Aeronautical Engineering Help needed

[Marc A. Lefebvre US-775]

Hello,

I am looking into modifying one of the canard designs like the COZY
MkIV and wanted to know what the best way to ensure that what changes
I am proposing are sound and will result in a craft that will exhibit
similar flight charteristics but with increase in performance (range,
gross weight, acrobatic strength, etc...) Are there any software
programs out there that would assist in the design changes? Any
modelling software to show what affect the changes would have? Thanks!

Marc

[Larry Smith]

"Marc A. Lefebvre US-775" > wrote in message
m...
> Hello,
>
> I am looking into modifying one of the canard designs like the COZY
> MkIV and wanted to know what the best way to ensure that what changes
> I am proposing are sound and will result in a craft that will exhibit
> similar flight charteristics but with increase in performance (range,
> gross weight, acrobatic strength, etc...) Are there any software
> programs out there that would assist in the design changes? Any
> modelling software to show what affect the changes would have? Thanks!
>
> Marc

Call Nat Puffer. He'll be tickled to help you.

[John Stricker]

You obviously don't know Nat very well. If it's in regards to changing HIS
design, he will NOT be tickled to help you. BTDT have the T Shirt

John Stricker

"Larry Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Marc A. Lefebvre US-775" > wrote in message
> m...
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am looking into modifying one of the canard designs like the COZY
> > MkIV and wanted to know what the best way to ensure that what changes
> > I am proposing are sound and will result in a craft that will exhibit
> > similar flight charteristics but with increase in performance (range,
> > gross weight, acrobatic strength, etc...) Are there any software
> > programs out there that would assist in the design changes? Any
> > modelling software to show what affect the changes would have? Thanks!
> >
> > Marc
>
> Call Nat Puffer. He'll be tickled to help you.
>
>

[Larry Smith]

"John Stricker" > wrote in message
...
> You obviously don't know Nat very well. If it's in regards to changing
HIS
> design, he will NOT be tickled to help you. BTDT have the T Shirt
>
> John Stricker

I was being sarcastic, and you're a literal-minded schlump. Merry
Christmas, however, and happy new year to you and a hope you resolve to
learn more about Tecumseh engines.

>
> "Larry Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Marc A. Lefebvre US-775" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I am looking into modifying one of the canard designs like the COZY
> > > MkIV and wanted to know what the best way to ensure that what changes
> > > I am proposing are sound and will result in a craft that will exhibit
> > > similar flight charteristics but with increase in performance (range,
> > > gross weight, acrobatic strength, etc...) Are there any software
> > > programs out there that would assist in the design changes? Any
> > > modelling software to show what affect the changes would have? Thanks!
> > >
> > > Marc
> >
> > Call Nat Puffer. He'll be tickled to help you.
> >
> >
>
>

[plumb bob]

"Larry Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Stricker" > wrote in message
> ...
> > You obviously don't know Nat very well. If it's in regards to changing
> HIS
> > design, he will NOT be tickled to help you. BTDT have the T Shirt
> >
> > John Stricker
>
> I was being sarcastic, and you're a literal-minded schlump. Merry
> Christmas, however, and happy new year to you and a hope you resolve to
> learn more about Tecumseh engines.

Sheeit. My mother in law posts on this newsgroup! Hi MOM, er, Larry.

[larsen-tools]

"schlump" ??? I though the word was "schlub" (kind of a dumb slob who can't
get out of his own way) .... does anyone here really know?


"Larry Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Stricker" > wrote in message
> ...
> > You obviously don't know Nat very well. If it's in regards to changing
> HIS
> > design, he will NOT be tickled to help you. BTDT have the T Shirt
> >
> > John Stricker
>
> I was being sarcastic, and you're a literal-minded schlump. Merry
> Christmas, however, and happy new year to you and a hope you resolve to
> learn more about Tecumseh engines.
>
> >
> > "Larry Smith" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Marc A. Lefebvre US-775" > wrote in
message
> > > m...
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > I am looking into modifying one of the canard designs like the COZY
> > > > MkIV and wanted to know what the best way to ensure that what
changes
> > > > I am proposing are sound and will result in a craft that will
exhibit
> > > > similar flight charteristics but with increase in performance
(range,
> > > > gross weight, acrobatic strength, etc...) Are there any software
> > > > programs out there that would assist in the design changes? Any
> > > > modelling software to show what affect the changes would have?
Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > Marc
> > >
> > > Call Nat Puffer. He'll be tickled to help you.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Marvin Barnard]

Hi Marc,
I frequently get questions from folks who want to make changes
to my design. It's human nature to want to build "a better mouse trap".
There are several available chart type plots of general aerodynamic
formulas boiled down into graphic comparisons of areas, forces, speeds,
weights,.........etc. (I.E. McCoy's, or Beaujon's aerodynamic
tablature)
You won't get any solid usable advice (none you want to hear) from
a design holder or probably many builders either.
Do the aerodynamic calculations and intentionally over build
strength-wise. You're almost on your own. .....Guess that's why we're
"Experimental" aviators.
......Good luck!

[RR Urban]

larsen-tools" > wrote:

>"schlump" ??? I though the word was "schlub" (kind of a dumb slob who can't
>get out of his own way) .... does anyone here really know?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Forget whatever it is...
Doesn't matter.

Larry makes up **** as he goes and
is his own ultimate authority....
Or have you not noticed how
much of a 'one man band' he is?


Barnyard BOb --

[Marc A. Lefebvre US-775]

Nat Puffer wouldnt be able to help as it is NOT with HIS design, as I
said a canard design "LIKE" the COZY. I suppose if I had said "like"
a Long-EZ you would have recomended Burt as well? hehehehe... Try
again...

Looking for modelling software, not people... Looking to do some
analysis of some designs. Something along the lines of a virtual wind
tunnel testing, stress and load testing, etc... There has to be
someone with a clue in this group somewhere. (Hoping, atleast)

Marc

"Larry Smith" > wrote in message >...
> "Marc A. Lefebvre US-775" > wrote in message
> m...
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am looking into modifying one of the canard designs like the COZY
> > MkIV and wanted to know what the best way to ensure that what changes
>
> Call Nat Puffer. He'll be tickled to help you.

[Larry Smith]

"RR Urban" > wrote in message
...
>
> larsen-tools" > wrote:
>
> >"schlump" ??? I though the word was "schlub" (kind of a dumb slob who
can't
> >get out of his own way) .... does anyone here really know?
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Forget whatever it is...
> Doesn't matter.
>
> Larry makes up **** as he goes and
> is his own ultimate authority....
> Or have you not noticed how
> much of a 'one man band' he is?
>
>
> Barnyard BOb --

[Larry Smith]

"Larry Smith" > wrote in message
...
> [Urbie flushed]> > larsen-tools" > wrote:
> >
> > >"schlump" ??? I though the word was "schlub" (kind of a dumb slob who
> can't
> > >get out of his own way) .... does anyone here really know?
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
[flushed again]

Which reminds me. Back in my days of naive and imperturbable enthusiasm I
used to pester Len Niemi, an aeronautical engineer, with all kinds of
questions about how to do this and that to an airplane to clean it up,
reduce the flat plate drag, make it go at just under the speed of sound on
85 HP, and reduce the stall speed to 10 knots. I can see his wry grin
right now.* He would always say in response to my proposal to add slots or
slats or gap seals or wheelpants, "Oh yeah, that will make it go .0017 miles
per hour faster."





*He's dead now and was one in a million. Shortly after he complained to
some of us that he had lost his ability to innovate, he came down with brain
cancer and shortly died. What a treasure of knowledge that man was!
Would we had somebody posting in RAH who could give good advice, rather than
the locker room skunks like BYB. So I beg pardon of Marc LeFebvre, who did
ask a legitimate question. Marc, Mike Arnold's tapes are the best source I
know for tweaking an airplane (a plastic one especially) for speed and
efficiency, and Arnold has a bibliography of all the great aerodynamicists
he consulted. Bon Voyage.
***********************

"Successfully pass a course in statistical analysis and you may
begin to see the light. The odds of your one shot conversion
performing remotely close to time proven aircraft engines is
slim to none unless you have a few hundred thousand dollars
laying around and some bright engineers willing to baby sit
your R&D until the worst of the bugs are ironed out."
---BYB, who fancies himself an authority at English, skunking up the English
language.

[Richard Riley]

On 25 Dec 2003 14:00:00 -0800, (Marc A.
Lefebvre US-775) wrote:

:Nat Puffer wouldnt be able to help as it is NOT with HIS design, as I
:said a canard design "LIKE" the COZY. I suppose if I had said "like"
:a Long-EZ you would have recomended Burt as well? hehehehe... Try
:again...
:
:Looking for modelling software, not people... Looking to do some
:analysis of some designs. Something along the lines of a virtual wind
:tunnel testing, stress and load testing, etc... There has to be
:someone with a clue in this group somewhere. (Hoping, atleast)
:
There's isn't any consumer level modeling software that can do an
adequate job on a canard configuration. You need a vortex lattice
package, there are a lot of interactions between the canard and main
wing that are subtle and complex. There are a number of packages
around, most are written in Fortran, you need to get the source code
and compile for whatever your configuration is. Do a search on VLMD,
it's been used for canards and tandem wings.

[Marc A. Lefebvre US-775]

(Marvin Barnard) wrote in message >...
> I frequently get questions from folks who want to make changes
> to my design. It's human nature to want to build "a better mouse trap".
> There are several available chart type plots of general aerodynamic
> formulas boiled down into graphic comparisons of areas, forces, speeds,
> weights,.........etc. (I.E. McCoy's, or Beaujon's aerodynamic
> tablature)

Thanks for your response to my inquiry. Can you point me to a good
source for these tabs online? Also, are there any software packages
out there that can help with the task?

Marc

[John Stricker]

Once again I'm reminded why I don't bother to post here much anymore. Since
you gave no indication of ever having met, corresponded, or owning a set of
Cozy plans (like I have) there was no way of detecting your version of
sarcasm. It came off as simply being another one of your brainless
comments.

Oh, and on the Techumseh, I was wrong, it has an oil pump. I was right,
however, that canting it in the direction talked about by the questioner
would still allow the oil to sit in the cylinder and remove the oil from
being a useful item unless grossly overfilled.

But thanks for being predictable anyway.

How long did it take you to find my mistake? I found it the next day, but
since it didn't change the opinion I gave on the mounting angle being a bad
thing, I never thought about it again.

John Stricker

"Larry Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> I was being sarcastic, and you're a literal-minded schlump. Merry
> Christmas, however, and happy new year to you and a hope you resolve to
> learn more about Tecumseh engines.
>
> >

[pacplyer]

RR Urban
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Forget whatever it is...
> Doesn't matter.
>
> Larry makes up **** as he goes and
> is his own ultimate authority....
> Or have you not noticed how
> much of a 'one man band' he is?
>
>
> Barnyard BOb --

Used to see airport bums just like him, sitting around holding down
the FBO couch, speculating about everything, dreaming about flying
while the real prime-time lawyers rolled around in their brand new
barrons and late-model P-210's. All those guys though, took a heavy
toll on the local fleet. Why is it doctors and lawyers can't fly? ;-)

pacplyer

if butheads could fly, this place would be an airport!

[Larry Smith]

"John Stricker" > wrote in message
...
> Once again I'm reminded why I don't bother to post here much anymore.

Admit you took a poke and got poked back, Stickler. And then you sent your
illiterate toadie BYB in to throw poo.

[Larry Smith]

"pacplyer" > wrote in message
om...
> RR Urban
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > Forget whatever it is...
> > Doesn't matter.
> >
> > Larry makes up **** as he goes and
> > is his own ultimate authority....
> > Or have you not noticed how
> > much of a 'one man band' he is?
> >
> >
> > Barnyard BOb --
>
> Used to see airport bums just like him, sitting around holding down
> the FBO couch, speculating about everything, dreaming about flying
> while the real prime-time lawyers rolled around in their brand new
> barrons and late-model P-210's. All those guys though, took a heavy
> toll on the local fleet. Why is it doctors and lawyers can't fly? ;-)
>
> pacplyer
>

Hey, Packie, I never was one of those Baron-typecast lawyers and haven't
practiced in years. Yesterday I took the Taylorcraft out in the wind and
stalled it and put it into incipient spins, buzzed the hawks, boiled the
water out of the oil, chased the deer out of the bushes, tried out the new
sod runway thrice, and flew about the sunny blue skies in utter ecstasy.
Except for that raging Taylorcraft, the airport was silent.

