear the day you'll be able to resolve the equation of a parabolic curve. The thread you'll immediately start about gunnery will undoubtedly be quite mind-boggling...
Oh, before I leave, please take time to consider this theorem:
x^n + y^n = z^n
has no non-zero integer solutions for x, y and z when n > 2
Can you confirm or infirm this? I give you 10 days.
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Suave, let me guess:
You just learned yesterday how percentages work and you want to share your new knowledge with us, right?
Btw, I fear the day you'll be able to resolve the equation of a parabolic curve. The thread you'll immediately start about gunnery will undoubtedly be quite mind-boggling...
Oh, before I leave, please take time to consider this theorem:
x^n + y^n = z^n
has no non-zero integer solutions for x, y and z when n > 2
Can you confirm or infirm this? I give you 10 days.
<--- gets Brain damage.
Stop this, this is just a game.
-
and pc gamers wonder why they get called geeks:rolleyes:
didn't you get enough maths at the 11 years of school you had?
-
Originally posted by Fatty
The given subject in this case being clean fuel capacity. That does not change, though you may carry more than that if you want.
[/b]
Actually you can increase your max capacity by adding more containers, ie. drop tanks, but you still won't ever have more that 100%, you will just have 100% of a larger volume .
Or at least I can, I just add another tank or two increasing capacity. Sometimes I bring a gallon of beer, then I have over 500% beer mug capacity. [/B]
If all the containers you have are full you are at 100% capacity, no matter how many containers you have . Even if one of you containers holds 500% more than one of your other containers .
-
Originally posted by Samm
Percentage is just a ratio of how much of the whole you have or don't have .
WRONG. Maybe in your narrow simple little mind. I work in investment industry and that is not the case. It is possible to have $100 invested in the market but have overall exposure of $150 or 150% of actual dollars.
-
Originally posted by BigGun
WRONG. Maybe in your narrow simple little mind. I work in investment industry and that is not the case. It is possible to have $100 invested in the market but have overall exposure of $150 or 150% of actual dollars.
Right, your overall exposure is 1.5 times the money you have invested . Or you could put it in the form of an improper fraction 150/100 aka a ratio . See I'm not wrong
And deselys I learned fractions and porcientos in grades school like everyone else .
-
Originally posted by Samm
...And deselys I learned fractions and porcientos in grades school like everyone else .
Well I suggest you search for your school books and re-read them. Because a percentage is a ratio, and a ratio can be >1. It just depends on what you're comparing what with...
In the case we're dealing, just consider a plane fully tanked with drop tanks to be at 125% of its internal fuel capacity. See? No big deal.
-
Originally posted by Samm
Right, your overall exposure is 1.5 times the money you have invested . Or you could put it in the form of an improper fraction 150/100 aka a ratio . See I'm not wrong
And deselys I learned fractions and porcientos in grades school like everyone else .
Misquote by me....referring to you can never have more than 100% of something. In this example you can have 150% overall exposure relative to the actual $$ you have invested. There are several cases in investment industry where you can have more than 100%.
-
Samm,
I see your point but, have you tried to see it this way? The meaning of 125% is the output that the base can sustain. In the game this allows you to get drop tanks. This is not volume (physical space) as you perceive it.
If you go to the hanger, there is no 125%. You have a choice of loading 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% of the internal fuel tanks and you have an option to carry drop tanks.
There is a clear difference here.
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Well I suggest you search for your school books and re-read them. Because a percentage is a ratio, and a ratio can be >1. It just depends on what you're comparing what with...
[/b]
Yes, I've never stated otherwise, we have been in agreement here .
In the case we're dealing, just consider a plane fully tanked with drop tanks to be at 125% of its internal fuel capacity. See? No big deal. [/B]
Right, and 100% of it's internal fuel capacity would be 80% of it's total fuel capacity .
-
You can't redifine the measure at will yet balk when others do. If a plane with drop tanks holds 25% more than a plane without, then the previous plane will hold 125% that of the latter no matter how many times you try to redifine maximum capacity.
If the standard loadout is without drop tanks, then the plane with drop tanks will be taking 125% of the standard loadout.
-
Originally posted by BigGun
Misquote by me....referring to you can never have more than 100% of something. In this example you can have 150% overall exposure relative to the actual $$ you have invested. There are several cases in investment industry where you can have more than 100%.
When people use percantages greater than 100 they are using comparitive terms . In your example 100% of your exposure is 1.5 times the size of the investment, making it 150% the size of your investment . Using this example 75% of your exposure would be equal to 100% of your investment .
