I hink Biplanes/Triplanes are the best

[Leah Lidtorf]

Better than modern jets.Biplanes are planes for real knights of the
sky.Improved Biplanes could be better than most jets.

Jets are ****.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Leah Lidtorf" > wrote in message
om...
> Better than modern jets.Biplanes are planes for real knights of the
> sky.Improved Biplanes could be better than most jets.
>
> Jets are ****.

Ah an Aussie troll and a VERY poor one

Score 1/10 for picking the right newsgroup.

Keith

[Stephen Harding]

Keith Willshaw wrote:

> "Leah Lidtorf" > wrote in message
>
> > Better than modern jets.Biplanes are planes for real knights of the
> > sky.Improved Biplanes could be better than most jets.
> >
> > Jets are ****.
>
> Ah an Aussie troll and a VERY poor one
>
> Score 1/10 for picking the right newsgroup.

Ahh, but think how many jet engines could be bolted on to all
those extra wings!


SMH

[Keith Willshaw]

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
> > "Leah Lidtorf" > wrote in message
> >
> > > Better than modern jets.Biplanes are planes for real knights of the
> > > sky.Improved Biplanes could be better than most jets.
> > >
> > > Jets are ****.
> >
> > Ah an Aussie troll and a VERY poor one
> >
> > Score 1/10 for picking the right newsgroup.
>
> Ahh, but think how many jet engines could be bolted on to all
> those extra wings!
>

Its been done

http://cellar.org/iotd.php?threadid=3754

Keith

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
Keith Willshaw > wrote:
>
>"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
>> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>
>> > "Leah Lidtorf" > wrote in message
>> >
>> > > Better than modern jets.Biplanes are planes for real knights of the
>> > > sky.Improved Biplanes could be better than most jets.
>> > >
>> > > Jets are ****.
>> >
>> > Ah an Aussie troll and a VERY poor one
>> >
>> > Score 1/10 for picking the right newsgroup.
>>
>> Ahh, but think how many jet engines could be bolted on to all
>> those extra wings!
>>
>
>Its been done
>
>http://cellar.org/iotd.php?threadid=3754

Not just then, either. The VVS trialled (and may have even operated)
Polikarpov i153s with ramjet assisters, and certainly flew i15bis
and i153s in combat equipped with rockets for air-ground and air-air
use.
None of it worked that well, but it's been done.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

[Stephen Harding]

Keith Willshaw wrote:

> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
>
> > Keith Willshaw wrote:
> >
> > > "Leah Lidtorf" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > > Better than modern jets.Biplanes are planes for real knights of the
> > > > sky.Improved Biplanes could be better than most jets.
> > > >
> > > > Jets are ****.
> > >
> > > Ah an Aussie troll and a VERY poor one
> > >
> > > Score 1/10 for picking the right newsgroup.
> >
> > Ahh, but think how many jet engines could be bolted on to all
> > those extra wings!
> >
>
> Its been done
>
> http://cellar.org/iotd.php?threadid=3754

Dang!

In the US, GE has a commercial on TV with pseudo-old film footage
showing the Wright brothers Flyer taking off at Kitty Hawk with an
extremely large, GE jet engine bolted to its top wing.

Looks like a thrilling ride!


SMH

[Yeff]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 07:50:24 -0000, Keith Willshaw wrote:

> Ah an Aussie troll and a VERY poor one

Nope, it's the Finnish troll again.

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

[Curtis McRae]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Keith Willshaw wrote:
> >
> > > "Leah Lidtorf" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > > Better than modern jets.Biplanes are planes for real knights of the
> > > > sky.Improved Biplanes could be better than most jets.
> > > >
> > > > Jets are ****.
> > >
> > > Ah an Aussie troll and a VERY poor one
> > >
> > > Score 1/10 for picking the right newsgroup.
> >
> > Ahh, but think how many jet engines could be bolted on to all
> > those extra wings!
> >
>
> Its been done
>
> http://cellar.org/iotd.php?threadid=3754
>
> Keith
>

I've seen that plane at an airshow. Strangest thing - you hear the radial
engine going and then suddenly he would pull up and ZOOM there was the jet
noise! I think he had the same engine as the Avro Tudor in it.\

Curt in WPG

[Mike Marron]

>Stephen Harding > wrote:
>>Keith Willshaw wrote:

>>Its been done

>>http://cellar.org/iotd.php?threadid=3754

>Dang!