Later on I did get the pleasure of hand-propping an IO-360 Lycoming.

On the otherwise abandoned ramp full of airplanes, a couple were having
trouble getting their Musketeer started. The starter would turn but not
engage. The backseat of the aircraft was covered with colorful packages
with ribbons, so I asked where they were headed. Going to Tampa to see the
grandkids, somebody said. I didn't particularly want to but I handpropped
the thing.

Two days ago two of us took up the 172 we had spent months restoring and
began the process of getting the rings to seat in the chromed cylinders.
When I reach the airport in my car and open the door I hit the ground
running. This airport is a center of bustling activity. It is blessed
with at least four active shops, shared tools, good will, excellent
camaraderie, and a gaggle of A&P's. Plus a large fleet of airplanes,
including homebuilts.

In a couple of weeks the FBO manager and I are putting on a chili cookoff.
A midwinter's thaw, we call it. We are renowned cooks. You can come and
see what cockeyed opinions you have. I'll put an extra habanero pepper in
your chili. Don't come surly. We're a happy bunch.

Are you building an airplane?

[Morgans]

"John Stricker" > wrote in message
...
> Once again I'm reminded why I don't bother to post here much anymore.

> John Stricker

When I first started posting here several years ago, I never even thought
about blocking senders. Today, I have found blocking a "few" people
improves the signal to noise ratio, enough, that it makes things tolerable
once again.

As a famous commercial once said, "try it, you'll like it". :-)
--
Jim in NC

[John Stricker]

<shakes head, walks away>

There are about 10 people I miss from here dating back long before you ever
heard of rah. Good thing the telephone and private emails still work.

John Stricker

"Larry Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Stricker" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Once again I'm reminded why I don't bother to post here much anymore.
>
> Admit you took a poke and got poked back, Stickler. And then you sent
your
> illiterate toadie BYB in to throw poo.
>
>

[Larry Smith]

"John Stricker" > wrote in message
...
> <shakes head, walks away>
>
> There are about 10 people I miss from here dating back long before you
ever
> heard of rah.

In other words if you don't have seniority (or didn't drink rotgut with us
at Pinkneyville) you're not admitted to our clique. Well, look John, I
like being friendly but when slapped I slap back. Besides, I was lurking
here in the late nineties. You slapped first, right out of the blue and
were wrong besides. Was O-Ring also in your little clique? He's into
that snotty stuff too, slapping and then not expecting to get slapped back.
And it looks like if you're going to call someone's hand, you'd have your
facts correct.

You two and that creepy old mazooran remind me of the schoolyard bully who
goes around throwing sand in everybody's face. One day he throws sand in
the wrong face and gets whupped. Then he goes crying to the teacher
whining how he's been savagely attacked.

You just come along to our little chili cookoff and we'll slip an extra
habanero into yours too.

Which reminds me. Today after reveling over our triumph with one 172, I
began negotiating for another one and it looks like I got another hobby
horse needing a top and a paint job. The plastic project is in the garage
downstairs.

Welp, we just had the duckiest day at KFQD, sun shining, people laughing,
kids playing (one of them riding up and down the taxiways in a one-wheel
bike) and I flew over and buzzed the fuddydudds at ZERO alpha 7 where the N
wind was blowing like hell. Gosh, what a sunny day, and everybody, unlike
this mordant NG, was delightfully happy. WTF is wrong with you, John?
Can't you be a happy boy?

And, btw, most of those Tecumsehs do not have oil pumps. But I still had
to slap you around a little for having come along and thrown sand.



Good thing the telephone and private emails still work.

Ah, hell, mine don't and she who must be obeyed is always on the phone.
Guess I'll give in and go cellular.
>
> John the Stickler

Lighten up a little, Stickler.
>
> "Larry Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "John Stricker" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Once again I'm reminded why I don't bother to post here much anymore.
> >
> > Admit you took a poke and got poked back, Stickler. And then you sent
> your
> > illiterate toadie BYB in to throw poo.
> >
> >
>
>

[RR Urban]

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 16:35:10 -0600, "John Stricker"
> wrote:

><shakes head, walks away>
>
>There are about 10 people I miss from here dating back long before you ever
>heard of rah. Good thing the telephone and private emails still work.
>
>John Stricker
>
>"Larry Smith" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "John Stricker" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Once again I'm reminded why I don't bother to post here much anymore.
>>
>> Admit you took a poke and got poked back, Stickler. And then you sent
>your
>> illiterate toadie BYB in to throw poo.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

<yawn>

As usual, you flatter yourself.

For the record Latchless, I have you filtered out.
Only because of John's post, do I see this your "poo" of yours.

True enough....
John and I have been good friends for some time.
But NEVER, EVER has you name ever passed between
our lips. Of all the things we could waste time on...
it will never, ever be about you. You can take that
to the bank, 'poo-poo' one.

P.S.
Call me a toadie if you will, but it's sad that you can't find
a friend here. However, you would have to be one first....
and we all know that ain't gonna happen with the brand of
'poo' you are obsessed to dole out. If you were a dog, you
would have been put down and out of your misery.....
and ours, long ago.


Barnyard BOb --
The more people I meet,
the more I love my dog
and George Carlin humor.

[Larry Smith]

> wrote in message ...
>

And here's another nameless psychoboob, terrified of divulging its identity.
It neither builds nor flies (but tells tall tales about itself and brags
itself to death) and parks its 3-mortgage double-wide in the midst of the
dry woods in wildfire country, where it burned. And then it brings its
greasy baggage and all its tearful details into a NG for brave,
swashbuckling, independent and daring homebuilt aircraft builders. I can't
stand it any longer. I must sign off and weep awhile for assatassdotass
whose ass burnt up in a wildfire.

[Larry Smith]

"RR Urban" > wrote usual boarhog titstuff in message
...
>

Hey, you illiterate BoOb, are you still giving Wingy a "wide birth"?

[Nicholas Cafarelli]

wrote:
>
> Looking for modelling software, not people... Looking to do some
> analysis of some designs. Something along the lines of a virtual wind
> tunnel testing, stress and load testing, etc... There has to be
> someone with a clue in this group somewhere. (Hoping, atleast)

Wingco used the X-plane simulator to help with their new design.

http://www.wingco.com

http://www.x-plane.com

Profili and xfoil are serious tools for airfoil analysis. Profili is
an inexpensive front end for xfoil. xfoil recently became freeware.

http://www.profili2.com/eng/default.htm

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xfoil/

There are many other firms offering software packages for aircraft
design. Spend some time learning about structuring Google queries and
you will find them. Seriously. :)

http://www.google.com/help/

Aircraft design is dead serious. The more you know the more dangerous
you become - you can die or cause others to die.

I do not mean to discourage you. However, ... beware.

Only airtime proves airframes.

Fly right.

nc

[Richard Riley]

On 26 Dec 2003 18:49:54 -0800, (Nicholas Cafarelli)
wrote:

wrote:
:>
:> Looking for modelling software, not people... Looking to do some
:> analysis of some designs. Something along the lines of a virtual wind
:> tunnel testing, stress and load testing, etc... There has to be
:> someone with a clue in this group somewhere. (Hoping, atleast)
:
:Wingco used the X-plane simulator to help with their new design.

And look where it got them.

X-plane is fine to start with, but it's not a good predictor of flight
characteristics, particularly with anything but a completely
conventional configuration.

For loading, if you're going composite, it's going to be very hard to
model. For aluminum, Catia is great, but insanely expensive.

(you can look at www.warezstore.com, but I didn't tell you that.)

[John Stricker]

This is going to be my last post on the subject. Probably shouldn't even do
it, but what the heck.

Back in the old Tecumseh thread, you wrote "All the Tecumsehs I've seen have
positive pressure oil pumps." Now in this thread you write "And, btw, most
of those Tecumsehs do not have oil pumps". So which is it, mister
all-knowing, all seeing?

I don't give a flying fart what you do, have done, or will do. It does
bother me when you give people advice or shoot your big mouth off that might
cause them problems. Case in point, I did (incorrectly) say that that
series of Tecumseh didn't have an oil pump. What you fail to mention is
that I went on with my post and had another 2 or three paragraphs why I
thought mounting it at that angle with the cylinder down was a bad idea that
had nothing to do with the oil pump.

What did you offer as help, Larry? Nothing? Big surprise.

In this thread, you wrote "Call Nat Puffer. He'll be tickled to help you."
I know Nat. I've met him. I've emailed him. He has a good reputation of
being helpful until you want to make changes on HIS design. BTDT. Then he
sends you nasty little emails saying things to the effect "I'll never answer
your emails again".

Your post gave no indication that you were being sarcastic. In fact, Karel
Adams responded to your post with Nat's email address, so apparently I
wasn't the only "literal-minded schlump".

Maybe you should get out of the attack mode and actually engage that all
powerful brain of yours before you begin to open your mouth or hammer on the
keyboard and actually try to contribute something helpful once in a while.
Does it make you feel really big and strong to butcher people's names,
Larry? OOOOHHH, Stickler, how clever. Never heard that one before, NOT..
You "lurked" here in the "late nineties". Wow. Color me not impressed.
Was that when mommy finally bought you a 'puter for your birthday or was it
just the time that you finally got electricity and running water into your
trailer park? Fact of the matter is you're a newbie who thinks he knows a
hell of a lot more about the people, relationships, and interactions here
than he will ever really know. I, for one, am perfectly content to allow
you to continue on your path of ignorant bliss.

As to who I count as friends that I've met here and through my travels over
the years, all you need to know on that is that you're not one of them.
Beyond that it's none of your business. And as far as being "whipped", the
day I worry about being whipped by you is the day you actually get to buy
your latches in person from the factory.

Thanks for letting everyone know where you're based, makes it much easier to
avoid. If you fly like you post I don't want to be in the same traffic
pattern with you.

John Stricker

"Larry Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Stricker" > wrote in message
> ...
> > <shakes head, walks away>
> >
> > There are about 10 people I miss from here dating back long before you
> ever
> > heard of rah.
>
> In other words if you don't have seniority (or didn't drink rotgut with us
> at Pinkneyville) you're not admitted to our clique. Well, look John, I
> like being friendly but when slapped I slap back. Besides, I was lurking
> here in the late nineties. You slapped first, right out of the blue and
> were wrong besides. Was O-Ring also in your little clique? He's into
> that snotty stuff too, slapping and then not expecting to get slapped
back.
> And it looks like if you're going to call someone's hand, you'd have your
> facts correct.
>
> You two and that creepy old mazooran remind me of the schoolyard bully who
> goes around throwing sand in everybody's face. One day he throws sand in
> the wrong face and gets whupped. Then he goes crying to the teacher
> whining how he's been savagely attacked.
>
> You just come along to our little chili cookoff and we'll slip an extra
> habanero into yours too.
>
> Which reminds me. Today after reveling over our triumph with one 172, I
> began negotiating for another one and it looks like I got another hobby
> horse needing a top and a paint job. The plastic project is in the
garage
> downstairs.
>
> Welp, we just had the duckiest day at KFQD, sun shining, people laughing,
> kids playing (one of them riding up and down the taxiways in a one-wheel
> bike) and I flew over and buzzed the fuddydudds at ZERO alpha 7 where the
N
> wind was blowing like hell. Gosh, what a sunny day, and everybody,
unlike
> this mordant NG, was delightfully happy. WTF is wrong with you, John?
> Can't you be a happy boy?
>
> And, btw, most of those Tecumsehs do not have oil pumps. But I still had
> to slap you around a little for having come along and thrown sand.
>
>
>
> Good thing the telephone and private emails still work.
>
> Ah, hell, mine don't and she who must be obeyed is always on the phone.
> Guess I'll give in and go cellular.
> >
> > John the Stickler
>
> Lighten up a little, Stickler.

