Verm, I hate to do this but...

[R4M]

   

- I dont know where did you read that, but you should know to give credit the sources that deserve it, and to forget about the ones that don't.

I mentioned where I read that. I'll repeat again: "Aircraft construction in the USSR", published by TsAGI (Central Aerhydrodynamic Insitute); Full author list of the study:
Academician G.S. Byushgens (Russian Academy of Sciences)
Gen Lt A.I. Ayupov (VVS),Scientists and engineers of Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute:
Doctor Tech. Sc. A.M. Batkov, Academician R.A. Belyakov (whom western readers might know - he had some western publications), Doctor Tech. Sciences R.V. Sakach, K.Yu. Kosminkov (M.Sc. aerospace eng), N.V. Grogroryev(M.Sc. aerospace eng), G.V. Kostyrchenko(M.Sc. aerospace eng), A.I Makarevsky(M.Sc. aerospace eng), A.D. Mironov(M.Sc. aerospace eng), V.V. Lazarev(M.Sc. aerospace eng), R.D. Irodov(M.Sc. aerospace eng), Yu.A.Egorov(M.Sc. aerospace eng), Yu.V. Zasypkin(M.Sc. aerospace eng)

If god himself was signing that study I wont believe it. Fw190A8 was a plane 500kg heavier than the Fw190A5 in any comparable loadout and you tell us that the A5 turned WORSE?...and not only that you say that it is REASONABLE?.

Sorry but that is BS. And the 400mph@20000feet for the D9 is even more BS.

I dont know if that was communist propaganda or what <G>, but my god you are listing A8's deck speed as SLOWER than Fw190A5's in Aces High...remember that in 1941, when it was introduced the FASTER plane on the deck in the world, was the Fw190A2?...or maybe you have some VVS data saying that it only did 250mph at deck level?...

lol.
 
Ok, you have up there two original Focke Wulf factory charts, dated March 1945. Now care to explain them?...the german focke-wulf engineer who did those charts was drunk,I guesS?.

Yeah. and the "virtually new 190D9s" did 400mph at 20000 feet. Sure <G>

VVS or not, scientific research whatever or not....if you come here saying that the Fw190D9 did 400mph at high level and only 330mph at sea level expect not to be believed.

In the meantime tell me what does the charts I presented you avobe mean, please. I guess that some SS officer was pointing with a pistol the engineer who was drawing them, so the communist studies after the war didnt disprestige the german "fake" air engineer quality    (hehehe)  

Look...your sources give so low numbers that even a 1943 plane would be outperformed...yet those planes were known to be "more than a match" for the P51, and are renowned as the best german prop fighter, by far, and one of the best if not the best of the war. All with a top speed of 400mph?

You know that russian captured lots of equipment in 1945...but that the western allieds too?. You can be sure as hell that they did research and test the planes they had captured too. I have read many performance numbers for the Fw190, all the versions, but by far the worse are yours....you want me to believe that the western nations test were worth nothing and the only valid ones were the ones on the VVS?...

Nope. And less with original factory data backing up my position and not yours, sorry.

And apart of being the worse, it is backed up by VERY dubvious asseverations like "the Fw190A8 was a better turner than the Fw190A5" or "the Fw190D9 did 400mph at 20000feet".

Hell, the Fw190A8 did 408mph at 20000 feet...why would Tank take the time to design a plane to do 400mph at the same altitude?......

Its senseless...really, it is.


 

Originally posted by Wisk-=VF-101=-:

I am just showing you what appears to be a result of a long study and something the russian aerospace community considers valid.

Really?

