Pilots are, indeed, rare...

[Jay Honeck]

Here is the answer (well, closer than a guess) to my questions about
pilots:

See:
http://www.prb.org/Articles/2002/HowManyPeopleHaveEverLivedonEarth.aspx

Using these numbers (through 2002) the best estimate is that 106
billion humans have ever lived on this planet.

If we use the estimate of 5 million pilots who have ever lived, we can
see that the number of people in history to have achieved the ability
to fly is something around .0047%, or 1 in 21,200 people...

Humans tried to fly for over 50,000 years, only figuring it out 104
years ago. In other words, for 99.8% of our history, we tried -- and
failed -- to fly. Yet, amazingly, that knowledge is now available to
anyone on the planet for the cost of a used Chevy Lumina.

That, my friends, is what we call "progress"...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Marco Leon[_4_]]

Interesting stat Jay. I think you would have to qualify that as people
"piloting an aircraft" versus people "flying." Anyone with $70 that does not
have a paralyzing fear of flying can "fly."

I'm sure there's a stat showing how many people have actually taken to the
air that includes commercial passengers.

Marco


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
...
> Here is the answer (well, closer than a guess) to my questions about
> pilots:
>
> See:
> http://www.prb.org/Articles/2002/HowManyPeopleHaveEverLivedonEarth.aspx
>
> Using these numbers (through 2002) the best estimate is that 106
> billion humans have ever lived on this planet.
>
> If we use the estimate of 5 million pilots who have ever lived, we can
> see that the number of people in history to have achieved the ability
> to fly is something around .0047%, or 1 in 21,200 people...
>
> Humans tried to fly for over 50,000 years, only figuring it out 104
> years ago. In other words, for 99.8% of our history, we tried -- and
> failed -- to fly. Yet, amazingly, that knowledge is now available to
> anyone on the planet for the cost of a used Chevy Lumina.
>
> That, my friends, is what we call "progress"...
>
> ;-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Interesting stat Jay. I think you would have to qualify that as people
> "piloting an aircraft" versus people "flying." Anyone with $70 that does not
> have a paralyzing fear of flying can "fly."

Good point, although that would be akin to counting bus riders as
"drivers".
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Here is the answer (well, closer than a guess) to my questions about
> pilots:
>
> See:
> http://www.prb.org/Articles/2002/HowManyPeopleHaveEverLivedonEarth.aspx
>
> Using these numbers (through 2002) the best estimate is that 106
> billion humans have ever lived on this planet.
>
> If we use the estimate of 5 million pilots who have ever lived, we can
> see that the number of people in history to have achieved the ability
> to fly is something around .0047%, or 1 in 21,200 people...
>
> Humans tried to fly for over 50,000 years, only figuring it out 104
> years ago. In other words, for 99.8% of our history, we tried -- and
> failed -- to fly. Yet, amazingly, that knowledge is now available to
> anyone on the planet for the cost of a used Chevy Lumina.
>
> That, my friends, is what we call "progress"...
>
> ;-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Actually, I believe man was capable of flying much sooner than the
Wrights. I once heard that Iron Eaglebutt Henriques, a shamonyu medicine
man of the world famous Gravitigotcha tribe in South America once
obtained an unassisted sustained flight of 3,212 feet between the top of
Angel Falls and the forest floor in the year 1688, marking both the need
for more efficient airfoils and for tennis shoes to be worn at the top
of the falls.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Jay Honeck > said:
>If we use the estimate of 5 million pilots who have ever lived, we can
>see that the number of people in history to have achieved the ability
>to fly is something around .0047%, or 1 in 21,200 people...

Hey, I know dozens of pilots. I guess that means I know 250K+ people! I
love statistics.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"You must be smarter than this stick >---- to put a machine on the
Internet."

[Darkwing]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, Jay Honeck > said:
>>If we use the estimate of 5 million pilots who have ever lived, we can
>>see that the number of people in history to have achieved the ability
>>to fly is something around .0047%, or 1 in 21,200 people...
>
> Hey, I know dozens of pilots. I guess that means I know 250K+ people! I
> love statistics.
>
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
> "You must be smarter than this stick >---- to put a machine on the
> Internet."


Where here is an AMAZING statistic for you then!

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.gif

[Gatt]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...

> Actually, I believe man was capable of flying much sooner than the
> Wrights. I once heard that Iron Eaglebutt Henriques, a shamonyu medicine
> man of the world famous Gravitigotcha tribe in South America once obtained
> an unassisted sustained flight of 3,212 feet between the top of Angel
> Falls and the forest floor in the year 1688, marking both the need for
> more efficient airfoils and for tennis shoes to be worn at the top of the
> falls.

