M.B-5

30 minutes ago, Bronezhilet said:

If the first 'argument' you use in your reply is about race I almost feel sorry for you.

 

If you had read my post properly, I was asking you if you could improve your writing, since it's seriously hard to follow. I know barely anything about planes, and even less about plane engines, so this discussion would be interesting to follow if both sides were actually able to get their posts across. What I think about Jeep's points or opinions is irrelevant since my post was about actually being able to understand points or opinions. And at least I can understand what Jeep's is trying to convey.

 

 

Quit your whining Netherlander, & do some learnin' instead of butt-lickin'...

(FYI, just 'cause you don't comprehend something, don't mean - its - stupid).

26 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

 

Can you even figure your own shit out...

 

 

 

 

Hah!

Seems like maybe you've tried then J_G_T, & now have a bug up your butt - about the R-2800 failing to match the lousy Limey Merlin...

...for speed or distance, due to being.. yeah, such a gas-hog...

5 minutes ago, Belesarius said:

No, what I'm saying is a random assed fighter pilot is not considered a citeable source on this forum, especially without direct quotes from the individual in question.  This is a documents based forum. Evidence is needed to back your shit up.  Not just saying Bob from Bumfuck, Idaho who sat in a P-38 once and wasn't a trained P-38 pilot is qualified to be a judge.  Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.  It's just irrelevant for the standards of this forum.

 

To explain it, if you were serous about arguing the P-38 was flawed because of it's canopy design, there should be a document somewhere floating around with people complaining about it officially.  There were reports on everything, and we see them posted on this forum fairly regularly.

So its no, then..

Look dude, stop being so "random" & just 'ask your bloody self', as an Englander would put it..

2 minutes ago, Bronezhilet said:

@M.B-5, can I suggest paying more attention to the way you write? I'm having a hard time trying to understand the points you're trying to make.

You Dutchies... you guys are (almost as) funny as Canucks... ah,wait on... no, you aint...

But, to be fair,  your complaining about me is hilarious - esp' when J_G_T is doin' his act, full-on..

( or is he on your 'ignore' list, L.O.L...).

18 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

 

Why would you compare a Navy Fighter not designed for long-range missions with an Air Force fighter designed for very long range missions?     It's a loaded comparison for a person bad at arguing a point, because he is ignorant as fuck, but thinks he's an expert, tries to use to prove a stupid point. You know that whole apple and oranges thing, well, maybe you don't because you are dumb as a brick. 

No "dumb-as" - Navy designation was F-fighter, USAAF was P-pursuit, both P-38 & P-80 were Army ships..

Just now, Belesarius said:

So you don't have a reason as to why he's a citeable source. Gotcha.

 

Doh! 

You still bein' a funny-man eh, guy..

Or, is it possible... you really cannot comprehend why a fighter pilot wants a clear-view canopy - both in WW2, & now?

4 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

 

He may be trying to be clever and is referring to the F-15 developed from the P-61, not that it makes his stupid point any more relevant. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-15_Reporter

 

(hahah someone can't figure out how to post pictures....)

Yeah, that's a pretty good example right there J_G_T... the P-61 canopy was shit, like the P-38, too... 

- but at least that F-15 scored a bubble-top..L.O.L...

3 minutes ago, Belesarius said:

Again, dodging around the question. when people ask you something.

Answer my point. Why does a random F-15 jockey qualify as a citeable technical source on WWII fighter design?

 

You might be pretty "random"  eh, Canuck, but F-15 jocks aint & that's a fact..

He knows a shit canopy when he tries one on... unlike some here...

So, talk is cheap, but no one wants to pick up on my wager, eh?

Anyhow, so one of these two mid-1940s Lockheed fighters - has a shit cockpit canopy, yeah, you got it,  its the P-38...

https://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/129/pics/3_1.jpg

https://www.worldwarphotos.info/wp-content/gallery/usa/aircraft/p-38-lightning/P-38_Lightning_Maintenance_Burtonwood_England_cockpit.jpg

Dunno what's up with this site for posting pix...

