This NG is turning

[Brett]

"ArtKramr" > wrote:
> A while ago the posts here were 95% pro war, pro neocon. Today they at
least
> 60% anti-war and anti Bush administration.

With 98% of those coming from you and your little friend Walter the moron.

> Things are looking up.Kerry may take
> the day after all.
>
>
> 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]

A while ago the posts here were 95% pro war, pro neocon. Today they at least
60% anti-war and anti Bush administration. Things are looking up.Kerry may take
the day after all.


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

[Jack G]

Are those percentages derived from actual numbers or just crude estimates?
If you can show the numbers used in your calculations I'll believe you.
Otherwise this gets the same regard as the other drivel you post here.

Jack G.


"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> A while ago the posts here were 95% pro war, pro neocon. Today they at
least
> 60% anti-war and anti Bush administration. Things are looking up.Kerry may
take
> the day after all.
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

[walt moffett]

On 12 Sep 2004 23:39:39 GMT,
ArtKramr > wrote:
> A while ago the posts here were 95% pro war, pro neocon. Today they at least
> 60% anti-war and anti Bush administration. Things are looking up.Kerry may take
> the day after all.
>
>

hmm, about 3/10 on the troll meter...

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: This NG is turning
>From: "Jack G"
>Date: 9/12/2004 4:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <Cf51d.1487$bj2.680@trnddc08>
>
>Are those percentages derived from actual numbers or just crude estimates?
>If you can show the numbers used in your calculations I'll believe you.
>Otherwise this gets the same regard as the other drivel you post here.
>
>Jack G.
>


Speaking of drivel would you tell us all about your combat experiences?


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

[Jack G]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: This NG is turning
> >From: "Jack G"
> >Date: 9/12/2004 4:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <Cf51d.1487$bj2.680@trnddc08>
> >
> >Are those percentages derived from actual numbers or just crude
estimates?
> >If you can show the numbers used in your calculations I'll believe you.
> >Otherwise this gets the same regard as the other drivel you post here.
> >
> >Jack G.
> >
>
>
> Speaking of drivel would you tell us all about your combat experiences?
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

See - more drivel from Art. He just can't help it!

Jack G.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: This NG is turning
>From: walt moffett
>Date: 9/12/2004 4:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 12 Sep 2004 23:39:39 GMT,
> ArtKramr > wrote:
>> A while ago the posts here were 95% pro war, pro neocon. Today they at
>least
>> 60% anti-war and anti Bush administration. Things are looking up.Kerry may
>take
>> the day after all.
>>
>>
>
>hmm, about 3/10 on the troll meter...
>


Only by Neocon standards.


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]

>Subject: Re: This NG is turning
>From: "Jack G"
>Date: 9/12/2004 5:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <Ow51d.1488$bj2.572@trnddc08>
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: This NG is turning
>> >From: "Jack G"
>> >Date: 9/12/2004 4:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <Cf51d.1487$bj2.680@trnddc08>
>> >
>> >Are those percentages derived from actual numbers or just crude
>estimates?
>> >If you can show the numbers used in your calculations I'll believe you.
>> >Otherwise this gets the same regard as the other drivel you post here.
>> >
>> >Jack G.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Speaking of drivel would you tell us all about your combat experiences?
>>
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> 344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>
>
>See - more drivel from Art. He just can't help it!
>
>Jack G.


Neocons never fight.


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

[Jack G]

Art - would you explain to me what neocon means? I don't know if it is a
compliment or an insult...

Thanks

Jack G.


"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: This NG is turning
> >From: "Jack G"
> >Date: 9/12/2004 5:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <Ow51d.1488$bj2.572@trnddc08>
> >
> >
> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >Subject: Re: This NG is turning
> >> >From: "Jack G"
> >> >Date: 9/12/2004 4:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: <Cf51d.1487$bj2.680@trnddc08>
> >> >
> >> >Are those percentages derived from actual numbers or just crude
> >estimates?
> >> >If you can show the numbers used in your calculations I'll believe
you.
> >> >Otherwise this gets the same regard as the other drivel you post here.
> >> >
> >> >Jack G.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Speaking of drivel would you tell us all about your combat experiences?
> >>
> >>
> >> Arthur Kramer
> >> 344th BG 494th BS
> >> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> >> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> >> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
> >>
> >
> >See - more drivel from Art. He just can't help it!
> >
> >Jack G.
>
>
> Neocons never fight.
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

[B2431]

>Date: 9/12/2004 7:22 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <rL51d.1490$bj2.957@trnddc08>
>
>Art - would you explain to me what neocon means? I don't know if it is a
>compliment or an insult...
>
>Thanks
>
>Jack G.
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: This NG is turning
>> >From: "Jack G"
>> >Date: 9/12/2004 5:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <Ow51d.1488$bj2.572@trnddc08>
>> >
>> >
>> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> >Subject: Re: This NG is turning
>> >> >From: "Jack G"
>> >> >Date: 9/12/2004 4:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >> >Message-id: <Cf51d.1487$bj2.680@trnddc08>
>> >> >
>> >> >Are those percentages derived from actual numbers or just crude
>> >estimates?
>> >> >If you can show the numbers used in your calculations I'll believe
>you.
>> >> >Otherwise this gets the same regard as the other drivel you post here.
>> >> >
>> >> >Jack G.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Speaking of drivel would you tell us all about your combat experiences?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Arthur Kramer
>> >> 344th BG 494th BS
>> >> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>> >> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> >> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>> >>
>> >
>> >See - more drivel from Art. He just can't help it!
>> >
>> >Jack G.
>>
>>
>> Neocons never fight.
>>
>>
>> Arthur Kramer


Based on what he said in another thread a neocon is a democrat that pushes
forgeries. Then again, based on yet another thread, he made it clear a neocon
was anyone without combat experience in the nose of a B-26.