Might want to check your facts. Tennis shoes were not yet introduced in
South America by 1688...


;P

[Dan[_1_]]

On Nov 27, 2:58 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > Interesting stat Jay. I think you would have to qualify that as people
> > "piloting an aircraft" versus people "flying." Anyone with $70 that does not
> > have a paralyzing fear of flying can "fly."
>
> Good point, although that would be akin to counting bus riders as
> "drivers".
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Skydivers say, "If riding in a plane is flying, then riding in a boat
is swimming". Skydiving is probably more akin to "falling" though....

BTW, lighter than air flight was achieved in the 18th century I
believe...

--Dan

[[email protected]]

On Nov 27, 4:29 pm, Dan > wrote:
> On Nov 27, 2:58 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
> > > Interesting stat Jay. I think you would have to qualify that as people
> > > "piloting an aircraft" versus people "flying." Anyone with $70 that does not
> > > have a paralyzing fear of flying can "fly."
>
> > Good point, although that would be akin to counting bus riders as
> > "drivers".
> > --
> > Jay Honeck
> > Iowa City, IA
> > Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> > "Your Aviation Destination"
>
> Skydivers say, "If riding in a plane is flying, then riding in a boat
> is swimming". Skydiving is probably more akin to "falling" though....
>
> BTW, lighter than air flight was achieved in the 18th century I
> believe...
>
> --Dan

The Montgolfier brothers, in 1783. But I wouldn't call that
flying. Birds don't use that sort of lift.

Dan

[Jay Honeck]

> The Montgolfier brothers, in 1783. But I wouldn't call that
> flying. Birds don't use that sort of lift.

Although it's cool, floating ain't flying.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Gatt wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Actually, I believe man was capable of flying much sooner than the
>> Wrights. I once heard that Iron Eaglebutt Henriques, a shamonyu medicine
>> man of the world famous Gravitigotcha tribe in South America once obtained
>> an unassisted sustained flight of 3,212 feet between the top of Angel
>> Falls and the forest floor in the year 1688, marking both the need for
>> more efficient airfoils and for tennis shoes to be worn at the top of the
>> falls.
>
> Might want to check your facts. Tennis shoes were not yet introduced in
> South America by 1688...
>
>
> ;P
>
>
I believe Iron Eaglebutt's adventure simply SHOWED THE NEED for better
airfoils and as well, the NEED for tennis shoes. Naturally, if the
Indians had tennis shoes in 1688, when the conquerers came to kill them
take over their land, at least they could have outrun them.
:-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> On Nov 27, 4:29 pm, Dan > wrote:
>> On Nov 27, 2:58 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>
>>>> Interesting stat Jay. I think you would have to qualify that as people
>>>> "piloting an aircraft" versus people "flying." Anyone with $70 that does not
>>>> have a paralyzing fear of flying can "fly."
>>> Good point, although that would be akin to counting bus riders as
>>> "drivers".
>>> --
>>> Jay Honeck
>>> Iowa City, IA
>>> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
>>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>> Skydivers say, "If riding in a plane is flying, then riding in a boat
>> is swimming". Skydiving is probably more akin to "falling" though....
>>
>> BTW, lighter than air flight was achieved in the 18th century I
>> believe...
>>
>> --Dan
>
> The Montgolfier brothers, in 1783. But I wouldn't call that
> flying. Birds don't use that sort of lift.
>
> Dan


Damn! And all this time I thought they had discovered golf!!
:-)


--
Dudley Henriques

[Jim Logajan]

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
> Where here is an AMAZING statistic for you then!
>
> http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.gif

If one is going to do silly correlations, one should at least get the
facts right. There were definitely more than 17 pirates around in 2000.
Consider these stories:

"Security in the High Seas: Piracy"
"The total number of piracy incidents that has been officially
reported to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) from July
2004 to October 2006; is 3,993."

From: http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=1195

"French navy escorts Somali aid to deter pirates"
"Pirates have mounted at least 26 attacks on ships off Somalia,
including 13 hijackings, this year alone."

From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/19/AR2007111900410.html

"US Navy Frees Ship From Pirates"
"The U.S. Navy on Monday helped free the fifth ship in a week
hijacked by Somalia pirates, attempting to bring security to crucial
shipping routes between the Red Sea and Indian Ocean."

From: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ipMHyUWWbt0DgJ6MbFCi3HeMrqFwD8SNLJ9G0

"Somalia: U.S. Navy Still Battles Pirates On the High Seas"
"On October 30, a U.S. Navy destroyer answered a call for help --
relayed through the International Maritime Bureau -- from the North
Korean crew on a vessel that had been overtaken by pirates in
international waters October 29."