-
Originally posted by Fatty
You can't redifine the measure at will yet balk when others do. If a plane with drop tanks holds 25% more than a plane without, then the previous plane will hold 125% that of the latter no matter how many times you try to redifine maximum capacity.
If the standard loadout is without drop tanks, then the plane with drop tanks will be taking 125% of the standard loadout.
No I think you are missunderstanding me . Assuming that drop tanks are 25% the size of internal stores, a plane with drop tanks that is at 100% capacity is carrying 25% more fuel than a plane that is at 100% capacity without drop tanks. So the first planes fuel is 1.25 the amount of the plane that can't carry DT's. 125% relative to the other planes capacity But the first plane is still 100% full .
-
Originally posted by Fatty
If the standard loadout is without drop tanks, then the plane with drop tanks will be taking 125% of the standard loadout.
Ok, so if max capacity is 1.25 times standard loadout what percentage of his maximum capacity will it be taking ?
-
Ahh, so you're measuring vs his maximum capacity. Why don't I measure vs a6m capacity instead and take 300%?
On the other hand with a sliding scale as you seem to want to use, are a p51d completely full but with no drop tanks available and a p51d completely full with drop tanks on carrying the same amount of fuel?
Because sometimes drop tanks aren't available, should we click 80% if they are available and 100% if they are not, depending on field damage? If the field is down to 1/5 fuel, then 100% should give you 1/4 tank eh?
-
my sliderule says 2 x 2 = 3.999
-
Originally posted by Fatty
Ahh, so you're measuring vs his maximum capacity. Why don't I measure vs a6m capacity instead and take 300%?
No Fatty, my argument has allways been that nothing can ever be more than 100% full, with an 8oz cup you can't carry 10oz(125%) it just doesn't work . Doesn't matter if you have a 100 gallon tank or four 25 gallon tanks, they can never be more full than completely full .
On the other hand with a sliding scale as you seem to want to use, are a p51d completely full but with no drop tanks available and a p51d completely full with drop tanks on carrying the same amount of fuel? [/B]
Of course not . The first p51 would be at 100% max capacity, the second p51 could carry 25% more fuel with DT's so he is at 75% max capacity even though his internal tank is at 100% max capacity .
Another perspective: The first p51 that is at 100% max fuel capacity has 125% the fuel that the second p51 has. But the most it's maximum capacity can ever be is 100% .
-
Samm,
I think we all see your point, but let's be constructive here. What do you want HTC to do? We all see that the representation of the concept does not suit your taste. How do you want this changed?
This is the way I see it. Fuel supply at the base is not a physical volume. If it is we should be talking in terms of liters and gallons. Fuel supply at the base is how much maintenance the base can give to your plane. The base is like a factory churning up supplies for your plane. Depending on the status of the facility on the base, it will limit the fuel you can carry on your plane or give you drop tanks. The "125%" you see represents the status of the facility on the base. At status 25% the base can only supply you with 25% of the internal fuel tank of your plane. At status 50%, it will give you an option to load 25% or 50% of your internal fuel tank. At status 125%, you now have a choice of 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% plus drop tanks.
The percentages used (while it may be confusing) does not represent the same thing which you are claiming here. One here is not volume.
Is there something wrong with the way this is represented in the hanger?
Is there something wrong with the way this is represented to say the status of the base in terms of supplying fuel to your plane?
I don't think so.
To help HTC, please suggest a way to change this representation so it would be less confusing for you.
-
Another perspective: The first p51 that is at 100% max fuel capacity has 125% the fuel that the second p51 has. But the most it's maximum capacity can ever be is 100%
Interesting perspective, boy wouldn't it be nice if they used a comparative standard like that in the game so that everyone would be using known quantities....
-
It's not confusing to me in the least . I recognize when a field says is at 125% it is actually 100%, I just pointed out that it was illogical and that it was kind of funny . And since then I've just been replying to threads that state that I'm wrong . For me this has been one of the best conversations on this board and I'm enjoying it.
-
Originally posted by Fatty
Interesting perspective, boy wouldn't it be nice if they used a comparative standard like that in the game so that everyone would be using known quantities....
Not sure what you mean here dude .
-
Listing the ratio to the static value of a fully fueled plane without drop tanks, instead of the fluctuating local maximum that can change depending on whether you strap extra tanks on or not.
-
OK, figure this one out: Take off from one field with 100% internal, and drop tanks. Land at another field where pilots can only get 25%, taxi to the hotpad, and get a full loadout.:confused:
-
Good point Weav .