Just now, Belesarius said:

As for how this forum works DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE is what we prefer, or citeable primary sources.  Some random dude named Biff isn't a citeable source that we would find credible.

 

But hey, keep going.

 

 

Biff aint no "random dude" eh, Belicosius, so you maybe wanna put some $ on it? ( Not Canuk $ though, natch L.O.L...).

8 minutes ago, Belesarius said:

Holy fuck, you really are a drooling imbecile.

The boss of the forum basically said he was ready to ban you a while ago.  Jeeps wanted to give you a chance to get back on track, but you keep going full metal retard.

 

Ok, so that bit about your preference for "civilized territory" turned out to be so much 'Canadian T-bone' eh, Canuck,

...just a cheap shot..L.O.L...

7 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

How about your stance on the P-38 needing a bubble canopy? Your own sources proved that one wrong if you can't see that you are hopeless. 

 

 

Source?

Try this:  One of the contributors on the Aircraft of WW2 Forum is 'Biff' - a veteran USAF F-15 jockey, used to a clear-view bubble,

& he's on the record there - as incredulous as to why the lousy P-38 canopy wasn't replaced - after sitting in its cockpit, too..

But I suppose, you'd rate his view as "hopeless" too, since it contracts yours..

8 minutes ago, Belesarius said:

Well, I tried to drag things back into civilized territory.

 

This Canuck is done with you.  When even the overly polite Canadian is done with your shit you know, it just might be time to shut the fuck up or go away.  But whatever. Jeeps can chew on you for a while, or the boss can lay down the banhammer. Either will be just as vaguely amusing at this point.

Yeah, that's pretty funny, ( & Canadian comics are damn good ) - but just don't try on the ol' 'maple syrup' routine too, huh..

4 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

 

So you really want to stand you have made no incorrect statements in this thread?   You have read nothing that has changed your mind?

Like what?

17 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

You think you're Han fucking Solo, but you're really Jar-Jar, buddy.

 

What you don't know is that Jeeps is the only reason you are still allowed around here. So maybe you should be nice to him, or at least keep him entertained.

 

OYG boss!

Did you just admit that you are squirting milt under pressure from J_G_T, & you are... practically... his.. bitch?

Awww... no.. c'mon, say it aint so...

12 minutes ago, roguetechie said:

No, he's just echoing what everyone else is thinking and not saying.

 

Speaking as one of the members here who isn't a world war 2 everything expert, yet gets along just fine in this forum because I KNOW and accept that i don't know shit compared to these guys! I can safely say that this is an amazing place to pull up a chair and actually learn some stuff from people who know their stuff. They have happily answered my dumb questions on more than one occasion in very friendly ways, so it's safe to say that if you're triggering this sort of response it's because you're being a fucking douchebag.

 

 

Dude, just 'cause you are "being a fuckin douchebag" - don't mean I am..

Don't be so quick to judge others by your own ignorance, huh...

( & FYI, the butt-hole licking you're so into, aint such a good look, either...).

Just now, Belesarius said:

Jeeps understands the temperament of the forum admin, as do I. We're fine with shit talking as long as you back your shit up. You obviously failed to read the forum guidelines on how to manage to fit in here.  IE, provide documents and quality content without commentary at first and ease your way into posting until you have a handle on how this place operates. Coming in and arguing with long time posers who have first hand knowledge of the topic isn't the way to make friends. or even quality enemies.

 

Yeah fixed that for you.. L.O.L...

Actually boss, I tried to find your "guidelines" at your suggestion, using the 'search function' - but nothing doin'...

However, aint the whole 'grandmasters/mean-girls' clique, bend-over for initiation newbie,  schtick - kinda last decade, already?

I'll take the good ol' 'Pepsi Challenge' on the veracity of the sources I've linked - any day of the fungin' week.

(& how is it - that the likes of J_G_T gets to vent an angry abusive tirade, rather than actually try to debunk my assertions?