>In the US, GE has a commercial on TV with pseudo-old film footage
>showing the Wright brothers Flyer taking off at Kitty Hawk with an
>extremely large, GE jet engine bolted to its top wing.

>Looks like a thrilling ride!

The "Starfighters" F-104 demo team based out of my hometown
(Clearwater, FL) and the jet-powered Waco bipe in the link above
that Keith posted are my two fave airplanes at Sun 'n Fun. Another
very cool photo is the *turboprop* ULTRALIGHT shown in the link
below:

http://www.davisstraub.com/OZ/toc.php?6.92

Scroll down to the bottom to view the pic. Very cool!

[Gordon]

>
>The "Starfighters" F-104 demo team based out of my hometown
>(Clearwater, FL)

<snip>

Do you happen to know if Wolfgang Czaia is still a pilot of one of those 104s?
He is my favorite aviator - flown everything from ****cans with wings to F-84s
and Zippers. Great guy!

v/r
Gordon

[vincent p. norris]

>Ah an Aussie troll and a VERY poor one

But an open cockpit biplane IS a lot more fun to fly than a jet
(altough I've never flown the latter).

If Uncle Sam offered to give me a used Stearman or a used jet, I'd
have no difficulty choosing the Stearman.

(I could afford to buy fuel for it, too.)

vince norris

[vincent p. norris]

>Its been done

Have those of you who live in the States seen the tv commercial in
which General Electric tries to bask in the reflected glory of the
Wright Brothers by strapping one of their jet engines to the Wright
Flier?

vince norris

[WaltBJ]

If you look at it with the right mental attitude the Shuttle atop the
747 combo comprises a biplane with something like 57 engines, not
counting the 4 APUs. ;<)
Walt BJ

[robert arndt]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Keith Willshaw wrote:
> >
> > > "Leah Lidtorf" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > > Better than modern jets.Biplanes are planes for real knights of the
> > > > sky.Improved Biplanes could be better than most jets.
> > > >
> > > > Jets are ****.
> > >
> > > Ah an Aussie troll and a VERY poor one
> > >
> > > Score 1/10 for picking the right newsgroup.
> >
> > Ahh, but think how many jet engines could be bolted on to all
> > those extra wings!
> >
>
> Its been done
>
> http://cellar.org/iotd.php?threadid=3754
>
> Keith

The very first jet WAS a bi-plane:

http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/Coanda/CoandaAeroplane.htm

Rob

[Greg Hennessy]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 23:14:44 GMT, Mike Marron >
wrote:

>
>The "Starfighters" F-104 demo team based out of my hometown
>(Clearwater, FL) and the jet-powered Waco bipe in the link above
>that Keith posted are my two fave airplanes at Sun 'n Fun. Another
>very cool photo is the *turboprop* ULTRALIGHT shown in the link
>below:
>
>http://www.davisstraub.com/OZ/toc.php?6.92
>
>Scroll down to the bottom to view the pic. Very cool!
>

Thats a *small* engine. Any ideas what it is ? The thoughts of a 3-400
horse turbine on something that small just boggles the mind.


greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

[David Windhorst]

Keith Willshaw wrote:

>snip
>
>
>Its been done
>
>http://cellar.org/iotd.php?threadid=3754
>
>Keith
>
>
>
>
Don't forget the PZL M-15 :
http://www.luftfahrtmuseum.com/htmi/ii/i006951.htm

[Mike Marron]

>Greg Hennessy > wrote:
>>Mike Marron > wrote:

>>The "Starfighters" F-104 demo team based out of my hometown
>>(Clearwater, FL) and the jet-powered Waco bipe in the link above
>>that Keith posted are my two fave airplanes at Sun 'n Fun. Another
>>very cool photo is the *turboprop* ULTRALIGHT shown in the link
>>below:

>>http://www.davisstraub.com/OZ/toc.php?6.92

>>Scroll down to the bottom to view the pic. Very cool!

>Thats a *small* engine. Any ideas what it is ? The thoughts of a 3-400
>horse turbine on something that small just boggles the mind.

It's a Rotax/Lucas gas turbine APU (used on early Harriers, I think)
that develops 80 hp at 55,000 rpms (my reciprocating Rotax 912
engine on my trike develops the exact same hp at 5800 rpms). The
little turbine only weighs about 70 lbs. but guzzles down the kerosene
at approx. 200 lbs. per hr.

Has an inflight adjustable prop (as opposed to a constant-speed
prop) and just like the big boys it also has beta range, meaning it
can reverse pitch.

