Comments from an Eagle pilot

[Dusty Rhodes]

I am sure after reading this abomination of a thread where the guy has been called an asshole and is accused of not being a pilot, that he will take the correct road and figure F you idiot virtual nobodies who go butt hurt because he said something that is true. Unbelievable!

[*Rage*]

Read the PPT, and then when you have some -specific- questions, we can talk about it. I'm not inclined to put effort to explain anything to you when you've not made an effort to understand the material - your only comeback being doubt as to the veracity of the NAVI. By all means, /call/ them and confirm.

 

They'll explain this much better to you than I can, too, though I'm sure I can do an adequate job - when you stop looking for a fight.

 

And I suggest, if you really want to contradict me, you better come up with a source that does so, rather than the wishy-washy excuse you got yourself stuck to. Otherwise there's really zip, zilch and nada to talk about with you - and I mean that in the most non-offensive (yet blunt), factual manner.

 

Wishy washy excuse?

 

Remind me which one that was?

 

I've no sources because i have nothing to prove. The burden of proof is on you since youre the one on a mission to prove something.

 

You seem convinced the current G model is incorrect yet you offer nothing tangible to support your claims.

[S77th-GOYA]

I suggest we all show up on HL in 2 hours and try to blow each other to smithereens. It won't solve anything but we'll feel better.

[*Rage*]

I suggest we all show up on HL in 2 hours and try to blow each other to smithereens. It won't solve anything but we'll feel better.

 

Agreed;)

[GGTharos]

Wishy washy excuse?

 

Remind me which one that was?

 

Uhuh, this is what the ED guy said, I don't have anything to back it up but I'll believe him anyway! (not that I have anything against Yo-Yo. This is your screw up.)

 

I've no sources because i have nothing to prove. The burden of proof is on you since youre the one on a mission to prove something.

 

You seem convinced the current G model is incorrect yet you offer nothing tangible to support your claims.

 

You misunderstood. I don't need to prove anything to -you-.

I've sent many more materials to ED already than I have presented here.

 

Now, as far as proving anything to you ... if you come up with a reason as to why my source, as presented, does not stand up to scrutiny, off we go and discuss/argue. If you CANNOT, then you're basically spouting off. Once you accuse me of being wrong, the 'burden of proof' is yours. You don't get to spout off 'you're wrong', show nothing for it, and then demand that I prove myself right. What I presented stands on its own. You've got nothing. Zip, zilch, nada.

 

Wait, you have the following claim:

 

 

You seem convinced the current G model is incorrect yet you offer nothing tangible to support your claims.

 

In which you are already wrong.

[*Rage*]

Uhuh, this is what the ED guy said, I don't have anything to back it up but I'll believe him anyway! (not that I have anything against Yo-Yo. This is your screw up.)

 

 

 

You misunderstood. I don't need to prove anything to -you-.

I've sent many more materials to ED already than I have presented here.

 

Now, as far as proving anything to you ... if you come up with a reason as to why my source, as presented, does not stand up to scrutiny, off we go and discuss/argue. If you CANNOT, then you're basically spouting off. Once you accuse me of being wrong, the 'burden of proof' is yours. You don't get to spout off 'you're wrong', show nothing for it, and then demand that I prove myself right. What I presented stands on its own. You've got nothing. Zip, zilch, nada.

 

Wait, you have the following claim:

 

 

 

In which you are already wrong.

 

That post was no different to your last one, and you've not answered any of my questions nor presented anything new.

 

If you've sent material to ED have they acted upon it?

 

Do they agree with it? If so why does Yo-Yo defend current G modelling?

[GGTharos]

That post was no different to your last one, and you've not answered any of my questions nor presented anything new.

 

You didn't ask anything that you couldn't learn by reading the PPT. Are you being deliberately obtuse? :) Why should I parrot the PPT when you can read it? :)

 

If you've sent material to ED have they acted upon it?

 

Do they agree with it? If so why does Yo-Yo defend current G modelling?

 

 

Ask them :)

[Mizzy]

"In the winter of 1954, psychologist Leon Festinger infiltrated a cult led by Marion Keech, a suburban homemaker in Lake City, Minneapolis who claimed to communicate with aliens. Her followers, believing the end of the world was imminent, had become convinced they would be whisked to safety on a space ship. Needless to say, when the prophesied date of destruction arrived, neither apocalypse nor extraterrestrial rescuers materialized. The question that intrigued Festinger was: faced with undeniable evidence, would the cult members renounce their beliefs?

 

As Festinger found in his groundbreaking research on the theory of cognitive dissonance (that uncomfortable state created by two contradictory ideas), exactly he opposite occurred. Rather than admitting to themselves that they had been duped, they inerpreted the failure of the prophecy as a confirmation of their beliefs: the world had been spared because of their faith."

