P-51 question.

In article ,
wrote:

Do I believe that America was to blame for 9-11? Yes -- in the sense
that the terrorists were attacking the United States because of its
Mid-East policies.

This crock of **** doesn't even deserve a valid response because
if it ain't flamebait, it damn sure oughta' be!

Oh Good Lord. It's not flamebait. Like I said in my original post (which
you used selective editing to cut down), thinking that Al Qaeda attacked
the U.S. because of American policies does not imply a moral judgement.

Why was the US attacked, if not because some ****head terrorist
disagreed with our policies? Are you so blinded as to think we were
attacked just for the hell of it? All I'm saying is I doubt uncle Osama
would have put us in his sights if not for our support of Israel and
troops in Saudi Arabia. Geez.

"Kevin Brooks"
Bombardiers own website:

"The Arlington, Virginia-based airline (US Air), seventh-largest in
the U.S., placed a firm order for sixty 50-seat CRJ200 and twenty-five
75-seat dual class CRJ700 Series 705 jets. The transaction also
includes rights for 90 re-confirmable orders plus 100 options. US
Airways could acquire up to 275 Bombardier CRJ aircraft under terms of
the contract, announced May 12, 2003."

Who sold us the following: 707, 747, 757, 737, 727, DC-9, DC-8, L1011, and
others that I can't think of the numbers right now. Bombardier jets are
popular with the airlines now because they can't fill the seats of the big
body jets like the 747, 767, etc. Civilian airlines are there to make
"money" and they shop for the most practical and least expensive product.
The country that makes them is irrelevant. They are out to make a buck for
their share holders. If they don't do that it's curtains for them! A lot
of the US Airlines were given loan guarantees by our Government so they
would buy Canadian. They even got censored for that by the WTO. All
countries do this just as your government subsidizes you agricultural
industry. Free Trade my ASS!

"Ed Majden" wrote:
"Kevin Brooks wrote:

Bombardiers own website:

"The Arlington, Virginia-based airline (US Air), seventh-largest in
the U.S., placed a firm order for sixty 50-seat CRJ200 and twenty-five
75-seat dual class CRJ700 Series 705 jets. The transaction also
includes rights for 90 re-confirmable orders plus 100 options. US
Airways could acquire up to 275 Bombardier CRJ aircraft under terms of
the contract, announced May 12, 2003."

Who sold us the following: 707, 747, 757, 737, 727, DC-9, DC-8, L1011, and
others that I can't think of the numbers right now. Bombardier jets are
popular with the airlines now because they can't fill the seats of the big
body jets like the 747, 767, etc. Civilian airlines are there to make
"money" and they shop for the most practical and least expensive product.
The country that makes them is irrelevant. They are out to make a buck for
their share holders. If they don't do that it's curtains for them! A lot
of the US Airlines were given loan guarantees by our Government so they
would buy Canadian. They even got censored for that by the WTO. All
countries do this just as your government subsidizes you agricultural
industry. Free Trade my ASS!

And you're more full of **** than a brontasaurus with NO ass, Ed!

Like I said, you really do need to go back to Marketing 101 because:

1) Regional jets (not just Bombardier) were rapidly gaining in
popularity even when the majors were in their heyday still packing
'em in like sardines before 9/11...

2) You continue to flatter yourself. None of either the civilian mass
produced American aircraft you clicked off above OR the military
aircraft you mentioned in a previous post required Canada's financial
support. Furthurmore, many of those U.S. aircraft were (and are)
exported to other countries, not just Canada....

3) With regards to the AVRO CF-105, you have to admit that it was
incredibly stupid on Canada's part to waste all that time and money
on designing, production tooling, prototype development, flight
testing etc. based on nothing more than an assumption that the USA
would buy your product.

-Mike Marron

In article ,
"Ed Majden" writes:

wrote in message
First you blame America for the demise of the AVRO CF-105 (because we
didn't subsidize YOUR aircraft industry) and now you blame the USA
for Canada's weaseling out of going to Iraq because we didn't get
the UN onboard
-Mike Marron

I just pointed out that one of the reasons the Arrow was cancelled was
that the USA would not buy it. Now lets look at the hard facts!

Canada bought: USA bought
F86
Banshee
T-33 ZIP
CF-104
CF-101
CF-5
CIM10B Bomarc
C130 Herc
CF-18
and others!

Erm - Canada built their own Sabres. While the Mk 2s and 4s were
pretty much straight F-86Es, (And, in fact the USAF bought 60 Canadair
built Mk 2s as F-86Es), the 5s and 6s were, aguably, the best Day
Fighter Sabres, with teh extra oomph of the Orenda Orenda engines.
They also built a huge raft of Sabres for the RAF, which provided them
with their only effective swept wing fighters until the Hunters
finally got into service.

Tha Canadians also built their own T-33s, as well. The biggest
difference between a Canadian T-33 and the Lockheed built ones was the
substitution of a Rolls Nene for the J33. A little more performance,
abd a lot simpler to get started.

They also built their own -104s. These were uniquely configured,
being pure Nuclear Strike aircraft. No guns, no Sirewinders, and no
conventional bombs. They also built a bunch of F-104Gs for NATO.

