Liberals Ignore The Wright Brothers

Maule Driver wrote:

But I can recommend a related book, James Bradley's "Flyboys" "A true story of
courage".

I thought it was great except for two glaring errors. In one sentence he talks
about the tendency of the big radials to "stall without warning" and in another
he talks about the WWII carrier decks being very dangerous places with whirling
props,..., jet fuel,... Jet fuel? In 1943?

Those errors make me wonder about some of the other facts he presents. The book
does contain an excellent bibliography, however, so I don't think he's made
anything up, and I hope to find time to check out some of his references.

George Patterson
Some people think they hear a call to the priesthood when what they really
hear is a tiny voice whispering "It's indoor work with no heavy lifting".

"G.R. Patterson III"
Maule Driver wrote:

But I can recommend a related book, James Bradley's "Flyboys" "A true
story of
courage".

I thought it was great except for two glaring errors. In one sentence he
talks
about the tendency of the big radials to "stall without warning" and in
another
he talks about the WWII carrier decks being very dangerous places with
whirling
props,..., jet fuel,... Jet fuel? In 1943?

Those errors make me wonder about some of the other facts he presents. The
book
does contain an excellent bibliography, however, so I don't think he's
made
anything up, and I hope to find time to check out some of his references.

You know, I think I'll do a fresh post about Flyboys in rap. I'm sick of
the subject line on this one and the presumed jerk behind it. Anyway,
please repost your point there if you like. That's why I'm always careful
about not presuming high levels of accuracy in something that just happens
to appear in hardback as non-fiction.

I thought it was great except for two glaring errors. In one sentence he talks
about the tendency of the big radials to "stall without warning" and in another
he talks about the WWII carrier decks being very dangerous places with whirling
props,..., jet fuel,... Jet fuel? In 1943?

I saw this remarked upon elsewhere--the bit about jet fuel, I mean.
Which leads me to think it's the major howler in the book. One
suspects that it was inserted by a 23-year-old editor.

I had an editor of Air & Space (Air & Space!) ask me what "high
explosives" were.

As for the big radials, well, perhaps they did have a tendency to
stall--which an aviator would describe as quitting. To most
non-pilots, stalling exactly means an engine stopping without warning.

Those errors make me wonder about some of the other facts he presents. The book
does contain an excellent bibliography, however, so I don't think he's made
anything up, and I hope to find time to check out some of his references.

Please post your thoughts. I haven't bought the book; I'm still
inclined to.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Cub Driver wrote:

I saw this remarked upon elsewhere--the bit about jet fuel, I mean.
Which leads me to think it's the major howler in the book. One
suspects that it was inserted by a 23-year-old editor.

I suspected this as well.

As for the big radials, well, perhaps they did have a tendency to
stall--which an aviator would describe as quitting. To most
non-pilots, stalling exactly means an engine stopping without warning.

Well, I didn't. Stalling is an engine quitting because you loaded it down too
much without advancing the throttle. It is a very specific type of quitting, and
it never happens without warning. This is the case even for non-pilots; go to
your mechanic and tell him the engine stalled and it's an entirely different
ball game than if you tell him the engine died. Unless you get a prop strike,
it's impossible to stall an aircraft engine.

Please post your thoughts. I haven't bought the book; I'm still
inclined to.

Like Corky, I've read a good deal about WWII in the last 40 years. It's been
sort of a hobby of mine. I'm not as good as Corky is at dredging up info I read
or remembering where I read it. I also haven't read as much about the Pacific
theatre as perhaps I should. I'm also not familiar with the events in that part
of the world around the end of the 19th century. Still, there were a surprising
number of items in that book of which I had not heard before.

As a result, I was surprised by some of the things presented in the book, but
am not qualified to say they are false. Since it is well written and the author
is reasonable about those things with which I am familiar, I would be surprised
to find any falsehoods with the rest. As I said, the book has an extensive
bibliography. The author has also footnoted things well, which should make it
easy for me to take a look at more primary sources. In my copious free time.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hmmmmm... That's interesting...."

Stalling is an engine quitting because you loaded it down too
much without advancing the throttle. It is a very specific type of quitting,
[...] Unless you get a prop strike,
it's impossible to stall an aircraft engine.


Isn't it an engine stall when you pull the mixture back to idle cutoff? Or
thinking of it another way, if you lean aggressively on the ground, then if you
advance the throttle, the engine will stop. Stall?

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

This is the case even for non-pilots; go to
your mechanic and tell him the engine stalled and it's an entirely different
ball game than if you tell him the engine died

Everyone I know, and that would include the mechanics (perhaps they
are only humoring us idiots), who goes out on a cold morning and has
the engine start and then quit on him, would grouse that it had
stalled.

Among the dictionary definitions of the verb intransitive is: "to come
to a standstill (as from mired wheels or engine failure)". Indeed,
there are only two v.i. definitions, and that one is the first. The
second is "to experience a stall in flying." Since that is obviously
not the case in an automotive engine, the only dictionary
interpretation of "my engine stalled" is that it quit running.

So it's not just a regional thing.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

In article ,
Cub Driver wrote:

Everyone I know, and that would include the mechanics (perhaps they
are only humoring us idiots), who goes out on a cold morning and has
the engine start and then quit on him, would grouse that it had
stalled.


As someone who's not a mechanic, but who got his first drivers license
in 1945 and was brought up in snow country (Michigan), my understanding
has always been that "stalling" (of an auto engine anyway) refers to the
engine quitting *when a load is first put on it*. (You can't stall an
auto with the gearshift in neutral.)

Stalling was a lot more likely to happen, at least before computer
controlled autos came along, when the engine was just started and still
cold; but cold (and perhaps misadjusted) engines were also prone to
stumble, sputter, and quit on their own (while the driver pushed and
yanked on the choke knob) without any load applied, just out of
orneriness.

Stalling was a lot more likely to happen, at least before computer
controlled autos came along, when the engine was just started and still
cold; but cold (and perhaps misadjusted) engines were also prone to
stumble, sputter, and quit on their own (while the driver pushed and
yanked on the choke knob) without any load applied, just out of
orneriness.

Right. And that's what I meant by a stall. (It still does happen,
though without the choke knob dance.) The engine stalled, Ma! Of
course it did. Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 10th Edition agrees.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

I thought it was great except for two glaring errors. In one sentence he talks
about the tendency of the big radials to "stall without warning"

I was too young for WW II, but a few years later I spent some 800
hours sitting between two PW R-2800s, the "big radial" of WW II, and
I never had one "stall," or quit for any reason other than I shut it
down.

I did have one "blow a jug" but it I could still get 36 inches of MP
and 2400 RPM, which we considered "climbing power."

Some, such as in P-47s on strafing missions, took a lot more damage
than that but kept running.

A hell of a good engine!

vince norris