Perhaps if art actually took a break from demeaning others and calling names he
would answer. He seems to be a legend in his own mind.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: This NG is turning
>From: (B2431)
>Date: 9/12/2004 6:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>

>>Date: 9/12/2004 7:22 PM Central Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <rL51d.1490$bj2.957@trnddc08>
>>
>>Art - would you explain to me what neocon means? I don't know if it is a
>>compliment or an insult...
>>
>>Thanks
>>
>>Jack G.
>>
>>
>>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>>> >Subject: Re: This NG is turning
>>> >From: "Jack G"
>>> >Date: 9/12/2004 5:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>> >Message-id: <Ow51d.1488$bj2.572@trnddc08>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >> >Subject: Re: This NG is turning
>>> >> >From: "Jack G"
>>> >> >Date: 9/12/2004 4:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>> >> >Message-id: <Cf51d.1487$bj2.680@trnddc08>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Are those percentages derived from actual numbers or just crude
>>> >estimates?
>>> >> >If you can show the numbers used in your calculations I'll believe
>>you.
>>> >> >Otherwise this gets the same regard as the other drivel you post here.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Jack G.
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Speaking of drivel would you tell us all about your combat experiences?
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Arthur Kramer
>>> >> 344th BG 494th BS
>>> >> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>>> >> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>>> >> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >See - more drivel from Art. He just can't help it!
>>> >
>>> >Jack G.
>>>
>>>
>>> Neocons never fight.
>>>
>>>
>>> Arthur Kramer
>
>
>Based on what he said in another thread a neocon is a democrat that pushes
>forgeries. Then again, based on yet another thread, he made it clear a neocon
>was anyone without combat experience in the nose of a B-26.
>
>Perhaps if art actually took a break from demeaning others and calling names
>he
>would answer. He seems to be a legend in his own mind.
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>

And you are a legend in no ones mind wannabee.


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

[Tex Houston]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>A while ago the posts here were 95% pro war, pro neocon. Today they at
>least
> 60% anti-war and anti Bush administration. Things are looking up.Kerry may
> take
> the day after all.
>
>
> Arthur Kramer

I keep hoping it will turn out to about military aviation. You aren't
helping much. Too bad! You could have been a contender.

Tex Houston

[Leadfoot]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> A while ago the posts here were 95% pro war, pro neocon. Today they at
least
> 60% anti-war and anti Bush administration. Things are looking up.Kerry may
take
> the day after all.

How many electoral votes does r.a.m have?


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

[DunxC]

Yep, this group is turning alright. Years ago you could guarantee reasoned
questions & answers on military aviation topics. Seems to be 90% off-topic (at
a very rough non-scientific guess).

Any chance of some on-topic chat?

Duncan

[George Z. Bush]

DunxC wrote:
> Yep, this group is turning alright. Years ago you could guarantee reasoned
> questions & answers on military aviation topics. Seems to be 90% off-topic (at
> a very rough non-scientific guess).
>
> Any chance of some on-topic chat?

I remember reading stories about the air war in WWI, and I always wondered why
Fokker included a third wing on that unique three-winger fighter the Germans
used and why. I don't believe any other aircraft manufacturer built a line
model with three wings, but I could be wrong about that.

Comments?

George Z.

PS - Like you, Duncan, I'm tired of having to wade through so much seasonal
political bull**** in RAM in order to read of things military aviation. In the
interests of subject purity, I've given up even commenting on such impure
intrusions on our "raison d'etre" and encourage others to follow my lead. Let's
just ignore that stuff when it shows up and limit our responses to a simple
two-letter "OT" if we feel obliged to say anything at all and then move on.
Most of us have made up our minds already anyway, so look at all the bandwidth
we'll be able to save.

[David Wallace]

George Z. Bush > wrote:

> I remember reading stories about the air war in WWI, and I always wondered why
> Fokker included a third wing on that unique three-winger fighter the Germans
> used and why. I don't believe any other aircraft manufacturer built a line
> model with three wings, but I could be wrong about that.

Probably to increase wing area and still maintain a small profile. They
are tiny planes even when compared to the small size of the Sopwith Pup
and Camel. Sopwith came out with a 3-decker prior to the Fokker, but
neither of them remained in service very long. The DR1 was mainly active
between Nov 1917 and May 1918 and of the 320 or so made a large number
crashed due to structural failures. They sure look cute in the flesh
though.

Out of curiosity, did you ever fly the C-46 at all, and if so, how did
it compare to the C-47? I've often wondered what the difference in run
length for take offs and landings was.

Dave.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"George Z. Bush" > writes:
> DunxC wrote:
>> Yep, this group is turning alright. Years ago you could guarantee reasoned
>> questions & answers on military aviation topics. Seems to be 90% off-topic (at
>> a very rough non-scientific guess).
>>
>> Any chance of some on-topic chat?
>
> I remember reading stories about the air war in WWI, and I always wondered why
> Fokker included a third wing on that unique three-winger fighter the Germans
> used and why. I don't believe any other aircraft manufacturer built a line
> model with three wings, but I could be wrong about that.