From: http://allafrica.com/stories/200711020222.html

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
...
<..>
> Humans tried to fly for over 50,000 years, only figuring it out 104
> years ago. In other words, for 99.8% of our history, we tried -- and
> failed -- to fly. Yet, amazingly, that knowledge is now available to
> anyone on the planet for the cost of a used Chevy Lumina.
>


Well, to pick a nit or two, humans have been flying longer than 104 years.
The Wright brothers get credit for the "first controlled, powered and
sustained heavier-than-air human flight" - that's a lot of qualifiers...

"To invent an airplane is nothing. To build one is something. But to fly is
everything." -Otto Lilienthal

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.
"

[Jim Logajan]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> The Montgolfier brothers, in 1783. But I wouldn't call that
>> flying. Birds don't use that sort of lift.
>
> Although it's cool, floating ain't flying.

Um, why not? There is definitely skill and learning involved.

Anthony Smith and Mark Wagner, writing in the book "Ballooning" (1998)
noted that:

"Balloons, as everyone knows, can only travel with the wind. The wind, as
everyone knows, blows as it chooses, with no one able to modify its
direction. Therefore the notion of competitive ballooning seems strangled
at birth, with every participant being subject to the same overwhelming
forces of the encircling atmosphere. The fact that competitions _are_ held,
and that balloonists _do_ compete, is due partly to the human urge for
confronting others (and hoping to win) but also because the winds are
inconsistent.

....

As the golfer said, "The more I practise, the luckier I get". So too with
ballooning. There is skill in bending chance towards a desirable end, in
giving Dame Fortune a push in the right direction, in blending human
cunning with opportunity.

Besides, unlike a lottery's random choice of winners, the same ballooning
names do tend to be proclaimed at prize-giving time. Pilots doing better
than the rest on one occasion are more likely to do well next time."

[Jim Logajan]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Humans tried to fly for over 50,000 years, only figuring it out 104
> years ago.

Manned gliders may have been used as long at 2500 years ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glider

[Gatt]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...

>> Might want to check your facts. Tennis shoes were not yet introduced in
>> South America by 1688...

> I believe Iron Eaglebutt's adventure simply SHOWED THE NEED for better
> airfoils and as well, the NEED for tennis shoes. Naturally, if the Indians
> had tennis shoes in 1688, when the conquerers came to kill them take over
> their land, at least they could have outrun them.

True. If there had been much left of his shoes they might have copied the
pattern by then.

Actually I was sort of waiting to hear somebody say that this I. E.
Henriques guy was an anti-American urban legend, and that the first
unassisted sustained flight was of course off a very tall sand dune near
Kitty Hawk in 1689. I saw the back of an Ohio quarter, though, and it
clearly states that the birthplace of aviation pioneers was there. (A
two-bit claim there ever was one!)

-c

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Gatt wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> Might want to check your facts. Tennis shoes were not yet introduced in
>>> South America by 1688...
>
>> I believe Iron Eaglebutt's adventure simply SHOWED THE NEED for better
>> airfoils and as well, the NEED for tennis shoes. Naturally, if the Indians
>> had tennis shoes in 1688, when the conquerers came to kill them take over
>> their land, at least they could have outrun them.
>
> True. If there had been much left of his shoes they might have copied the
> pattern by then.
>
> Actually I was sort of waiting to hear somebody say that this I. E.
> Henriques guy was an anti-American urban legend, and that the first
> unassisted sustained flight was of course off a very tall sand dune near
> Kitty Hawk in 1689. I saw the back of an Ohio quarter, though, and it
> clearly states that the birthplace of aviation pioneers was there. (A
> two-bit claim there ever was one!)
>
> -c
>
>
:-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[vincent norris]

> Humans tried to fly for over 50,000 years....

Is there any evidence of that?

vince norris

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> The Montgolfier brothers, in 1783. But I wouldn't call that
>> flying. Birds don't use that sort of lift.
>
> Although it's cool, floating ain't flying.

What is the definition of flying, then?

Matt

[Darkwing]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Where here is an AMAZING statistic for you then!
>>
>> http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.gif
>
> If one is going to do silly correlations, one should at least get the
> facts right. There were definitely more than 17 pirates around in 2000.
> Consider these stories:
>
> "Security in the High Seas: Piracy"
> "The total number of piracy incidents that has been officially
> reported to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) from July
> 2004 to October 2006; is 3,993."
>
> From: http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=1195
>
> "French navy escorts Somali aid to deter pirates"
> "Pirates have mounted at least 26 attacks on ships off Somalia,
> including 13 hijackings, this year alone."
>
> From:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/19/AR2007111900410.html
>
> "US Navy Frees Ship From Pirates"
> "The U.S. Navy on Monday helped free the fifth ship in a week
> hijacked by Somalia pirates, attempting to bring security to crucial
> shipping routes between the Red Sea and Indian Ocean."
>
> From:
> http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ipMHyUWWbt0DgJ6MbFCi3HeMrqFwD8SNLJ9G0
>
> "Somalia: U.S. Navy Still Battles Pirates On the High Seas"
> "On October 30, a U.S. Navy destroyer answered a call for help --
> relayed through the International Maritime Bureau -- from the North
> Korean crew on a vessel that had been overtaken by pirates in
> international waters October 29."
>
> From: http://allafrica.com/stories/200711020222.html