[wmbjk]

Larry Smith wrote:

> Hey, you illiterate BoOb, are you still giving Wingy a "wide birth"?

Latchless commenting on literacy? Now I've seen everything. What next
Professor, a lecture on avoiding thesaurus abuse? A search for that
topic brought up this article
http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/DeCoster/decoster1.html It
sounds so much like you that it's creepy. One question comes to mind -
would you say that writing in that style is more or less painful than a
toothache?

Wayne

[Larry Smith]

"John Stricker" > wrote in message
...
> This is going to be my last post on the subject. Probably shouldn't even
do
> it, but what the heck. [You were going to walk away, last I heard.]
>

Summing up:
You made 1. a gratuitous attack and 2. provided FALSE information. 3. You
weren't trying to help anyone but to wank your insecure ego in public. 4.
It's not nice to lie.

I tried to compromise a little with you but you are an ass and want to start
a fight. GFY. And if I want to be in any pattern I'll be there, flying
it by the book, while you have a reputation for playing fast and loose. You
are the reckless one with low character people should beware of in the
pattern, as well as in RAH.

You attacked and got slapped around. Get over it and move on.
8888888888888888888888888888888888888

22° down at the spark plug is quite a bit. Contrary to what Smith thinks,
the LEV doesn't have an oil pump, [SOME DO THOUGH*] it's a simple vertical
shaft motor. But I
haven't seen him be right about too much on here yet, so that's not too
surprising.
---- STICKLER PICKING NITS, SHOWING HIS ARSE, AND BEING, WELL, A STICKLER
*************************
Ol' Stickler may not be as bright as he thinks he is:

Tecumseh 5 HP Engine, Model# LEV115-350041D

Tecumseh Remote control mechanical compression release Recoil start; solid
state ignition Mechanical governor; oil pump; float carburetor 7/8in. x 3
5/32in. shaft; 3/16in. keyway; 3/8in.-24 tapped end Model LEV115-350041D
U.S.A.

[RR Urban]

>Larry Smith wrote:
>
>> Hey, you illiterate BoOb, are you still giving Wingy a "wide birth"?

>Latchless commenting on literacy? Now I've seen everything. What next
>Professor, a lecture on avoiding thesaurus abuse? A search for that
>topic brought up this article
>http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/DeCoster/decoster1.html It
>sounds so much like you that it's creepy. One question comes to mind -
>would you say that writing in that style is more or less painful than a
>toothache?
>
>Wayne
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If Latchless was literate, "wide BERTH" would have been used.
Dorks like him give North Carolina hillbillies a bad name.
........

Idiom:
a wide berth

Ample space or distance to avoid an unwanted consequence:
gave their angry colleague a wide berth.


Barnyard BOb --

[Larry Smith]

> If Latchless was literate, "wide BERTH" would have been used.
> Dorks like him give North Carolina hillbillies a bad name.

The proper expression is "if latchless WERE literate," but of course pests
from mazoora have their own vernacular. And poor memories too.
> ........
>
> Idiom:
> a wide berth
>
> Ample space or distance to avoid an unwanted consequence:
> gave their angry colleague a wide berth.

Yeah, I taught you that, because you printed in this NG sometime back (and
were so ashamed after you said it that you didn't want it archived for
posterity) that henceforth you were giving Wingy "a wide birth."

Now go study the verb "lie, lay, lain." You have big trouble with it.
You don't want to die illiterate, do you?

[wmbjk]

Larry Smith wrote: (about his command of the language)

<snorf> Sounds like you're talking out of your ass again. Click here
http://tinyurl.com/2qwzz to see Latchless in action.

Wayne

[RR Urban]

wrote:


>>> If Latchless was literate, "wide BERTH" would have been used.
>>> Dorks like him give North Carolina hillbillies a bad name.
>>
>>The proper expression is "if latchless WERE literate,"
>
>Oh dear God, there's more than one of you?
+++++++++++++++++++++++

Depends.

Do you wish there WAS or...
do you wish there WERE?

For how to play this game please read below......

=========


were ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wûr)
v.

1. Second person singular and plural and first and third person
plural past indicative of be.
2. Past subjunctive of be. See Usage Note at if. See Usage Note at
wish.


[Middle English were, weren, from Old English wre, wren, wron. See
wes-1 in Indo-European Roots.]

Our Living Language Although many irregular verbs in English once
had different singular and plural forms in the past tense, only one
still does todaybe, which uses the form was with singular subjects and
the form were with plural subjects, as well as with singular you. The
relative simplicity in the forms of most verbs reflects the
long-standing tendency of English speakers to make irregular verbs
more regular by reducing the number of forms used with different
persons, numbers, and tenses. Since past be is so irregular, speakers
of different vernacular dialects have regularized it in several ways.
In the United States, most vernacular speakers regularize past be by
using was with all subjects, whether singular or plural. This pattern
is most common in Southern-based dialects, particularly African
American Vernacular English (AAVE). Some speakers use were with both
singular and plural subjects; thus, one may hear she were alongside we
were. However, this usage has been much less widespread than the use
of was with plural subjects and appears to be fading. · In some
scattered regions in the South, particularly in coastal areas of North
Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland, vernacular speakers may regularize
past be as was in positive contexts and regularize it as weren't in
negative contexts, as in He was a good man, weren't he? or They sure
was nice people, weren't they? At first glance, the was/weren't
pattern appears to come from England, where it is fairly commonplace.
However, in-depth study of the was/weren't pattern in coastal North
Carolina indicates that it may have developed independently, for it is
found to a greater extent in the speech of younger speakers than in
that of older coastal residents. ·Other forms of negative past be
include warn't, common in American folk speech in the 18th and 19th
centuries, and wont, as in It wont me or They wont home. Wont, which
often sounds just like the contraction won't, historically has been
concentrated in New England and is also found in scattered areas of
the South.


[Buy it]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

be ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b)
v. First and third person singular past indicative was, (wz, wz; wz
when unstressed)second person singular and plural and first and third
person plural past indicative were, (wûr)past subjunctive were,past
participle been, (bn)present participle be·ing, (bng)first person
singular present indicative am, (m)second person singular and plural
and first and third person plural present indicative are, (är)third
person singular present indicative is, (z)present subjunctive be
v. intr.

1. To exist in actuality; have life or reality: I think, therefore
I am.
2.
1. To occupy a specified position: The food is on the table.
2. To remain in a certain state or situation undisturbed,
untouched, or unmolested: Let the children be.
3. To take place; occur: The test was yesterday.
4. To go or come: Have you ever been to Italy? Have you been home
recently?
5. Used as a copula in such senses as:
1. To equal in identity: “To be a Christian was to be a
Roman” (James Bryce).
2. To have a specified significance: A is excellent, C is
passing. Let n be the unknown quantity.
3. To belong to a specified class or group: The human being
is a primate.
4. To have or show a specified quality or characteristic: She
is witty. All humans are mortal.
5. To seem to consist or be made of: The yard is all snow. He
is all bluff and no bite.
6. To belong; befall: Peace be unto you. Woe is me.


v. aux.

1. Used with the past participle of a transitive verb to form the
passive voice: The mayoral election is held annually.
2. Used with the present participle of a verb to express a
continuing action: We are working to improve housing conditions.
3. Used with the infinitive of a verb to express intention,
obligation, or future action: She was to call before she left. You are
to make the necessary changes.
4. Archaic. Used with the past participle of certain intransitive
verbs to form the perfect tense: “Where be those roses gone which
sweetened so our eyes?” (Philip Sidney).


[Middle English ben, from Old English bon; see bheu- in Indo-European
Roots. See am1 is, etc. for links to other Indo-European roots.]

Usage Note: Traditional grammar requires the nominative form of
the pronoun in the predicate of the verb be: It is I (not me); That
must be they (not them), and so forth. Nearly every speaker of Modern
English finds this rule difficult to follow. Even if everyone could
follow it, in informal contexts the nominative pronoun often sounds
pedantic and even ridiculous, especially when the verb is contracted,
as in It's we. But constructions like It is me have been condemned in
the classroom and in writing handbooks for so long that there seems
little likelihood that they will ever be entirely acceptable in formal
writing. ·The traditional rule creates additional problems when the
pronoun following be also functions as the object of a verb or
preposition in a relative clause, as in It is not them/they that we
have in mind when we talk about “crime in the streets” nowadays, where
the plural pronoun serves as both the predicate of is and the object
of have. In this example, 57 percent of the Usage Panel prefers the
nominative form they, 33 percent prefer the objective them, and 10
percent accept both versions. Writers can usually revise their
sentences to avoid this problem: They are not the ones we have in
mind, We have someone else in mind, and so on. See Usage Note at I1.
See Usage Note at we.

Our Living Language In place of the inflected forms of be, such as
is and are, used in Standard English, African American Vernacular
English (AAVE) and some varieties of Southern American English may use
zero copula or an invariant be, as in He be working, instead of the
Standard English He is usually working. As an identifying feature of
the vernacular of many African Americans, invariant be in recent years
has been frequently seized on by writers and commentators trying to
imitate or parody Black speech. However, most imitators use it simply
as a substitute for is, as in John be sitting in that chair now,
without realizing that within AAVE, invariant be is used primarily for
habitual or extended actions set in the present. Among African
Americans the form is most commonly used by working-class speakers and
young persons. Since the 1980s, younger speakers have tended to
restrict the use of the form to progressive verb forms (as in He be
walking), whereas their parents use it with progressives, adjectives
(as in He be nice), and expressions referring to a location (as in He
be at home). Younger speakers also use invariant be more exclusively
to indicate habitual action, whereas older speakers more commonly omit
be forms (as in He walking) or use present tense verb forms (such as
He walks), sometimes with adverbs like often or usually, to indicate
habituality. ·The source of invariant habitual be in AAVE is still
disputed. Some linguists suggest that it represents influence from
finite be in the 17th- to 19th-century English of British settlers,
especially those from the southwest of England. Other linguists feel
that contemporaneous Irish or Scotch-Irish immigrants may have played
a larger role, since their dialects mark habitual verb forms with be
and do be, as in “They be shooting and fishing out at the Forestry
Lakes” (archival recordings of the Royal Irish Academy). and “Up half
the night he does be” (James Joyce). Other linguists believe that it
may have evolved from the does be construction indicating habitual
action used by Gullah speakers from coastal South Carolina and Georgia
and by Caribbean Creole immigants. Still other linguists suggest that
invariant be is a mid- to late-20th-century innovation within AAVE,
essentially a response to the wide range of meanings that the English
progressive tense can express. See note at all. See note at like2. See
note at zero copula.


[Buy it]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

were

\Were\, v. t. & i. To wear. See 3d Wear. [Obs.] --Chaucer.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA,
Inc.

were

\Were\, n. A weir. See Weir. [Obs.] --Chaucer. Sir P. Sidney.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA,
Inc.

were

\Were\, v. t. [AS. werian.] To guard; to protect. [Obs.] --Chaucer.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA,
Inc.

were

\Were\ (w[~e]r; 277). [AS. w[=ae]re (thou) wast, w[=ae]ron (we, you,
they) were, w[=ae]re imp. subj. See Was.] The imperfect indicative
plural, and imperfect subjunctive singular and plural, of the verb be.
See Be.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA,
Inc.

were

\Were\ (w[=e]r), n. [AS. wer; akin to OS. & OHG. wer, Goth. wa['i]r,
L. vir, Skr. v[=i]ra. Cf. Weregild, and Werewolf.] 1. A man. [Obs.]

2. A fine for slaying a man; the money value set upon a man's life;
weregild. [Obs.]

Every man was valued at a certain sum, which was called his were.
--Bosworth.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA,
Inc.


Barnyard BOb --

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, RR Urban says...