Well, just before Fokker started designing his triplane, the Royal
Navy Air Service had been very successful with their Sopwith Tripes.
They were basically a Sopwith Pup with 3 wings, instead of 2.
IIRC, Caproni in Ita;y was building triplane (and trimotor) Heavy
Bombers.
They'd give you the advantage of more wing area for a given size, and,
if it were wire-braced, a stiffer structure. The disadvanages are
much more drag, both Profile and Induced, and lousy view from the
cockpit. It must have been like flying a set of Venetian Blinds.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>
> A while ago the posts here were 95% pro war, pro neocon. Today
> they at least 60% anti-war and anti Bush administration.
>

Which only indicates that the loons post far more messages.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>
> Speaking of drivel would you tell us all about your combat experiences?
>

Who did you support for president in 1992? 1996?

[Ed Rasimus]

>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Speaking of drivel would you tell us all about your combat experiences?

And, what exactly would you like to know about them, Art?



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

[George Z. Bush]

"David Wallace" > wrote in message
...
> George Z. Bush > wrote:
>
>> I remember reading stories about the air war in WWI, and I always wondered
>> why
>> Fokker included a third wing on that unique three-winger fighter the Germans
>> used and why. I don't believe any other aircraft manufacturer built a line
>> model with three wings, but I could be wrong about that.
>
> Probably to increase wing area and still maintain a small profile. They
> are tiny planes even when compared to the small size of the Sopwith Pup
> and Camel. Sopwith came out with a 3-decker prior to the Fokker, but
> neither of them remained in service very long. The DR1 was mainly active
> between Nov 1917 and May 1918 and of the 320 or so made a large number
> crashed due to structural failures. They sure look cute in the flesh
> though.
>
> Out of curiosity, did you ever fly the C-46 at all, and if so, how did
> it compare to the C-47? I've often wondered what the difference in run
> length for take offs and landings was.

Finally.....somebody asked me something I can speak about from personal
experience. Yes, I had about a thousand hours or so in C-46s, most in the left
seat. In its day, the C-46 was the Mack truck of the airborne trash hauling
business. From my failing memory, the max gross on the gooney bird was around
28,000 lbs, whereas the same limitation on the 46 was 35,000, although we pretty
much routinely took off with 40,000 lbs. (or even a little more) during active
operations. Needless to say, it required a bit more run length for T/Os and
landings. In the air, unless the hydraulic control boosters were operable, it
handled about like what I imagine picking up a horse one handed might be.
However, it did have two of those P-47 sized R-2000 engines, which had a lot of
muscle compared to the goonie's R-1280s.

The gooney bird, OTOH, was God's gift to any pilot who needed to fly a
transport. She handled well in the air, flew well on one engine (and could even
climb 2-300 fpm on one engine if you weren't loaded, and was the most forgiving
airplane ever designed by a human being. It was able to haul two CG-4(?)
gliders in a twin tow pretty easily if you didn't mind staggering through the
air at about 90-85 mph, and could also handle one of those big RAF Horsa
gliders. I recall once (as a lark) taking off a PSP runway in Italy on a
training flight with the wind directly on the nose at about 25 mph on cruise
settings just to see if it would do it. Needless to say, since I'm telling you
about it, it did. Pretty stupid, right? But then, I was young then and never
bothered to think of what the options were going to be if it couldn't break
ground. With clear headed thinking like that, I'd probably have become a
statistic if I'd ended up in fighters.
(^-^)))

George Z.

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> DunxC wrote:
> > Yep, this group is turning alright. Years ago you could guarantee
reasoned
> > questions & answers on military aviation topics. Seems to be 90%
off-topic (at
> > a very rough non-scientific guess).
> >
> > Any chance of some on-topic chat?
>
> I remember reading stories about the air war in WWI, and I always wondered
why
> Fokker included a third wing on that unique three-winger fighter the
Germans
> used and why. I don't believe any other aircraft manufacturer built a
line
> model with three wings, but I could be wrong about that.

Sopwith also built a triplane.


>
> Comments?
>
> George Z.
>
> PS - Like you, Duncan, I'm tired of having to wade through so much
seasonal
> political bull**** in RAM in order to read of things military aviation.
In the
> interests of subject purity, I've given up even commenting on such impure
> intrusions on our "raison d'etre" and encourage others to follow my lead.

Bullpoopie; you have been a continual and rampant poster of political,
economic, etc., diatribes--stop acting as if you have somehow been above the
fray. Crap, you are about as dishonest about this as Art has proven to be.

Brooks

Let's
> just ignore that stuff when it shows up and limit our responses to a
simple
> two-letter "OT" if we feel obliged to say anything at all and then move
on.
> Most of us have made up our minds already anyway, so look at all the
bandwidth
> we'll be able to save.
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> I remember reading stories about the air war in WWI, and I always wondered
> why Fokker included a third wing on that unique three-winger fighter the
> Germans used and why. I don't believe any other aircraft manufacturer
> built a line model with three wings, but I could be wrong about that.
>
> Comments?
>

It wasn't unique, it wasn't even first. The British Sopwith Triplane
preceded the Fokker Dr.1. The British also produced the unsuccessful
Blackburn Triplane and the Germans the Pfalz Dr.1.

