Reply to thread

Message

Classic response of a feather ruffled debater. In Australia we call that being a sook. When and where did I deny in a “religious” manner these flaws you speak of? Ohh that’s right rather than instantly agreeing with your nose down belly landing hypothesis I offered an alternative hypothesis considering some other features of the aircraft. To fit your description I would have ignored this issue and stormed on with other statements. But I guess I should have been more ‘diplomatic’ and bowed down at your hypothesis and apologised for daring to meekly offer any possible alternative which of course would have been by private message to avoid any public disagreement.

If you want to insist that the Convair Model 49 suffers from a significant safety shortfall in relation to a conventional helicopter because its three widely separated versus two closely located engines could simultaneously fail or be disabled and/or its enclosed, much smaller propeller system could be damaged versus a highly exposed and large rotor system leading to a failure to utilise its crew ejection system requiring a glide in, belly landing and despite a distended belly lifting the lip of the shroud above the level of a ground and a centre of gravity well behind this lip and even if it did tumble forward the crew are in an armoured, separating capsule removing them from being rolled over inside the breaking up vehicle compared to a conventional helicopter losing its rotor and crashing to the ground with only crash absorbance to save the crew well that’s your point of view freely expressed. However anyone interested in free expression should understand it comes hand in hand with free critique.

Actually that’s not true. I expressed the belief that the ability to shot a crossbow into the shroud of a moving at ~>100 knots (as is the basis of the scenario originally expressed) Model 49 AAFSS is something only fictional Ewoks could do. I mentioned later that such a crossbow would be blunted by the side armour of the 49er. The two are very different engagement geometries. The side the 49er could be hit while the air vehicle is hovering, landed, etc and subsequently be a much easier shot to make.

But heah this is a critique of your opinion as expressed so this must be universe-destroying, hyperbolic, religious, fervored, etc…

<blockquote data-quote="Abraham Gubler" data-source="post: 101731" data-attributes="member: 1361">Classic response of a feather ruffled debater. In Australia we call that being a sook. When and where did I deny in a “religious” manner these flaws you speak of? Ohh that’s right rather than instantly agreeing with your nose down belly landing hypothesis I offered an alternative hypothesis considering some other features of the aircraft. To fit your description I would have ignored this issue and stormed on with other statements. But I guess I should have been more ‘diplomatic’ and bowed down at your hypothesis and apologised for daring to meekly offer any possible alternative which of course would have been by private message to avoid any public disagreement.If you want to insist that the Convair Model 49 suffers from a significant safety shortfall in relation to a conventional helicopter because its three widely separated versus two closely located engines could simultaneously fail or be disabled and/or its enclosed, much smaller propeller system could be damaged versus a highly exposed and large rotor system leading to a failure to utilise its crew ejection system requiring a glide in, belly landing and despite a distended belly lifting the lip of the shroud above the level of a ground and a centre of gravity well behind this lip and even if it did tumble forward the crew are in an armoured, separating capsule removing them from being rolled over inside the breaking up vehicle compared to a conventional helicopter losing its rotor and crashing to the ground with only crash absorbance to save the crew well that’s your point of view freely expressed. However anyone interested in free expression should understand it comes hand in hand with free critique.Actually that’s not true. I expressed the belief that the ability to shot a crossbow into the shroud of a moving at ~&gt;100 knots (as is the basis of the scenario originally expressed) Model 49 AAFSS is something only fictional Ewoks could do. I mentioned later that such a crossbow would be blunted by the side armour of the 49er. The two are very different engagement geometries. The side the 49er could be hit while the air vehicle is hovering, landed, etc and subsequently be a much easier shot to make.But heah this is a critique of your opinion as expressed so this must be universe-destroying, hyperbolic, religious, fervored, etc…</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Abraham Gubler, post: 101731, member: 1361"] Classic response of a feather ruffled debater. In Australia we call that being a sook. When and where did I deny in a “religious” manner these flaws you speak of? Ohh that’s right rather than instantly agreeing with your nose down belly landing hypothesis I offered an alternative hypothesis considering some other features of the aircraft. To fit your description I would have ignored this issue and stormed on with other statements. But I guess I should have been more ‘diplomatic’ and bowed down at your hypothesis and apologised for daring to meekly offer any possible alternative which of course would have been by private message to avoid any public disagreement. If you want to insist that the Convair Model 49 suffers from a significant safety shortfall in relation to a conventional helicopter because its three widely separated versus two closely located engines could simultaneously fail or be disabled and/or its enclosed, much smaller propeller system could be damaged versus a highly exposed and large rotor system leading to a failure to utilise its crew ejection system requiring a glide in, belly landing and despite a distended belly lifting the lip of the shroud above the level of a ground and a centre of gravity well behind this lip and even if it did tumble forward the crew are in an armoured, separating capsule removing them from being rolled over inside the breaking up vehicle compared to a conventional helicopter losing its rotor and crashing to the ground with only crash absorbance to save the crew well that’s your point of view freely expressed. However anyone interested in free expression should understand it comes hand in hand with free critique. Actually that’s not true. I expressed the belief that the ability to shot a crossbow into the shroud of a moving at ~>100 knots (as is the basis of the scenario originally expressed) Model 49 AAFSS is something only fictional Ewoks could do. I mentioned later that such a crossbow would be blunted by the side armour of the 49er. The two are very different engagement geometries. The side the 49er could be hit while the air vehicle is hovering, landed, etc and subsequently be a much easier shot to make. But heah this is a critique of your opinion as expressed so this must be universe-destroying, hyperbolic, religious, fervored, etc… [/QUOTE]

Verification