Lots of wishful thinking in this thread. Sims are BS.
--Lance.
--Lance.
Lots of wishful thinking in this thread. Sims are BS.
--Lance.
Yes, many are and I will credit those. Others are not.People are posting flight data, not sims.
Yes, many are and I will credit those. Others are not.
I find it startling that the KLOUDbusters Prez can tell the difference between a sim file and an altimeter file. And can't use a sim to provide non-BS data.
But to say there is "lots of wishful thinking" on the thread sounds like someone tried to go Mach one, couldn't, and is bitter. But for all I know he goes Mach 4 all the time.
I have gone over mach one a few time ( SIM) but no data so it does not count yet
RRC3.
Oh yes, I know full well the difference between a Sim file and an altimeter download. I will just point out that there are 6 posts in this thread with flight data. There are a few impossible claims that I (perhaps wrongly) assume were taken from Sims. OTOH, I know for a fact that Jim Jarvis' statements are legitimate.Butthurt isn't quite the right word, but close. Wadded my panties are. I guess I was upset that he was dismissing people's accomplishments on an incorrect assumption. I see now that there were a few that didn't provide proof. I think it's safe to say that the .35 Mach flight is probably valid. And so is Jim Jarvis' M3. But to say there is "lots of wishful thinking" on the thread sounds like someone tried to go Mach one, couldn't, and is bitter. But for all I know he goes Mach 4 all the time.
Oh yes, I know full well the difference between a Sim file and an altimeter download. I will just point out that there are 6 posts in this thread with flight data. There are a few impossible claims that I (perhaps wrongly) assume were taken from Sims. OTOH, I know for a fact that Jim Jarvis' statements are legitimate.
I don't want to call out individuals for their outlandish claims. In time, they will learn their place. I also know how hard it is to build a rocket from scratch to hit Mach 1.5 or Mach 2.0 from a day when commercial composite components were not commonplace. Being caretaker over a launch site that can handle most every sort of supersonic attempt, I have a pretty good idea of what rocket on which motor will bust Mach 1 and that it is much easier to claim a Mach flight that actually accomplish one.
That is all - I will check out now. Nothing to see here.
--Lance.
Successfully?
Unsuccessfully?
There's no option for 3 or 4?
Flight data means exactly squat. Accelerometers screw up all the time.
kind of a blanket statement don't ya think?
I think the point about posting or not posting data was to eliminate all the "imaginary" results. Like "rasaero said I flew mach3" or "rock sim said it flew mach4"