Fortune magazine online has a photo essay about their new 787. On one
page, http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fortune/0804/gallery.boeing_dreamliner.fortune/16.html,
they make this statement:

The Dreamliner's wingspan is 197 feet, or about 25% longer than a
similar-sized plane, which increases lift and reduces drag.

I thought that lift, in addition to causing a net upward force on the
wing, also contributes to the drag force on the wing as well. If this
is the case then increasing lift should also increase drag. Did I
misunderstand?

On Apr 26, 12:23*am, es330td > wrote:
> Fortune magazine online has a photo essay about their new 787. *On one
> page,http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fortune/0804/gallery.boeing_dream....,
> they make this statement:
>
> The Dreamliner's wingspan is 197 feet, or about 25% longer than a
> similar-sized plane, which increases lift and reduces drag.
>
> I thought that lift, in addition to causing a net upward force on the
> wing, also contributes to the drag force on the wing as well. If this
> is the case then increasing lift should also increase drag. *Did I
> misunderstand?

For any fixed wing geometry, increasing lift increases drag as you
say. In this case they change geometry and get more lift with less
drag. OK?

Cheers

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 05:23:59 -0700 (PDT), es330td >
wrote in
>:

>The Dreamliner's wingspan is 197 feet, or about 25% longer than a
>similar-sized plane, which increases lift and reduces drag.

Higher aspect ratio wings produce less induced drag; think sailplane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(wing)
http://aerodyn.org/Wings/larw.html
http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMASM04_665/PV2004_38.pdf
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/geom.html

On Apr 25, 8:23*am, es330td > wrote:
> Fortune magazine online has a photo essay about their new 787. *On one
> page,http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fortune/0804/gallery.boeing_dream....,
> they make this statement:
>
> The Dreamliner's wingspan is 197 feet, or about 25% longer than a
> similar-sized plane, which increases lift and reduces drag.
>
> I thought that lift, in addition to causing a net upward force on the
> wing, also contributes to the drag force on the wing as well. If this
> is the case then increasing lift should also increase drag. *Did I
> misunderstand?

So their information is correct but incomplete. I expected that was
the case but I wanted to make sure my base understand was correct
first.

es330td > wrote in
:

> Fortune magazine online has a photo essay about their new 787. On one
> page,
> http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fortune/0804/gallery.boeing_dreaml
i
> ner.fortune/16.html, they make this statement:
>
> The Dreamliner's wingspan is 197 feet, or about 25% longer than a
> similar-sized plane, which increases lift and reduces drag.
>
> I thought that lift, in addition to causing a net upward force on the
> wing, also contributes to the drag force on the wing as well. If this
> is the case then increasing lift should also increase drag. Did I
> misunderstand?
>

Well, it's a trade off. it's possible to do both by various means.
arifoil selection, planform and so forth. It'd be more correct to say
that they're eliminating unneccesary drag.


Bertie

es330td wrote:
> Fortune magazine online has a photo essay about their new 787. On one
> page, http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fortune/0804/gallery.boeing_dreamliner.fortune/16.html,
> they make this statement:
>
> The Dreamliner's wingspan is 197 feet, or about 25% longer than a
> similar-sized plane, which increases lift and reduces drag.
>
> I thought that lift, in addition to causing a net upward force on the
> wing, also contributes to the drag force on the wing as well. If this
> is the case then increasing lift should also increase drag. Did I
> misunderstand?

The lift and drag curves for any given wing are a function of wing
design. Although induced drag is a product of lift creation, the design
of the wing could easily change the lift and drag coefficients and make
the wing more efficient.
These are complicated inter-relationships, and sometimes, when doing an
article in a non technical venue, a writer will simply present the tip
of the iceberg.
This isn't necessarily wrong but you will probably notice a distinct
difference between an article on wing design written for Fortune as
opposed to one written for Aviation Weekly :-)


--
Dudley Henriques

On Apr 25, 5:23*am, es330td > wrote:
> Fortune magazine online has a photo essay about their new 787. *On one
> page,http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fortune/0804/gallery.boeing_dream....,
> they make this statement:
>
> The Dreamliner's wingspan is 197 feet, or about 25% longer than a
> similar-sized plane, which increases lift and reduces drag.
>
> I thought that lift, in addition to causing a net upward force on the
> wing, also contributes to the drag force on the wing as well. If this
> is the case then increasing lift should also increase drag. *Did I
> misunderstand?

