Flyboys?

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:



Whatever you say dude...
--

-Gord.

I say props Gordo.......let's talk PROPS!!! :-)
DH

I would if you knew enough to be a challenge for me dude...
--

-Gord.

Well, I can challenge you with this much anyway ole buddy. With this answer,
you now have a total of thirteen straight posts where I have asked you in a
very friendly manner to engage me on the issue that you swear I don't know
anything about with nothing but a personal attack one liner or a personally
insulting remark or both that avoids that engaging discussion. Do you really
think this is doing anything to help you ? I don't think so. And every time
you do it you add one more post to the ever growing list, and don't forget,
these posts are a permanent record.
No Gordo; I'm afraid my initial opinion of you as being an intelligent
person who just made a goof was a bit off. In fact, this whole thing from
beginning to end looks to anyone reading it as exactly what it is; me
bending over backwards to be nice to you; accommodate you in every
conceivable way possible, and you just rambling on and on with one long
continuing series of posts refusing to deal with the issue and filled with
nothing but personal attacks and nonsense. I honestly think you're afraid to
engage on the issue and won't do so for this reason. This leaves you with
nothing but the type of post you've made here again. You're all mouth my
friend, and as you continue posting the way you are with me to any one
person on Usenet, it becomes more and more obvious to anyone reading these
continuous refusals to engage that you are in fact simply avoiding the issue
at hand by posting nothing but personal harassment of a single individual
for reasons of your own.

Are you going to make it fourteen refusals ? :-)
DH

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote

--reams of obfuscation mercifully removed--

and let's not forget..........

"Bull ****! This is a constant speed prop. RPM is a
set value. The RPM can be set at 3000 and the
manifold pressure can be anywhere between 15 inches
and 61 inches, and it's the manifold pressure
combined with the set RPM that will determine the
power.....NOT the RPM!!! Are you trying to tell
me that the rotational (energy) of a propeller is
the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?".
-D Henriques


Certainly...I've been telling you that for months...when are you
going to believe it?...
--

-Gord.

Then you're saying this statement is correct?

If that's so, and you have been "telling me this for months" why have you
been posting it all this time without further comment? :-) That would make
no sense at all to a sane person. CLEARLY the inference in posting this as
it is with no further comment from you about it would be for the person
reading it to come away with the impression that the statement is totally
incorrect would it not? In fact, I can produce in your own words a post that
states emphatically that this quote is incorrect. Why did you post it if
it's correct? Do you simply wish to affirm it's truth ? Seems to me that if
you wanted to use it in a negative context like you have been doing for
about thirteen posts now, you would have added something about me not
knowing this was correct until you had to tell me each time you posted it.
That would make sense Gordo!!! :-) But you haven't done that have you Gordo?
You just put it out there word for word without comment didn't you; and now
you're saying it's correct....and that's EXACTLY what you have just posted
above. "Certainly" you said, I've been telling you this for months.....when
am I going to believe it"
Well, let me put your mind at ease at least. I believe it! In fact, I
believed it all along......even before you barged in with your lecture on
rotational velocity.
How do you get out of this one Gordo? Is the statement correct or incorrect?
And if it's correct, how do you explain "teaching" someone about something
that they obviously already knew WAS correct, since your "lecture" came
AFTER the statement was made! :-)
Your move chess player!! This ought to be good. At least make it good will
you. I'm saving these "exchanges" of ours for my grandchildren to read over
the holidays. -))))

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

I took the liberty of moving the thread

As I get deeper into Flyboys, my irritation increases. Bradley
regularly refers to the North American B-25 Mitchell bomber as a
Billy. "Flyboy" as a word for pilot or air crew is bad enough, but
Billy! Where did he pick that up?

I'm also despairing that his 10-to-12 page histories are continuing.
I'm about halfway through the book and we still haven't come back to
Chichi Jima. He's trying to cover the entire 19th-20th century misteps
of Japan *and* the United States in this fairly slender volume, and he
just doesn't know what he's talking about half the time. It all
depends on which source volume he picked up (take a look at his
citations: there'll be one book cited, then ibid, ibid, ibid).