[J Haggerty]

ArtKramr wrote:
> A while ago the posts here were 95% pro war, pro neocon. Today they at least
> 60% anti-war and anti Bush administration. Things are looking up.Kerry may take
> the day after all.

You're right about it turning; it's turning from a "military aviation"
website to a "political rant by Art Kramer" website, and half of those
anti-Bush posts are initiated or continued by you! Perfect example is
this post you started; what does it have to do with military aviation?
PS. By your logic, you're not qualified to speak about Iraq, because you
weren't there!


JPH

[Pooh Bear]

ArtKramr wrote:

> A while ago the posts here were 95% pro war, pro neocon. Today they at least
> 60% anti-war and anti Bush administration. Things are looking up.Kerry may take
> the day after all.

Pro *which* war.

Surely an effective military is there to help stop wars from happening in the first
place mainly ( they're expensive ).


Graham

[Leslie Swartz]

Like any good democrat (oxymoron) Art just assumes he gets to vote as many
times as he hits the return key . . .

Steve Swartz

"Jack G" > wrote in message
news:Cf51d.1487$bj2.680@trnddc08...
> Are those percentages derived from actual numbers or just crude estimates?
> If you can show the numbers used in your calculations I'll believe you.
> Otherwise this gets the same regard as the other drivel you post here.
>
> Jack G.
>
>
> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
>> A while ago the posts here were 95% pro war, pro neocon. Today they at
> least
>> 60% anti-war and anti Bush administration. Things are looking up.Kerry
>> may
> take
>> the day after all.
>>
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> 344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>
>
>

[Leslie Swartz]

Ahh, more wisdom from the

"If you didn't ride around in B-26s in the ETO you don't know jack about
[Brain surgery, opinion polling, political science, economics, whatever]"
gasbag.

I can only imagine- it must physically hurt to be so stupid AND ignorant
simultaneously.

Steve Swartz




"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: This NG is turning
>>From: "Jack G"
>>Date: 9/12/2004 4:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <Cf51d.1487$bj2.680@trnddc08>
>>
>>Are those percentages derived from actual numbers or just crude estimates?
>>If you can show the numbers used in your calculations I'll believe you.
>>Otherwise this gets the same regard as the other drivel you post here.
>>
>>Jack G.
>>
>
>
> Speaking of drivel would you tell us all about your combat experiences?
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

[B2431]

>George Z. Bush > wrote:
>
>> I remember reading stories about the air war in WWI, and I always wondered
>why
>> Fokker included a third wing on that unique three-winger fighter the
>Germans
>> used and why. I don't believe any other aircraft manufacturer built a line
>> model with three wings, but I could be wrong about that.
>

As usual you are wrong. The Brits had the Sopwith triplane.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: This NG is turning
>From: "Kevin Brooks"
>Date: 9/13/2004 8:56 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>> DunxC wrote:
>> > Yep, this group is turning alright. Years ago you could guarantee
>reasoned
>> > questions & answers on military aviation topics. Seems to be 90%
>off-topic (at
>> > a very rough non-scientific guess).
>> >
>> > Any chance of some on-topic chat?
>>
>> I remember reading stories about the air war in WWI, and I always wondered
>why
>> Fokker included a third wing on that unique three-winger fighter the
>Germans
>> used and why. I don't believe any other aircraft manufacturer built a
>line
>> model with three wings, but I could be wrong about that.
>
>Sopwith also built a triplane.
>
>
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>> George Z.
>>
>> PS - Like you, Duncan, I'm tired of having to wade through so much
>seasonal
>> political bull**** in RAM in order to read of things military aviation.
>In the
>> interests of subject purity, I've given up even commenting on such impure
>> intrusions on our "raison d'etre" and encourage others to follow my lead.
>
>Bullpoopie; you have been a continual and rampant poster of political,
>economic, etc., diatribes--stop acting as if you have somehow been above the
>fray. Crap, you are about as dishonest about this as Art has proven to be.
>
>Brooks
>
>Let's
>> just ignore that stuff when it shows up and limit our responses to a
>simple
>> two-letter "OT" if we feel obliged to say anything at all and then move
>on.
>> Most of us have made up our minds already anyway, so look at all the
>bandwidth
>> we'll be able to save.
>>
>>


George went to war. I went to war. You went to **** you lying cowardly pile of
dung. You fought no one. You flew nothing.You are a totally worthless phony.


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

[Bob Coe]

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> George went to war. I went to war. You went to **** you lying cowardly pile of
> dung. You fought no one. You flew nothing.You are a totally worthless phony.

But you went to war with a racist crew, so it doesn't count.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: This NG is turning
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 9/13/2004 8:24 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>
>>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> Speaking of drivel would you tell us all about your combat experiences?
>
>And, what exactly would you like to know about them, Art?
>
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
>Both from Smithsonian Books
>***www.thunderchief.org


You've already told us about your medals Ed. Well done. Your country is proud
of you.


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

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
(DunxC) wrote:

> Yep, this group is turning alright. Years ago you could guarantee reasoned
> questions & answers on military aviation topics. Seems to be 90% off-topic (at
> a very rough non-scientific guess).
>
> Any chance of some on-topic chat?

Not much until after the elections.