It could be more efficient. The Mooney wing produces more lift for the
amount of drag than a Cessna wing.

-Robert

On Apr 25, 10:55 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> On Apr 25, 5:23 am, es330td > wrote:
>
> > Fortune magazine online has a photo essay about their new 787. On one
> > page,http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fortune/0804/gallery.boeing_dream...,
> > they make this statement:
>
> > The Dreamliner's wingspan is 197 feet, or about 25% longer than a
> > similar-sized plane, which increases lift and reduces drag.
>
> > I thought that lift, in addition to causing a net upward force on the
> > wing, also contributes to the drag force on the wing as well. If this
> > is the case then increasing lift should also increase drag. Did I
> > misunderstand?
>
> It could be more efficient. The Mooney wing produces more lift for the
> amount of drag than a Cessna wing.
>
> -Robert

From the original statement, it seems clear that they're
referring to the increase in efficiency that come from aspect ratio. I
wonder, now, if that increased span was made possible with the use of
composites instead of aluminum? Longer wings flex more, and aluminum
fatigues faster, I think, than composite construction. And carbon or
aramid fibers are stronger per unit weight than aluminum.

Dan

> wrote in message
...
> On Apr 25, 10:55 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>> On Apr 25, 5:23 am, es330td > wrote:
>>
>> > Fortune magazine online has a photo essay about their new 787. On one
>> > page,http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fortune/0804/gallery.boeing_dream...,
>> > they make this statement:
>>
>> > The Dreamliner's wingspan is 197 feet, or about 25% longer than a
>> > similar-sized plane, which increases lift and reduces drag.
>>
>> > I thought that lift, in addition to causing a net upward force on the
>> > wing, also contributes to the drag force on the wing as well. If this
>> > is the case then increasing lift should also increase drag. Did I
>> > misunderstand?
>>
>> It could be more efficient. The Mooney wing produces more lift for the
>> amount of drag than a Cessna wing.
>>
>> -Robert
>
> From the original statement, it seems clear that they're
> referring to the increase in efficiency that come from aspect ratio. I
> wonder, now, if that increased span was made possible with the use of
> composites instead of aluminum? Longer wings flex more, and aluminum
> fatigues faster, I think, than composite construction. And carbon or
> aramid fibers are stronger per unit weight than aluminum.
>
> Dan
>
There are a lot of trade offs, and the gate spacing might also be larger at
the airports that the Dreamliner is expected to serve. Also, IIRC, a few
years ago, Boeing talking about future aircraft with folding wing tips to
overcome some of the spacing problems at the gates. I also agree with you,
that advances in materials also play a major role.

Peter

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> es330td wrote:
>> Fortune magazine online has a photo essay about their new 787. On one
>> page,
>> http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fortune/0804/gallery.boeing_dreamliner.fortune/16.html,
>> they make this statement:
>>
>> The Dreamliner's wingspan is 197 feet, or about 25% longer than a
>> similar-sized plane, which increases lift and reduces drag.
>>
>> I thought that lift, in addition to causing a net upward force on the
>> wing, also contributes to the drag force on the wing as well. If this
>> is the case then increasing lift should also increase drag. Did I
>> misunderstand?
>
> The lift and drag curves for any given wing are a function of wing design.
> Although induced drag is a product of lift creation, the design of the
> wing could easily change the lift and drag coefficients and make the wing
> more efficient.
> These are complicated inter-relationships, and sometimes, when doing an
> article in a non technical venue, a writer will simply present the tip of
> the iceberg.
> This isn't necessarily wrong but you will probably notice a distinct
> difference between an article on wing design written for Fortune as
> opposed to one written for Aviation Weekly :-)
>
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

I think you can say more and explain less than anyone I have ever heard.