WOW!!! Gee Unka Bob Sister Mary Pontius Pilot would be very proud of you.That
was one hell of a term paper :-) Ya done good I bet you get an A+

Happy New Year

Nefoo Chuck
>
>Do you wish there WAS or...
>do you wish there WERE?
>
>For how to play this game please read below......
>
> =========
>
>
>were ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wûr)
>v.
>
> 1. Second person singular and plural and first and third person
>plural past indicative of be.
> 2. Past subjunctive of be. See Usage Note at if. See Usage Note at
>wish.
>
>
>[Middle English were, weren, from Old English wre, wren, wron. See
>wes-1 in Indo-European Roots.]
>
> Our Living Language Although many irregular verbs in English once
>had different singular and plural forms in the past tense, only one
>still does todaybe, which uses the form was with singular subjects and
>the form were with plural subjects, as well as with singular you. The
>relative simplicity in the forms of most verbs reflects the
>long-standing tendency of English speakers to make irregular verbs
>more regular by reducing the number of forms used with different
>persons, numbers, and tenses. Since past be is so irregular, speakers
>of different vernacular dialects have regularized it in several ways.
>In the United States, most vernacular speakers regularize past be by
>using was with all subjects, whether singular or plural. This pattern
>is most common in Southern-based dialects, particularly African
>American Vernacular English (AAVE). Some speakers use were with both
>singular and plural subjects; thus, one may hear she were alongside we
>were. However, this usage has been much less widespread than the use
>of was with plural subjects and appears to be fading. · In some
>scattered regions in the South, particularly in coastal areas of North
>Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland, vernacular speakers may regularize
>past be as was in positive contexts and regularize it as weren't in
>negative contexts, as in He was a good man, weren't he? or They sure
>was nice people, weren't they? At first glance, the was/weren't
>pattern appears to come from England, where it is fairly commonplace.
>However, in-depth study of the was/weren't pattern in coastal North
>Carolina indicates that it may have developed independently, for it is
>found to a greater extent in the speech of younger speakers than in
>that of older coastal residents. ·Other forms of negative past be
>include warn't, common in American folk speech in the 18th and 19th
>centuries, and wont, as in It wont me or They wont home. Wont, which
>often sounds just like the contraction won't, historically has been
>concentrated in New England and is also found in scattered areas of
>the South.
>
>
>[Buy it]
>Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
>Fourth Edition
>Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
>Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
>
>be ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b)
>v. First and third person singular past indicative was, (wz, wz; wz
>when unstressed)second person singular and plural and first and third
>person plural past indicative were, (wûr)past subjunctive were,past
>participle been, (bn)present participle be·ing, (bng)first person
>singular present indicative am, (m)second person singular and plural
>and first and third person plural present indicative are, (är)third
>person singular present indicative is, (z)present subjunctive be
>v. intr.
>
> 1. To exist in actuality; have life or reality: I think, therefore
>I am.
> 2.
> 1. To occupy a specified position: The food is on the table.
> 2. To remain in a certain state or situation undisturbed,
>untouched, or unmolested: Let the children be.
> 3. To take place; occur: The test was yesterday.
> 4. To go or come: Have you ever been to Italy? Have you been home
>recently?
> 5. Used as a copula in such senses as:
> 1. To equal in identity: “To be a Christian was to be a
>Roman” (James Bryce).
> 2. To have a specified significance: A is excellent, C is
>passing. Let n be the unknown quantity.
> 3. To belong to a specified class or group: The human being
>is a primate.
> 4. To have or show a specified quality or characteristic: She
>is witty. All humans are mortal.
> 5. To seem to consist or be made of: The yard is all snow. He
>is all bluff and no bite.
> 6. To belong; befall: Peace be unto you. Woe is me.
>
>
>v. aux.
>
> 1. Used with the past participle of a transitive verb to form the
>passive voice: The mayoral election is held annually.
> 2. Used with the present participle of a verb to express a
>continuing action: We are working to improve housing conditions.
> 3. Used with the infinitive of a verb to express intention,
>obligation, or future action: She was to call before she left. You are
>to make the necessary changes.
> 4. Archaic. Used with the past participle of certain intransitive
>verbs to form the perfect tense: “Where be those roses gone which
>sweetened so our eyes?” (Philip Sidney).
>
>
>[Middle English ben, from Old English bon; see bheu- in Indo-European
>Roots. See am1 is, etc. for links to other Indo-European roots.]
>
> Usage Note: Traditional grammar requires the nominative form of
>the pronoun in the predicate of the verb be: It is I (not me); That
>must be they (not them), and so forth. Nearly every speaker of Modern
>English finds this rule difficult to follow. Even if everyone could
>follow it, in informal contexts the nominative pronoun often sounds
>pedantic and even ridiculous, especially when the verb is contracted,
>as in It's we. But constructions like It is me have been condemned in
>the classroom and in writing handbooks for so long that there seems
>little likelihood that they will ever be entirely acceptable in formal
>writing. ·The traditional rule creates additional problems when the
>pronoun following be also functions as the object of a verb or
>preposition in a relative clause, as in It is not them/they that we
>have in mind when we talk about “crime in the streets” nowadays, where
>the plural pronoun serves as both the predicate of is and the object
>of have. In this example, 57 percent of the Usage Panel prefers the
>nominative form they, 33 percent prefer the objective them, and 10
>percent accept both versions. Writers can usually revise their
>sentences to avoid this problem: They are not the ones we have in
>mind, We have someone else in mind, and so on. See Usage Note at I1.
>See Usage Note at we.
>
> Our Living Language In place of the inflected forms of be, such as
>is and are, used in Standard English, African American Vernacular
>English (AAVE) and some varieties of Southern American English may use
>zero copula or an invariant be, as in He be working, instead of the
>Standard English He is usually working. As an identifying feature of
>the vernacular of many African Americans, invariant be in recent years
>has been frequently seized on by writers and commentators trying to
>imitate or parody Black speech. However, most imitators use it simply
>as a substitute for is, as in John be sitting in that chair now,
>without realizing that within AAVE, invariant be is used primarily for
>habitual or extended actions set in the present. Among African
>Americans the form is most commonly used by working-class speakers and
>young persons. Since the 1980s, younger speakers have tended to
>restrict the use of the form to progressive verb forms (as in He be
>walking), whereas their parents use it with progressives, adjectives
>(as in He be nice), and expressions referring to a location (as in He
>be at home). Younger speakers also use invariant be more exclusively
>to indicate habitual action, whereas older speakers more commonly omit
>be forms (as in He walking) or use present tense verb forms (such as
>He walks), sometimes with adverbs like often or usually, to indicate
>habituality. ·The source of invariant habitual be in AAVE is still
>disputed. Some linguists suggest that it represents influence from
>finite be in the 17th- to 19th-century English of British settlers,
>especially those from the southwest of England. Other linguists feel
>that contemporaneous Irish or Scotch-Irish immigrants may have played
>a larger role, since their dialects mark habitual verb forms with be
>and do be, as in “They be shooting and fishing out at the Forestry
>Lakes” (archival recordings of the Royal Irish Academy). and “Up half
>the night he does be” (James Joyce). Other linguists believe that it
>may have evolved from the does be construction indicating habitual
>action used by Gullah speakers from coastal South Carolina and Georgia
>and by Caribbean Creole immigants. Still other linguists suggest that
>invariant be is a mid- to late-20th-century innovation within AAVE,
>essentially a response to the wide range of meanings that the English
>progressive tense can express. See note at all. See note at like2. See
>note at zero copula.
>
>
>[Buy it]
>Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
>Fourth Edition
>Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
>Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
>
>were
>
>\Were\, v. t. & i. To wear. See 3d Wear. [Obs.] --Chaucer.
>
>Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA,
>Inc.
>
>were
>
>\Were\, n. A weir. See Weir. [Obs.] --Chaucer. Sir P. Sidney.
>
>Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA,
>Inc.
>
>were
>
>\Were\, v. t. [AS. werian.] To guard; to protect. [Obs.] --Chaucer.
>
>Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA,
>Inc.
>
>were
>
>\Were\ (w[~e]r; 277). [AS. w[=ae]re (thou) wast, w[=ae]ron (we, you,
>they) were, w[=ae]re imp. subj. See Was.] The imperfect indicative
>plural, and imperfect subjunctive singular and plural, of the verb be.
>See Be.
>
>Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA,
>Inc.
>
>were
>
>\Were\ (w[=e]r), n. [AS. wer; akin to OS. & OHG. wer, Goth. wa['i]r,
>L. vir, Skr. v[=i]ra. Cf. Weregild, and Werewolf.] 1. A man. [Obs.]
>
>2. A fine for slaying a man; the money value set upon a man's life;
>weregild. [Obs.]
>
>Every man was valued at a certain sum, which was called his were.
>--Bosworth.
>
>Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA,
>Inc.
>
>
>Barnyard BOb --

[Morgans]

"RR Urban" > wrote

> Dorks like him give North Carolina hillbillies a bad name.
> ........
>
> Idiom:
> a wide berth
>
> Ample space or distance to avoid an unwanted consequence:
> gave their angry colleague a wide berth.
>
>
> Barnyard BOb --

Ouch! :-)
--
Jim in NC

[Larry Smith]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "RR Urban" > wrote
>
> > Dorks like him give North Carolina hillbillies a bad name.
> > ........
> >
> > Idiom:
> > a wide berth
> >
> > Ample space or distance to avoid an unwanted consequence:
> > gave their angry colleague a wide berth.
> >
> >
> > Barnyard BOb --
>
> Ouch! :-)

A lie. No doddering narcoleptic drooling morphine could feel pain. This
schlump claims to be a schoolteacher. Would you want your kids taught by a
junkie?

[Larry Smith]

Wingy and Barnyard Bum exchanges lumps of body fluids, then Bum goes into
labor, but not until after Wingy has made a keen observation about Bum's
diminutive intellect:

(Xtreme Aviation) wrote:

>There was nothing in there about Bill...I don't think YOU are smart enough
to
>do ****. I wouldn't put my goldfish in an airplane with you let alone
anything
>of significance...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jordan, I'm thoroughly disgusted and ashamed of you.
No longer can I distinguish a promising teenager from his mentor,
so..... I'm packing it in where you are concerned. If I see you
at any fly-ins, I will give you a wide birth. You and I no longer
have anything to say to each other... at least nothing I want
to hear from a vile and totally disrespectful teenage mouth.
When I get a chance, I will compare notes with Bob Barbanes.
I would be interested in his take on how far you have not come.


BOb U - 50 years of funny malaprops Bwaaaaahhhhaaaaaaaaa!

[red12049]

Ya know Larry, unless you know something the rest of us do not, calling
someone who takes pain killers, especially after a SECOND back surgery, a
junkie, is a pretty low blow. My wife has back problems due to arthritis
(pretty much uncorrectable surgically) and while I am not happy with the
idea, at least they enable her to get out of bed and function somewhat. You
probably owe quite a large portion of the general population an apology.

Red

"Larry Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "RR Urban" > wrote
> >
> > > Dorks like him give North Carolina hillbillies a bad name.
> > > ........
> > >
> > > Idiom:
> > > a wide berth
> > >
> > > Ample space or distance to avoid an unwanted consequence:
> > > gave their angry colleague a wide berth.
> > >
> > >
> > > Barnyard BOb --
> >
> > Ouch! :-)
>
> A lie. No doddering narcoleptic drooling morphine could feel pain.
This
> schlump claims to be a schoolteacher. Would you want your kids taught by
a
> junkie?
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.556 / Virus Database: 348 - Release Date: 12/26/2003

[Morgans]

"red12049" > wrote in message
...
> Ya know Larry, unless you know something the rest of us do not, calling
> someone who takes pain killers, especially after a SECOND back surgery, a
> junkie, is a pretty low blow. My wife has back problems due to arthritis
> (pretty much uncorrectable surgically) and while I am not happy with the
> idea, at least they enable her to get out of bed and function somewhat.
You
> probably owe quite a large portion of the general population an apology.
>
> Red
>
> "Larry Smith" > wrote> This
> > schlump claims to be a schoolteacher. Would you want your kids taught
by
> a
> > junkie?

Especially since I have the integrity to not take the pain killers until I
am off duty, even at the cost of considerable extra pain. When I get to the
point that I can't make it, I will go on disability. This is only because I
am responsible for young adults with power tools. If I was a math teacher,
there would be nothing wrong with taking the prescribed doses of pain
killers while on duty.

