Survivability in Combat

"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