-
Here's an example, sometimes I'll hear a person say something dumb like "puts 110% effort into it" . Well as we all know that is impossible . If today he is exerting 10% more effort than yesterday that means yesterday he was only exerting 90%, not 100% . No matter how much the person increases his effort ouptut it will never exceed 100% .
Thats almost as bad as using a double negative or calling a george a nik, or calling a bandit a bogey .
-
so if a field is damaged and is down to what htc likes to call "25%", shouldn't it say "-75%"?:confused:
-
No .
-
it is now considered proper english to use the "double negative "
lemmy see now ..if i load drop tanks and full internal i got 100% cause thats all i can take , but if i drop the drop tanks i have 75% left but i still have 100% internal tanks ,so i started out with 100% got rid of some but still have 100% but if you take 25% from 100% you cant still have 100% unless you are an accountent for enron so if i load internal tanks to 100% then add drop tanks i still have only 100%
some people think it's fun to take something so simple and try to make something complicated out of it. it's called mental mastur******
at least brady makes sense even if i don't agree with him 100%,maybe 16.78%.
if you take 100 and add 100 you have increased the total by 100% but if you now remove the 100 you have reduced the total by 50%, percents is fun to play with
-
If your 16.78 percent right, does that mean your wrong?
If you post 300% more than someone else, does that make you right? We all know now that it is imposible to be more than 100%, so that would be wrong.
Do you not understand what I didn't say?
:D
Gunner
-
Originally posted by john9001
lemmy see now ..if i load drop tanks and full internal i got 100% cause thats all i can take , but if i drop the drop tanks i have 75% left but i still have 100% internal tanks ,so i started out with 100% got rid of some but still have 100%
No you don't .
-
Originally posted by john9001
it is now considered proper english to use the "double negative "
It hasn't ever not been proper english .
-
Originally posted by AKWeav
OK, figure this one out: Take off from one field with 100% internal, and drop tanks. Land at another field where pilots can only get 25%, taxi to the hotpad, and get a full loadout.:confused:
this is a feature on AH :D
-
Originally posted by Samm
It's not confusing to me in the least . I recognize when a field says is at 125% it is actually 100%, I just pointed out that it was illogical and that it was kind of funny . And since then I've just been replying to threads that state that I'm wrong . For me this has been one of the best conversations on this board and I'm enjoying it.
so let me get this clear... if it is not confusing you and it seems you are not proposing a change, either this thread is in the wrong forum or your point is unclear. To me, there is nothing illogical about the representation of the concept. It is only illogical for you because your premise is that "125%" must be some sort of volume.
-
We're talking about quantity so of course we are talking about volume . Just as the most effort a person can ever exert is 100% . A full supply is the most one can ever have, be it solid, gas, liquid, energy, or metaphysical.
It is not possible to have a fuel supply of 125% for the same reason that it is not possible to make whiskey that is 125% alcohol, for the same reason that it is not possible to be 50% navaho and 50% commanche and 50% cherokee for the same reason that it is not possible to sleep 110% of the time .
Now if your contention is that 125% fuel supply is a relative comparitive term then I would ask you relative to what ? Because it obviously is not relative to that particular base's fuel stores .
-
An optimistic person sees a glass half full
a pesimistic one sees it half empty
an engineer sees a glass too big. :D:D:D
Daniel
-
This thread needs to be taken out back and shot.
-
Originally posted by Samm
We're talking about quantity so of course we are talking about volume . Just as the most effort a person can ever exert is 100% . A full supply is the most one can ever have, be it solid, gas, liquid, energy, or metaphysical.
you have obviously not read any of my other replies.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
This thread needs to be taken out back and shot.
i agree.
-
best troll ever
-
Since I have nothing better to do at work today, I'll throw some fuel onto the fire.
Samm is just as correct in his assessment as most everyone else. It is all dependent upon your point of view. Let me illustrate.
Assuming a base has storage for 10000 gallons of fuel, when there are 10000 gallons present, the base is at 100% capacity. However, if a tanker truck comes in with an extra 2500 gallons on board, the base now contains 125% of its fuel capacity. There is no way you can store that fuel on the base in the given containers, because as has been pointed out, you simply cannot pour 10 ounces of coffee into an 8 ounce cup. Samm's perception here is that even though there is more fuel on the base than could possibly be stored, the bae's total volume of fuel is 100%. The assumption is correct, given that you are looking at the entire base as the container. So therefore, from one perspective, the base has 125% fuel, whereas from the other there is only 100% because the base now has the ability to store more than it did before.
