Deino
INT'L MOD
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2014
- Messages
- 12,780
- Reaction score
- 22
- Country
- Location
I keep on instigating them to do some research to bring out some useful debate, but looks like they are all school kids. I am here for a shortwhile.
Pardon, but so far any request to show us these changes you noticed or explain a bit more in detail were ignored! All you did, was posting a request that someone with CAD capabilities might do a better job … and by the way regardless what certain grumpy old man tells you - and I‘m sure it is not too difficult to find out who I am - I‘m not a spy, but only a critical enthusiast with an eager interest to learn, but I‘m not willing to accept everything only since someone says so. For example claims - supported by this genius with huge "engineering background & is not clueless of metal and material" - like an Italian engine being ready for Block 3 or fuel tanks in the cockpit walls are IMO unlikely or plain impossible.
If I‘m wrong, then it‘s fine and I have no problem to admit and apologise, but not without a proper prove.
Again, I‘m eager to learn and I try my best to do so like several others too … as such, to only ridicule us as stupid „school boys“ since we are not able to see those mentioned major changes based on a short cryptically sentence is IMO unfair and unworthy for a professional and senior member.
Hi,
He has an extremely poor engineering background & is clueless of metal and material.
Indeed, but at least I never claimed to know everything but anyway I have two working eyes and neither do I see a wider span with different aspect ratio, nor a larger, wider rear fuselage , a larger radome with LO features or even a taller landing gear.
As such I‘m still waiting for explanations or even better proof by images, otherwise I‘m not convinced. If this in return is for your proof again, that I‘m only a stupid schoolboy, then it is fine and I must accept this, but it only raises my concerns not to believe in such claims.
Last edited: