Survivability in Combat

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


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
news
Yeff wrote:

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 09:57:13 -0500, George Z. Bush wrote:

My conclusion, therefore, is that he didn't have any and, by so
pointedly
trying to avoid mention of the subject, only succeeded in having us
become aware of what he'd rather we not know about him.

You mean I was imagining all those times he said he *wasn't* military?

-Jeff B.

While I've seen one *hell* of a lot that he 'has' said about
himself I don't think I've ever heard him say that he wasn't
military Jeff...you got even one cite?...he's still one of the
most obnoxious blowhard windbags that I've ever seen, bar none.

But even more disgusting is his obviously desperate squirmings to
cover his errors so as to avoid admitting to them...this latest
effort of his takes the prize...tried to ascribe ownership of
HIS statement to ME...miserable little prick...

--Gord.

"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

Beamon; you CAN'T be this stupid. What you are quoting constantly as
being
incorrect is not only absolutely true, but it's totally inconceivable to
me
that someone who professes to have been a flight engineer on Merlins
doesn't
have the brains to have figured out by now how absolutely idiotic you are
by
pressing this.
Please post anything and everything you wish from that stupid thread that
makes your point. You have no point, as anyone bothering to actually read
the entire thread will instantly see. I'm getting tired of teaching you
what
you should already have known about the constant speed prop we were
discussing at the time; the 24D50 on the Mustang. I tried to tell
you....Vlado tried to tell you.....no one could get through that think
skull
of yours.
For the last time, you inserted yourself into a discussion between myself
and someone else where I was explaining that if you yank the power back
on a
51 to idle in preparation for a bail out without reducing the prop
setting
from cruise, the seizure momentum will be less than that with the power
at
cruise. To ANYONE knowing the first damn thing about constant speed
propellers, this would indicate that the reason the momentum is less
isn't
because of the manifold pressure alone being less, but rather that the
reduction of the power will most likely put the prop below the high rpm
limiters which in turn will reduce the rpm which as you correctly stated,
is
the ONLY reason for reduced rotational inertia at seizure.
The problem with you Beamon, (and anyone reasonably reading the thread in
question can see this in an instant), is that instead of asking about the
prop limiter issue, you inserted yourself blindly into the discussion as
you
always seem to do with me......with a sharp correction that went on and
on
and on and on about manifold pressure not being related to rotational
inertia. Hell, I know this. Everyone knows this!!! Vlado tried to tell
you
about the idle issue with the 24D50, (he owns a f*****g P51 for Christ's
sake) and I tried to tell you that I wasn't addressing that issue at all
but
you would have none of it. It becomes blatantly obvious to anyone reading
this thread and the dialog that transpired between the two of us that I
was
merely telling you what is quoted correctly by me above; that being that
it's the combination of manifold pressure and rpm that determines power,
and
posing the question to you that asks if you believe the rotational energy
of
the prop is the same at 15 inches as it is at 61.
Keeping in mind that from the onset of this discussion, (unless you can
post
otherwise here and now from the thread ) absolutely no one has said
anything
about changing the prop setting from cruise, (where it was assumed to be
in
my initial post that you interrupted with your "corrections" 101" )
Your argument would hold water if this prop would maintain cruise setting
with the power being reduced to idle, but I believe that power reduction
puts the prop beyond the limiters which was assumed, since it should be
normal procedure for this engine prop combination.
Now ONE more time, rpm and manifold pressure equals power.
RPM determines rotational inertia.
Reducing power on a 51 from cruise to idle without changing the prop
setting
should reduce the rpm below the governor limits and as such reduce the
rotational inertia at seizure from the level where it was at cruise to a
new
level with the power at idle.
Now, once an for all Beamon; do you get this; or do you really think that
after dealing with these props (expensively I might add) for all these
years, I actually need YOU to have explained all this to me? For Christ's
sake, give it a rest will you? It's stale to me, and probably to rest of
the
group as well.
Better than that, write Vlado a letter will you. He flies the f*****g
airplane every f*****g day. He has the f****g propeller and f****g engine
on
his airplane......Ask HIM!
And as for the "windbag" crap. If you would simply not insert yourself
into
discussions before you have your brain engaged, there would be no need
for
these long drawn out replies.


When I had commented to someone else about my flying with the
Snowbirds......no big deal.......but to you it meant the following,


"Absolutely amazing!...how did you manage that Dud?...they weren't
equipped with the Tutor until 1978"

Same modus operandi....Not only totally wrong, but inserted just like the
prop post, unnecessarily sharp and sarcastic and meant to imply something
negative rather than seek clarification.
Do as you wish, Gordo, but I really think you're on the wrong path.
I've told you before it's not necessary to do it this way. Every time you
insert in this manner, you chip away at any credibility you have by
creating
the obvious impression that you dislike someone intensely. It's a very
bad
Usenet mistake, and anyone with half a brain can see right through it.
I'll
simply continue to respond if and when I deem it necessary with my usual
constrained response to you. I can't conceive of anyone being so bored
with
life that they would actually go out and do research on the issue we're
discussing here, but if they are, they are more than welcome to go seek
out
the thread you keep hollering about and read it from beginning to end. I
have no problem with that whatsoever. In fact, I've decided that I'll
simply
keep a copy of this post and just paste it in as a standard response
whenever you post about me and this stupid prop issue.
Advice; the best way to discredit someone on Usenet is with a velvet
glove
:-)
And do me a favor this time will you....save the long post
stuff.......the
pompous ass stuff....the windbag stuff....the SOB stuff.......the "he's
an
angry li'll f****r isn't he" stuff......and the "he didn't know any of
this
until I told him stuff. It's predictable and boring really, and instantly
disprovable to anyone reading the engine seizure thread in toto. If you
think someone on Usenet is worth discrediting, try doing it the right way
for a change............use a velvet glove..........NEVER a sledge
hammer!!!
:-)))))
All the best as usual and always regardless :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt



....I rest my case...