Oh, it isn't my chart so I won't be defending it very hard.<grin>

If you check out the parent site there is all sorts of funny, goofy stuff on
there including the infamous Flying Spaghetti Monster. Creator of the
Universe BTW. http://www.venganza.org

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Darkwing" <theducksmailATyahoo.com> wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Where here is an AMAZING statistic for you then!
>>>
>>> http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.gif
>>
>> If one is going to do silly correlations, one should at least get the
>> facts right. There were definitely more than 17 pirates around in 2000.
>> Consider these stories:

Humor challenged, Jim?

[Maxwell]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> If one is going to do silly correlations, one should at least get the
> facts right. There were definitely more than 17 pirates around in 2000.
> Consider these stories:
>

They neglected to include the " x 100" notation in the axis label.

[Jay Honeck]

> > Although it's cool, floating ain't flying.
>
> What is the definition of flying, then?

*Controlled* flight.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > Humans tried to fly for over 50,000 years....
>
> Is there any evidence of that?

I think any human who has ever seen a bird fly longs to do the same.

This leads to experimentation, or (as in my case) leaping off a flight
of stairs at age 5, because I was certain that my cape would allow me
to fly like Superman.

Although it's impossible to prove, longing to fly seems to be
incredibly common in humans. This longing inhabits their dreams, and
(in a tiny number) their reality.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jim Logajan]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote:
> "Darkwing" <theducksmailATyahoo.com> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Where here is an AMAZING statistic for you then!
>>>>
>>>> http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.gif
>>>
>>> If one is going to do silly correlations, one should at least get the
>>> facts right. There were definitely more than 17 pirates around in 2000.
>>> Consider these stories:
>
> Humor challenged, Jim?

I got the humor (why else say it was silly?). I just prefer well thought
through humor. Sure, the common rabble may prefer the low brow humor, but
the effete prefer precision in their humor. Sniff.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:34:56 -0600, "Russ and/or Martha Oppenheim"
> wrote:

> I don't know a single pilot who didn't have dreams that they could fly when
> they were kids.

Kids? :-)

Ron "Up, up, and away!" Wanttaja

[Jim Macklin]

There is lighter than air, unpowered heavier than air, powered heavier than
air and now we even have no air.

Of course the space shuttle doesn't "fly" into space the way the X15 did, it
is blasted like a cannon shell. Then in orbit is just always falling over
the horizon. But it does fly back down.

Helicopters don't fly either, they just beat the air into submission.



"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
| On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:34:56 -0600, "Russ and/or Martha Oppenheim"
| > wrote:
|
| > I don't know a single pilot who didn't have dreams that they could fly
when
| > they were kids.
|
| Kids? :-)
|
| Ron "Up, up, and away!" Wanttaja

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote:
>> "Darkwing" <theducksmailATyahoo.com> wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Where here is an AMAZING statistic for you then!
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.gif
>>>> If one is going to do silly correlations, one should at least get the
>>>> facts right. There were definitely more than 17 pirates around in 2000.
>>>> Consider these stories:
>> Humor challenged, Jim?
>
> I got the humor (why else say it was silly?). I just prefer well thought
> through humor. Sure, the common rabble may prefer the low brow humor, but
> the effete prefer precision in their humor. Sniff.

Now you've done it! My wife says I can't use the fart cushion any more
when we have company. THANKS A LOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> Helicopters don't fly either, they just beat the air into submission.

It has been said during periods of "attitude adjustment" within the
fixed wing flight test community at the Pax River NAS O Club that the
only reason helo's can fly is that they are so ugly the earth repels
them :-)


--
Dudley Henriques

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Dudley Henriques > said:
>Jim Logajan wrote:
>> I got the humor (why else say it was silly?). I just prefer well thought
>> through humor. Sure, the common rabble may prefer the low brow humor, but
>> the effete prefer precision in their humor. Sniff.
>
>Now you've done it! My wife says I can't use the fart cushion any more
>when we have company. THANKS A LOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tell her you're using it ironically. That makes it high brow.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"Always try to do things in chronological order; it's less confusing
that way."