Larry, read a little about chronic pain. Even though you are a life form on
the same level as pond scum, I would not wish you to have the kind of pain
that rules my life, 24/7.

I'm with you, Red. He owes a great segment of our population an apology.

By the way, Larry, I have friends. Do you? Prove it. Get 10 people to
post here, saying how they value your friendship. Ha!
--
Jim in NC

[Richard Riley]

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:31:10 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote:

:
:"red12049" > wrote in message
...
:> Ya know Larry, unless you know something the rest of us do not, calling
:> someone who takes pain killers, especially after a SECOND back surgery, a
:> junkie, is a pretty low blow. My wife has back problems due to arthritis
:> (pretty much uncorrectable surgically) and while I am not happy with the
:> idea, at least they enable her to get out of bed and function somewhat.
:You
:> probably owe quite a large portion of the general population an apology.
:>
:> Red
:>
:> "Larry Smith" > wrote> This
:> > schlump claims to be a schoolteacher. Would you want your kids taught
:by
:> a
:> > junkie?
:
:Especially since I have the integrity to not take the pain killers until I
:am off duty, even at the cost of considerable extra pain. When I get to the
:point that I can't make it, I will go on disability. This is only because I
:am responsible for young adults with power tools. If I was a math teacher,
:there would be nothing wrong with taking the prescribed doses of pain
:killers while on duty.
:
:Larry, read a little about chronic pain. Even though you are a life form on
:the same level as pond scum, I would not wish you to have the kind of pain
:that rules my life, 24/7.
:
:I'm with you, Red. He owes a great segment of our population an apology.
:
:By the way, Larry, I have friends. Do you? Prove it. Get 10 people to
:post here, saying how they value your friendship. Ha!

I've never met you, Morgans, and I value our friendship.

And, if I might suggest, how about becoming a math teacher? It's not
that hard, especially if you don't do Calc. You already know 70% of
what you need - how to run a classroom full of yard apes. It's not
like you need a math degree to teach it - everything you learn getting
a BA in math would be wasted teaching at the HS level. With a
curriculum all laid out for you, it ain't rocket science.

[Larry Smith]

"red12049" > wrote in message
...
> Ya know Larry, unless you know something the rest of us do not, calling
> someone who takes pain killers

He takes narcotics. Call them what they are.

, especially after a SECOND back surgery, a
> junkie, is a pretty low blow. My wife has back problems due to arthritis
> (pretty much uncorrectable surgically) and while I am not happy with the
> idea, at least they enable her to get out of bed and function somewhat.
You
> probably owe quite a large portion of the general population an apology.
>
> Red

My respectful regards to your wife and to those who deserve understanding
for their suffering. However, your wife does not post immature malevolent
tripe in RAH and simultaneously whine about pain and popping morphine pills.
If someone with the bizarre psychological overlay of this cat posts constant
malignity in usenet, then he's open to examination, and to be called for
acting an inebriated fool.

Case in point: his fiery unprovoked insults in response to my accurate
post about aluminum, compound curves, and the P-51's poor laminar flow
showing. Which, by the way, he was called on and corrected by someone else
who was not in a stupor.

If he acts like an idiot, a drunk, and a junkie, that's what he is. And I
wouldn't want him teaching my kids, or ANY kids in this state. If the NC
school system knew what a raving, drunken fool he was in this NG, they'd
fire him. I know. I come from a family of NC schoolteachers.

I know someone who takes several ibuprofen pills a day, and sometimes as
much as 10. He has had spinal injury and back surgery too, but he doesn't
carry it around like a cross to bear. Occasionally he posts here ---
something thoughtful, courteous, and intelligent, and always on the topic of
homebuilt aircraft.

[red12049]

Actually, Larry, its' their useage thats important, not their name.Even
heroin had (has?) and "good" use....

No, my wife does not post here.... but as far as the type of posts... I did
a search on Morgans' posts, just to make sure my memory wasn't playing
tricks on me....you should do the same, you might find it educational.
Morgans posts in several newsgroups... and by far, the majority of his posts
in those newsgroups (this one included) are not as you described them....now
go back and re-read your own... and see if most of them don't fit your
description ("immature malevolent
tripe", in case you forgot). Funny thing is, Morgans didn't even reply to
your message, her replied to Barnyards'.

You reveal your own ignorance by even comparing ipbuprofen, and the pain it
is capable of treating, to the narcotics that Morgans et al are taking.

And finally Larry, no one here is out to get you.... you do that too well
all by yourself. No one here knew you even existed until your own big mouth
announced it.

Red

"Larry Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> "red12049" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Ya know Larry, unless you know something the rest of us do not, calling
> > someone who takes pain killers
>
> He takes narcotics. Call them what they are.
>
> , especially after a SECOND back surgery, a
> > junkie, is a pretty low blow. My wife has back problems due to
arthritis
> > (pretty much uncorrectable surgically) and while I am not happy with the
> > idea, at least they enable her to get out of bed and function somewhat.
> You
> > probably owe quite a large portion of the general population an apology.
> >
> > Red
>
> My respectful regards to your wife and to those who deserve understanding
> for their suffering. However, your wife does not post immature
malevolent
> tripe in RAH and simultaneously whine about pain and popping morphine
pills.
> If someone with the bizarre psychological overlay of this cat posts
constant
> malignity in usenet, then he's open to examination, and to be called for
> acting an inebriated fool.
>
> Case in point: his fiery unprovoked insults in response to my accurate
> post about aluminum, compound curves, and the P-51's poor laminar flow
> showing. Which, by the way, he was called on and corrected by someone
else
> who was not in a stupor.
>
> If he acts like an idiot, a drunk, and a junkie, that's what he is. And I
> wouldn't want him teaching my kids, or ANY kids in this state. If the NC
> school system knew what a raving, drunken fool he was in this NG, they'd
> fire him. I know. I come from a family of NC schoolteachers.
>
> I know someone who takes several ibuprofen pills a day, and sometimes as
> much as 10. He has had spinal injury and back surgery too, but he doesn't
> carry it around like a cross to bear. Occasionally he posts here ---
> something thoughtful, courteous, and intelligent, and always on the topic
of
> homebuilt aircraft.
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.556 / Virus Database: 348 - Release Date: 12/26/2003

[Larry Smith]

ANONYMOUS POSTER ALERT!
"red12049" > (another Morgans alias) wrote in
message ...

ignorant tripe.

*********************
Aluminum and compound curves don't mix.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bull****.

Just because most who homebuild have no English wheel, or shrinking hammer
skills, or that kit makers have not invested in the molds and dies to stamp
parts, does not mean that they can not be done. Do you mean that the
Mustang and Spitfire have no compound curves? Every one I have seen are
loaded with them.

Also, your comment that aluminum and laminar flows don't mix is equally full
of ****. Mustang was laminar flow, right?

As usual, you are in left field.

---- Morgans in a morphine-induced fit of madness

[Larry Smith]

"Morgans" > wrote in message > By the way, Larry,
I have friends.

Ahhhh. Someone to share needles and syringes with.

>Do you?

Irrelevant, childish, and dishonest.

My best friend is my dog. Other good friends I see from day to day. Some
friends are my neighbors. One who is a real friend with true friends
doesn't need to flaunt them or wave them about like they are possessions.

> --
> Jim in NC

Unfortunately

[Morgans]

"red12049" > wrote

.. Funny thing is, Morgans didn't even reply to
> your message, her replied to Barnyards'.

That is because I filtered out Latchless long ago, and only caught part of
the un snipped post, and saw it must have been directed at me. I should not
have responded at all, as I value not, what Larry thinks about me.

The narcotics I take after school are not enough to induce euphoria, only
partial relief from the pain that constantly grips my body. If Larry would
read up on chronic pain, he would know this. It easy for him to shoot off
his mouth without the facts.

I am done with this subject, so on to dreaming of the day I can live with
manageable pain, and no drugs. I hope and pray for little else for myself.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Richard Riley" > wrote

> And, if I might suggest, how about becoming a math teacher? It's not
> that hard, especially if you don't do Calc. You already know 70% of
> what you need - how to run a classroom full of yard apes. It's not
> like you need a math degree to teach it - everything you learn getting
> a BA in math would be wasted teaching at the HS level. With a
> curriculum all laid out for you, it ain't rocket science.

True, but I do have another way to go. I was actually certified in Music
Education, band emphasis. I would rather go that route, than math. I
really, really hate math. I do like A sq. + B sq. = C sq. ! :^)

I really don't know how things will turn out, but I hope to recover enough
to get of the pain meds, and get a medical. Enough is enough, and now I
want to get on with my life. I am in month 5 of my recovery, and the doc
said, just a couple days ago, to keep working at it, and not give up, as
recovery of this type can take up to 9 months. I start back into 3 days per
week, physical therapy, tomorrow.

As far as teaching carpentry goes, if I can't do that, I probably will be
too far gone to do much else. It does not much matter if I stand or sit or
lie down, It all hurts, just in different ways.
--
Jim in NC

[pacplyer]

"Larry Smith" > wrote ...
>
> I know someone who takes several ibuprofen pills a day, and sometimes as
> much as 10. He has had spinal injury and back surgery too, but he doesn't
> carry it around like a cross to bear. Occasionally he posts here ---
> something thoughtful, courteous, and intelligent, and always on the topic of
> homebuilt aircraft.

Man, I don't like him already. Posts on topic?-What a total loser!
Get that jerk outa here ("outa" is Deliverance-River Colloquial so
that Larry can understand it. ;-) It's clear that the only reason
this goof is thoughtful etc, is because he abuses OTC medication.
BTW...

Q: What happens to hillbilly lawyers when they die?

A: They lie STILL!

:^D LOL!


pac "shallow-end of the gene-pool" plyer

"Wha-chU wanna go messin round with that river fer?" - Burt Reynolds
found out why it was a bad idea to go rafting in Larry's neck of the
woods!

[RR Urban]

ChuckSlusarczyk quipped:


>WOW!!! Gee Unka Bob Sister Mary Pontius Pilot would be very proud of you.That
>was one hell of a term paper :-) Ya done good I bet you get an A+
>
>Happy New Year
>
>Nefoo Chuck
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear Nefoo....

I'm in class with Sister Mary Euthanasia.
She wouldn't give Jesus Christ an A+.


Barnyard BOb - when in doubt, crucify the messenger

[RR Urban]

"Morgans" wrote:

>
>. Funny thing is, Morgans didn't even reply to
>> your message, her replied to Barnyards'.
>
>That is because I filtered out Latchless long ago, and only caught part of
>the un snipped post, and saw it must have been directed at me. I should not
>have responded at all, as I value not, what Larry thinks about me.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Gee....
'The Club' is growing.

Perhaps a charity type fly-in could be held to raise
whatever monies it takes to get Latchless to go away.

If he is half the lawyer he thinks he is....
buying him off is not in question.
It's just a matter of 'how much'.


Barnyard BOb --

[Larry Smith]

"pacplyer" > wrote in message
om...
> "Larry Smith" > wrote ...
> >
> > I know someone who takes several ibuprofen pills a day, and sometimes as
> > much as 10. He has had spinal injury and back surgery too, but he
doesn't
> > carry it around like a cross to bear. Occasionally he posts here ---
> > something thoughtful, courteous, and intelligent, and always on the
topic of
> > homebuilt aircraft.
>
> Man, I don't like him already. Posts on topic?-What a total loser!
> Get that jerk outa here ("outa" is Deliverance-River Colloquial so
> that Larry can understand it. ;-) It's clear that the only reason
> this goof is thoughtful etc, is because he abuses OTC medication.
> BTW...
>
> Q: What happens to hillbilly lawyers when they die?
>
> A: They lie STILL!
>
> :^D LOL!

Thanks for the lawyer joke. I'll add it to my repertoire.

What are you building, Packie? Anything other than a record?
>
>
> pac "shallow-end of the gene-pool" plyer
>
> "Wha-chU wanna go messin round with that river fer?" - Burt Reynolds
> found out why it was a bad idea to go rafting in Larry's neck of the
> woods!

The rapids of the Chatuge River are in Georgia. Dimwit.