Do you think the value of any writing can be most accurately expressed by
it's printed weight in pounds?

On Apr 26, 7:58*am, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > es330td wrote:
> >> Fortune magazine online has a photo essay about their new 787. *On one
> >> page,
> >>http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fortune/0804/gallery.boeing_dream...,
> >> they make this statement:
>
> >> The Dreamliner's wingspan is 197 feet, or about 25% longer than a
> >> similar-sized plane, which increases lift and reduces drag.
>
> >> I thought that lift, in addition to causing a net upward force on the
> >> wing, also contributes to the drag force on the wing as well. If this
> >> is the case then increasing lift should also increase drag. *Did I
> >> misunderstand?
>
> > The lift and drag curves for any given wing are a function of wing design.

On Apr 25, 12:47*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:

> There are a lot of trade offs,

Not always. There is no trade off between a model-T and a modern car.
Technology innovation allows for increased efficiency that does not
necessarily require any trade-off other than the RND time required to
develop.

-Robert

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in
:

> > wrote in message
> news:5d0da5e0-2006-442e-8e74-
.
> ..
>> On Apr 25, 10:55 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>>> On Apr 25, 5:23 am, es330td > wrote:
>>>
>>> > Fortune magazine online has a photo essay about their new 787. On
>>> > one
>>> >
page,http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fortune/0804/gallery.boein
>>> > g_dream..., they make this statement:
>>>
>>> > The Dreamliner's wingspan is 197 feet, or about 25% longer than a
>>> > similar-sized plane, which increases lift and reduces drag.
>>>
>>> > I thought that lift, in addition to causing a net upward force on
>>> > the wing, also contributes to the drag force on the wing as well.
>>> > If this is the case then increasing lift should also increase
>>> > drag. Did I misunderstand?
>>>
>>> It could be more efficient. The Mooney wing produces more lift for
>>> the amount of drag than a Cessna wing.
>>>
>>> -Robert
>>
>> From the original statement, it seems clear that they're
>> referring to the increase in efficiency that come from aspect ratio.
>> I wonder, now, if that increased span was made possible with the use
>> of composites instead of aluminum? Longer wings flex more, and
>> aluminum fatigues faster, I think, than composite construction. And
>> carbon or aramid fibers are stronger per unit weight than aluminum.
>>
>> Dan
>>
> There are a lot of trade offs, and the gate spacing might also be
> larger at the airports that the Dreamliner is expected to serve.
> Also, IIRC, a few years ago, Boeing talking about future aircraft with
> folding wing tips to overcome some of the spacing problems at the
> gates. I also agree with you, that advances in materials also play a
> major role.
>

It's not going to be that big. The widebody Busses ( A 330 and 340) are
already massive with a much larger span than the 747 so it shouldn't be
an issue.

Bertie
>

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:4dd3ec0a-5ece-405f-9103-
:

> On Apr 25, 12:47*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>
>> There are a lot of trade offs,
>
> Not always. There is no trade off between a model-T and a modern car.

There is, actually. You can drive a Model T across a field that even a jeep
would get bogged down in.

Also Ts are much more fun to drive.

Bertie

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> es330td wrote:
>>> Fortune magazine online has a photo essay about their new 787. On
>>> one page,
>>>
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fortune/0804/gallery.boeing_dream
>>> liner.fortune/16.html, they make this statement:
>>>
>>> The Dreamliner's wingspan is 197 feet, or about 25% longer than a
>>> similar-sized plane, which increases lift and reduces drag.
>>>
>>> I thought that lift, in addition to causing a net upward force on
>>> the wing, also contributes to the drag force on the wing as well. If
>>> this is the case then increasing lift should also increase drag.
>>> Did I misunderstand?
>>
>> The lift and drag curves for any given wing are a function of wing
>> design. Although induced drag is a product of lift creation, the
>> design of the wing could easily change the lift and drag coefficients
>> and make the wing more efficient.
>> These are complicated inter-relationships, and sometimes, when doing
>> an article in a non technical venue, a writer will simply present the
>> tip of the iceberg.
>> This isn't necessarily wrong but you will probably notice a distinct
>> difference between an article on wing design written for Fortune as
>> opposed to one written for Aviation Weekly :-)
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> I think you can say more and explain less than anyone I have ever
> heard.