He doesn't know the difference between casualties and deaths. Airplane
engines stall in mid-air. And of course there's the famous jet fuel on
carrier decks.

But what really set me off was his account of the Doolittle raid,
which ends with the statement: "The U.S. and Japan were even" -- they
mounted a sneak attack on us; we mounted a sneak attack on them.
Bradley is able to overlook the rather important difference that in
April 1942 Japan and the United States were at war!



On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 05:12:53 -0500, Cub Driver
wrote:


I do believe that Bradley really overworked the term in "Flyboys".
His continuous use of the term throughout the book reminded me of some of
these rock groups

As I get farther along, I find he's doing it with other terms. In
chapter three he explains that the cruder gang who took over the
Japanese military after the Russo-Japanese War concluded from that war
that everything depended on the spirit of the soldier. He segues from
that to calling them the Spirit Boys.

I guess it's just an irritating tic that I'll have to accept. The man
has discovered a few concepts and wants to make sure that we remember
them. Apart from that, I thought his ten-or--twelve page history of
Japan was a damn good summary of a world that westerners find it
almost impossible to understand. (We are still arguing about the
emperor's role in starting the war, never mind ending it.)

Thanks, everybody!


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

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 in message
...

I took the liberty of moving the thread

As I get deeper into Flyboys, my irritation increases. Bradley
regularly refers to the North American B-25 Mitchell bomber as a
Billy. "Flyboy" as a word for pilot or air crew is bad enough, but
Billy! Where did he pick that up?

I'm also despairing that his 10-to-12 page histories are continuing.
I'm about halfway through the book and we still haven't come back to
Chichi Jima. He's trying to cover the entire 19th-20th century misteps
of Japan *and* the United States in this fairly slender volume, and he
just doesn't know what he's talking about half the time. It all
depends on which source volume he picked up (take a look at his
citations: there'll be one book cited, then ibid, ibid, ibid).

He doesn't know the difference between casualties and deaths. Airplane
engines stall in mid-air. And of course there's the famous jet fuel on
carrier decks.

But what really set me off was his account of the Doolittle raid,
which ends with the statement: "The U.S. and Japan were even" -- they
mounted a sneak attack on us; we mounted a sneak attack on them.
Bradley is able to overlook the rather important difference that in
April 1942 Japan and the United States were at war!

I took the liberty of moving the thread

Thank you!!!!!!

I don't think I've ever heard anyone else refer to the 25 as a "Billy", and
I've been in and around warbirds all my life. I could be wrong, but that one
just might be a bridge too far!! :-)
He does scatter back and forth way too much without proper segway. I got a
bit lost through all his complicated "weaving".
I think he could have learned a lot from studying Harold Robbins, who,
although a fiction writer, was a master at presenting background through
brilliant segway.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Chris Mark: The entry says, in part, "An aviator, esp. a glamorous,
heroic or daring aviator".

Correct term nowadays is "flyperson" therefore the entry should
read; "glamorous, heroic or daring aviator from a BYGONE ERA
(see: 21st century smart bombs, unmanned combat air vehicles,
Lieutenant Sallys in their maternity uniforms, etc.)

Art Kramer:
Aw shucks. Tweren't nuthin'. (shy grin)

Exactly right. Compared to pilots (esp. fighter pilots) "tweren't
nuthin" glamorous, heroic or daring about navigators and
bombardiers. If anything, sitting out there totally exposed like
a goldfish in a bowl in the plexiglas nosecone of a lumbering
old bomber without being allowed to touch the controls is an
*uneviable* position.

Dudley Henriques:
I say props Gordo.......let's talk PROPS!!! :-)

Gord Beaman:
I would if you knew enough to be a challenge for me dude...

Pardon me for interupting in this incredibly childish ****ing contest
between you two, but valley girl slang went out in the early 80's and
the subject is "flyboys," not props. :-)

"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...
Chris Mark: The entry says, in part, "An aviator, esp. a glamorous,
heroic or daring aviator".