[David Lednicer]

As an aeronautical engineer, I'll give you some free advice regarding
modifying a canard configured aircraft: don't

[pacplyer]

"Larry Smith" > wrote <snip>
>
> Thanks for the lawyer joke. I'll add it to my repertoire.
>
> What are you building, Packie? Anything other than a record?
> >
> >
> > pac "shallow-end of the gene-pool" plyer
> >
> > "Wha-chU wanna go messin round with that river fer?" - Burt Reynolds
> > found out why it was a bad idea to go rafting in Larry's neck of the
> > woods!
>
> The rapids of the Chatuge River are in Georgia. Dimwit.

Gee... my globe was misprinted then! It shows a common border between
Georgia and North Carolina. Thanks for pointing out my error. It's
clear now that there's just no way that relatives from one state could
pass into the other. Maybe there's a twenty-foot barrier fence that
seperates Larry's relatives from those homosexual mountain men
depicted in the movie.

Silly Me.

pacplyer - out

when ya lives up in them there mountains with yer coon dog, who needs
friends?

[pacplyer]

"Larry Smith" > wrote
>
> The rapids of the Chatuge River are in Georgia. Dimwit.

Ah, but what you failed to mention is that Lake Chatuge IS in North
Carolina. It's not your fault Larry, most lawyers have trouble
telling the truth.

Now back to BYB's assertion of you being a malcontent...

Know what I think it is? The water! You're drinking that same
Coal-mine runoff that the mad-mountain men a few miles downstream are!
Has lots of heavy metal in it. And I bet you've been sucking way too
many Coal dust fumes from shoveling. (to get through law school.)
Sort of a hillbilly-industrial disease. "Sixteen tons and whadda I
get? Another day older and deeper in debt..." You and Tennessee
Ernie Ford!
Ya owes your soul to the company Stoe! I bet that's why you're so
ill-mannered.

Hee-Haw!

pac "sister's-looking-cute" plyer {;-D>>>

(My opinion only, course I could be wrong about all this... Hee-Haw!)

[Larry Smith]

"pacplyer" > wrote in message
om...
> "Larry Smith" > wrote
> >
> > The rapids of the Chatuge River are in Georgia. Dimwit.
>
> Ah, but what you failed to mention is that Lake Chatuge IS in North
> Carolina.

<yaaaawwwwnnnn>

[Dan Apel]

As another aeronautical engineer I strongly agree (and second) this opinion.
BTW if you want long range a canard is not for you.


"David Lednicer" > wrote in message
...
> As an aeronautical engineer, I'll give you some free advice regarding
> modifying a canard configured aircraft: don't
>

[David O]

"Dan Apel" > wrote:

>BTW if you want long range a canard is not for you.

Your assertion rings false in both theory and practice. There is
nothing inherently range-limiting about a canard design. Of the
popular canard homebuilt designs, most rank quite well in cruise
range. A stock Long EZ, for example, will fly 1000 miles full
throttle at altitude (75% power) and land with VFR reserves in the
tanks. The Class C-1a and C-1b world records for range are held by
canard aircraft.

David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

[Cy Galley]

I thought the round the world non-stop Voyager was a canard... Guess I am
wrong! <GRIN>

--
Cy Galley
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
or




"David O" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dan Apel" > wrote:
>
> >BTW if you want long range a canard is not for you.
>
> Your assertion rings false in both theory and practice. There is
> nothing inherently range-limiting about a canard design. Of the
> popular canard homebuilt designs, most rank quite well in cruise
> range. A stock Long EZ, for example, will fly 1000 miles full
> throttle at altitude (75% power) and land with VFR reserves in the
> tanks. The Class C-1a and C-1b world records for range are held by
> canard aircraft.
>
> David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com
>
>

[Jim Weir]

So we have to take Voyager out of the Smithsonian?

Jim


->
->"Dan Apel" > wrote:
->
->>BTW if you want long range a canard is not for you.



Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[B2431]

>From: "Larry Smith"
>Date: 12/28/2003 7:09 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"red12049" > wrote in message
...
>> Ya know Larry, unless you know something the rest of us do not, calling
>> someone who takes pain killers
>
>He takes narcotics. Call them what they are.
>
nar•cot•ic (när kot‚ik) n.1. any of a class of habituating or
addictive substances that blunt the senses and in increasing doses cause
confusion, stupor, coma, and death: some are used in medicine to relieve
intractable pain or induce anesthesia.

2. anything that exercises a soothing or numbing effect or influence.


Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[pacplyer]

Jim Weir > wrote

> So we have to take Voyager out of the Smithsonian?
>
> Jim
>
>
> ->
> ->"Dan Apel" > wrote:
> ->
> ->>BTW if you want long range a canard is not for you.
>
>
>
> Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
> VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
> http://www.rst-engr.com


That's right Jim, it just doesn't have enough range to be in there.
Dan and the boys are trying to prove that this hero-worship of Rutan
has just got to be stopped.

pacplyer

[Richard Riley]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:27:17 -0600, "Dan Apel" >
wrote:

:As another aeronautical engineer I strongly agree (and second) this opinion.
:BTW if you want long range a canard is not for you.

A canard does some things badly. Like STOL, or loitering in a
thermal.

Range is one of the things it does very well.

[David O]

"Cy Galley" > wrote:

>I thought the round the world non-stop Voyager was a canard... Guess I am
>wrong! <GRIN>

Interestingly, though, the Scaled Composites design for the
Fossett/Branson solo effort will apparently not be a canard.

David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

[David Lednicer]

I've got to disagree with your assertion that canards are good for
range. I worked on the Voyager, Starship, Triumph, Catbird, ATTT, Ares
and JetCruzer, plus I've analyzed the VariViggen, VariEze, Long EZ,
Solitaire, Defiant, Predator, Quickie, Q2 and Dragonfly post-facto.

To get long range, you want to fly at a speed slower than maximum, near
or at the best L/D point. This involves flying at a higher lift
coefficient and the induced drag becomes more important here. To get
low induced drag, you need the sum of all lifting surfaces to have an
elliptical lift distribution. The canard will by itself be nearly
elliptically loaded. The aft wing, of greater span, will then need a
hole in its lift distribution inboard to accomodate the canard's
loading. This means that the inboard aft wing will be carrying little,
if any, loading. However, it will physically be there, causing profile
drag - a horse that is eating, but not pulling. Even worse, on a
canard, you want the fuel on the CG, so as it is used, the CG won't
shift. This means real big strakes on the aft wing usually. Thus, the
part of the wing contributing profile drag, but no lift, gets even
bigger. For a given L, the D has now been forced to get much bigger,
clobbering L/D.

The induced drag efficiency ("e") of the Voyager was around .5, as
opposed to .75-.8 on conventional configurations. Simply put, the
Voyager could have gone around the world with less fuel if it had been
conventionally configured. The reason that the Voyager is in the
Smithsonian is that Dick, Jeana, Burt and the rest of the crew created
an airplane and performed a mission that no one had ever performed, plus
many had dreamed of.

Yes, the Long EZ has good range. However, a conventionally configured
aircraft of the same GW, with the same engine and fuel quantity would
have longer range. For the same L, the D would be lower.

[Bill Daniels]

"David Lednicer" > wrote in message
...
> I've got to disagree with your assertion that canards are good for
> range. I worked on the Voyager, Starship, Triumph, Catbird, ATTT, Ares
> and JetCruzer, plus I've analyzed the VariViggen, VariEze, Long EZ,
> Solitaire, Defiant, Predator, Quickie, Q2 and Dragonfly post-facto.
>
> To get long range, you want to fly at a speed slower than maximum, near
> or at the best L/D point. This involves flying at a higher lift
> coefficient and the induced drag becomes more important here. To get
> low induced drag, you need the sum of all lifting surfaces to have an
> elliptical lift distribution. The canard will by itself be nearly
> elliptically loaded. The aft wing, of greater span, will then need a
> hole in its lift distribution inboard to accomodate the canard's
> loading. This means that the inboard aft wing will be carrying little,
> if any, loading. However, it will physically be there, causing profile
> drag - a horse that is eating, but not pulling. Even worse, on a
> canard, you want the fuel on the CG, so as it is used, the CG won't
> shift. This means real big strakes on the aft wing usually. Thus, the
> part of the wing contributing profile drag, but no lift, gets even
> bigger. For a given L, the D has now been forced to get much bigger,
> clobbering L/D.
>
> The induced drag efficiency ("e") of the Voyager was around .5, as
> opposed to .75-.8 on conventional configurations. Simply put, the
> Voyager could have gone around the world with less fuel if it had been
> conventionally configured. The reason that the Voyager is in the
> Smithsonian is that Dick, Jeana, Burt and the rest of the crew created
> an airplane and performed a mission that no one had ever performed, plus
> many had dreamed of.
>
> Yes, the Long EZ has good range. However, a conventionally configured
> aircraft of the same GW, with the same engine and fuel quantity would
> have longer range. For the same L, the D would be lower.

Absolutely agree.

Burt Rutan once designed a canard sailplane where L/D is paramount called
the Solitaire. It was a miserable failure. Conventional designs of the
same span, weight and general fit and finish, had much more performance.
(And, if powered, would have more range.) In a sailplane, there is nowhere
for the designer to hide - aerodynamic problems are plain for all to see.
More power and less weight can hide aerodynamic problems in powered
aircraft, but not in a sailplane.

For me, the Solitaire drove the final nail in the canard's coffin. In
addition to poor aerodynamics, canards have poor TO and landing performance,
suffer from FOD, and have a notably worse safety record than conventional
airplanes. They are an all-round bad idea.

Bill Daniels

[Dave Hyde]

David Lednicer wrote:

> The induced drag efficiency ("e") of the Voyager was around .5, as
> opposed to .75-.8 on conventional configurations. Simply put, the
> Voyager could have gone around the world with less fuel if it had been
> conventionally configured.

Great post, thanks. Why'd they choose a canard configuration?
Were their aero estimates optimistic or was there some other
reason for the canard?

Dave 'trim drag' Hyde

[David Lednicer]

> 1) I'm not sure I'd list the JetCruzer in my vita ;)

Actually, we were called in late in the game and helped fix it so that
it could be certified. So, I guess its not that embarassing. BTW - I
forgot to mention the CIL Eagle in the list. I helped design that one,
but didn't take part in the fixing in that case.

> 2) What about all the wetted area and weight that a conventional configuration
> drags around in the big empty tailcone?

Its hard to do a one-on-one comparison, but the Starship and King Air
are pretty close. Swet on the Starship was 1695 feet^2. The King Air
200 is 1522 feet^2.

[David O]

David Lednicer > wrote:

>To get long range, you want to fly at a speed slower than maximum, near
>or at the best L/D point.

<snip>

Hold it right there, pilgrim. Your premise, which forms the basis for
your entire post, fails the practicality test. When people talk about
the cruise range for aircraft such as a Long EZ or an RV-4, they are
not talking about lumbering along "near or at L/D max" (about 70 kt in
both the Long EZ and the RV-4). Rather, they are talking about the
range at cruise speeds (65% and 75% power at altitude). In a like
manor, the cruise range for piston powered aircraft is typically
specified at 65% and 75% power at altitude, not throttled way back to
max L/D speeds. In truth, the actual cruise range for the Long EZ and
RV-4 are practically identical given the same engine and same fuel
load. That's the difference between reality and an argument based
upon an inappropriate premise and CFD "analysis". The previous
poster's comment that "if you want good range don't choose a canard"
remains laughably absurd in both theory and practice, and his
subsequent post reveals his considerable grudge ax -- no surprise
there.

As for the Voyager, it didn't lumber along "near or at L/D max"
either. The average speed was 122 mph. I find your claim that a
non-canard Voyager would have had better range quite suspect. One
simply can not make such a determination by punching in a few what-if
scenarios into a CFD program, especially for such a highly specialized
aircraft. For example, the Voyager's canard forms a structural box
with the booms and the main wing. Remove the canard and you would
have to add significant structural weight elsewhere to obtain the same
airframe strength.