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Paul Tomblin wrote:
> In a previous article, Dudley Henriques > said:
>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>> I got the humor (why else say it was silly?). I just prefer well thought
>>> through humor. Sure, the common rabble may prefer the low brow humor, but
>>> the effete prefer precision in their humor. Sniff.
>> Now you've done it! My wife says I can't use the fart cushion any more
>> when we have company. THANKS A LOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Tell her you're using it ironically. That makes it high brow.
>
>
Too late. I've been trying to convince her for 40 years that fighter
pilots are high brow. Now, thanks to Jim letting the cat out of the bag,
she knows the truth! I'm afraid the fart cushion is history!!!
:-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Jay Honeck]

> Hey, I know dozens of pilots. I guess that means I know 250K+ people! I
> love statistics.

Here's another goofy-ass statistic, gleaned from another forum:

"I don't have the exact figures, but there are something like 600,000
active pilots in the US. I saw something in the paper the other day
there were 650,000 registered sex offenders in the US."

Hell, if THAT doesn't make you sit up and take notice -- there are
more perverts in America than pilots! That really points out just how
few of us there are, and why we, as pilots, have so little political
clout...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Hey, I know dozens of pilots. I guess that means I know 250K+
>> people! I love statistics.
>
> Here's another goofy-ass statistic, gleaned from another forum:
>
> "I don't have the exact figures, but there are something like 600,000
> active pilots in the US. I saw something in the paper the other day
> there were 650,000 registered sex offenders in the US."
>
> Hell, if THAT doesn't make you sit up and take notice -- there are
> more perverts in America than pilots! That really points out just how
> few of us there are, and why we, as pilots, have so little political
> clout...

Just think how many sex offenders haven't gotten caught.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote
>
> Just think how many sex offenders haven't gotten caught.

At least triple that, I suspect.
--
Jim in NC

[Maxwell]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
...
>> Hey, I know dozens of pilots. I guess that means I know 250K+ people! I
>> love statistics.
>
> Here's another goofy-ass statistic, gleaned from another forum:
>
> "I don't have the exact figures, but there are something like 600,000
> active pilots in the US. I saw something in the paper the other day
> there were 650,000 registered sex offenders in the US."
>
> Hell, if THAT doesn't make you sit up and take notice -- there are
> more perverts in America than pilots! That really points out just how
> few of us there are, and why we, as pilots, have so little political
> clout...
> --

Are those numbers too close to be a coincidence? Now you have me wondering
how many other pilots are perverts.

[Darkwing]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
...
>> Hey, I know dozens of pilots. I guess that means I know 250K+ people! I
>> love statistics.
>
> Here's another goofy-ass statistic, gleaned from another forum:
>
> "I don't have the exact figures, but there are something like 600,000
> active pilots in the US. I saw something in the paper the other day
> there were 650,000 registered sex offenders in the US."
>
> Hell, if THAT doesn't make you sit up and take notice -- there are
> more perverts in America than pilots! That really points out just how
> few of us there are, and why we, as pilots, have so little political
> clout...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"


Perverts make up over half the male population (3/4?), sex offenders are
another matter. Please don't confuse the two!

[Jay Honeck]

> > Just think how many sex offenders haven't gotten caught.
>
> At least triple that, I suspect.

Maybe those are the same guys who are flying without a license...

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jim Logajan]

Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>> In a previous article, Dudley Henriques > said:
>>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>>> I got the humor (why else say it was silly?). I just prefer well
>>>> thought through humor. Sure, the common rabble may prefer the low
>>>> brow humor, but the effete prefer precision in their humor. Sniff.
>>> Now you've done it! My wife says I can't use the fart cushion any
>>> more when we have company. THANKS A
>>> LOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> Tell her you're using it ironically. That makes it high brow.
>>
>>
> Too late. I've been trying to convince her for 40 years that fighter
> pilots are high brow. Now, thanks to Jim letting the cat out of the
> bag, she knows the truth! I'm afraid the fart cushion is history!!!
>:-))

Look, if the photos I've found of you on the net are correct, then _any_
humor you employ is by definition "high brow". Compare your hairline:

http://www.migman.com/ref/pilots/Henriques/pics/Dudley_T38.jpg

with mine:

http://trips.lugojweb.com/trips2005/alaska/d24images/DSC02883.jpg

(Taken at Polychrome pass in Denali N.P., Alaska. Here's another with a
plane in the picture so as to keep this topical:

http://trips.lugojweb.com/trips2005/alaska/d25images/DSC02908.jpg
Taken at Alaskaland Pioneer Air Museum in Fairbanks, Alaska.)

So just explain to her that the fart cushion is high brow. Point out that
another high brow you ran into on the Internet can provide pseudo-
certification to that effect. I'm a professional at high brow humor and am
able to demonstrate it by telling jokes that no one seems to get but me.