[Peter Twydell]

In article >, ArtKramr
> writes
>A while ago the posts here were 95% pro war, pro neocon. Today they at least
>60% anti-war and anti Bush administration. Things are looking up.Kerry may take
>the day after all.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer
>344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

There are a lot of lurkers and posters in this NG who aren't going to
vote for either candidate.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[B2431]

>From: "Bob Coe"
>Date: 9/13/2004 8:42 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <Y%r1d.25113$ni.2138@okepread01>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote
>>
>> George went to war. I went to war. You went to **** you lying cowardly pile
>of
>> dung. You fought no one. You flew nothing.You are a totally worthless
>phony.
>
>But you went to war with a racist crew, so it doesn't count.

Bob, don't worry about it. Art is proof combat doesn't always make a better
man. Then again last week he called clinton a combat veteran.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[David Wallace]

George Z. Bush > wrote:

>
> > Out of curiosity, did you ever fly the C-46 at all, and if so, how did
> > it compare to the C-47? I've often wondered what the difference in run
> > length for take offs and landings was.
>
> Finally.....somebody asked me something I can speak about from personal
> experience. Yes, I had about a thousand hours or so in C-46s, most in the
> left seat.

That's enough left seat time to have memorised the individual screw
holes in the instrument panel. From memory there were only a few
thousand made, unlike the C-47 - did many of them end up in the ETO? I
know they were common in the CBI on the Hump, but I've seen little
reference to them in Europe. I suppose the smaller numbers, extra
complexity and much greater fuel usage limited them a bit. Bigger than a
B-17, too.

> operations. Needless to say, it required a bit more run length for T/Os
> and landings. In the air, unless the hydraulic control boosters were
> operable, it handled about like what I imagine picking up a horse one
> handed might be.

I think the hydraulic boosters were removed when they were demilitarised
- I vaguely recall the pilot of one of the South American "airlines"
saying they were put back to manual and required both feet on the panel
to do anything at speed or in bad weather. I wonder if any of them are
still flying - the last one I heard of was around 5 years back. The
engines are a tad more complex than the R-1280s and I guess parts would
be a problem.

> gliders. I recall once (as a lark) taking off a PSP runway in Italy on a
> training flight with the wind directly on the nose at about 25 mph on
> cruise settings just to see if it would do it.

There is still one at least flying locally - occasionally hear it
droning overhead and go out and watch it slowly drift across the sky. I
used to see a lot of them 40 years back coming in to our country strip
and in strong wind you'd could almost outrun them on the flare. Lovely
things. There's one from the RAAF Research & Development Unit in the
local air museum - it was taken out of service about 10 years back after
a belly landing. It wasn't repaired and the damage from the landing is
minimal - just a few small scrapes and dents which is testament to the
strength of construction.


Dave.

[George Z. Bush]

"David Wallace" > wrote in message
...
> George Z. Bush > wrote:
>

> That's enough left seat time to have memorised the individual screw
> holes in the instrument panel. From memory there were only a few
> thousand made, unlike the C-47 - did many of them end up in the ETO? I
> know they were common in the CBI on the Hump, but I've seen little
> reference to them in Europe.

During its lifetime, there were over 3,000 of them built. In the ETO, they were
used to tow gliders in the Rhein crossing of 1945, although I never saw one
until I joined the Reserves back in the States after demob in 1946.

http://www.uswarplanes.net/c46.htm

George Z.

[Dale]

In article >,
(David Wallace) wrote:


> I think the hydraulic boosters were removed when they were demilitarised
> - I vaguely recall the pilot of one of the South American "airlines"
> saying they were put back to manual and required both feet on the panel
> to do anything at speed or in bad weather. I wonder if any of them are
> still flying - the last one I heard of was around 5 years back. The
> engines are a tad more complex than the R-1280s and I guess parts would
> be a problem.

Everts Air is still flying C-46s in Alaska hauling fuel/cargo.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[ian maclure]

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 07:01:11 -0800, Dale wrote:

> In article >,
> (David Wallace) wrote:
>
>
>> I think the hydraulic boosters were removed when they were demilitarised
>> - I vaguely recall the pilot of one of the South American "airlines"
>> saying they were put back to manual and required both feet on the panel
>> to do anything at speed or in bad weather. I wonder if any of them are
>> still flying - the last one I heard of was around 5 years back. The
>> engines are a tad more complex than the R-1280s and I guess parts would
>> be a problem.
>
> Everts Air is still flying C-46s in Alaska hauling fuel/cargo.

Many years ago during a military training jaunt I saw one of the
most amazing aircraft related sights I could ever hope to
witness.
I was walking back to barracks after breakfast and noticed a
line of airplanes off to the west. 9 of them, twin engine and
spraying something, probably for spruce budworm.
I though they might be DC-3s but as they got closer I noticed they
were too chubby for that and it hit me, C-46s in echelon flying
a spray block.
Then it happened. They ceased spraying and the guy at the extreme
right of the line ( form my viewpoint ) racked around in a 180 degree
turn.
In succession, the other 8 airplanes went up and over executing their
own 180s.
It was like they were on a string.
When it was over they had reversed course and were flying back onto
their spray block in echelon.
The spray came back on just as the last airplane resumed position.
I know a little something about the process of aerial spraying and
its difficult enough with a navigator and 3-6 smaller aircraft ( often
TBF/TBM ). This was way more complex.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Leanne]

> > That's enough left seat time to have memorised the individual screw
> > holes in the instrument panel. From memory there were only a few
> > thousand made, unlike the C-47 - did many of them end up in the ETO? I
> > know they were common in the CBI on the Hump, but I've seen little
> > reference to them in Europe.
>
> During its lifetime, there were over 3,000 of them built. In the ETO,
they were
> used to tow gliders in the Rhein crossing of 1945, although I never saw
one
> until I joined the Reserves back in the States after demob in 1946.