Correct term nowadays is "flyperson" therefore the entry should
read; "glamorous, heroic or daring aviator from a BYGONE ERA
(see: 21st century smart bombs, unmanned combat air vehicles,
Lieutenant Sallys in their maternity uniforms, etc.)

Art Kramer:
Aw shucks. Tweren't nuthin'. (shy grin)

Exactly right. Compared to pilots (esp. fighter pilots) "tweren't
nuthin" glamorous, heroic or daring about navigators and
bombardiers. If anything, sitting out there totally exposed like
a goldfish in a bowl in the plexiglas nosecone of a lumbering
old bomber without being allowed to touch the controls is an
*uneviable* position.

Dudley Henriques:
I say props Gordo.......let's talk PROPS!!! :-)

Gord Beaman:
I would if you knew enough to be a challenge for me dude...

Pardon me for interupting in this incredibly childish ****ing contest
between you two, but valley girl slang went out in the early 80's and
the subject is "flyboys," not props. :-)

See new thread. Hopefully It's been reclaimed.
DH

Subject: Flyboys (Was: Flyboys?)
From: "Dudley Henriques"
Date: 12/18/03 6:26 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"Cub Driver" wrote in message
.. .

I took the liberty of moving the thread

As I get deeper into Flyboys, my irritation increases. Bradley
regularly refers to the North American B-25 Mitchell bomber as a
Billy. "Flyboy" as a word for pilot or air crew is bad enough, but
Billy! Where did he pick that up?

I'm also despairing that his 10-to-12 page histories are continuing.
I'm about halfway through the book and we still haven't come back to
Chichi Jima. He's trying to cover the entire 19th-20th century misteps
of Japan *and* the United States in this fairly slender volume, and he
just doesn't know what he's talking about half the time. It all
depends on which source volume he picked up (take a look at his
citations: there'll be one book cited, then ibid, ibid, ibid).

He doesn't know the difference between casualties and deaths. Airplane
engines stall in mid-air. And of course there's the famous jet fuel on
carrier decks.

But what really set me off was his account of the Doolittle raid,
which ends with the statement: "The U.S. and Japan were even" -- they
mounted a sneak attack on us; we mounted a sneak attack on them.
Bradley is able to overlook the rather important difference that in
April 1942 Japan and the United States were at war!

I took the liberty of moving the thread

Thank you!!!!!!

I don't think I've ever heard anyone else refer to the 25 as a "Billy", and
I've been in and around warbirds all my life. I could be wrong, but that one
just might be a bridge too far!! :-)
He does scatter back and forth way too much without proper segway. I got a
bit lost through all his complicated "weaving".
I think he could have learned a lot from studying Harold Robbins, who,
although a fiction writer, was a master at presenting background through
brilliant segway.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt



Since this book is about old man Bush. I can't imagine that he allowed it to be
published wihtout going over every detail. What does that tell us?

Regards,

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Flyboys (Was: Flyboys?)
From: "Dudley Henriques"
Date: 12/18/03 6:26 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"Cub Driver" wrote in message
.. .

I took the liberty of moving the thread

As I get deeper into Flyboys, my irritation increases. Bradley
regularly refers to the North American B-25 Mitchell bomber as a
Billy. "Flyboy" as a word for pilot or air crew is bad enough, but
Billy! Where did he pick that up?

I'm also despairing that his 10-to-12 page histories are continuing.
I'm about halfway through the book and we still haven't come back to
Chichi Jima. He's trying to cover the entire 19th-20th century misteps
of Japan *and* the United States in this fairly slender volume, and he
just doesn't know what he's talking about half the time. It all
depends on which source volume he picked up (take a look at his
citations: there'll be one book cited, then ibid, ibid, ibid).

He doesn't know the difference between casualties and deaths. Airplane
engines stall in mid-air. And of course there's the famous jet fuel on
carrier decks.

