Aircraft type longest service career?

"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

The above is absolutely correct......... BUT.........Please do a google
search for (p51 engine seizure "dudley henriques") and read the thread
carefully, especially from the point where Gordo enters it under me. I
believe it will be instantly apparent that the reason for this
misunderstanding is obvious, and it's probably my fault. I was reacting to
someone I don't particularly like and I was mincing words. If you read the
thread carefully, you will see that what I was discussing with him about
power and rpm was missing a main ingredient; that being what I was assuming
he knew, when in actuality, I had completely omitted it from anything I was
saying to him. That ingredient is the high rpm prop limiter on the governor
of the 24D50 Ham Standard used on the Mustang. If you read what I was
writing carefully, I believe you will realize that I was assuming both of
were aware of the limiter function in relation to what we were discussing. I
was wrong in assuming this.
The facts are quite simple. Both Gordo and I know it. The only problem seems
to be that he thinks it was he who "taught" me this, and that's pure fiction
I can assure you. But the fault remains with me I think. I should have made
it perfectly clear to him from the beginning about the prop governor, as I
was considering it's function in every post I made to him, but I never
actually mentioned it.
In summation, it's 101 that rpm and not power is directly related to
rotational mass/velocity/inertia with a constant speed prop....UNLESS as I
was trying to say, the power is back past the high rpm limit stop as it very
well is at idle power on the Mustang. This assumes normal aerodynamic loads
on the prop as well.
With this in play, it becomes totally correct to say that the rotational
forces in play at 15 inches on this airplane are less then they would be at
61 inches, or anywhere else for that matter within the 42 degree pitch
limits where a power change or a change in aerodynamic load would cause a
pitch change to maintain a constant set RPM on this specific prop. I'm very
sorry if what I said was misleading to Gordo. I should have discussed the
prop governor with him from the onset. The plain truth is that I was just
too ****ed off at him and just plain missed it.
Such is Usenet!! :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt


What a classic expert at obfuscation you are Henriques...It's
actually funny. You're so good that I suspect that you've
convinced yourself that you're right here...sad indeed.

You're also a classic windbag, in a class by yourself, which I'm
sure few on here would deny.

--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

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

The above is absolutely correct......... BUT.........Please do a google
search for (p51 engine seizure "dudley henriques") and read the thread
carefully, especially from the point where Gordo enters it under me. I
believe it will be instantly apparent that the reason for this
misunderstanding is obvious, and it's probably my fault. I was reacting
to
someone I don't particularly like and I was mincing words. If you read
the
thread carefully, you will see that what I was discussing with him about
power and rpm was missing a main ingredient; that being what I was
assuming
he knew, when in actuality, I had completely omitted it from anything I
was
saying to him. That ingredient is the high rpm prop limiter on the
governor
of the 24D50 Ham Standard used on the Mustang. If you read what I was
writing carefully, I believe you will realize that I was assuming both of
were aware of the limiter function in relation to what we were
discussing. I
was wrong in assuming this.
The facts are quite simple. Both Gordo and I know it. The only problem
seems
to be that he thinks it was he who "taught" me this, and that's pure
fiction
I can assure you. But the fault remains with me I think. I should have
made
it perfectly clear to him from the beginning about the prop governor, as
I
was considering it's function in every post I made to him, but I never
actually mentioned it.
In summation, it's 101 that rpm and not power is directly related to
rotational mass/velocity/inertia with a constant speed prop....UNLESS as
I
was trying to say, the power is back past the high rpm limit stop as it
very
well is at idle power on the Mustang. This assumes normal aerodynamic
loads
on the prop as well.
With this in play, it becomes totally correct to say that the rotational
forces in play at 15 inches on this airplane are less then they would be
at
61 inches, or anywhere else for that matter within the 42 degree pitch
limits where a power change or a change in aerodynamic load would cause a
pitch change to maintain a constant set RPM on this specific prop. I'm
very
sorry if what I said was misleading to Gordo. I should have discussed the
prop governor with him from the onset. The plain truth is that I was just
too ****ed off at him and just plain missed it.
Such is Usenet!! :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt


What a classic expert at obfuscation you are Henriques...It's
actually funny. You're so good that I suspect that you've
convinced yourself that you're right here...sad indeed.

..........well, actually no I'm not convinced I was right , as I so obviously
said in the post above. In fact, I'm of the opinion that it was me who
caused most of this misunderstanding. Is there something about that you
don't understand?

You're also a classic windbag, in a class by yourself, which I'm
sure few on here would deny.

Well, so far at least Gordo, you're a long list of ONE anyway!!
I sincerely hope that in the six years I've been posting here I haven't
affected others as I seem to have affected you. We'll just have to let
others speak for themselves I guess. Who knows, you might just be
right.......then again.......I hope not anyway :-)

I know you don't believe this Gordo ole' boy, but it genuinely grieves me
the way things have turned out between you and me. If you actually knew me
as well as you think you know me, you'd know what a total pussycat I really
am, and how totally wrong your misconception of me not dealing with mistakes
is in reality. (I'm assuming of course that you simply have a misconception
and that what's going on isn't deliberate )
The truth is that I've lived through an entire career in aviation dealing
with mistakes; (mine and others) studying them as they relate to flight
safety. I've made many mistakes in my life Gordo, and I'm still here because
I faced them head on, recognized them and corrected them, not by avoiding
them as you suggest.
I've even tried in vain in this post to relate that the fault for this
misunderstanding might have been mine, but it seems that's not in your
agenda is it? :-)
I keep showing your posts about me to my wife. She says the same
thing......it's just sad....and so unnecessary.....and a waste.
All the best to you regardless,
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...

You're also a classic windbag, in a class by yourself, which I'm
sure few on here would deny.

God Gordo, I'm sorry. MY MISTAKE!!!!! :-) I just realized I missed Tarver
for your list. That's two. I'll let the implication of this just pass
without amplification if you don't mind. :-)
All the best,
DH

Ken Duffey wrote in message ...
As for the C-47 - I think the SAAF still operates them ??

Dunno about SAAF, but Paraguay's Air Force still operates the C-47.

Cheers,

Vicente

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

The B2/PR9 Canberra?
(FF 1949, entered service 1951, still in service?)



P/F-51 Mustang. 1943-84. Last used as frontline equipment by Dominican Republic
AF until 1984.



Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

"Matt Wiser" wrote in message
news:3fca1555$1@bg2....

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

The B2/PR9 Canberra?
(FF 1949, entered service 1951, still in service?)



P/F-51 Mustang. 1943-84. Last used as frontline equipment by Dominican
Republic
AF until 1984.

The last B-52H was delivered in October 1962...care to venture another
guess?

Tex

P/F-51 Mustang. 1943-84. Last used as frontline equipment by Dominican Republic
AF until 1984.

Super Cub. Even if you regard it as distinct from the J-3, the PA-18
went into service with the USAF in 1950. The Israeli defense forces
sold off their last dozen PA-18s last year, for a service life of 52
years even if no other military is presently using it.

Isn't it amazing? In WWI, fighter aircraft went through four distinct
generations. Now we have planes lasting a half-century.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

How about the old C-47 ? It seems it was designed in the 30's and is still
flying in some parts of the world.

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...

Ed, I suspect that Ken is referring to the Confederate Air Force
vice Canadian Armed Forces. Yes?


Commemorative Air Force

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
.. .

Ed, I suspect that Ken is referring to the Confederate Air Force
vice Canadian Armed Forces. Yes?


Commemorative Air Force

Of course, I had forgotten about the change there...thanks.
--

-Gord.