Air America flew them in Vietnam and other places. I used to see them all
the time in Thailand, coming and going.

Leanne

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: C-46 -was- This NG is turning
>From: Dale
>Date: 9/14/2004 8:01 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
> (David Wallace) wrote:
>
>
>> I think the hydraulic boosters were removed when they were demilitarised
>> - I vaguely recall the pilot of one of the South American "airlines"
>> saying they were put back to manual and required both feet on the panel
>> to do anything at speed or in bad weather. I wonder if any of them are
>> still flying - the last one I heard of was around 5 years back. The
>> engines are a tad more complex than the R-1280s and I guess parts would
>> be a problem.
>
>Everts Air is still flying C-46s in Alaska hauling fuel/cargo.
>
>--
>Dale L. Falk
>

I got some C-46 stick time with boosters and as I remember it it had R-2800'.s.


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]

>Subject: Re: C-46 -was- This NG is turning
>From: "Leanne"
>Date: 9/14/2004 8:54 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>> > That's enough left seat time to have memorised the individual screw
>> > holes in the instrument panel. From memory there were only a few
>> > thousand made, unlike the C-47 - did many of them end up in the ETO? I
>> > know they were common in the CBI on the Hump, but I've seen little
>> > reference to them in Europe.
>>
>> During its lifetime, there were over 3,000 of them built. In the ETO,
>they were
>> used to tow gliders in the Rhein crossing of 1945, although I never saw
>one
>> until I joined the Reserves back in the States after demob in 1946.
>
>Air America flew them in Vietnam and other places. I used to see them all
>the time in Thailand, coming and going.
>
>Leanne


We were coming back form a mission in Germany flying west to our base in
Pontoise when we saw some C-46's towing gliders East. We later found out that
we had witnessed the beginning of Market Garden.






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

[B2431]

>From: (ArtKramr)
>Date: 9/12/2004 7:13 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>Subject: Re: This NG is turning
>>From: "Jack G"
>>Date: 9/12/2004 5:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <Ow51d.1488$bj2.572@trnddc08>
>>
>>
>>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>>> >Subject: Re: This NG is turning
>>> >From: "Jack G"
>>> >Date: 9/12/2004 4:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>> >Message-id: <Cf51d.1487$bj2.680@trnddc08>
>>> >
>>> >Are those percentages derived from actual numbers or just crude
>>estimates?
>>> >If you can show the numbers used in your calculations I'll believe you.
>>> >Otherwise this gets the same regard as the other drivel you post here.
>>> >
>>> >Jack G.
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> Speaking of drivel would you tell us all about your combat experiences?
>>>
>>>
>>> Arthur Kramer
>>> 344th BG 494th BS
>>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>>
>>
>>See - more drivel from Art. He just can't help it!
>>
>>Jack G.
>
>
>Neocons never fight.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

And you are a liar, so what's your point?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: (ArtKramr)
>Date: 9/12/2004 6:39 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>A while ago the posts here were 95% pro war, pro neocon. Today they at least
>60% anti-war and anti Bush administration. Things are looking up.Kerry may
>take
>the day after all.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

A while ago you behaved like a mature adult. Now you lie and evade.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[WaltBJ]

Rich Air down at Miami Intl was flying C46s out to the BWI - don't
know if they're still using them but it was ideal for that run. Part
of my practical for my A&P was on one of Rich's R2800s.
Walt BJ

[vincent p. norris]

>> Yes, I had about a thousand hours or so in C-46s, most in the
>> left seat.

I have about 800 hours in the R5C-1, which is the PROPER name of that
aircraft. (:-)) The Marine Corps had two squadrons of them (VMR 153
and VMR 252) at Cherry Point from the end of WW II till about 1953,
when they were replaced with R4Q-2s (which the Air Force mistakenly
called the C-119).

I believe the Marines flew them in the Pacific during WW II, but I
was in high school then, so I'm not sure. BTW, Tyrone Power was a
pilot in VMR 252 in the Pacific.

Ablout half of our airplanes were unpainted, the other half were
blue. But where the blue paint had worn off, there was olive-drab
paint underneath, so I always assumed the Navy got those airplanes
and gave them to the Marines, after the Army wore them out.

>> Needless to say, it required a bit more run length for T/Os
>> and landings.

Although half a century has passed since I flew one, I think we
operated them in and out of 3,000 foot strips.

>> In the air, unless the hydraulic control boosters were
>> operable, it handled about like what I imagine picking up a horse one
>> handed might be.

IIRC, the R5C-1 was the equivalent of the C46a, and had no hydraulic
boost. It was heavy on the controls, but not too bad; it was a lot
easier to fly than the PB4Y-2 (single-finned B-24) I had flown before.

> I wonder if any of them are
>still flying - the last one I heard of was around 5 years back.

I saw one being fully refurbished in Red Deer, Alberta, about 1995.
Later I saw several at Fairbanks, Alaska. They fly supplies to the
many villages unreachable except by air.