 

Deborah Campbell, "Believers and Deceivers: The Political Psychology of US Power," Adbusters Jan/Feb 2007

 

-SK

 

Tell me about it :D

 

Mizzy

 

PS forgot to say, cognitive dissonance and Leon Festinger was required reading when I was at University in Leeds UK. Thank you SK for this memory lane school of thought :)

[*Rage*]

You didn't ask anything that you couldn't learn by reading the PPT. Are you being deliberately obtuse? :) Why should I parrot the PPT when you can read it? :)

 

 

 

 

Ask them :)

 

Lol.....i could recycle posts with you all night but i have work tomorrow.

 

I repeat to you there is nothing in that PPT to dissprove current modelling.

The only thing that might is the combat edge suit and that was only operational from 1995-6 and thus isnt in lomac timeframe (warped as it is) and therefore not simulated.

[GGTharos]

I repeat to you there is nothing in that PPT to dissprove current modelling.

 

Okay. Now you qualify that statement. This is the first step towards an argument, so lets get rolling. :)

 

The only thing that might is the combat edge suit and that was only operational from 1995-6 and thus isnt in lomac timeframe (warped as it is) and therefore not simulated.

 

No, that isn't the only thing. Are you -sure- you read the PPT? :)

[*Rage*]

Ok one last time...........

 

I am not unhappy with EDs G model.

 

I am not contesting it therefore i have nothing to prove.

 

You are not happy with EDs G model.....you think it is wrong and should be changed......

 

Pray tell........Offer us proof.

 

You've yet to answer my questions about that PPT. Furthermore there is nothing in it nor your "informal chat with the F15 pilot" to justify your claims.

 

This whole issue was discussed to death months if not years ago and ED have not changed their opinion as posted on this forum. It was the same then as it is today according to Yo-Yos post despite all the "evidence" you sent them.

[GGTharos]

Ok one last time...........

 

I am not unhappy with EDs G model.

 

Yay for you :)

 

I am not contesting it therefore i have nothing to prove.

Wrong. The moment you tell me my material's wrong, you have to prove its wrong. If you do NOT want to be in an argument, don't enter it. The moment you state an opinion, as you did, you have to back it up. You are not absolved of that by saying 'I am not contesting it'. You are contesting the material I offered, and so far you've offered squat to show that it is in any way irrelevant or wrong. So, either retract your statement - that the PPT doesn't prove that this model is wrong - or show why it is that the PPT does not prove that the G-model is wrong.

 

You are not happy with EDs G model.....you think it is wrong and should be changed......

 

Pray tell........Offer us proof.

I already did. You rejected it with zero explanation :)

 

You've yet to answer my questions about that PPT. Furthermore there is nothing in it nor your "informal chat with the F15 pilot" to justify your claims.

I think you're not reading. You asked one thing only: 'Show me how this PPT shows that the model is wrong'. I didn't do that, and I didn't do it for a very specific reason: You are basically asking me to parrot out the PPT for you, and interpret it. I would rather you read it, and asked a more focused question. 'Cause as far as I'm concerned, what you're really asking is:

 

'Uh I don't understand this stuff, explain it to me' ... and if you ask it like that, then that's fine, but pretending to know what you're talking about and demanding 'proof' from me is not ok.

 

This whole issue was discussed to death months if not years ago and ED have not changed their opinion as posted on this forum. It was the same then as it is today according to Yo-Yos post despite all the "evidence" you sent them.

I don't think you should be speaking for Yo-Yo. For all I know they haven't read all this stuff yet :)

[GGTharos]

Ah, and, for the record .. I think the Realistic G-Model is brilliant. However, I disagree with its numerical parameters ;)

[*Rage*]

Sigh......

 

As far as im concerned you havent added anything since 4 pages ago.

 

No proof

 

No justification

 

No argument

 

No point

 

Its getting late here. Ill continue this tomorow.

[GGTharos]

Sigh......

 

As far as im concerned you havent added anything since 4 pages ago.

 

Then you actually need to get your brain into gear. You are correct, I haven't added anything. That isn't the problem. The problem is that you're clueless and you're pretending to be qualified to judge something which you're obviously not. :)

 

Man, that is the LAMEST cop out you could have used to get yoruself out of this in any manner.

 

Its getting late here. Ill continue this tomorow.

 

No, don't. Continue it after you have some knowledge to base your opinion on, or at least when you have a valid argument to make.

Arguments that are not backed up are not valid. Logic 101. Mine is backed up. You questioned the validity of my proof. You haven't been able to back up your claim that my proof is irrelevant or invalid - you have presented NO evidence to this effect, save for saying that ED is standing by its model - that's a cop out, that's not proof.

Your argument is still invalid, and you're either obviously incapable of understanding this, or you're deliberately avoiding that little fact to make yourself look like you know something.

 

Which one is it?

[*Rage*]

Then you actually need to get your brain into gear. You are correct, I haven't added anything. That isn't the problem. The problem is that you're clueless and you're pretending to be qualified to judge something which you're obviously not. :)

 

Man, that is the LAMEST cop out you could have used to get yoruself out of this in any manner.