Here - pull my finger.

"Refined humor since 1956."

[Gene Seibel]

On Nov 27, 2:44 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
> Humans tried to fly for over 50,000 years, only figuring it out 104
> years ago. In other words, for 99.8% of our history, we tried -- and
> failed -- to fly. Yet, amazingly, that knowledge is now available to
> anyone on the planet for the cost of a used Chevy Lumina.
>
Guess it wasn't so easy a caveman could do it. ;)
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

[Gene Seibel]

On Nov 28, 12:09 am, Jay Honeck > wrote:

> Although it's impossible to prove, longing to fly seems to be
> incredibly common in humans. This longing inhabits their dreams, and
> (in a tiny number) their reality.
>
I'd always seen the quote, "When once you have tasted flight, you will
forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you
have been, and there you will always long to return," attributed to
Leonardo da Vinci and wondered how he knew.
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of Flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Gene Seibel wrote:
> On Nov 28, 12:09 am, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
>> Although it's impossible to prove, longing to fly seems to be
>> incredibly common in humans. This longing inhabits their dreams, and
>> (in a tiny number) their reality.
>>
> I'd always seen the quote, "When once you have tasted flight, you will
> forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you
> have been, and there you will always long to return," attributed to
> Leonardo da Vinci and wondered how he knew.

Aliens silly.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote:
>>> "Darkwing" <theducksmailATyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>>>> .. .
>>>>> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Where here is an AMAZING statistic for you then!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.gif
>>>>> If one is going to do silly correlations, one should at least get the
>>>>> facts right. There were definitely more than 17 pirates around in
>>>>> 2000.
>>>>> Consider these stories:
>>> Humor challenged, Jim?
>>
>> I got the humor (why else say it was silly?). I just prefer well thought
>> through humor. Sure, the common rabble may prefer the low brow humor, but
>> the effete prefer precision in their humor. Sniff.
>
> Now you've done it! My wife says I can't use the fart cushion any more
> when we have company. THANKS A LOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
Just tell her that if you can't use the fart cushion, you'll have to go, you
know...authentic.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>>> In a previous article, Dudley Henriques > said:
>>>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>>>> I got the humor (why else say it was silly?). I just prefer well
>>>>> thought through humor. Sure, the common rabble may prefer the low
>>>>> brow humor, but the effete prefer precision in their humor. Sniff.
>>>> Now you've done it! My wife says I can't use the fart cushion any
>>>> more when we have company. THANKS A
>>>> LOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>> Tell her you're using it ironically. That makes it high brow.
>>>
>>>
>> Too late. I've been trying to convince her for 40 years that fighter
>> pilots are high brow. Now, thanks to Jim letting the cat out of the
>> bag, she knows the truth! I'm afraid the fart cushion is history!!!
>>:-))
>
> Look, if the photos I've found of you on the net are correct, then _any_
> humor you employ is by definition "high brow". Compare your hairline:
>
> http://www.migman.com/ref/pilots/Henriques/pics/Dudley_T38.jpg
>
> with mine:
>
> http://trips.lugojweb.com/trips2005/alaska/d24images/DSC02883.jpg

Okay, folks...the question is: have any of you seen Dudley and Jim together
in the same room?

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:34:56 -0600, "Russ and/or Martha Oppenheim"
> > wrote:
>
>> I don't know a single pilot who didn't have dreams that they could fly
>> when
>> they were kids.
>
> Kids? :-)
>
> Ron "Up, up, and away!" Wanttaja

Down...down...down...BLAM!!!

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> There is lighter than air, unpowered heavier than air, powered heavier
> than
> air and now we even have no air.
>
> Of course the space shuttle doesn't "fly" into space the way the X15 did,
> it
> is blasted like a cannon shell. Then in orbit is just always falling over
> the horizon. But it does fly back down.
>
> Helicopters don't fly either, they just beat the air into submission.

No, they're just so ugly the earth is repelled.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
...
>> Hey, I know dozens of pilots. I guess that means I know 250K+ people! I
>> love statistics.
>
> Here's another goofy-ass statistic, gleaned from another forum:
>
> "I don't have the exact figures, but there are something like 600,000
> active pilots in the US. I saw something in the paper the other day
> there were 650,000 registered sex offenders in the US."
>
> Hell, if THAT doesn't make you sit up and take notice -- there are
> more perverts in America than pilots! That really points out just how
> few of us there are, and why we, as pilots, have so little political
> clout...

How much overlap is there in those two groups?

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> Although it's cool, floating ain't flying.
>> What is the definition of flying, then?
>
> *Controlled* flight.