> The engines are a tad more complex than the R-1280s

PW R-2800s. Hell of a good engine. The Curtiss Electric props were
troublesome, though.

vince norris

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(B2431) wrote:

> >George Z. Bush > wrote:
> >
> >> I remember reading stories about the air war in WWI, and I always
> >> wondered
> >why
> >> Fokker included a third wing on that unique three-winger fighter the
> >Germans
> >> used and why. I don't believe any other aircraft manufacturer built a
> >> line
> >> model with three wings, but I could be wrong about that.
> >
>
> As usual you are wrong. The Brits had the Sopwith triplane.
>
Snoopy was a Brit?

[ArtKramr]

>ubject: Re: C-46 -was- This NG is turning
>From: vincent p. norris
>Date: 9/14/2004 6:12 PM Pac

>PW R-2800s. Hell of a good engine. The Curtiss Electric props were
>troublesome, though.
>
>vince norris

Yeah. The same with the B-26 Marauders.If a runaway prop threw a blade there
was always a chance it could behead a pilot. The props were in perfect line
with the cockpit.Luckily that rarely happened.






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

[Howard Berkowitz]

While I've never been a member of an aircrew, I cannot help but marvel
at the longevity of some aircraft designs. It's really hard to think of
the Gooney Bird or the Buff, and many others, as soulless.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> As usual you are wrong. The Brits had the Sopwith triplane.
>>
>
> Snoopy was a Brit?
>

Doesn't Snoopy fly a Camel?

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

vincent p. norris wrote:
> PW R-2800s. Hell of a good engine. The Curtiss Electric props were
> troublesome, though.


The early ones also had electric fuel pumps that had a bad tendency to go BOOM
from time to time. Not all C-46s lost over the Hump flew into the mountainside.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>> As usual you are wrong. The Brits had the Sopwith triplane.
>>
>> Snoopy was a Brit?
>
> Doesn't Snoopy fly a Camel?



Yes. Sopwith made more than one model aircraft, just like Fokker did.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[David Wallace]

Dale > wrote:

> Everts Air is still flying C-46s in Alaska hauling fuel/cargo.

Yes! I found some pics of them at Fairbanks last night. Looks like
Everts have two or 3 of them and all in good nick.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/636071/L/

Very pretty plane. (Some amazing pics of all sorts of things on
airliners.net too - easily while away hours on the search button...)

Dave.

[WaltBJ]

Would you like your very own C46? I just remembered when Miami built
the Dolphin Expressway, which runs parallel to and just south of MIA
9Right, there was a C46 parked south of the right-of-way on airport
property. The owner was warned but never got around to moving it and
the Expressway effectively imprisoned the '46. It was still there
around 1980, walled in by apartment buildings, borrow pits, and the
expressway. I suppose all the goodies have been stripped from it.
FWIW the history of the C46 was sort of a precursor of the C82 and
C119. Air Force loaded it too high, just as they did with the 82/119,
and when an engine failed a lot of times the bird went in. The CAA/FAA
had a whole chapter on operating the C46 specifying loadings a good
deal under those used by the military in WW2. I knew a pilot who
ferried one from Burma to Karachi - single-handed. He said the only
snag was fuel management - he had to trim it real good and then get
up, go back, and switch tanks. He was a champ ping-pong player; guess
the celerity came in handy on that trip.
Walt BJ

[WaltBJ]

FWIW the Brits had a quadraplane and the Italians had a nonaplane
(enneaplane?). Neither were any good; the 9-plane crashed on its first
takeoff. Supermarine made the 4; Caproni the 9. The worst ever built
was the monoplane Christmas Bullet; they made two; on the first flight
of both they became 0-planes. the sad part was they were made and
flown sequentially. Why the second pilot ever tried to fly the second
bird is beyond me. The wings were flexible and could be pushed up and
pulled down by hand!
Walt BJ

[vincent p. norris]

>Would you like your very own C46?...... It was still there
>around 1980, walled in by apartment buildings, borrow pits, and the
>expressway.

I neglected to mention that one is now parked at the Curtiss Museum in
Hammondsport, New York. Might be that one. It was trucked in in
pieces, I'm told.

vince norris

[Johnny Bravo]

On 12 Sep 2004 23:54:10 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Are those percentages derived from actual numbers or just crude estimates?
>>If you can show the numbers used in your calculations I'll believe you.
>>Otherwise this gets the same regard as the other drivel you post here.
>>
>>Jack G.
>>
>
>
>Speaking of drivel would you tell us all about your combat experiences?

You need combat experience to calculate percentages? What in the
hell are you talking about?

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

[Tex Houston]

"vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
...

> I neglected to mention that one is now parked at the Curtiss Museum in
> Hammondsport, New York. Might be that one. It was trucked in in
> pieces, I'm told.
>
> vince norris

Maybe indirectly, perhaps. The one at the Curtis Museum was moved there
from Wings of Eagles Museum, Elmira.

Tex

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
(WaltBJ) wrote:

> FWIW the Brits had a quadraplane and the Italians had a nonaplane
> (enneaplane?). Neither were any good; the 9-plane crashed on its first
> takeoff. Supermarine made the 4; Caproni the 9. The worst ever built
> was the monoplane Christmas Bullet; they made two; on the first flight
> of both they became 0-planes. the sad part was they were made and
> flown sequentially. Why the second pilot ever tried to fly the second
> bird is beyond me. The wings were flexible and could be pushed up and
> pulled down by hand!

You wouldn't happen to have been reading Gilbert's "World's Worst
Aircraft"? Love that book.

> Walt BJ

[Ad absurdum per aspera]

>> I've seen little reference to them in Europe.