If a non-canard "Voyager" would indeed have greater range then I will
believe it when I hear it from Burt Rutan himself. I expect that any
realized range difference, one way or the other, would be quite small.
Yes, the new Rutan designed GlobalFlyer will not be a canard
configuration. That design choice, however, could be based solely on
the wishes Fossett/Branson rather than on technical considerations.
The authoritative answer to these questions will come in time but
certainly not here in Usenet (unless Burt himself decides to chime in
as in the old days).

David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

[Ed Wischmeyer]

> To get
> low induced drag, you need the sum of all lifting surfaces to have an
> elliptical lift distribution.

Lemme display my ignorance here. I always thought that the elliptical
lift distribution minimized wingtiptip effects. That being the case
(ignoring the wake of the canard for the moment), then each wing should
have an elliptical lift distribution. When you toss in the wake effects,
is having the sum of all lifting surfaces give you an elliptical
distribution a handy approximation, or is it what you really want from
first prinicples?

thanks

Ed Wischmeyer
currently building the C-frame table for the RV-10 project

[Rich S.]

"Ed Wischmeyer" > wrote in message
...
>
> Lemme display my ignorance here. I always thought that the elliptical
> lift distribution minimized wingtiptip effects. That being the case
> (ignoring the wake of the canard for the moment), then each wing should
> have an elliptical lift distribution. When you toss in the wake effects,
> is having the sum of all lifting surfaces give you an elliptical
> distribution a handy approximation, or is it what you really want from
> first prinicples?

All's I know is that my elliptical-winged Emeraude (same wing area &
airfoil) is a LOT more efficient than those Hershey-bar RV wings! And I
holler "Nyahh Nyahh" at every one that passes me.

Rich "Who me? Disgruntled? Nahhh." S.

[David Lednicer]

Ed Wischmeyer wrote:
>>To get
>>low induced drag, you need the sum of all lifting surfaces to have an
>>elliptical lift distribution.
>
> Lemme display my ignorance here. I always thought that the elliptical
> lift distribution minimized wingtiptip effects. That being the case
> (ignoring the wake of the canard for the moment), then each wing should
> have an elliptical lift distribution. When you toss in the wake effects,
> is having the sum of all lifting surfaces give you an elliptical
> distribution a handy approximation, or is it what you really want from
> first prinicples?

The canard usually has a much smaller span than the main wing. Subtract
its elliptical load from the overall elliptical sum and you end up with
a really wierd load distribution on the aft wing.

[David Lednicer]

Rich S. wrote:
>
> All's I know is that my elliptical-winged Emeraude (same wing area &
> airfoil) is a LOT more efficient than those Hershey-bar RV wings! And I
> holler "Nyahh Nyahh" at every one that passes me.

Most wings with elliptical planforms also have twist, to improve stall
performance. This twist changes the loading, resulting in a non-optimal
loading.

[Rich S.]

"David Lednicer" > wrote in message
...
> Rich S. wrote:
> >
> > All's I know is that my elliptical-winged Emeraude (same wing area &
> > airfoil) is a LOT more efficient than those Hershey-bar RV wings! And I
> > holler "Nyahh Nyahh" at every one that passes me.
>
> Most wings with elliptical planforms also have twist, to improve stall
> performance. This twist changes the loading, resulting in a non-optimal
> loading.

The Emeraude *does* have a bunch of wash-out. If that wasn't there, would it
be a fast-cruzin', snap-rollin' beast?

Rich S.

[Richard Riley]

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 09:04:20 -0800, David Lednicer >
wrote:

:
:
:Ed Wischmeyer wrote:
:>>To get
:>>low induced drag, you need the sum of all lifting surfaces to have an
:>>elliptical lift distribution.
:>
:> Lemme display my ignorance here. I always thought that the elliptical
:> lift distribution minimized wingtiptip effects. That being the case
:> (ignoring the wake of the canard for the moment), then each wing should
:> have an elliptical lift distribution. When you toss in the wake effects,
:> is having the sum of all lifting surfaces give you an elliptical
:> distribution a handy approximation, or is it what you really want from
:> first prinicples?
:
:The canard usually has a much smaller span than the main wing. Subtract
:its elliptical load from the overall elliptical sum and you end up with
:a really wierd load distribution on the aft wing.

It's much worse than that. The winglets create much more lift at the
wingtips than you'd normally get, while serving double duty as
vertical stabs. And you have to add up all the lift into a single
system, and see how the entire thing is loaded.

It's true that if you fly a perfectly point designed canard off it's
point, it will be worse than a perfectly point designed conventional
configuration flown the same amount off it's point. For example, the
Solitare has a terrific L/D - if it's flying in a straight line. Load
up the canard to thermal and it's a dog. But if we're trying to make
sweeping statements about one configuration always being better than
another, the difference is small enough to be overwhelmed by the
details of the execution.

Besides, I don't like looking through a prop.

[David O]

David Lednicer > wrote:

>The canard usually has a much smaller span than the main wing. Subtract
>its elliptical load from the overall elliptical sum and you end up with
>a really wierd load distribution on the aft wing.

Your mistake is your false premise that an "overall elliptical sum" is
either necessary for efficiency or desirable in such canard aircraft.
But let's put aside your curious CFD-based musings for the moment and
instead look to the real-world. The simple fact is that the
normalized cruise and range performance of homebuilt canard aircraft
vs. non-canard aircraft belie your claim of substantial inherent drag
inefficiencies. As one poster correctly noted, the theoretical drag
differences between the two types are so small that it is execution
that accounts for any realized performance difference.

Canard aircraft hold several FAI recognized world records in altitude,
speed, and range. A canard holds the CAFE Challenge efficiency record
and will likely have a lock on it for years to come. Canards have
been flown to numerous first-place race wins and high race placings in
competitions against non-canard designs. Here are the placings from
just one such race, http://www.AirplaneZone.com/race.html

David O --- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

[David O]

"Bill Daniels" > wrote:

>For me, the Solitaire drove the final nail in the canard's coffin. In
>addition to poor aerodynamics, canards have poor TO and landing performance,
>suffer from FOD, and have a notably worse safety record than conventional
>airplanes. They are an all-round bad idea.

"Poor aerodynamic performance"? Hardly. Canard aircraft hold several
FAI recognized world records in altitude, speed, and range. A canard
holds the CAFE Challenge efficiency record and will likely have a lock
on it for years to come. Canards have been flown to numerous
first-place race wins and high race placings in competitions against
non-canard designs. Notably worse safety record"? That claim is
false as well.

The true tradeoffs of canard vs. non-canard aircraft are well
understood, at least among the informed, let's not muddy the waters
with misinformation from those with an obvious anti-canard bias.

David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

[RU ok]

>
>>For me, the Solitaire drove the final nail in the canard's coffin. In
>>addition to poor aerodynamics, canards have poor TO and landing performance,
>>suffer from FOD, and have a notably worse safety record than conventional
>>airplanes. They are an all-round bad idea.
>
>"Poor aerodynamic performance"? Hardly. Canard aircraft hold several
>FAI recognized world records in altitude, speed, and range. A canard
>holds the CAFE Challenge efficiency record and will likely have a lock
>on it for years to come. Canards have been flown to numerous
>first-place race wins and high race placings in competitions against
>non-canard designs. Notably worse safety record"? That claim is
>false as well.
>
>The true tradeoffs of canard vs. non-canard aircraft are well
>understood, at least among the informed, let's not muddy the waters
>with misinformation from those with an obvious anti-canard bias.
>
>David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hell, I even like canards....
when a Lycoming is in the back seat.

P.S.
Apologies to Mr. Graham's Mazda. :o)


Barnyard BOb --

[Ed Wischmeyer]

> Canard aircraft hold several FAI recognized world records in altitude,
> speed, and range. A canard holds the CAFE Challenge efficiency record
> and will likely have a lock on it for years to come. Canards have
> been flown to numerous first-place race wins and high race placings in
> competitions against non-canard designs.

That's not engineering analysis, that rhetoric trying to impress and to
win an argument. Can we go back to lift distributions, please?

Ed Wischmeyer

[David Lednicer]

David O wrote:
> Your mistake is your false premise that an "overall elliptical sum" is
> either necessary for efficiency or desirable in such canard aircraft.
> But let's put aside your curious CFD-based musings for the moment and
> instead look to the real-world. The simple fact is that the
> normalized cruise and range performance of homebuilt canard aircraft
> vs. non-canard aircraft belie your claim of substantial inherent drag
> inefficiencies. As one poster correctly noted, the theoretical drag
> differences between the two types are so small that it is execution
> that accounts for any realized performance difference.

How about dropping the ax you are grinding and learning some basic aero?
The "overall elliptical sum" is NOT a false premise. It is also a
"CFD-based musing". This dates back to the 1920s and people like
Ludwing Prandtl and Max Munk. Your arguments are ancedotal. Mine are
engineering based.

> Canard aircraft hold several FAI recognized world records in altitude,
> speed, and range. A canard holds the CAFE Challenge efficiency record
> and will likely have a lock on it for years to come. Canards have
> been flown to numerous first-place race wins and high race placings in
> competitions against non-canard designs. Here are the placings from
> just one such race, http://www.AirplaneZone.com/race.html

Show me a canard Reno racer that has ever won a race.

[BllFs6]

>Show me a canard Reno racer that has ever won a race.
>

isnt that like trying to compare a high mileage compact car to a dragster?

take care

Blll

[David Lednicer]

David O wrote:
> Hold it right there, pilgrim. Your premise, which forms the basis for
> your entire post, fails the practicality test. When people talk about
> the cruise range for aircraft such as a Long EZ or an RV-4, they are
> not talking about lumbering along "near or at L/D max" (about 70 kt in
> both the Long EZ and the RV-4). Rather, they are talking about the
> range at cruise speeds (65% and 75% power at altitude). In a like
> manor, the cruise range for piston powered aircraft is typically
> specified at 65% and 75% power at altitude, not throttled way back to
> max L/D speeds. In truth, the actual cruise range for the Long EZ and
> RV-4 are practically identical given the same engine and same fuel
> load. That's the difference between reality and an argument based
> upon an inappropriate premise and CFD "analysis". The previous
> poster's comment that "if you want good range don't choose a canard"
> remains laughably absurd in both theory and practice, and his
> subsequent post reveals his considerable grudge ax -- no surprise
> there.

1) I purposely said "long range", not range. For long range, you do
slow down to near L/D max. This is not the result of a 'CFD
"analysis"', this is basic aero. I never mentioned CFD in my post - it
is just one tool that I use in my work.

2) For cruise range like you talk about, you're right, the Long EZ is
actually better than an RV-6. This is due to the Long EZ's low zero
lift drag and reasonable induced drag efficiency.

3) Calling me "Pilgrim" is technically incorrect. My mother's family
came to the Puritan Bay Colony ten years (1632) after the Mayflower
landed (1622).

> As for the Voyager, it didn't lumber along "near or at L/D max"
> either. The average speed was 122 mph. I find your claim that a
> non-canard Voyager would have had better range quite suspect. One
> simply can not make such a determination by punching in a few what-if
> scenarios into a CFD program, especially for such a highly specialized
> aircraft. For example, the Voyager's canard forms a structural box
> with the booms and the main wing. Remove the canard and you would
> have to add significant structural weight elsewhere to obtain the same
> airframe strength.

1) No, the Voyager didn't lumber around near or at L/D max. Early in
the flight, it did, but then Dick got impatient. Average L/D on the
flight was near 22. My analysis (which has nothing to do with CFD)
shows the airplane to have a max L/D, at the average flight condition,
closer to 26.

2) Stop grinding your ax - I don't just "punch in a few what-if
scenarios into a CFD program". For highly specialized aircraft, CFD is
the only way to get a handle on such things as the stability and control
(Burt used a very crude code called Tanwing to design the VariEze,
Voyager, Long EZ, etc.). However, you need to do a lot more than run a
CFD code to analyze an aircraft.

3) Your average speed for Voyager is incorrect. They covered 24,986.73
statute miles in 216 hours, 3 minutes and 44 seconds. This works out to
115.6 mph ground speed. I have been told that this is a pretty good
approximation of the average true airspeed.

4) Yes, the Voyager benefited from the structural layout. However, it
is not the only way to skin the cat.

> If a non-canard "Voyager" would indeed have greater range then I will
> believe it when I hear it from Burt Rutan himself. I expect that any
> realized range difference, one way or the other, would be quite small.
> Yes, the new Rutan designed GlobalFlyer will not be a canard
> configuration. That design choice, however, could be based solely on
> the wishes Fossett/Branson rather than on technical considerations.
> The authoritative answer to these questions will come in time but
> certainly not here in Usenet (unless Burt himself decides to chime in
> as in the old days).

Oh, so only Burt knows anything about designing airplanes. I guess the
rest of us aero engineers might as well go quit and go home. My
firsthnad experience is that Burt is a very skillful designer, but there
are many designers, equally skillful, who get little or no press.

[David Lednicer]

Ooops, I meant to say 'It is also NOT a "CFD-based musing".'

[David Lednicer]

BllFs6 wrote:
> isnt that like trying to compare a high mileage compact car to a dragster?

I don't know of any dragsters that have to pull 6gs in a corner.
Induced drag is an issue with Reno racers. When I was working with
Randy Howell, when he owned Madder Maxxx, I worked on convincing him to
fly a looser course, to lower the loading in the corners. He agreed to
go out in practice and fly three laps tight around the pylons and three
laps loose around the pylons. By his own admission, he turned much
faster laps flying loose. This was exactly what I had predicted using
my race course simulation program (which is NOT a CFD program!).

[Big John]

Dave

Some more data on racing.

I flew model aircraft in races for a number of years. Top speed in
class was about 100 mph.

When you came up to a pylon and cut the corner tight and pulled high
G's you bled off airspeed.

We used fixed pitch props and you had two choices. With a flat pitch
prop you had lots of thrust in turn and didn't lose very much
airspeed. and would accelerate back to top speed for that prop very
fast.

If you used a high pitch prop you lost speed in the turn and slowly
accelerated to top speed on the straight away however you had a high
flat out top speed with the high pitch prop and would overtake the
flat pitch prop on the straight away. Next pylon the flat pitch prop
would turn tighter and not lose as much airspeed and take the lead
again.

Propping the engine correctly let you win races. Engine power varied
with moisture and temp so each day and sometimes each race as the day
wore on required a different pitched prop to max out the capability of
your bird.

Am sure the Reno boys have a more fancy method than we used but I
learned a lot flying in competition that could be applied directly to
GA and up aircraft.

Big John


On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 11:03:00 -0800, David Lednicer >
wrote:

>BllFs6 wrote:
>> isnt that like trying to compare a high mileage compact car to a dragster?
>
>I don't know of any dragsters that have to pull 6gs in a corner.
>Induced drag is an issue with Reno racers. When I was working with
>Randy Howell, when he owned Madder Maxxx, I worked on convincing him to
>fly a looser course, to lower the loading in the corners. He agreed to
>go out in practice and fly three laps tight around the pylons and three
>laps loose around the pylons. By his own admission, he turned much
>faster laps flying loose. This was exactly what I had predicted using
>my race course simulation program (which is NOT a CFD program!).
>

[David O]

David Lednicer > wrote:

>1) I purposely said "long range", not range. For long range, you do
>slow down to near L/D max.

Your response to Richard's claim that canards have good range began
with, "I've got to disagree with your assertion that canards are good
for range." Others can judge for themselves whether Richard was
talking about cruise range or about range at max L/D. You already
know my take on both Richard's meaning and your response.

>2) For cruise range like you talk about, you're right, the Long EZ is
>actually better than an RV-6. This is due to the Long EZ's low zero
>lift drag and reasonable induced drag efficiency.

Q.E.D.

>3) Calling me "Pilgrim" is technically incorrect. My mother's family
>came to the Puritan Bay Colony ten years (1632) after the Mayflower
>landed (1622).

Relax, cowboy, it's just an expression. :)

>3) Your average speed for Voyager is incorrect. They covered 24,986.73
>statute miles in 216 hours, 3 minutes and 44 seconds. This works out to
>115.6 mph ground speed. I have been told that this is a pretty good
>approximation of the average true airspeed.

Your 115.6 mph is the FAI accredited average ground speed based on the
FAI accredited distance flown. It is not, however, the actual average
ground speed flown. The 122 mph figure I cited is the actual average
ground speed flown based on the actual distance flown (26,366 statute
miles).

>Oh, so only Burt knows anything about designing airplanes.

No, but with all due respect, I would better trust Burt on this
particular subject.

David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

[David O]

David Lednicer > wrote:

>How about dropping the ax you are grinding and learning some basic aero?
> The "overall elliptical sum" is NOT a false premise. It is also a
>"CFD-based musing". This dates back to the 1920s and people like
>Ludwing Prandtl and Max Munk.

Those studies were not of, did not consider, and do not apply to
canard aircraft with winglets.

>Your arguments are ancedotal. Mine are engineering based.

The correct term for an argument based upon verifiable real-world data
is "empirical", not "anecdotal". My argument was deliberately
empirical. When engineering analysis doesn't jibe with reality, I
choose reality as the final arbiter.

>Show me a canard Reno racer that has ever won a race.

To my knowledge, the highest placed canard aircraft (*) at Reno was
David Ronnerberg's Berkut which finished second place among six
Glasairs in 1999. The first place Glasair III was 9.4 mph faster than
the Berkut and the Berkut was 11.9 mph faster than the third place
Glasair III. Although the Berkut did not take first place, its second
place showing remains a valid example of a high canard placing among
non-canard aircraft. Thanks for helping to reinforce my point. :)

David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

* The purpose-built screamer "Pushy Galore" had a small canard but
also a T-tail.

[David O]

Ed Wischmeyer > wrote:

>> Canard aircraft hold several FAI recognized world records in altitude,
>> speed, and range. A canard holds the CAFE Challenge efficiency record
>> and will likely have a lock on it for years to come. Canards have
>> been flown to numerous first-place race wins and high race placings in
>> competitions against non-canard designs.

>That's not engineering analysis, that rhetoric trying to impress and to
>win an argument. Can we go back to lift distributions, please?


When engineering analysis doesn't jibe with reality, I choose reality
as the final arbiter. Your "rhetoric trying to impress" remark was
not only rude, but reveals that you missed the very point.

David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

[David O]

RU ok > wrote:

>Hell, I even like canards....

Me too. I particularly enjoy stir-fry mallard. Wait, the water fowl
thread already happened!

David "fashionably late" O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

[David Lednicer]

David O wrote:
> Those studies were not of, did not consider, and do not apply to
> canard aircraft with winglets.

These studies apply to ANY arrangement of lifting surfaces. Even your
idol Burt Rutan uses them.

[Jim Weir]

And my family met Columbus at the dock. So what?

Jim



David O >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->David Lednicer > wrote:

->
->>3) Calling me "Pilgrim" is technically incorrect. My mother's family
->>came to the Puritan Bay Colony ten years (1632) after the Mayflower
->>landed (1622).
->
->Relax, cowboy, it's just an expression. :)




Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[David O]

Richard Riley wrote:

>And, just for the record, Dave Ronneberg few the airplane at Reno. But I paid
>for it. It was mine.

Well then, congrats on the second place showing. :)

David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

[Richard Riley]

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:43:42 -0500, David O
> wrote:

:Richard Riley wrote:
:
:>And, just for the record, Dave Ronneberg few the airplane at Reno. But I paid
:>for it. It was mine.
:
:Well then, congrats on the second place showing. :)

Thanks. It's faster now, I'll do better next time.

[RU ok]

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 05:21:42 GMT, Richard Riley
> wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:43:42 -0500, David O
> wrote:
>
>:Richard Riley wrote:
>:
>:>And, just for the record, Dave Ronneberg few the airplane at Reno. But I paid
>:>for it. It was mine.
>:
>:Well then, congrats on the second place showing. :)
>
>Thanks. It's faster now, I'll do better next time.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Um, FOR THE RECORD, Richard....

1. Who was the REGISTERED OWNER at race time?

2. Whose mother floated a loan and when....
concerning this aircraft and why?

I believe I have the straight scoop already, but...
I'm mildly interested in your version to the group,
since you have brought this into public view.

P.S.
Your reply may be forwarded to interested parties.


Barnyard BOb -- First rule of holes. Stop digging.

[Richard Riley]

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 07:22:39 -0600, RU ok > wrote:

:On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 05:21:42 GMT, Richard Riley
> wrote:
:
:>On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:43:42 -0500, David O
> wrote:
:>
:>:Richard Riley wrote:
:>:
:>:>And, just for the record, Dave Ronneberg few the airplane at Reno. But I paid
:>:>for it. It was mine.
:>:
:>:Well then, congrats on the second place showing. :)
:>
:>Thanks. It's faster now, I'll do better next time.
:+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
:
:Um, FOR THE RECORD, Richard....
:
:1. Who was the REGISTERED OWNER at race time?

That's in the record.
:
:2. Whose mother floated a loan and when....
: concerning this aircraft and why?

Nobody's
:
:I believe I have the straight scoop already, but...
You don't.
:I'm mildly interested in your version to the group,
:since you have brought this into public view.
:
:P.S.
:Your reply may be forwarded to interested parties.
:
:
:Barnyard BOb -- First rule of holes. Stop digging.

Given how much "interested parties" have stolen from me, I won't help
them out.

[RU ok]

>:I believe I have the straight scoop already, but...
>You don't.
>:I'm mildly interested in your version to the group,
>:since you have brought this into public view.
>:
>:P.S.
>:Your reply may be forwarded to interested parties.
>:
>:
>:Barnyard BOb -- First rule of holes. Stop digging.
>
>Given how much "interested parties" have stolen from me, I won't help
>them out.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

WoW.

Since you bring this up, who stole what from you?

I realize that there are two sides to every story, but...
accusations such as yours here in rah is serious stuff.

Are you going to answer forthrightly and possibly involve
yourself in libel, or just continue on in a devious zoom-like
manner which eventually leads to a total lapse of credibility?


Barnyard BOb -- First rule of holes. Stop digging.

[Richard Riley]

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 12:32:54 -0600, RU ok > wrote:

:
:>:I believe I have the straight scoop already, but...
:>You don't.
:>:I'm mildly interested in your version to the group,
:>:since you have brought this into public view.
:>:
:>:P.S.
:>:Your reply may be forwarded to interested parties.
:>:
:>:
:>:Barnyard BOb -- First rule of holes. Stop digging.
:>
:>Given how much "interested parties" have stolen from me, I won't help
:>them out.
:++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
:
:WoW.
:
:Since you bring this up, who stole what from you?

And this is your business because...?
:
:I realize that there are two sides to every story, but...
:accusations such as yours here in rah is serious stuff.

On the contrary. As I'm so often reminded, RAH is never never land,
where things that are said don't matter a bit and everything is in
jest.
:
:Are you going to answer forthrightly and possibly involve
:yourself in libel, or just continue on in a devious zoom-like
:manner which eventually leads to a total lapse of credibility?

Nether.

[RU ok]

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:07:29 GMT, Richard Riley
> wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 12:32:54 -0600, RU ok > wrote:
>
>:
>:>:I believe I have the straight scoop already, but...
>:>You don't.
>:>:I'm mildly interested in your version to the group,
>:>:since you have brought this into public view.
>:>:
>:>:P.S.
>:>:Your reply may be forwarded to interested parties.
>:>:
>:>:
>:>:Barnyard BOb -- First rule of holes. Stop digging.
>:>
>:>Given how much "interested parties" have stolen from me, I won't help
>:>them out.
>:++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

>:I realize that there are two sides to every story, but...
>:accusations such as yours here in rah is serious stuff.
>
>On the contrary. As I'm so often reminded, RAH is never never land,
>where things that are said don't matter a bit and everything is in
>jest.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Richard...

"RAH is never never land"?
"EVERYTHING IS IN JEST"?

I see...

You jest about owning the Berkut at Reno race time?
You jest about folks stealing from you?
Things that you say here don't matter a bit?
So be it.

It's all about credibility, Richard.
Good luck finding some.


Barnyard BOb -- First rule of holes. Stop digging.