Balloons are quite controllable. You can adjust altitude easily and by
adjusting altitude you can adjust direction to a significant degree as
the wind direction and speed often varies dramatically with altitude.

So why isn't ballooning flying? Is gliding also not flying?

Matt

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>>>> In a previous article, Dudley Henriques > said:
>>>>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>>>>> I got the humor (why else say it was silly?). I just prefer well
>>>>>> thought through humor. Sure, the common rabble may prefer the low
>>>>>> brow humor, but the effete prefer precision in their humor. Sniff.
>>>>> Now you've done it! My wife says I can't use the fart cushion any
>>>>> more when we have company. THANKS A
>>>>> LOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>> Tell her you're using it ironically. That makes it high brow.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Too late. I've been trying to convince her for 40 years that fighter
>>> pilots are high brow. Now, thanks to Jim letting the cat out of the
>>> bag, she knows the truth! I'm afraid the fart cushion is history!!!
>>> :-))
>> Look, if the photos I've found of you on the net are correct, then _any_
>> humor you employ is by definition "high brow". Compare your hairline:
>>
>> http://www.migman.com/ref/pilots/Henriques/pics/Dudley_T38.jpg
>>
>> with mine:
>>
>> http://trips.lugojweb.com/trips2005/alaska/d24images/DSC02883.jpg
>
> Okay, folks...the question is: have any of you seen Dudley and Jim together
> in the same room?
>
>
I'm sorry but judging from the lack of fur on our respective
noggins,this somewhat august event would probably blind everyone in the
room :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>>> In a previous article, Dudley Henriques > said:
>>>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>>>> I got the humor (why else say it was silly?). I just prefer well
>>>>> thought through humor. Sure, the common rabble may prefer the low
>>>>> brow humor, but the effete prefer precision in their humor. Sniff.
>>>> Now you've done it! My wife says I can't use the fart cushion any
>>>> more when we have company. THANKS A
>>>> LOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>> Tell her you're using it ironically. That makes it high brow.
>>>
>>>
>> Too late. I've been trying to convince her for 40 years that fighter
>> pilots are high brow. Now, thanks to Jim letting the cat out of the
>> bag, she knows the truth! I'm afraid the fart cushion is history!!!
>> :-))
>
> Look, if the photos I've found of you on the net are correct, then _any_
> humor you employ is by definition "high brow". Compare your hairline:
>
> http://www.migman.com/ref/pilots/Henriques/pics/Dudley_T38.jpg
>
> with mine:
>
> http://trips.lugojweb.com/trips2005/alaska/d24images/DSC02883.jpg
>
> (Taken at Polychrome pass in Denali N.P., Alaska. Here's another with a
> plane in the picture so as to keep this topical:
>
> http://trips.lugojweb.com/trips2005/alaska/d25images/DSC02908.jpg
> Taken at Alaskaland Pioneer Air Museum in Fairbanks, Alaska.)
>
> So just explain to her that the fart cushion is high brow. Point out that
> another high brow you ran into on the Internet can provide pseudo-
> certification to that effect. I'm a professional at high brow humor and am
> able to demonstrate it by telling jokes that no one seems to get but me.
>
> Here - pull my finger.
>
> "Refined humor since 1956."

If you will eat a full can of baked beans and stand at the end of the
runway on roller skates, I will CONSIDER pulling your finger, but only
if I can stand well out of the way.

I have to admit I do see a certain similarity in our "condition". You of
course seem to favor the ever popular classic Samurai "down the middle"
approach to hair fashion, while I on the other hand seem to favor the
more simplistic "Sahara" approach :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Maxwell]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>> In a previous article, Dudley Henriques > said:
>>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>>> I got the humor (why else say it was silly?). I just prefer well
>>>> thought through humor. Sure, the common rabble may prefer the low brow
>>>> humor, but the effete prefer precision in their humor. Sniff.
>>> Now you've done it! My wife says I can't use the fart cushion any more
>>> when we have company. THANKS A LOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> Tell her you're using it ironically. That makes it high brow.
>>
>>
> Too late. I've been trying to convince her for 40 years that fighter
> pilots are high brow. Now, thanks to Jim letting the cat out of the bag,
> she knows the truth! I'm afraid the fart cushion is history!!!
> :-))
>

I didn't know you were a fighter pilot.

[Maxwell]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Logajan wrote:
> I have to admit I do see a certain similarity in our "condition". You of
> course seem to favor the ever popular classic Samurai "down the middle"
> approach to hair fashion, while I on the other hand seem to favor the more
> simplistic "Sahara" approach :-))
>

Men who are balding in the front, are great thinkers.

Men who are balding to the rear are great lovers.

The problem is that men who are balding in both places, usually just think
they are great lovers.