If one can afford the engine and the fuel to feed it, I suppose it's a
great little engine for high density altitude ops and/or towing
gliders up to FL180 (any higher and you need to file IFR, of course).

But turbines aren't a very practical powerplant at all for most light
A/C that spend the majority of their time operating down low 'n slow
in the weeds.

Here's a bit more about the turboprop UL if you're interested. Scroll
down to the third article:

http://www.davisstraub.com/OZ/Ozv6n101.htm

[Alan Minyard]

>
>The very first jet WAS a bi-plane:
>
>http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/Coanda/CoandaAeroplane.htm
>
>Rob

No, the "aircraft" that you are referring to never achieved controlled flight. It
promptly crashed when a take off was attempted. It was not the first jet, it
was a failed attempt.

Al Minyard

[Greg Hennessy]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:34:20 GMT, Mike Marron >
wrote:


>>>Scroll down to the bottom to view the pic. Very cool!
>
>>Thats a *small* engine. Any ideas what it is ? The thoughts of a 3-400
>>horse turbine on something that small just boggles the mind.
>
>It's a Rotax/Lucas gas turbine APU (used on early Harriers, I think)
>that develops 80 hp at 55,000 rpms (my reciprocating Rotax 912
>engine on my trike develops the exact same hp at 5800 rpms). The
>little turbine only weighs about 70 lbs. but guzzles down the kerosene
>at approx. 200 lbs. per hr.


I had visions of some hero hanging a 3-400 horse ex jetranger alison on
there.


>
>Has an inflight adjustable prop (as opposed to a constant-speed
>prop) and just like the big boys it also has beta range, meaning it
>can reverse pitch.

Interesting. Make a short landing run even shorter.



greg
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

[Gordon]

>
>>
>Don't forget the PZL M-15 :
>http://www.luftfahrtmuseum.com/htmi/ii/i006951.htm

MY EYES MY EYES

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
David Windhorst > wrote:

> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
> >snip
> >
> >
> >Its been done
> >
> >http://cellar.org/iotd.php?threadid=3754
> >
> >Keith
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Don't forget the PZL M-15 :
> http://www.luftfahrtmuseum.com/htmi/ii/i006951.htm
>

Another biplane jet was Henri Coanda's from 1910:

<http://www.ufx.org/avro/coanda/coanda.htm>

A *tractor*, biplane jet aircraft.

[Greg Hennessy]

On 31 Oct 2003 18:50:56 GMT, (Gordon) wrote:

>>
>>>
>>Don't forget the PZL M-15 :
>>http://www.luftfahrtmuseum.com/htmi/ii/i006951.htm
>
>MY EYES MY EYES

A plane only its mother could love.


greg
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

[robert arndt]

Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
> >
> >The very first jet WAS a bi-plane:
> >
> >http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/Coanda/CoandaAeroplane.htm
> >
> >Rob
>
> No, the "aircraft" that you are referring to never achieved controlled flight. It
> promptly crashed when a take off was attempted. It was not the first jet, it
> was a failed attempt.
>
> Al Minyard


The Coanda Turbine Aeroplane was the first aircraft built with a jet
engine. I never claimed it flew. And if you had read the account of
Coanda's failure it was not due to the aircraft but Coanda himself,
who was not a pilot.
He never got a second chance to make another one to have a real pilot
fly it... so we'll never know if it would have be a success or not.
It shows, however, how interesting WW1 could have been if the jet
biplane worked. Imagine jet Fokkers and Camels!
BTW Al, if you knew anything more about Coanda you would realize that
the Nazis forced him to work on a disc aircraft project during WW2. He
came up with a design for a 20 meter diameter lenticular machine with
12 Jumo 004 jet engines, but this project never went beyond the design
stage and windtunnel testing.

Rob

[[email protected]]

Greg Hennessy > wrote:

>On 31 Oct 2003 18:50:56 GMT, (Gordon) wrote:
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>Don't forget the PZL M-15 :
>>>http://www.luftfahrtmuseum.com/htmi/ii/i006951.htm
>>
>>MY EYES MY EYES
>
>A plane only its mother could love.
>
>
>greg

A very plain plane
--

-Gord.