That's just because you're too dim to undestand the instructions on how
to open up your pop tarts.


Bertie

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Apr 26, 7:58*am, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > es330td wrote:
>> >> Fortune magazine online has a photo essay about their new 787. *On
>> >> on
> e
>> >> page,
>> >>
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fortune/0804/gallery.boeing_drea
>> >>m...
> ,
>> >> they make this statement:
>>
>> >> The Dreamliner's wingspan is 197 feet, or about 25% longer than a
>> >> similar-sized plane, which increases lift and reduces drag.
>>
>> >> I thought that lift, in addition to causing a net upward force on
>> >> the wing, also contributes to the drag force on the wing as well.
>> >> If this is the case then increasing lift should also increase
>> >> drag. *Did I misunderstand?
>>
>> > The lift and drag curves for any given wing are a function of wing
>> > desig
> n.
>> > Although induced drag is a product of lift creation, the design of
>> > the wing could easily change the lift and drag coefficients and
>> > make the win
> g
>> > more efficient.
>> > These are complicated inter-relationships, and sometimes, when
>> > doing an article in a non technical venue, a writer will simply
>> > present the tip o
> f
>> > the iceberg.
>> > This isn't necessarily wrong but you will probably notice a
>> > distinct difference between an article on wing design written for
>> > Fortune as opposed to one written for Aviation Weekly :-)
>>
>> > --
>> > Dudley Henriques
>>
>> I think you can say more and explain less than anyone I have ever
>> heard.
>>
>> Do you think the value of any writing can be most accurately
>> expressed by it's printed weight in pounds?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> Do you think you are achieving anything more than exposing yourself as
> a rather tedious loser?

He does, actually. And nothing you can say to him will convince him
otherwise. It's the very essence of what it is to be a k00k.

Bertie

"WingFlaps" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 26, 7:58 am, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > es330td wrote:
> >> Fortune magazine online has a photo essay about their new 787. On one
> >> page,
> >>http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fortune/0804/gallery.boeing_dream...,
> >> they make this statement:
>
> >> The Dreamliner's wingspan is 197 feet, or about 25% longer than a
> >> similar-sized plane, which increases lift and reduces drag.
>
> >> I thought that lift, in addition to causing a net upward force on the
> >> wing, also contributes to the drag force on the wing as well. If this
> >> is the case then increasing lift should also increase drag. Did I
> >> misunderstand?
>
> > The lift and drag curves for any given wing are a function of wing
> > design.
> > Although induced drag is a product of lift creation, the design of the
> > wing could easily change the lift and drag coefficients and make the
> > wing
> > more efficient.
> > These are complicated inter-relationships, and sometimes, when doing an
> > article in a non technical venue, a writer will simply present the tip
> > of
> > the iceberg.
> > This isn't necessarily wrong but you will probably notice a distinct
> > difference between an article on wing design written for Fortune as
> > opposed to one written for Aviation Weekly :-)
>
> > --
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> I think you can say more and explain less than anyone I have ever heard.
>
> Do you think the value of any writing can be most accurately expressed by
> it's printed weight in pounds?- Hide quoted text -
>

Do you think you are achieving anything more than exposing yourself as
a rather tedious loser? Give it up man.

Cheers

No ****!!!!! What did I loose??