From http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/Lavochkin.html  , a web dedicated to the VVS and especially to the La5FN and La7:

The following is a text from Soviet Combat Aircraft (see bibliography) regarding The La-7.
"The La-7's high performance became fully apparent in the change of Luftwaffe tactics at the end of the war. German fighter units re-equipped with the multi purpose Fw190a,'F and G used the tactic of "surprise pirate raids" on a large scale. They would attack advancing Soviet vehicle columns, the forward edge of the front line and close up rear positions, then escape at full speed using augmented power. Yak 3's and Yak 9U's had an insufficient margin of speed to intercept the Fw190's , but the task could be performed by the La7, though not without difficulty."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The following is a text from the publication La5/7 fighters in action (see bibliography)
"The standard La 7 had a top speed of 592km/h at sea level - 46 km/h more than the La5fn and 72km/h faster than the Focke Wulf Fw190A-3............

The La 7 was also 15km/h faster than the Focke Wulf Fw190A-8, the latest version of this German fighter deployed on the Eastern front. With a take of weight of 3240 kg the La7 was about 1060 kgs lighter than the Fw190A-8.

The climb rate was also greatly improved . The La7 easily out climbed the Fw190A-8 at altitudes upto 5000 m . The La7 reached this altitude in 4.95 minutes, while the Fw190A-8 required six minutes. The La7 was also more manoeuvrable than the Focke Wulf at any altitude, taking only 20 seconds for a 360 degree turn versus the German fighters 26 seconds."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/i]

Seems that the VVS pilots aboard La5FN and Yak9Us had no idea that the Fw190A8s and F8s were only running at 335mph at sea level because the Fw190A8 speed was so crappy.  

I guess that they could barely catch them in Yak9Us because they liked to run races with them before trying to shoot at them ,huh?

Seems that the "russian community" does not accept that "widely accepted" data you present to us.

And for sure the combat quotes DONT match the data...see that source?...calls the Fw190A8 being 15km/h slower than the La7...

But of course we all know that the Fw190A8 only did 335mph at SL  




[This message has been edited by R4M (edited 03-06-2001).]

[R4M]

 

Originally posted by Oleg Maddox:
R4M,

I don't know about VVS data(yes, there was squadron of captured FW-190D-9 in use by VVS, but I know about trial tests in Russia.
They show even a bit better performace on high alt and a bit worse on SL.  
But in general almost similar. I don't see any contradictions if data diffesrs for 1% (and remember, that tests at winter and summer had some good differences even after use special formulas to complete test data to real things).
We use for our AI(currently) FW-190D-9 the manufacture data. And really it is very good and friendly to pilot plane.

Oleg you are telling me that in Il2 the Fw190D9 is doing 330mph at sea level and 400mph at 20000 feet? Or that you use the 357mph/426mph figure? (or the 380mph/448mph  )

[Fishu]

I don't understand either how could A-8 turn better than A-5...
with guns and armor ripped off? then it might work.

from every source, I've read D9 being faster than A8, also faster than A5. (and I read A5 being faster than A8)

[Jochen]

 

No VVS documetns about captured Fw190s will change that, I repeat. And much less if you keep on coming here insisnting that the Fw190A5 was heavier and worse turner than the Fw190A8 (lol), because that does nothing but to rest credibility to your source.

Again, get a grip R4M.

It is possible that tested 190A-5 was in fact 190F-2 or F3 (based on 109A-5, maybe having a rustsaze) which in fact had 100 - 200 kg of additional armour plating. I can easily understand light 190A-8 outturning 190F-3...

------------------
jochen Gefechtsverband Kowalewski

Units: I. and II./KG 51, II. and III./KG 76, NSGr 1, NSGr 2, NSGr 20.
Planes: Do 17Z, Ju 87D, Ju 88A, He 111H, Ar 234A, Me 410A, Me 262A, Fw 190A[/b, Fw 190F, Fw 190G.

Sieg oder bolsevismus!

[R4M]

 

Originally posted by Jochen:


It is possible that tested 190A-5 was in fact 190F-2 or F3 (based on 109A-5, maybe having a rustsaze) which in fact had 100 - 200 kg of additional armour plating. I can easily understand light 190A-8 outturning 190F-3...