[Alan Minyard]

On 31 Oct 2003 14:49:46 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:

>Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
>> >
>> >The very first jet WAS a bi-plane:
>> >
>> >http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/Coanda/CoandaAeroplane.htm
>> >
>> >Rob
>>
>> No, the "aircraft" that you are referring to never achieved controlled flight. It
>> promptly crashed when a take off was attempted. It was not the first jet, it
>> was a failed attempt.
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
>
>The Coanda Turbine Aeroplane was the first aircraft built with a jet
>engine. I never claimed it flew. And if you had read the account of
>Coanda's failure it was not due to the aircraft but Coanda himself,
>who was not a pilot.
>He never got a second chance to make another one to have a real pilot
>fly it... so we'll never know if it would have be a success or not.
>It shows, however, how interesting WW1 could have been if the jet
>biplane worked. Imagine jet Fokkers and Camels!
>BTW Al, if you knew anything more about Coanda you would realize that
>the Nazis forced him to work on a disc aircraft project during WW2. He
>came up with a design for a 20 meter diameter lenticular machine with
>12 Jumo 004 jet engines, but this project never went beyond the design
>stage and windtunnel testing.
>
>Rob

It really bugs you that the Nazi's lost, doesn't it? That contraption was
incapable of controlled fight, and was not a true jet or turbojet. It was
a bad joke.

Al Minyard

[Keith Willshaw]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On 31 Oct 2003 14:49:46 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:
>

> It really bugs you that the Nazi's lost, doesn't it? That contraption was
> incapable of controlled fight, and was not a true jet or turbojet. It was
> a bad joke.
>
> Al Minyard

An overreaction I think Al

Coanda was no Nazi , in fact he wasn't German. He was
a Romanian who was for a while the technical director of
Bristol Airplanes in England and later worked as a designer
at Dalauney-Belleville Airplanes in Saint Denis, France during WW1.

There's nothing about the aircraft to suggest it was incapable
of controlled flight other than that Coanda himself was no
pilot. The technology may not have existed for the idea to be workable
but the pioneering research he did has been recognised worldwide.

Thats why they call it the Coanda Effect after all.


Keith

[Mike Marron]

>"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:

>Thats why they call it the Coanda Effect after all.

You may have heard stories saying that the "Coanda Effect"
(as opposed to Bernoulli's Principle) explains how an airplane
wing works.

Alas, these are just fairy tales. They are full of errors and are
worse than useless.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> >"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
>
> >Thats why they call it the Coanda Effect after all.
>
> You may have heard stories saying that the "Coanda Effect"
> (as opposed to Bernoulli's Principle) explains how an airplane
> wing works.
>

I have heard stories that allege Elvis is alive and well and
working in a chip shop in Burnley too.

> Alas, these are just fairy tales. They are full of errors and are
> worse than useless.
>

Which has nothing to do with the Coanda effect or Henry Coanda's
work.

Keith

[Mike Marron]

>"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:

>>You may have heard stories saying that the "Coanda Effect"
>>(as opposed to Bernoulli's Principle) explains how an airplane
>>wing works.

>I have heard stories that allege Elvis is alive and well and
>working in a chip shop in Burnley too.

Ain't it the truth! Almost as bad as the stories that allege the Brits
are "athletic" because they keep thinking that 'soccer' is a sport.
What a bunch of weakass Euro-peons chasing a round ball
around. They should bend and submit to America like always,
since we have the sense to PICK THE DAMN BALL UP AND
THROW IT."

>>Alas, these are just fairy tales. They are full of errors and are
>>worse than useless.

>Which has nothing to do with the Coanda effect or Henry Coanda's
>work.

The Coanada theory of lift brings to mind a question asked
of me, more as a joke than a serious desire for knowledge, about
the truckload of birds approaching a weigh station and the driver
knowing the truck exceeded the legal limits.

As he approached the scales, the driver smacked the side of the
trailer violently with his hand, thereby scaring the birds into
flight and lightening the load as he rolled slowly over the scales,
smiling at the inspector as he was now below the maximum weight.

According to the "Coanda" believers, if the birds actually get their
lift from Bernoulli, then there would be no downward pressure change
and the truck would weigh the same.

[[email protected]]

Mike Marron > wrote:

>
>As he approached the scales, the driver smacked the side of the
>trailer violently with his hand, thereby scaring the birds into
>flight and lightening the load as he rolled slowly over the scales,
>smiling at the inspector as he was now below the maximum weight.
>
>According to the "Coanda" believers, if the birds actually get their
>lift from Bernoulli, then there would be no downward pressure change
>and the truck would weigh the same.
>
>
By God, I've read that last para there about 15 times and I still
don't know what 'you' believe...so do 'you' think that the truck
weighed the same or not? (also I'm assuming that the trailer with
the birds inside was more or less air tight)?
--

-Gord.