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "WingFlaps" > wrote in message
> news:9aeabecd-d09c-46f0-9a11-7d1e15c45ff2
@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com.
> .. On Apr 26, 7:58 am, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > es330td wrote:
>> >> Fortune magazine online has a photo essay about their new 787. On
>> >> one page,
>> >>
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fortune/0804/gallery.boeing_drea
>> >>m...,
>> >> they make this statement:
>>
>> >> The Dreamliner's wingspan is 197 feet, or about 25% longer than a
>> >> similar-sized plane, which increases lift and reduces drag.
>>
>> >> I thought that lift, in addition to causing a net upward force on
>> >> the wing, also contributes to the drag force on the wing as well.
>> >> If this is the case then increasing lift should also increase
>> >> drag. Did I misunderstand?
>>
>> > The lift and drag curves for any given wing are a function of wing
>> > design.
>> > Although induced drag is a product of lift creation, the design of
>> > the wing could easily change the lift and drag coefficients and
>> > make the wing
>> > more efficient.
>> > These are complicated inter-relationships, and sometimes, when
>> > doing an article in a non technical venue, a writer will simply
>> > present the tip of
>> > the iceberg.
>> > This isn't necessarily wrong but you will probably notice a
>> > distinct difference between an article on wing design written for
>> > Fortune as opposed to one written for Aviation Weekly :-)
>>
>> > --
>> > Dudley Henriques
>>
>> I think you can say more and explain less than anyone I have ever
>> heard.
>>
>> Do you think the value of any writing can be most accurately
>> expressed by it's printed weight in pounds?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> Do you think you are achieving anything more than exposing yourself as
> a rather tedious loser? Give it up man.
>
> Cheers
>
> No ****!!!!! What did I loose??


Marbles would be my guess.


Bertie

listen to dudley dooright he is a senior

Dudley Henriques formulated the question :
> The lift and drag curves for any given wing are a function of wing design.
> Although induced drag is a product of lift creation, the design of the wing
> could easily change the lift and drag coefficients and make the wing more
> efficient.
> These are complicated inter-relationships, and sometimes, when doing an
> article in a non technical venue, a writer will simply present the tip of the
> iceberg.
> This isn't necessarily wrong but you will probably notice a distinct
> difference between an article on wing design written for Fortune as opposed
> to one written for Aviation Weekly :-)

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:20:48 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>es330td > wrote in
:
>
>> Fortune magazine online has a photo essay about their new 787. On one
>> page,
>> http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fortune/0804/gallery.boeing_dreaml
>i
>> ner.fortune/16.html, they make this statement:
>>
>> The Dreamliner's wingspan is 197 feet, or about 25% longer than a
>> similar-sized plane, which increases lift and reduces drag.
>>
>> I thought that lift, in addition to causing a net upward force on the
>> wing, also contributes to the drag force on the wing as well. If this
>> is the case then increasing lift should also increase drag. Did I
>> misunderstand?
>>
>
>Well, it's a trade off. it's possible to do both by various means.
>arifoil selection, planform and so forth. It'd be more correct to say
>that they're eliminating unneccesary drag.
>
>
>Bertie

no.
it would be valid to say that they were using a geometry with less
induced drag. drag isnt necessary or unnecessary it is drag.
you cant eliminate it, all you can do is try hard to find the design
shape that has the least of it.

....got you on a slip of the keyboard :-)
you'll hate me now. :-)
Stealth Pilot

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:58:26 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:


>>
>> Do you think you are achieving anything more than exposing yourself as
>> a rather tedious loser? Give it up man.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> No ****!!!!! What did I loose??
>
>
>Marbles would be my guess.
>
>
>Bertie

when I read maxwell's post my immediate thought was "marbles"

ahhh bertie. rotfl lmao
Stealth Pilot

Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:20:48 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>es330td > wrote in
>>news:bb48d3a5-08b9-4a54-a836-
:
>>
>>> Fortune magazine online has a photo essay about their new 787. On
one
>>> page,
>>>
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fortune/0804/gallery.boeing_dreaml
>>i
>>> ner.fortune/16.html, they make this statement:
>>>
>>> The Dreamliner's wingspan is 197 feet, or about 25% longer than a
>>> similar-sized plane, which increases lift and reduces drag.
>>>
>>> I thought that lift, in addition to causing a net upward force on
the
>>> wing, also contributes to the drag force on the wing as well. If
this
>>> is the case then increasing lift should also increase drag. Did I
>>> misunderstand?
>>>
>>
>>Well, it's a trade off. it's possible to do both by various means.
>>arifoil selection, planform and so forth. It'd be more correct to say
>>that they're eliminating unneccesary drag.
>>
>>
>>Bertie
>
> no.
> it would be valid to say that they were using a geometry with less
> induced drag. drag isnt necessary or unnecessary it is drag.