Fw190A8 was 500kg heavier than A5, more or less. Even with a 200kg overweight, A5 will be a lighter plane than the A8. So this assumption is wrong. If the Fw190F2 is 200kg heavier than the Fw190A5, it still should have a lower wingloading and better turning than the Fw190A8.

Second, he explicits that the Fw190A5 is a leightweight one:

 

Originally posted by Wisk-=VF-101=-:

Here is NII VVS data for FW 190A-5 (NOTE: 2 20mm and 2 7.92mm variant)

so frankly if he is nitpicking to ensure that we know that it is the light Fw190A5, without outboard cannons, then I doubt that it is a F2.


Even more:

   

Originally posted by Wisk-=VF-101=-:
FW-190A8(light armament, with 2 20mm and 2 13mm):

Engine: BMW-801D: 1700hp at take-off, 1360hp
.
.
.
Top speed: sea lvl - 522km/h (542 in combat mode)

alt - 614km/h at 6150 (642 at 6500 in combat mode)
Time of climb to 5000m: 6.1min (5.4 in combat mode)

Look, sir...first of all,the power output is wrong. The Fw190A8 had a 1800hp engine with the Petrol injection system (wich was standard, so dont try to tell me that maybe that A8 "didnt had the system").

Second of all the speed figures are wrong, because they are too low. I can post more charts in this thread, both the ones with all the speeds of the Fw190 family from the A8 onwards, or the ones from the Fw190A8 handbook, posted by Vermillion. The Fw190A8 had a 350mph speed on the deck according to Vermillion's scans and 360mph according to the chart comparing all the Fw190s and Ta152s.

Jochen,a Fw190A5 is a Fw190A5. If is a Fw190F2 is a Fw190F2. If you post data here that a Fw190A5 turns worse than a Fw190A8, then I have to assume that it is an A5, not a F2. Or do we have to play the riddle game to sort out where does that data come from, or belongs to?.

I say that those numbers, as are presented are WRONG. THat the data he posted is FAULTY. That the speeds are significantly porked,that the turnrates are wrong and that the general information seems screwed up.

And if that A5 is in fact a F2, then you are nothing but proving my point, being my point that that data is unreliable...

 Or maybe should I post here the turnrates and accelerations of an Fw190G3 and say that those figures belong to the Fw190A5?...(remember, the first incarnation of the A5 had the same performance as a Fw190G3, and it was a terror).

I have posted two Focke-Wulf factory performance charts, signed in March'45. We can post here more original charts from the FW factory.

He posts that an fw190A5 turns worse than the A8...in fact is worse and performs worse than A8, he says that it was to be EXPECTED!!!!

 

Originally posted by Wisk-=VF-101=-:
As you can see the performance of 190A-8 with 2 cannon and 190-D9 are better than 190A-5 so NII VVS data are consistent in that.

The Fw190A8 performer markedly worse than the A5 at most altitudes, and was faster at low altitudes because the lack of petrol injection overboost system in the A5. The Fw190A5 was faster at most altitudes and had lower wingloading, wich is perfectly normal in a plane with an identical engine but 500kg more.


And now you try to explain it because "it can be a F2"...
Then that A8 can be an A6, or an A7, right? and the D9 could be what?...(a toejam of course, given that it is a late'44 plane that, according to him, only makes 400mph at 21000feet)

enough said. I think that this falls by its own weight. Above you have original Focke wulf charts, and a bunch of numbers that assure that the Fw190A5 was outturned by a Fw190A8, and that the Fw190D9, a 1944 german plane, did 400mph at 20000 feet...

Give credibility to the source you think is more reliable. I couldnt care the less  



[This message has been edited by R4M (edited 03-06-2001).]

[sky_bax]

R4M, like I said above about those charts,

Quote:

As far as the 190D9 "official" FW documents go. "Focke-Wulf Ta 152, Der Weg zum Höhenjäger" by Dieter Hermann, ISBN
3-925505-44-X, published by AVIATIC.

