So procuring deficient planes like the ones Juan suggested is better than developing a better plane? Interesting."I could'a been a contender" might work in the movies. But it doesn't and shouldn't, in military procurement.
That's a standard that even #juan used to have.
What's interesting, is the fabrication you just made, lol.So procuring deficient planes like the ones Juan suggested is better than developing a better plane? Interesting.
The Arrow wasn't superior, lol.Gawd forbid the military would ever want anything that would likely prove to be superior.
Even more interesting is the idea that you think a question is relating a fabrication. BTW, it was a question; hence the little squiggly thing at the end of the letters.What's interesting, is the fabrication you just made, lol.
Better climb rate, decidedly supersonic, higher flying, easier to handle, etc. You can ignore the technical aspects that made it a pretty good craft if you wish, but that's up to you.The Arrow wasn't superior, lol.
:roll:Even more interesting is the idea that you think a question is relating a fabrication. BTW, it was a question; hence the little squiggly thing at the end of the letters.
You can ignore the chart previously posted if you like, but that's up to you.Better climb rate, decidedly supersonic, higher flying, easier to handle, etc. You can ignore the technical aspects that made it a pretty good craft if you wish, but that's up to you.
For what? Myth making?
It worked.
Or all the could'a been claims made about the Arrow.A myth is something like a ghost or a goblin.
He's posting in here or are you just myopic?:roll:
OK EAO.
I don't recall seeing a chart.You can ignore the chart previously posted if you like, but that's up to you.
Nope, and nope. Despite the question mark, the 'question' pertained to nothing I ever stated, and 'interesting' is an interesting qualifier, that sorta negates the whole question thingy.He's posting in here or are you just myopic?
Obviously you haven't, or you wouldn't be making all sorts of silly claims.I don't recall seeing a chart.
Or all the could'a been claims made about the Arrow.
They didn't beat was already out there over all.The Arrow prototypes were great.
So could I, lol.They could have been greater.
What a load of sh!t.You would understand better if you had been in the Canadian military at the time of the cancellation.
Well, you could have just said that to begin with, instead of gibbering about fabrications.Nope, and nope. Despite the question mark, the 'question' pertained to nothing I ever stated,
I was curious. Not my fault if you don't find curious things interesting.and 'interesting' is an interesting qualifier, that sorta negates the whole question thingy.
Not silly claims. I am just going by what I read in the links I provided. You're mocking the messenger, silly.Obviously you haven't, or you wouldn't be making all sorts of silly claims.
I'm glad you agree that your 'question' was a based on a fabrication of commentary I never offered., lol.Well, you could have just said that to begin with, instead of gibbering about fabrications.
I have links that say the Arrow would still be a technological marvel.Not silly claims. I am just going by what I read in the links I provided.
Ya, I have a tendency to do that when the messenger starts to make things up about what I've said.You're mocking the messenger, silly.
Of course I do. Because what is, is what matters.Bear, you've been told over and over that the Arrow in the tests you keep harping had about 30 percent less power than the Iriquois (SP)
and that the Arrows tested were carrying fifteen hundred pounds of lead ballast and you still harp about those bloody charts.
lol Nice try at spin but it failed.I'm glad you agree that your 'question' was a based on a fabrication of commentary I never offered., lol.
If you post em, I'll read them.I have links that say the Arrow would still be a technological marvel.
Questioning is not making things up. Questioning is an attempt at clarification, which I eventually got from you after a post or two of sputtering.Ya, I have a tendency to do that when the messenger starts to make things up about what I've said.
I agree, your spin failed. Good of you to admit that. Now if you could only stop doing it.lol Nice try at spin but it failed.
Sorry to burst your little balloon, but I admitted no such thing.I agree, your spin failed. Good of you to admit that. Now if you could only stop doing it.
LOL!!!Keep tossing out the logical fallacies. It's funny.
Well, offhand; circular reasoning - the plane was no good because it didn't make it to trials, but it didn't make it to trials because it was cancelled, but it was cancelled because the PTB thought it was no good.LOL!!!
Oh please do tell me just what logical fallacy I tossed out?
I mean I know I didn't ask a 'question' for clarification, about something you never said, and then qualified that question with the word 'interesting'.
But I really do look forward to the logical fallacy I used, lol.