Something I need to say

[nrshida]

See Rule #4

[lyric1]

In.

[bustr]

Appears he made up his mind Hitech is wrong and needs to publicly be put in his place in front of an audience versus just sending in an e-mail with what he believes is superior data. An audience won't change anything with Hitech but, it gives him a choir to play Perry Mason in front of. He should have just presented his data in the wish list like I did for the motor cannon mounting and flaps on the I16 and leave it to posterity. To this day the I16 still has both flaperons and split flaps that no version of the I16 was ever built with. And I used engineering pages and schematics from the original Russian manuals to make my argument. Waffle should have made two air frames, a pre type10 and type10 rolled up to type28 to solve the flap issue and weapons packages issue.

[Delirium]

I'm not sure why Skuzzy locked the discussion, but it was made abundantly clear if you have sources that contradict what is seen in the game, let them know the sources.

What else do you want them to do? Send you a Willy Wonka Golden Ticket to come sit next to Hitech while he codes?

[Vraciu]

See Rule #4

[FESS67]

Appears he made up his mind Hitech is wrong and needs to publicly be put in his place in front of an audience versus just sending in an e-mail with what he believes is superior data. An audience won't change anything with Hitech but, it gives him a choir to play Perry Mason in front of. He should have just presented his data in the wish list like I did for the motor cannon mounting and flaps on the I16 and leave it to posterity. To this day the I16 still has both flaperons and split flaps that no version of the I16 was ever built with. And I used engineering pages and schematics from the original Russian manuals to make my argument. Waffle should have made two air frames, a pre type10 and type10 rolled up to type28 to solve the flap issue and weapons packages issue.

I am not sure nrshida has made up his mind that Hitech is wrong.  All he asked was IF he felt there were inaccuracies AND was to put time and effort into researching them would his research be considered or would it be a waste of his time and effort? Your response seems to suggest that even with original drawings and data no change will take place.  Historically this has been a topic that has never ended well because of the assertion that the flight model is as perfect as it can be, no matter what evidence you may present.  nrshida, my suggestion is just try to have fun rather than get frustrated with this topic.

[Puma44]

Also IN

[DaveBB]

[Ack-Ack]

The thread was probably locked because there was nothing really further to discuss and the only direction that thread was going to go was downhill.  Preventive measures I guess.

[Brooke]

I like when folks find more data and info on aircraft.

[nrshida]

See Rule #4

[FLS]

The complaint here is that there was insufficient assurance that another unspecified complaint would be given the consideration the unspecified complaint might have warranted if it turns out to actually be an issue after the complainant looks into it.

[nrshida]

The complaint here is that there was insufficient assurance that another unspecified complaint would be given the consideration the unspecified complaint might have warranted if it turns out to actually be an issue after the complainant looks into it.

You are free to interpret proceedings in any way which comfortably matches your model of the world 

[Arlo]

See Rule #4

[nrshida]

See Rule #4