Nost of those airplanes were built with U.S. contributions of MBAP
funds. (As were Hunters, Mysteres and Canberras)

It seems to me that the U.S did a lot of, if not propping
up. encouragement of the Canadian Aviation Industry.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

wrote:

David Windhorst wrote:
wrote:

And no round engine. Lots of good reasons why the USN preferred
air-cooled over liquid-cooled engines.

At what point did the USN decide they preferred twin-engined a/c?
What's the evolution of that philosophy? Did it come out of the
sometimes questionable reliability of early turbine powerplants? Before
the advent of jets, was there ever any similar preference expressed for
piston twins?

Good questions. The RCAF seems to prefer twin-engined fighters too.

Anyone?

-Mike Marron

I've heard it mentioned that the reason for that is the
comparatively much greater distances between available airports
in Canada mandating the added reliability of twins.
--

-Gord.

"Peter Stickney"
Erm - Canada built their own Sabres. While the Mk 2s and 4s were
pretty much straight F-86Es, (And, in fact the USAF bought 60 Canadair
built Mk 2s as F-86Es), the 5s and 6s were, aguably, the best Day
Fighter Sabres, with teh extra oomph of the Orenda Orenda engines.
They also built a huge raft of Sabres for the RAF, which provided them
with their only effective swept wing fighters until the Hunters
finally got into service.

Tha Canadians also built their own T-33s, as well. The biggest
difference between a Canadian T-33 and the Lockheed built ones was the
substitution of a Rolls Nene for the J33. A little more performance,
abd a lot simpler to get started.

They also built their own -104s. These were uniquely configured,
being pure Nuclear Strike aircraft. No guns, no Sirewinders, and no
conventional bombs. They also built a bunch of F-104Gs for NATO.

Nost of those airplanes were built with U.S. contributions of MBAP
funds. (As were Hunters, Mysteres and Canberras)

It seems to me that the U.S did a lot of, if not propping
up. encouragement of the Canadian Aviation Industry.

--
Pete Stickney

True. That's part of the defence procurement agreements between
friendly governments. All the above were built under licence so both
countries benefited by this cooperation. I don't know where you people get
the idea I'm anti American. I served with the American forces with NATO and
NORAD. Some of my best friends are Americans and my niece is married to a
US sailor. Much of what I have pointed out has been distorted by Marion's
hostile attitude toward Canada!

Ed

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
wrote:

Good questions. The RCAF seems to prefer twin-engined fighters too.

Anyone?

I've heard it mentioned that the reason for that is the
comparatively much greater distances between available airports
in Canada mandating the added reliability of twins.

The USAF's 317th FIS based at Elmendorf AFB (Anchorage, AK) flew
single-engine fighters (F-102's) for 12-years.

-Mike Marron

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
wrote:

The question remains, how long can an CF-18 (or other contemporary
twin-engined fighters) operate on a single engine? Until it runs out
of gas?

I'm having trouble understanding your question Mike...are you
suggesting that some twins can't do that?...if that's so then
what's the point of adding a second engine?.

Question answered already Gord, (see below...)

***

From: Ed Rasimus
Subject: P-51 question.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Date: 2003-08-22

As for how long the listed aircraft can fly on one engine, I brought
an F-4E with one engine shut-down due to a fire light home from the
NVN/Laos border near Sam Neue, through an aerial refueling and back to
Thailand where I recovered at Udorn. I cleaned the airplane off (the
tanks had already been jettisoned earlier in the mission, and the
racks went when the engine got shut down,) it it flew quite
comfortably.

No F-5 experience, but in simulated single engine flight, the T-38 was
equally comfortable. The service ceiling dropped to around 20,000
feet, but it flew well and was quite capable of single engine
approaches and go-arounds without a lot of heavy breathing. Never shut
an engine down in flight in more than 1400 hours of Talon time.

***

-Mike Marron

wrote in message
...
"Ed Majden" wrote:

True. That's part of the defence procurement agreements between
friendly governments. All the above were built under licence so both
countries benefited by this cooperation. I don't know where you people
get
the idea I'm anti American. I served with the American forces with NATO
and
NORAD. Some of my best friends are Americans and my niece is married to
a
US sailor. Much of what I have pointed out has been distorted by Marion's
hostile attitude toward Canada!

Me...hostile towards Canada? Nah...

-Mike (So, when are you guys going to join the US in Iraq?) Marron

I'm too dammed old and besides I served my time, 28 years of it! Why
aren't you over there serving your country??????
Ed

"Ed Majden" wrote:
wrote:

Me...hostile towards Canada? Nah...

-Mike (So, when are you guys going to join the US in Iraq?) Marron

I'm too dammed old and besides I served my time, 28 years of it!

Maybe that explains why it's so tough keeping you focused and
on-topic. Note that " you guys" in my sentence above clearly
distinguishes between singular (e.g: one) and plural (e.g: more than
one). In other words, Ed, since I have to spell it out for you, "you
guys" meant Canada, not YOU.

Why aren't you over there serving your country??????

See above.

-Mike (So, when is CA-NA-DUH going to join the US in Iraq?) Marron