[WaltBJ]

vincent p. norris > wrote in message >...
> >Ah an Aussie troll and a VERY poor one
>
> But an open cockpit biplane IS a lot more fun to fly than a jet
> (altough I've never flown the latter).
>
> If Uncle Sam offered to give me a used Stearman or a used jet, I'd
> have no difficulty choosing the Stearman.
SNIP

OTH flying jet fighters kept me in the USAF despite some ****ty
overseas assignments. Thule, anyone? A test hop in a clean F4 is
sheer excitement. Any ride in a 104 is right up there on the fun
meter. I enjoyed 22 years of it, T33 on up through F4.

Walt BJ

[Regnirps]

Walt, I think I spent half of high school daydreaming and sketching pictures of
104's (the other half I was drawing X-15's)!

Charlie Springer

[Andrew Chaplin]

WaltBJ wrote:
>
> OTH flying jet fighters kept me in the USAF despite some ****ty
> overseas assignments. Thule, anyone? A test hop in a clean F4 is
> sheer excitement. Any ride in a 104 is right up there on the fun
> meter. I enjoyed 22 years of it, T33 on up through F4.

Very occasionally Canadian politicians say something witty, and in
about 1986 it was about the joy of flying in fighter jets.

The first CF-188s were delivered in about 1983 when the Liberals were
still in power. The Minister of National Defence of the day, Gilles
Lamontagne, was taken up for a familiarization ride. He, a former
navigator of the Bomber Command's 6 Group, said that the ride was
better than sex.

Come the next federal election, the Tories took power and Perrin
Beatty was eventually appointed MND. He got his familiarization ride,
which was followed by the obligatory photo op. When one of the press
recalled Lamontagne's remark and asked for his reaction, Beatty said,
"If I had to make a choice, I'd have to think seriously about giving
up flying."
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Keith Willshaw]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> >"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
> >>"Mike Marron" > wrote:
>
> >>You may have heard stories saying that the "Coanda Effect"
> >>(as opposed to Bernoulli's Principle) explains how an airplane
> >>wing works.
>
> >I have heard stories that allege Elvis is alive and well and
> >working in a chip shop in Burnley too.
>
> Ain't it the truth! Almost as bad as the stories that allege the Brits
> are "athletic" because they keep thinking that 'soccer' is a sport.
> What a bunch of weakass Euro-peons chasing a round ball
> around. They should bend and submit to America like always,
> since we have the sense to PICK THE DAMN BALL UP AND
> THROW IT."
>

We do , the sport is called Rugby Union and we
dont need lots of padding to play it.


Keith

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 14:33:12 GMT, Andrew Chaplin > wrote:

>WaltBJ wrote:
>>
>> OTH flying jet fighters kept me in the USAF despite some ****ty
>> overseas assignments. Thule, anyone? A test hop in a clean F4 is
>> sheer excitement. Any ride in a 104 is right up there on the fun
>> meter. I enjoyed 22 years of it, T33 on up through F4.
>
>Very occasionally Canadian politicians say something witty, and in
>about 1986 it was about the joy of flying in fighter jets.
>
>The first CF-188s were delivered in about 1983 when the Liberals were
>still in power. The Minister of National Defence of the day, Gilles
>Lamontagne, was taken up for a familiarization ride. He, a former
>navigator of the Bomber Command's 6 Group, said that the ride was
>better than sex.
>
>Come the next federal election, the Tories took power and Perrin
>Beatty was eventually appointed MND. He got his familiarization ride,
>which was followed by the obligatory photo op. When one of the press
>recalled Lamontagne's remark and asked for his reaction, Beatty said,
>"If I had to make a choice, I'd have to think seriously about giving
>up flying."

Is not the CF-118 an F/A-18??


Al Minyard

[Andrew Chaplin]

Alan Minyard wrote:
>
> Is not the CF-118 an F/A-18??