Same. Let's just let it go shall we? :-)
DH

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Fighter Pilot Fellowship (was: something else entirely)
From: "Dudley Henriques"

Sure. I wasn't a military pilot either. In fact, I'm not much of a
civilian pilot either.

Oh I don't know. Anyone who can handle a J3 on a windy day in August must
have SOMETHING on the ball! :-

Always courteous no matter what. Good for you.

Regards,

I'm TRYIN!!!!!! :-))))))
D

Cub Driver wrote:
That said, shall we move on?

Sure. I wasn't a military pilot either. In fact, I'm not much of a
civilian pilot either.

My own biography is online at www.warbirdforum.com/dan.htm

What does the middle initial stand for--Zounds? Zulu?

Whatever rings your chimes.....it's a family secret. (^-^))))

George Z.

Subject: Fighter Pilot Fellowship (was: something else entirely)
From: "Dudley Henriques"
Date: 12/8/03 1:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Fighter Pilot Fellowship (was: something else entirely)
From: "Dudley Henriques"

Sure. I wasn't a military pilot either. In fact, I'm not much of a
civilian pilot either.

Oh I don't know. Anyone who can handle a J3 on a windy day in August must
have SOMETHING on the ball! :-

Always courteous no matter what. Good for you.

Regards,

I'm TRYIN!!!!!! :-))))))
D



Nobody ever said it was going to be easy. But your eternal patience is
remarkable.

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

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Cub Driver wrote:
That said, shall we move on?

Sure. I wasn't a military pilot either. In fact, I'm not much of a
civilian pilot either.

My own biography is online at www.warbirdforum.com/dan.htm

What does the middle initial stand for--Zounds? Zulu?

Whatever rings your chimes.....it's a family secret. (^-^))))

George Z.

"Zounds" is what one says to one's self when one discovers the joy involved
in flying something as challenging an airplane as the Bamboo Bomber!! :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Cub Driver wrote:
That said, shall we move on?

Sure. I wasn't a military pilot either. In fact, I'm not much of a
civilian pilot either.

My own biography is online at www.warbirdforum.com/dan.htm

What does the middle initial stand for--Zounds? Zulu?

Whatever rings your chimes.....it's a family secret. (^-^))))

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

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Fighter Pilot Fellowship (was: something else entirely)
From: "Dudley Henriques"
Date: 12/8/03 1:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Fighter Pilot Fellowship (was: something else entirely)
From: "Dudley Henriques"

Sure. I wasn't a military pilot either. In fact, I'm not much of a
civilian pilot either.

Oh I don't know. Anyone who can handle a J3 on a windy day in August
must
have SOMETHING on the ball! :-

Always courteous no matter what. Good for you.

Regards,

I'm TRYIN!!!!!! :-))))))
D



Nobody ever said it was going to be easy. But your eternal patience is
remarkable.

Regards,

I believe I have been known to depart from this "inner tranquility" on
occasion :-)))))
D

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ron
blurted out:

Didnt a British Airways pilot once say that a Cub pilot can fly a Corcorde, but
the reverse isnt neccessarily true.

Clearly he was being the typical well mannered brit, didn't want to
honestly answer the question, "Could you fly the Concorde?...Not
bloody well likely."

Imagine the smiles on the passengers as they listened to the PA...

"Ladies and Gentlemen, today it is British Airways' honour and extreme
pleasure to have Elmo Bowlogritz, Cub pilot extraordinaire, in command
of this flight. Mr Bowlogritz will be attempting his first takeoff and
landing in a supersonic transport aircraft...with passengers..."

Juvat

In message , Juvat
writes
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ron
blurted out:
Didnt a British Airways pilot once say that a Cub pilot can fly a
Corcorde, but
the reverse isnt neccessarily true.

Clearly he was being the typical well mannered brit, didn't want to
honestly answer the question, "Could you fly the Concorde?...Not
bloody well likely."

Imagine the smiles on the passengers as they listened to the PA...

"Ladies and Gentlemen, today it is British Airways' honour and extreme
pleasure to have Elmo Bowlogritz, Cub pilot extraordinaire, in command
of this flight. Mr Bowlogritz will be attempting his first takeoff and
landing in a supersonic transport aircraft...with passengers..."

With my huge and exhaustive flying experience (twelve hours total as
wannabe driver) I will say that the aircraft I was learning in could
damn well fly itself, and was only at risk from the ham-handed
intervention of its pilot. Even spin recovery was basically "let go and
wait, she'll sort herself out" if you were clumsy and stupid enough to
force a spin at all. (My instructor cheerfully showed me 'incipient
spin' and how to avoid it, which was mostly 'let go' - then coached me
through the now-optional "this is a spin, how do we recover?" which was
basically 'let go and let her recover'!" Mind you, inducing a spin in
G-TOUR needed not just negligence but outright malice...)

I don't think many military aircraft are so forgiving, and I doubt that
large civil aircraft are as generous to unskilled pilots.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Cub Driver wrote:

That said, shall we move on?

Sure. I wasn't a military pilot either. In fact, I'm not much of a
civilian pilot either.


Damn! You mean there's TWO of us on this group?

Bob McKellar, guilty of both of Dan's sins