Is it because he's tried/failed, but can't admit it?) 

J_G_T now thinks he's the big boss fish here! He claims to be the 'spokesman' for 'everyone' & is itchin' to wield the ban stick.

Can it be - his "self esteem/ego" has been so smalled-out by his own inability to back up his bullshit - or provide valid primary sources? 

Seems likely, well either that, or maybe - he's just a mean-as drunk...

Here's a question for the tech-heads.

The Merlin-powered P-82 'Betty Jo' - flew non-stop from Hawaii to New York, & in record time.

Could the Navy's R-2800 powered equivalent, the F7F - beat that time-to-distance record, or even fly that far, non-stop?

Hey boss, if you want to disregard your own "guidelines" - on behalf of your good ol' buddy, & purge me, for quoting him...

...its your call, for sure, even if it does stink of 'old boy priviledge' , & 'abuse of power',

- but yeah, I guess its the Trump era now, for sure, too - huh.

17 minutes ago, Domus Acipenseris said:

More on the P-38, including a study of Merlin power.

Nice opinion piece there D.A., but can you post a real in-period Service Evaluation - which validates that "400mph" P-38 claim?

Here's one from late 1941, which can, & does - present an actual 400+ mph fighter, the Hawker Typhoon.

No wonder the RAF rejected the P-38...

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/typhoon/Typhoon_AFDU_Tactical_Trials.pdf

28 minutes ago, Meplat said:

The 1710 also had a much stouter lower end, and used a pent-roof head, so tended to breathe better than the Merlin and Griffon.

 

It also has a really well thought out, modular valvetrain.

Image related-

1710 sectional

 

True Meplat, in those ways, & others, the Allison was a much better design,

& a smoother running, stronger, more durable engine, ( & in TBO) - in service.

R-R it appears, was very fortunate in having some excellent development engineers ( & sales team, as always) aboard,

to get that old-fashioned 'sows ear' of a typical old school 'nuts 'n' bolts' British engine - to work ( & sell) - as well as it did.

R-R's more innovative engines - like the Vulture, never got anywhere, by contrast.

Jeeze J_G_T, you've gone from a "2nd grade" incoherent sentence, to a veritable wall of inchoate blather! What a "twat".

You're "bouncing round" like a broken off valve head - on top of an R-2800 piston, it must be your "self-esteem issues", huh.

If anyone needs to "shut the fuck up" about the P-38, its you... 'polishing the turd' - simply serves no purpose.

& ranting abuse is no real substitute for actual primary source links, either, y'know.

Didn't you know that North American Aviation didn't want Allison engines in the P/F-82, but yeah, didn't get a choice in it..

GM ( who owned Allison) saw to that, & the Allisons never worked as well in the Twin Mustang, as the Merlin had, as it happens.

& the USAAF bosses, who'd invested so much into expensive turbo'd fighter powerplants were forced to admit it was a blind alley.

Neither P-38, or P-47 could catch an early P-51 at low level, let alone those diabolical Nazi V1 cruise missiles,

but Tempests could, & they stopped 800+ V1's - from crash diving into long-suffering Londoners.

Tempests went on to shoot down every type of FW longnose & LW turbo-jet - in service, & P-38's  didn't...

No LC, I can "handle" them bad words.

Shit, I've heard 'em all before, but the point is, Meplat's emotive response aint a substitute for understanding.

He still has to grasp the difference between arrangements of multiple gear sets & the concept of "complexity".

Yes, the gear set complex looks "busy",

but compared to lifters/pushrods/rockers/poppet valves 'n' springs all bouncing around, jerking out of adjustment,

- it is an accurate, durable, trouble-free set-up.

Profanity does not help your case, Meplat.

Denial/dIsmissal of listed merits - presented by a distinguished design engineer - as ad hype, like-wise.

Gear drives, once set - keep time, like clockwork, & make regular pushrod OHV valve clearance checks - redundant.