They were used in Operation Varsity, the crossing of the Rhine,
earning a mixed reputation for survivability in the ETO threat
environment. The gist of it is that they were supposed to catch fire
too easily, and in a uniquely engulfing way, when hit. Some claim
this is more anecdotal than statistical (i.e., did that formation just
happen to encounter particularly intense and effective ground fire?).
Fortunately the defeat of Germany was not far away by then.

See for instance
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1983/May-Jun/boston.htm
as well as
http://www.brooks.af.mil/HSW/HO/ww2plane.html
and page 404 and footnote 8 on page 407 of
http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/fulltext/green_light.pdf
[modem users should note that this document takes a while to download]
Compare
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1983/May-Jun/boston.htm

Certainly it suffered by comparison to the C-47's reputation as a
tough and dependable aircraft, even though, as far as I know, that
revered plane didn't have self-sealing fuel tanks either (they were
experimented with, but I don't know whether that ever come to fruition
operationally).

Finally, here is a link to an interesting story by someone who flew
the C-46 (not during WW2) under different circumstances at a couple of
points in his life:
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182136-1.html

Note that I speak without firsthand experience or deep research
knowledge in the above matters -- just some pointers to what others
have written.

Cheers,
--Joe

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Ad absurdum per aspera wrote:
> Finally, here is a link to an interesting story by someone who flew
> the C-46 (not during WW2) under different circumstances at a couple of
> points in his life:
> http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182136-1.html


Fantastic link! Thanks for posting it.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[Guy Alcala]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:

> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> >>> As usual you are wrong. The Brits had the Sopwith triplane.
> >>
> >> Snoopy was a Brit?
> >
> > Doesn't Snoopy fly a Camel?
>
> Yes. Sopwith made more than one model aircraft, just like Fokker did.

Of course he does, and both were designed for the RNAS. AFAIK the Tripe
only flew with them (No. 1 and 3 Sq. RNAS IIRR), while the Camel served
with both RFC and RNAS units before they became the RAF. The Sopwith Tripe
was a lot of fun to fly in the flight sim Red Baron, and I used to plot
how to wangle a transfer into one of the RNAS units that got them as soon
as it entered service. In its period you were Sky King, cause no one
could touch you. Only problem was the single MG, but otherwise, the
Albatri and Pfalz were meat on the table. It was equivalent to flying an
F-15 or 16 against MiG-21s.

The Fokker Tripe was a different matter, designed in response to the
Sopwith Tripe. It had two guns and incredible rudder response that
allowed you to make flat turns, but it was slow, god awful slow. It
climbed like an elevator but if you were in a Spad XIII or SE.5A with a
Tripe on your tail you just dove until he'd back off to keep the wings
from failing, or else you raised the nose until you were at the Tripe's
max. level speed (103 mph true IIRR) or thereabouts, and disengaged in a
shallow fast climb until you had sufficient range to turn around and come
back neutral or better. Just like P-38s did against Zeros. Damn, that
game was fun, andgave you a good feel for the different a/c's strengths
and weaknesses.

Guy

[Peter Twydell]

In article >, Guy Alcala
> writes
>"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:
>
>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> >>> As usual you are wrong. The Brits had the Sopwith triplane.
>> >>
>> >> Snoopy was a Brit?
>> >
>> > Doesn't Snoopy fly a Camel?
>>
>> Yes. Sopwith made more than one model aircraft, just like Fokker did.
>
>Of course he does, and both were designed for the RNAS. AFAIK the Tripe
>only flew with them (No. 1 and 3 Sq. RNAS IIRR), while the Camel served
>with both RFC and RNAS units before they became the RAF. The Sopwith Tripe
>was a lot of fun to fly in the flight sim Red Baron, and I used to plot
>how to wangle a transfer into one of the RNAS units that got them as soon
>as it entered service. In its period you were Sky King, cause no one
>could touch you. Only problem was the single MG, but otherwise, the
>Albatri and Pfalz were meat on the table. It was equivalent to flying an
>F-15 or 16 against MiG-21s.
>
>The Fokker Tripe was a different matter, designed in response to the
>Sopwith Tripe. It had two guns and incredible rudder response that
>allowed you to make flat turns, but it was slow, god awful slow. It
>climbed like an elevator but if you were in a Spad XIII or SE.5A with a
>Tripe on your tail you just dove until he'd back off to keep the wings
>from failing, or else you raised the nose until you were at the Tripe's
>max. level speed (103 mph true IIRR) or thereabouts, and disengaged in a
>shallow fast climb until you had sufficient range to turn around and come
>back neutral or better. Just like P-38s did against Zeros. Damn, that
>game was fun, andgave you a good feel for the different a/c's strengths
>and weaknesses.
>
>Guy
>

For information on a FLYING Tripe, see the Shuttleworth Collection:
http://www.shuttleworth.org/shuttleworth/index.htm - click on
"AIRCRAFT", then on the Triplane photo and then on the b/w photo at the
top of the next page.

The rest of the site is well worth browsing and drooling over, as is Old
Warden itself, of course.

[When we were house-hunting recently, I tried to find something mid-way
between Old Warden and Duxford (Keith Willshaw country?), but without
success. We will be 20 miles closer though :-)]
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
m...
>>>
>>> Snoopy was a Brit?
>>>
>>
>> Doesn't Snoopy fly a Camel?
>>
>
> Yes. Sopwith made more than one model aircraft, just like Fokker did.
>

I don't see the connection.