One can continue to apply this logic, such that at ALL volumes, we can safely say there is 100%. If, for example, we empty one of the containers at the base containing 25% of the total fuel, we can now say two things: first is that we have 75% fuel left. The second is that we have 100% fuel left, because even though we have used up 25% of the fuel, the remaining fuel is now representative of the total.
It all boils down to whether or not you believe 100% is subjective. If you feel, as Samm does, it is not. It represents an absolute that can never be crossed. It then becomes a boundary which you can base calculations around. It is concrete and easily identifible.
Enough babbling. I really should attempt to work now.
-
Originally posted by Scott E
best troll ever
bingo!
even if it was an unintentional troll! ;)
-
Originally posted by jonnyb
Since I have nothing better to do at work today, I'll throw some fuel onto the fire.
Samm is just as correct in his assessment as most everyone else. ...
Saying that everyone is correct isn't really throwing fuel onto the fire....c'mon, you can do better than this ;)
Btw, nobody recognized the famous theorem I posted? I can't believe I'm the only math geek here...
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Saying that everyone is correct isn't really throwing fuel onto the fire....c'mon, you can do better than this ;)
Btw, nobody recognized the famous theorem I posted? I can't believe I'm the only math geek here...
Acutally, fuel onto the fire was the wrong choice of words. I meant to say that I would continue to drag on the debate.
The theorem you posted is Fermat's last theorem. It was, until recently unproven, and was thought impossible. That is until Professor Wiles of Princeton combined the works of Taniyama and Shimura dealing with elliptic curves and modular forms.
:)
-
You posted Fermat's theorem, which, as far as I know, has never been proven, although no one has demonstrated a counter-example, either.
This has to be the most ridiculous argument over meaningless semantics that I have ever read. It is perfectly legitimate to define a plane's internal storage capacity as 100%. Having done so, any external fuel stores result in a plane carrying more than 100% capacity. Big deal.
It is "impossible" to extert more than 100% or to be more than 100% full only if you assume what you seek to prove. That is known as circular reasoning.
- JNOV
-
Oops -- Johnny beat me to it, although I was unaware that the theorem had actually been proven! :)
-
JohnnyB & LoneStarBuckeye! Right on the spot...
Btw I tried to follow the general lines of the demonstration....it flew waaaaay over my head
:eek:
-
This thread was stupid the second time Samm posted.
It is even more stupid now.
F.
-
:mad: 127% stupid
3.14% circular reasoning
I believe this post makes this thread 100% full according to magellan's theorem
-
stop writing ratios wrong!
they're writen like, for example
1:1 (real life size)
1:2 (half real life size)
2:1 (twice real size)
:cool:
-
this thread is 100% a waste of time. however i seem to have a value of 110% in my mind.
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Oh, before I leave, please take time to consider this theorem:
x^n + y^n = z^n
has no non-zero integer solutions for x, y and z when n > 2
Can you confirm or infirm this? I give you 10 days.
Prove for this has been found last year I think. If I remember correctly it was found with help of a computer by recursively using some other heorems.
-
Originally posted by john9001
my sliderule says 2 x 2 = 3.999
My Pentium confirmed this.
-
Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
This has to be the most ridiculous argument over meaningless semantics that I have ever read. It is perfectly legitimate to define a plane's internal storage capacity as 100%. Having done so, any external fuel stores result in a plane carrying more than 100% capacity. Big deal.
- JNOV
Adding any external fuel stores would result in the plane carrying more than 100% relative to it's internal capacity, but not it's max capacity(100%), which of course could never be exceeded .
You can never exceed a max capacity, you can only increase it .
-
Originally posted by bockko
:mad: 127% stupid
Not possible .
-
its 27% more than stupid, can't remeber if idiot or moron comes after stupid
-
Originally posted by jonnyb
Since I have nothing better to do at work today, I'll throw some fuel onto the fire.
What percentage did you throw on? :)
-
Samm,
Have you considered just not carrying drop tanks perhaps? ;)
-
This reminds me of something... oh yeah, who is on first, what is on second, and I don't know is on third. Hmmm..., now how did this conversation end up? Maybe we could try to get to the bottom of this instead.
-
LOL BenDover, you bring tears to my eyes!
By the way, it is stupid idiot, followed by your such a moron. :D
-
Originally posted by bozon
this thread is 100% ridiculous.
Bozon
102% if you add my 2 cents..