Its official designation is CF-188 (I got this from the Cost Factors
Manual, a common reference used by the CF, DND and the Auditor General
(the Canadian equivalent of the GAO) among others). It is now referred
to as a CF-18, because if they use the correct designation, most of
the media types stupidly go, "Hunh?" It's not called "Hornet" because
that was different in French ("frelon") and already taken.
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/equip1m_e.htm
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[WaltBJ]

Keith Willshaw:
SNIP
We do, the sport is called Rugby Union and we don't need lots of
padding to play it. > Keith


Big deal. We played tackle football when I was young (and foolish)
without any padding. I'm reminded of that every morning when I get out
of bed. The usual locale was the beach and the usual beverage a keg of
something cold. One side line was the weeds from high tide, the other
the breakers. And since I did play tackle football 'with padding' let
me say the hitting therein is an order of magnitude harder than in
rugby, which by the way is played locally.
Walt BJ

[[email protected]]

Alan Minyard > wrote:

>
>Is not the CF-118 an F/A-18??
>
>
>Al Minyard

Well Al, I'm a 'heavy iron' guy and don't know fighters for beans
but I can find reference for Canadian versions of the F/A-18
called CF-118 and CF-188 so I dunno...hopefully some jet chaps
here will pipe up...
--

-Gord.

[Peter Twydell]

In article >, WaltBJ
> writes
>Keith Willshaw:
>SNIP
>We do, the sport is called Rugby Union and we don't need lots of
>padding to play it. > Keith
>
>
>Big deal. We played tackle football when I was young (and foolish)
>without any padding. I'm reminded of that every morning when I get out
>of bed. The usual locale was the beach and the usual beverage a keg of
>something cold. One side line was the weeds from high tide, the other
>the breakers. And since I did play tackle football 'with padding' let
>me say the hitting therein is an order of magnitude harder than in
>rugby, which by the way is played locally.
>Walt BJ

I doubt if your local rugby is as hard in the tackle as the top flight
teams currently playing in the World Cup in Australia. My old (very much
amateur) club had a couple of Tongans in the side, and it was like
running into a brick wall when you had to tackle them.

Mind you, a friend broke his collar bone when he ran into me in a game
of touch (American) football.

Happy days (far too long ago).
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 19:05:21 GMT, Andrew Chaplin > wrote:

>Alan Minyard wrote:
>>
>> Is not the CF-118 an F/A-18??
>
>Its official designation is CF-188 (I got this from the Cost Factors
>Manual, a common reference used by the CF, DND and the Auditor General
>(the Canadian equivalent of the GAO) among others). It is now referred
>to as a CF-18, because if they use the correct designation, most of
>the media types stupidly go, "Hunh?" It's not called "Hornet" because
>that was different in French ("frelon") and already taken.
>http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/equip1m_e.htm
\
Thank you Sir, that is some excellent information.

Al Minyard

[John Penta]

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 12:06:11 -0600, Alan Minyard
> wrote:

>On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 19:05:21 GMT, Andrew Chaplin > wrote:
>
>>Alan Minyard wrote:
>>>
>>> Is not the CF-118 an F/A-18??
>>
>>Its official designation is CF-188 (I got this from the Cost Factors
>>Manual, a common reference used by the CF, DND and the Auditor General
>>(the Canadian equivalent of the GAO) among others). It is now referred
>>to as a CF-18, because if they use the correct designation, most of
>>the media types stupidly go, "Hunh?" It's not called "Hornet" because
>>that was different in French ("frelon") and already taken.
>>http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/equip1m_e.htm
>\
>Thank you Sir, that is some excellent information.

Just to grab onto this here. Is there a copy of the Cost Factors
Manual available online?

[Andrew Chaplin]

"John Penta" > wrote in message
...
>
> Just to grab onto this here. Is there a copy of the Cost Factors
> Manual available online?

Doesn't look like it, but if you're a bona fide academic, you might ask
for a copy -- but you might still have to pay for it.
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/cmo_mfc/practices/bp_details_e.asp?bp_id=123
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Regnirps]

"Andrew Chaplin" wrote:

<<SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO >>

You Scottsmen have the weirdest language!

-- Charlie "I wish I could get my newsreader quoting to work right" Springer

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Regnirps" > wrote in message
...
> "Andrew Chaplin" wrote:
>
> <<SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO >>
>
> You Scottsmen have the weirdest language!

Arrr, they be "Scots" not "Scottsmen" and it's not their language.

Haec lingua latina Romae erat, et nunc magisterii est.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Regnirps]

"Andrew Chaplin" wrote:

>Arrr, they be "Scots" not "Scottsmen" and it's not their language.

>Haec lingua latina Romae erat, et nunc magisterii est.

I, except in some kirks I be thinkin. Puela tarum amant and all that - though I
doubt if that idea is exactly Biblical!

-- Charlie Springer