Regarding their test values and the companys specification, you should take these published charts with a grain of salt. But they are for sure the best available in "publications"


328th Fighter Squadron
352nd Fighter Group.com

"Blue-Nosed Bastards of Bodney"


[This message has been edited by sky_bax (edited 03-06-2001).]

[R4M]

Now this is another thing  

skybax you say those charts are extracted from that book, isnt it?

(frankly, I still am awed by the 395mph SL speed number for the MW50 D9, and still cant believe it completely   ).

Ok you say they sould be taken "with a grain of salt". I understand that prototypes can have too good performance, but those charts show a HUGE leap of performances between the assumed figures for the MW50 D9 we had known until now, and the ones that those charts present to us...

so, in your opinion, are they reliable?...to wich point?

[This message has been edited by R4M (edited 03-06-2001).]

[-lynx-]

Duh:  

I say that those numbers, as are presented are WRONG. THat the data he posted is FAULTY.

The god has spoken - what's the point in arguing and presenting facts since they don't fit the views acceptable by our very emotional LW fans?

Surely a graph from a FW factory is more credible than combat testing of the whole squadron of that very factory produce?

 

Look, sir...first of all,the power output is wrong. The Fw190A8 had a 1800hp engine with the Petrol injection system (wich was standard, so dont try to tell me that maybe that A8 "didnt had the system").

You do know that power output is dependant on the grade of fuel used, don't you? You can quote factory figures until cows come home - front line units used the fuel available to them, not that maximising theoretical performance figures. Another thing - that wonderful "Petrol injection system" was indeed standard on this engine. Didn't have any magic qualities to it though - it simply replaced carburettor. German designers pioneered the use of fuel injection in combat aircraft engines. Injection is simply a more reliable way to create air/fuel mixture...

It is indeed "...Give credibility to the source you think is more reliable. I couldnt care the less..."


p.s. WISK - you need help translating anything - give me a shout.


[This message has been edited by -lynx- (edited 03-06-2001).]

[Wisk-=VF-101=-]

R4M,

If the figures you present are from the manufacturer (Focke-Wulf) - there are much morelkely to be dubious. But...

My point was not that - you COMPLETELY ignored all the things I explained about valid comparisons and how the PROCESS of teh experment should be FACTORED IN. You might comparing UNCOMPARABLE things !!!
Say, forget that these r planes, think about a flight test as a physics experiment - if two people at different parts of the globe use their own different methods and instruments to measure any complex parameter - they are almost bound to get different results.

I repeat again... Do you have a description of the processs by which those german charts were obtained ???

There are perfectly good answers too all the questions about the weight descrapanecies and oher things that look unusual for you. The scientits do not SCREW AROUND. Everything is noted and written down. And the answers can be obtained from the original tests - I bet they even have werk numbers and numbers for the engine template and probably the designation of the weights they used to weigh the thing and then breka-up of the weight bu AC componets. Because this is like a mechanical autopsy. THese guys rever engineered B-29, do you think they are not scrupulous or unprofessional ??
Do you know what it takes for a scientist to put his name on a research paper and how many times he makes sure so that there would no faux pas's in it ? Like mixing the notion of "taxonomy" and "classification" or some other crap like that ??


And your statement about how even if it would be signed by god himself you wouldn't belive it bla, bla...

I pity Kopernikus if he got into your hands..

Why do you cite all those indirect "popular" sources ? I told you myslef that the majority of the popular aviation magazines and books ala Jane's aircraft on WWII give different data - but where they got them from ??
The point is not how many times someone printed a certain figure. As they say if you call someone a pig too many times maybe he'll become a pig??

