"Andrew Chaplin" wrote in
:

"Ian MacLure" wrote in message
...
"dott.Piergiorgio" wrote
in :

Ed Rasimus ha scritto:

And, don't even get started on the one engine versus two engine
aircraft business. Single engine fighters have been doing quite
nicely for decades....ooops, make that more than a century.

More a century, yes, for *aircrafts* ; for *fighters* I guess we're
still 5-7 years prior of a century of Fighters.... (depend on one's
interpretation of what bird was the first Fighter...)

Uh Dottore, thats "aircraft" not "aircrafts". Plural same as
singular. Like "moose" and "moose".

Don't take it wrong, Dottore, but this is sometimes done by native
English speakers (and is subject to more than a little regional
variation). North American professional/academic usage tends to
"aircraft" when referring to more than one. NDHQ in Ottawa has more than
a few francophone blue jobs who sound almost like native Ottawans, and
as soon as they said "aircrafts" you could peg them for their furrin
origins -- until I found that guys I knew to be square heads from out
West doing it. It's catching!

Indeed.
And then there are the folks, who refer to what might rate
as an FFG only by courtesy, as a "battleship".

IBM