But what really set me off was his account of the Doolittle raid,
which ends with the statement: "The U.S. and Japan were even" -- they
mounted a sneak attack on us; we mounted a sneak attack on them.
Bradley is able to overlook the rather important difference that in
April 1942 Japan and the United States were at war!

I took the liberty of moving the thread

Thank you!!!!!!

I don't think I've ever heard anyone else refer to the 25 as a "Billy",
and
I've been in and around warbirds all my life. I could be wrong, but that
one
just might be a bridge too far!! :-)
He does scatter back and forth way too much without proper segway. I got
a
bit lost through all his complicated "weaving".
I think he could have learned a lot from studying Harold Robbins, who,
although a fiction writer, was a master at presenting background through
brilliant segway.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt



Since this book is about old man Bush. I can't imagine that he allowed it
to be
published wihtout going over every detail. What does that tell us?

Not exactly sure what it would say in this instance, but it usually involves
a writer who has approached the subject with an agenda, Could be a soft or
hard agenda...who knows really. But what often happens results in a
"collaboration" of all the interested people with their "agendas" of course
being their first priority. Bush no doubt was tied into the History Channel
and visa versa. Bradley fitted right in with all this. He accompanied both
the History channel and the ex-president back to the island for the TV
"agenda". Next comes the book which I'm sure was reviewed as you have noted.
All in all, at best, it's questionable as pure objectively researched
history. Just too many "agendas" going on here at one time :-))
The real rub in all this is that Bradley could have written a better book
and didn't. The story was there all right, the characters were interesting
and the environment was ripe for something to be done with it. It could have
been a good read if he had only done it more professionally.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Subject: Flyboys?
From: "Dudley Henriques"
Date: 12/17/03 9:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: et


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
.. .
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
.. .
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

DUDLEY HENRIQUES SAID ;

"Bull ****! This is a constant speed prop. RPM is a
set value. The RPM can be set at 3000 and the
manifold pressure can be anywhere between 15 inches
and 61 inches, and it's the manifold pressure
combined with the set RPM that will determine the
power.....NOT the RPM!!! Are you trying to tell
me that the rotational (energy) of a propeller is
the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?".
-D Henriques

How's that Gordo?

sigh I believe that I'm done with you henry...enough is enough.
Good night.
--

-Gord.

You're done all right!

snort Of course I have... beating you isn't any great shakes
after all...
--

-Gord.

You just never learn do you? It's not about "beating" anyone Gordo. It's
about dialog and discourse. Try it sometime :-)
:-)
DH




I think he may be discussing an engine pulling 61" of mercury at a constant
speed of zero RPM. (guffaw)



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Subject: Flyboys (Was: Flyboys?)
From: "Dudley Henriques"
Date: 12/18/03 8:27 AM Pacific Standard Time

Since this book is about old man Bush. I can't imagine that he allowed it
to be
published wihtout going over every detail. What does that tell us?

Not exactly sure what it would say in this instance, but it usually involves
a writer who has approached the subject with an agenda, Could be a soft or
hard agenda...who knows really. But what often happens results in a
"collaboration" of all the interested people with their "agendas" of course
being their first priority. Bush no doubt was tied into the History Channel
and visa versa. Bradley fitted right in with all this. He accompanied both
the History channel and the ex-president back to the island for the TV
"agenda". Next comes the book which I'm sure was reviewed as you have noted.
All in all, at best, it's questionable as pure objectively researched
history. Just too many "agendas" going on here at one time :-))
The real rub in all this is that Bradley could have written a better book
and didn't. The story was there all right, the characters were interesting
and the environment was ripe for something to be done with it. It could have
been a good read if he had only done it more professionally.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt




My point is that Bush as a WWII flier was totally familiar with the term "Fly
Boys" to a far greater extent that anyone on this NG who never was in WW II.
After all the term was strictly a WW II Americanism.
While the book was rather poor work, Bush may at least have written off on
the term Fly Boy all the way. Makes sense to me. The only other alternative is
to assume that Bush reviewed the manuscriptt hastily and carelessly, What
think you?

Regards,

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer