US 1943-10309 C-69 1954orLater to N6700.jpg

[joet5[_2_]]

[lager]

joet5 wrote :

>
> begin 644 US 1943-10309 C-69 1954orLater to N6700.jpg
>
> Attachment saved: F:\Net\US 1943-10309 C-69 1954orLater to N6700.jpg
> `
> end

Looks like they are testing another engine type, or are my eyes wonky?

[Miloch]

In article >, lager says...
>
>joet5 wrote :
>
>>
>> begin 644 US 1943-10309 C-69 1954orLater to N6700.jpg
>>
>> Attachment saved: F:\Net\US 1943-10309 C-69 1954orLater to N6700.jpg
>> `
>> end
>
>Looks like they are testing another engine type, or are my eyes wonky?


It wouldn't be the first time!!




*

[[email protected]]

I bet that turbo-prop power made for a very smooth, quiet and faster
flight



On 17 Feb 2018 13:53:45 -0800, Miloch >
wrote:

>In article >, lager says...
>>
>>joet5 wrote :
>>
>>>
>>> begin 644 US 1943-10309 C-69 1954orLater to N6700.jpg
>>>
>>> Attachment saved: F:\Net\US 1943-10309 C-69 1954orLater to N6700.jpg
>>> `
>>> end
>>
>>Looks like they are testing another engine type, or are my eyes wonky?
>
>
>It wouldn't be the first time!!
>
>
>
>
>*

[Miloch]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>I bet that turbo-prop power made for a very smooth, quiet and faster
>flight

Timing is everything...the first commercial jet, British de Havilland Comet,
went into service in 1952...spelling the coming doom of prop driven commercial
planes.




*





>
>On 17 Feb 2018 13:53:45 -0800, Miloch >
>wrote:
>
>>In article >, lager says...
>>>
>>>joet5 wrote :
>>>
>>>>
>>>> begin 644 US 1943-10309 C-69 1954orLater to N6700.jpg
>>>>
>>>> Attachment saved: F:\Net\US 1943-10309 C-69 1954orLater to N6700.jpg
>>>> `
>>>> end
>>>
>>>Looks like they are testing another engine type, or are my eyes wonky?
>>
>>
>>It wouldn't be the first time!!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>*