Well, it doesn't work so. I described to you in gist how things are proven in sciences, i.e. when someone wants to present new info as valid (NOTE: valid within the assumptions, not the only absolute truths; you are mixing this up in your posts). So one approach is to use mathematically formal proofs, which is theoretical approach and another is to stage experiments, which is empirical study's approach. Flight tests are experiments. TsAGI folks used the experimental results obtained by a meticulous process for every plane (90-70 hours fo flight time) and used their scientific skills and knoweldge to validate the results (using aerodynamic calculations when needed) to create a cumulative view of the performances. THEY DESCRIBED THEIR PROCESS. In other words if someone wants to repeat it and have the subjects to do so they can ! They wrote a paper about their experimental design and assumptions. They argued using means and techniques of a scientific discourse - you argue like an old woman at the market with categorical unsubstantiated phrases like: this is WRONG, I do not believe, etc. None of your statements have any value. I was wondering if some german/western research lab did a similar research - if they did they must have published their work in the scientific literature (not the internet, popular books/magazine crap). That's what I would like to take a look at. If you don't know of any of the work of this caliber - just quit it.

Are you so mad because they don't match what the producers of FW were telling their customers ??? Is that the only reason by which you discard the efforts of a dozen of very good aerospace scientists and engineers working in one of the premier research labs ??? This is simply bigoted - you reacted hostile from the start, as if someone called you a bad name, that's an abnormal reaction, it's completely unwarranted.

Hey, I never even said anywhere in my post that one set of data is absolute truth! Did you notice that ? Do you know why I didn't do that ?? Because without knowing the procedure for tests used by the Focke-Wulf team I do not have any grounds for comparing whatever parameters they found - they are not comparable !!!

Now I repeated this point so many times that hopefully you are bound to notice what I am talking about.

I just wanted to let the wider AH community know of this work and some are definitely appreciative, why the hell you are taking this so personally ? Why do you keep to refer to these data as My data ? I can't take credit for them - this is work by TsAGI and NII VVS. I gave you the exact names of the people who did it. Stop referring to this as my work.



[This message has been edited by Wisk-=VF-101=- (edited 03-06-2001).]

[R4M]

I'm not here to contribute to a flamewar anymore. This is my last answer here; I returned to this board to keep civil discussions, but sometimes is almost impossible.

Please allow me to answer a last time.

   

Originally posted by Wisk-=VF-101=-:
why the hell you are taking this so personally ? Why do you keep to refer to these data as My data ? I can't take credit for them - this is work by TsAGI and NII VVS. I gave you the exact names of the people who did it. Stop referring to this as my work.

because you did it since the first answer you gave me:

   

Originally posted by Wisk-=VF-101=-:
R4M,

 I think you are being too emotional as a true believer who is shown something that is outside of his perception of this world.

I took that as a direct insult, still I argued with your data, not with you. I say that the data is highly unreliable, and much more as you present it. You say that the official Focke-Wulf data is the document to be put in doubt?...LOL...you say that scientifics take notes carefully, blah blah bla...yeah, and the factory engineers who are doing charts of the planes they are sending to the front just put great numbers with no reason there, right?.


   

Originally posted by Wisk-=VF-101=-:
My point was not that - you COMPLETELY ignored all the things I explained about valid comparisons and how the PROCESS of teh experment should be FACTORED IN.

ok. Sure. The problem is that I read too much about what you say...things like...

 

As you can see the performance of 190A-8 with 2 cannon and 190-D9 are better than 190A-5 so NII VVS data are consistent in that.

This you said, when we all know that the A8 was a heavyweight version of the A5 with the same engine, only with a special WEP to deliver more power under certain altitudes.

 

Another thing - the spped info given in table format is tricky to comprehend. Fishu - you got into this trap. I am looking at the charts and 190D-9 is constantly and noticeably faster than 190A-8, but the power curve of Jumo in combat mode goes down earlier than BMW, note the difference in alts of max speeds

The Fw190D9 was built to the purpose to achieve ab etter high altitude performance than that on the A versions, because the BMW801 proved too hard to be properly supercharged or turbocharged for high altitudes.

The Ju213A1 was put there with one thing in mind: to improve 190's high altitude performance. Yet you say that the ju213A1 delivered less power than the BMW801 at high altitudes

So, why did Germany built the D9, after all?...the Ju213A1 was an engine that gave no advantages over the BMW801,right? then what was the point to build the D9?  

MOre...

 

Mandoble, if you look at the data you will see that 190A-5 and 190A-8 have the same engine, but 109A-5 weighs noticeable more, so it's not surprising that it turns worse, 190-D9 did turn worse than 190A-8 - actually it is even modeled so in WB.

This is PRICELESS ,and the final proof that you have no idea about what you are talking. So the A-5 WEIGHTS NOTICEABLE MORE!!!!!! ROFLOL!. The Fw190A8 had about 500kg more weight than the A5, product of added pilot and airframe armor,  heavier cannons, heavier machineguns, one more fuel tank, and the special WEP system.

And you say that the A5 was heavier...

You want me to follow quoting crappy aseverations from you? Because there are more!...you are proving that you know less than nothing about the Focke-Wulf Fw190, its variants and performances. And yet you still want me to believe an unbeliable information, an information that says that a Fw190A5 turned WORSE and was slower than a Fw190A8. An information that says that the Ju213A1 delivered less power than a BMW801D at high altitudes...

In short: completely unreliable information, regardless of the procedence.

Still, I try to argue with you, and to make my point. I present you factory charts of the Focke-Wulf factory; Yet you say that those charts, signed during the war by the original builders of the plane, is less reliable than the VVS tests you present to us. In the grounds that the "VVS tested them". I say that the data you talk about makes no sense and that is unreliable. Or maybe the VVS engineers knew more about the FW190 than the original FW engineers?

And now here I present you the FW-190A8 ACCORDING TO THE ORIGINAL PILOTS HANDBOOK!:
 http://www.airtel.net/hosting/0003d/ebringas/190.gif  

I refuse to post the image here, are almost 500kb and will make the page impossible to load, if you want, download it and take a look.

You want us to believe that the pilot handbook was lying the pilot who was about to pilot the plane wich that chart belongs to?. Do you realize that this charts were used to make pilots know the performances of the planes THEY WERE GOING TO FLY AND FIGHT WITH?.

Sure, they were to do it, and the Fw190A8 was 15mph slower on the deck than what that chart shows. Guess that FW engineers liked to cheat their pilots (who were stupids and didnt notice that the performances on their aircraft didnt match the ones on the charts)

THe problem is not that I dont read what you say. The problem is that what you say demonstrates an absolute lack of knowledge of the plane we are discussing about.

I could follow with this (in fact I could make this post be twice as large), but I'm not here to see nor to contribute to a flamewar.

Sorry people if I have been harsh and flaming in this thread. But this guy has no clue of what he is talking about.



[This message has been edited by R4M (edited 03-06-2001).]

[R4M]

 

Originally posted by -lynx-:
that wonderful "Petrol injection system" was indeed standard on this engine. Didn't have any magic qualities to it though - it simply replaced carburettor. German designers pioneered the use of fuel injection in combat aircraft engines. Injection is simply a more reliable way to create air/fuel mixture...

NO, sir, the Petrol injection booster was a system that injected high octane petrol (96 octane fuel) directly in the port air intake to act as antidetonant and as cylinder cooling. This allowed for a significant increase on the available manifold pressure you could set without getting an engine detonation.

Is bassicaly the same principle as the MW50 booster, but using high octane fuel instead of methanol-water injection. It only gives increased performance at quite low altitudes, tho, and gave less % of increased power than the MW50 system did. but it was much cheaper and didnt require the full Mw50 instalation, nor the special mixture.

And it was standard on the Fw190A8, and not in the Fw190A5.

It has nothing to do with conventional "fuel injection" instead of carburator, thing that all the important WWII german piston engines had,from the DB600 up to the Ju213E. It is a power boost system analogue to the MW50, working on the same principle.


[This message has been edited by R4M (edited 03-06-2001).]

[Fishu]

Hrmh..
this is ridicilous stuff I've read.. and I haven't even read it all.