Well, by unneccesary drag I mean stuff that is not as a result of
creating lift. Improved fillets and seals, for instance. I agree, the
planform and airfoil sections are designed to do what they do and
collect drag as they do

> you cant eliminate it, all you can do is try hard to find the design
> shape that has the least of it.
>
> ...got you on a slip of the keyboard :-)


Yeah, you did. i didn't mean for the one thought to relate to the other.
Having said that, airliner wings are really complicated. Boeing wings
are a marvel to look at. The 757 wing is simply mindboggling. The center
section has a supercritical section in order to ammelorate drag induced
by the shick wave at high mach numbers. I'd say the 787 is going to
carry on that tradition with further refinements in that direction.


> you'll hate me now. :-)

No, I only give a hard time to cretins!



Bertie

Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:58:26 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> Do you think you are achieving anything more than exposing yourself as
>>> a rather tedious loser? Give it up man.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> No ****!!!!! What did I loose??
>>
>>
>>Marbles would be my guess.
>>
>>
>>Bertie
>
> when I read maxwell's post my immediate thought was "marbles"
>
> ahhh bertie. rotfl lmao

They are pretty funny. The "give him a taste of his own medicine" game is a
pretty common tactic k00ks try and use on me. never seems to work for them
for some reason.


Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
>
>
> Yeah, you did. i didn't mean for the one thought to relate to the other.
> Having said that, airliner wings are really complicated. Boeing wings
> are a marvel to look at. The 757 wing is simply mindboggling. The center
> section has a supercritical section in order to ammelorate drag induced
> by the shick wave at high mach numbers. I'd say the 787 is going to
> carry on that tradition with further refinements in that direction.
>
>
> Bertie

Cool, did dumley teach you that one?

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:J4cRj.58570$QC.13109
@newsfe20.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>>
>> Yeah, you did. i didn't mean for the one thought to relate to the
other.
>> Having said that, airliner wings are really complicated. Boeing wings
>> are a marvel to look at. The 757 wing is simply mindboggling. The
center
>> section has a supercritical section in order to ammelorate drag
induced
>> by the shick wave at high mach numbers. I'd say the 787 is going to
>> carry on that tradition with further refinements in that direction.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Cool, did dumley teach you that one?
>
>

Nope, Boeing did.


Bertie
>

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> Stealth Pilot > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:58:26 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you think you are achieving anything more than exposing yourself as
>>>> a rather tedious loser? Give it up man.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> No ****!!!!! What did I loose??
>>>
>>>
>>>Marbles would be my guess.
>>>
>>>
>>>Bertie
>>
>> when I read maxwell's post my immediate thought was "marbles"
>>
>> ahhh bertie. rotfl lmao
>
> They are pretty funny. The "give him a taste of his own medicine" game is
> a
> pretty common tactic k00ks try and use on me. never seems to work for them
> for some reason.
>
>
> Bertie

Because you have no brains, or self respect. The only mission of people like
you is to be an obstacle. Hell, even your little brother Anthony can do
that!

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Stealth Pilot > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:58:26 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you think you are achieving anything more than exposing
>>>>> yourself as a rather tedious loser? Give it up man.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>
>>>>> No ****!!!!! What did I loose??
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Marbles would be my guess.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Bertie
>>>
>>> when I read maxwell's post my immediate thought was "marbles"
>>>
>>> ahhh bertie. rotfl lmao
>>
>> They are pretty funny. The "give him a taste of his own medicine"
>> game is a
>> pretty common tactic k00ks try and use on me. never seems to work for
>> them for some reason.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Because you have no brains, or self respect.


Got plenty of both, fjukktard.

The only mission of
> people like you is to be an obstacle.

Guess again, fjukkwit.



Hell, even your little brother
> Anthony can do that!
>
>

Oh no! You got me again...!

Bertie
>
>