 

 

 

No, don't. Continue it after you have some knowledge to base your opinion on, or at least when you have a valid argument to make.

Arguments that are not backed up are not valid. Logic 101. Mine is backed up. You questioned the validity of my proof. You haven't been able to back up your claim that my proof is irrelevant or invalid - you have presented NO evidence to this effect, save for saying that ED is standing by its model - that's a cop out, that's not proof.

Your argument is still invalid, and you're either obviously incapable of understanding this, or you're deliberately avoiding that little fact to make yourself look like you know something.

 

Which one is it?

 

Im tired of repeating this as if it were a mantra.

There is nothing in that PPT to prove current modelling wrong.

 

No clear author or date presented, no references, just an air of unprofessionalism.

 

Youve not convinced me and by the sound of things neither have you convinced ED.

 

Furthermore there is no need to get personal. If you cant continue this discussion without losing your head then im out.

[GGTharos]

Furthermore there is no need to get personal. If you cant continue this discussion without losing your head then im out.

 

It's not personal, it's a fact:

 

You haven't bothered trying to look up the author. But I'll give you that one for free:

http://www.nomi.med.navy.mil/NAMI/aeromedbriefs/index.htm

G TOLERANCE IMPROVEMENT (CDR Scott Shapely, 01/2001)

 

(Did you in fact bother looking at the site and trying to find this? I mean, not that you had to - I should have offered this info, my bad - but then you claimed to go look around. Your bad.)

 

You haven't bothered verifying the document.

You haven't bothered verifying the source of the document.

You haven't made a valid argument.

 

These are all good reasons for you to stay out of the discussion.

[GGTharos]

And hey, just for you. Quote from yet -ANOTHER- USAF pilot:

 

'you have got to be the worlds largest wuss if thats what it is like for you'

 

'if it was like that for when i fly i would black out all the time....in fact they would probably ground the whole dam fleet untill someone came up with a solution'

 

 

If he wants to give up who he is, that's his business, not mine - so don't ask me for that.

[Dusty Rhodes]

Something isn't right with Noidskie. He claims to have flown the F-15 since 1983, yet in Goya's post he found a thread http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/756105611/m/91...421054425#5421054425 , where someone of the same name says he was Special Forces 18B from 1985-1991. As far as I know, Green Berets don't fly F-15's as part of their job.

[GGTharos]

Yeah. Too bad you didn't look at that before making your caustic post Dusty.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Ruh-roh. Now THAT is some pertinent information that I hadn't noticed in the lo-mac.com post. Not a very likely scenario. :noexpression:

[Frostie]

Something isn't right with Noidskie. He claims to have flown the F-15 since 1983, yet in Goya's post he found a thread http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/756105611/m/91...421054425#5421054425 , where someone of the same name says he was Special Forces 18B from 1985-1991. As far as I know, Green Berets don't fly F-15's as part of their job.

:idiot: Surely if Arnold Scwarzathingy can fly Harriers then why not Green Berets flying F-15's ???

 

I hate wednesdays too.

[hitman]

Cuz the Governator flew Harriers in that secret government thingie. The Omega something or whatever.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Yeah, didn't his buddy, Gib tell that Marine Corps Captain that Harry had 20 hours in them?

[Kuky]

I like that quote of Polish MiG-29 Pilot who said that once you pull a few G's and make an aircraft make high AoA it noses down very quickly if you push on the stick... this reminds me of seing a few video's of MiG-29's doing that exact same thing when they do a manouvre close to a Cobra (not as much of high AoA) and they recover from it very quickly... where as I try doing this with empty loaded MiG-29A in LockOn... the plane realy does get "stuck" on this AoA (as the Polish MiG-29 Pilot says) for a while... then slowly recovers... anyway, this thing he said really cought my eye and makes me wonder if this is not done corretly for the MiG-29, or maybe for all aircraft???

 

Also I don't think G-lock or black-outs should be modeled according to some pilots statements that they can do 8G's no problem or so because, I think, not all pilots actually can do this... I recall watching a video of F-16 pilot going a 9G sustained 360deg turn (or as close to 9G's because the aircraft will lose speed in that turn quite quickly and lose abolity to sustain 9G's) and the comentator said not all pilots can do this kind of turn... and that it's a very hard thing do to.. very demanding and straining on the pilot.

 

I seriously doubt every pilot can do this.. so why all of us no real life pilot people should be given the ability to do this as if we are all Superman? or wait... Superpilot :D

 

Edit: alright, on the other hand, I know real fighter pilots can do 8-9 G's but I am sure it is very straining on them... and it does make a man tired doing this... so I can understand that your ability to sustain high G's does diminish with doing them for a while as you get tired. But then again pilots do keep training and keep fit for this purpose...

 

Also makes me think that this G-lock modelling shouldn't be same for all aircraft because, for example, in F-16 the seat is inclined back to make pilot sustain high G's easier, so naturally for same pilot pulling G's in F-16 should be easier then say in F-15?