First of all, every source I've read about focke-wulfs, says that A-5 is far lighter than piggy A-8, with all the armors, heavier guns and yaddayadda..
I would rate A-4 or A-5 as the best of Wuergers.
A-8 is less maneuverable, slower and climbs slower than A-5 or A-4, although, more heavily armed and armored.

I don't think I have to find some 'trust worthy' source to prove this, since thats an old fact.

by the way, I laughed when I noticed that someone said this:
 

Mandoble, if you look at the data you will see that 190A-5 and 190A-8 have the same engine, but 109A-5 weighs noticeable more, so it's not surprising that it turns worse, 190-D9 did turn worse than 190A-8 - actually it is even modeled so in WB.

Credibility was totally lost when I read last sentence.
Its also very old fact that Dora has been teethless in WarBirds, its so old fact that I was still flying Ki84 and other such fighters when I first time came across with this statement about "Teethless Dora".

I don't know much about D9, what comes to turn rates and maneuverability, but I don't hesitate to say that its better than it is in WarBirds. (well, at least from last time I tried)
more of, I wonder how A-5 would turn worse than A-8, since it is far by lighter.

[hazed-]

ok i know this has no way of being a 'rule' but i think planes that you see too bloody much of should be perked for the next tour.
This would solve my problem which is too damn many f4c's and too damn many nikis.
If they are perked for 1 tour and then are reinstated the tour after fine...AT LEAST I GET A MONTH WITHOUT SO MANY CANNON DWEEBS RUINING MY FUN!  

hazed

[This message has been edited by hazed- (edited 03-06-2001).]

[Wisk-=VF-101=-]

We are talking apples and oranges here.
I am asking for a german flight test procedures - you are shoving some end results at me.

I'm trying to eplain why a properly staged experiment is valid - you are branding the data as unreliable without even knowing how they were obtained. Actually I even stated that I don't intend to compare the end results and explined my experience in comparing things in a scientific, rigorous and sytemaitc manner - you accuse me of not knowing that one experimental subject was always supposed to be heavier than the other.

Geez, if one of us measuers gravity acceleration at the north pole and the other at the equator - do you think we come up with the same results ?? Do you know how many more parameteres can affect testing of anything ? Have you ever tested anything yourself at least for a research project?

I just defended the scientific method of experimentation and my strong bilief in value of degrees from accredited universities and value of work performed by individuals who have them.

You never understood what I was saying about validity of comparisons though and you keep comparing uncomparable things and getting indignated.

BTW, I never attributed any of the work I presented to myself, I always mentioned "the authors claim", "by data of ..." etc. So once again, don't accuse me of not knowing which plane was heavier or not - I let you know where the data came from - they had a plane called 190A-5 with that weight. It's totally possible to get the detailed description of that particular copy (or copies) and then throw it at you. To make it interesting we could even have a bet for 5 grand or so on whether the TsAGI guys were lying about the weight or not. Once again, I just translated and, being a researcher myself, noted that if I were to review their paper on the merits of following a scientific method of experimentation I would call it a literate and well-written work. This only means that with their assumptions and the copies they had, with the procedures they followed - their data do not have flaws. In case you don;t get it - another experiment comparing items of the same class with different assumptions and different experimental design can get different end results and still be valid ! But, because of the differences in expremintal dsing the end results will not be comparable!!!

Knowledge of objective comparison practices has nothing to do with deep knowledge of items being compared - give two differnt UFOs and I'll get you valid results too by following laws and practicies of empirical studies.
 



[This message has been edited by Wisk-=VF-101=- (edited 03-06-2001).]

[Wisk-=VF-101=-]

Fishu, you chose only the first sentence, somehow you ommited the whole explanation of criteria of similarities analysis. But that'snot the point - you are mixing up what TsAGI folks say and what I say. If you lost your credibility to TsAGI research lab based on that sentence - well, that's pretty strong-headed.