Powering JSF: One Engine Is Enough.

"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".

IBM

"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!
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

Andrew Chaplin wrote:
"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!


It depends on whether they are good at Math or Maths


Vince

"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

"Ian MacLure" wrote in message
...
"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".

That is a different matter, since it deals with jargon rather than plural
forms in use.

It does grate, I'll give you.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 01:10:46 -0600, Ian MacLure wrote:

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

They are simply taking ' battleship' to mean 'ship for battle'.
Warship in other words. Not as important to get it right, now that all
the proper BB have gone.

Casady

(Richard Casady) wrote in
:

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 01:10:46 -0600, Ian MacLure wrote:

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

They are simply taking ' battleship' to mean 'ship for battle'.
Warship in other words. Not as important to get it right, now that all
the proper BB have gone.

Never mind the fact that warship or earlier man o' war has been in
common use since time immemorial.

IBM

Ian MacLure writes:

"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".

Not to worry Dottore, my best friend, and Israeli, constantly says
"sheeps" for the plural of "sheep" which is absolutely hilarious: "See
any sheeps today?" As we're often referring to the ridiculous attire
of Japanese girls for wedding receptions, where the slightly shorter
than Western legs attached to a sinking bottom are poking out from
under a fluffed-up dress, and similarly puffed-up hairstyles decorate
the top. You get the idea!
--
BOFH excuse #402:

Secretary sent chain letter to all 5000 employees.

Gernot Hassenpflug ha scritto:


Not to worry Dottore, my best friend, and Israeli, constantly says
"sheeps" for the plural of "sheep" which is absolutely hilarious: "See
any sheeps today?" As we're often referring to the ridiculous attire
of Japanese girls for wedding receptions, where the slightly shorter
than Western legs attached to a sinking bottom are poking out from
under a fluffed-up dress, and similarly puffed-up hairstyles decorate
the top. You get the idea!

Aside that I refer to J-Girls as "Foemina Japonicus" (subtly pointing
that they're a different stock of women) I roughly agree about japanese
girl's dressing; I think that is because of the tendency of Japanese
legs to being not exactly straight; but I disagree about sinking
bottoms; I take this for what in this part of Italy we call "culi bassi"
that is, bottoms whose are low; In my experience with Japanese girls,
both in pics and in RL, I think the standard definition I give for their
asses is "flat" ("Culo piatto"), that is, aren't bulging from the back.

I guess that this stem from the Latin vs. German POV on female Aesthetic

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.