I will with hold my photo, thank you.

[Jay Honeck]

> Balloons are quite controllable. You can adjust altitude easily and by
> adjusting altitude you can adjust direction to a significant degree as
> the wind direction and speed often varies dramatically with altitude.
>
> So why isn't ballooning flying? Is gliding also not flying?

Call it what you will. Floating ain't flying, to me.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[John Halpenny]

On Nov 28, 6:29 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
:

> Balloons are quite controllable. You can adjust altitude easily and by
> adjusting altitude you can adjust direction to a significant degree as
> the wind direction and speed often varies dramatically with altitude.
>

I thought balloon flying was pretty random, but then I took my first,
and only, flight.

I went with my family on a large, 8 passenger balloon. Before takeoff,
the pilot told the ground crew "meet me in an hour at the Aviation
Museum" - about six miles away. It was a calm, sunny morning and we
travelled slow and low in a zigzag course over the city for roughly an
hour until we approached the Museum area. We flew a left base at
treetop level about 2 mph, then descended, turned 90 degrees and move
gently until we touched down about 100 feet from the parked truck. The
three other balloons who had been following us landed just behind.

I was Impressed!

I tried to figure out how he did it. It was quite calm, but there was
a detectable south wind at ground level. Up several hundred feet,
there was a westerly wind, and the transition was sharp enough that I
could feel a breeze as we passed through the boundary and the envelope
started off in a different direction from the basket. By moving up and
down, we made a series of north and east steps that took us to our
destination. The landing area was just below a hill, and the wind
seemed to curl around the base and took us into what looked like a
landing pattern.

Quite an impressive feet of pilotage!

John Halpenny

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Maxwell wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>>> In a previous article, Dudley Henriques > said:
>>>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>>>> I got the humor (why else say it was silly?). I just prefer well
>>>>> thought through humor. Sure, the common rabble may prefer the low brow
>>>>> humor, but the effete prefer precision in their humor. Sniff.
>>>> Now you've done it! My wife says I can't use the fart cushion any more
>>>> when we have company. THANKS A LOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>> Tell her you're using it ironically. That makes it high brow.
>>>
>>>
>> Too late. I've been trying to convince her for 40 years that fighter
>> pilots are high brow. Now, thanks to Jim letting the cat out of the bag,
>> she knows the truth! I'm afraid the fart cushion is history!!!
>> :-))
>>
>
> I didn't know you were a fighter pilot.
>
>

You are reading something into my statement that is inaccurate. The
context of my comment above simply indicates that I have spent a
lifetime flying fighter planes and that of all the people my wife and I
know, nearly all of them are fighter pilots.

Nothing more "sinister" than that I'm afraid.

You can find additional information about my association with fighter
pilots and fighter planes at the following source if you are interested.


http://www.alexisparkinn.com/ifpf_history.htm


--
Dudley Henriques

[Jim Logajan]

Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote:
>>> Look, if the photos I've found of you on the net are correct, then
>>> _any_ humor you employ is by definition "high brow". Compare your
>>> hairline:
>>>
>>> http://www.migman.com/ref/pilots/Henriques/pics/Dudley_T38.jpg
>>>
>>> with mine:
>>>
>>> http://trips.lugojweb.com/trips2005/alaska/d24images/DSC02883.jpg
>>
>> Okay, folks...the question is: have any of you seen Dudley and Jim
>> together in the same room?
>>
>>
> I'm sorry but judging from the lack of fur on our respective
> noggins,this somewhat august event would probably blind everyone in
> the room :-))

We would be shining examples to everyone, though.

;-)

[Jim Logajan]

Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> Here - pull my finger.
>>
>> "Refined humor since 1956."
>
> If you will eat a full can of baked beans and stand at the end of the
> runway on roller skates, I will CONSIDER pulling your finger, but only
> if I can stand well out of the way.

But to pull my finger you have to be within harm length. :-)

> I have to admit I do see a certain similarity in our "condition". You
> of course seem to favor the ever popular classic Samurai "down the
> middle" approach to hair fashion, while I on the other hand seem to
> favor the more simplistic "Sahara" approach :-))

You set a shining example that, with age, I may someday emulate.

[[email protected]]

> Humans tried to fly for over 50,000 years, only figuring it out 104
> years ago. In other words, for 99.8% of our history, we tried -- and
> failed -- to fly. Yet, amazingly, that knowledge is now available to
> anyone on the planet for the cost of a used Chevy Lumina.
>

I think you are being unfair to all the billions of people who were
born before GA came into being.. ;) You would not have had your PPL
either if you were born in 1850 for e.g

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote:
>>>> Look, if the photos I've found of you on the net are correct, then
>>>> _any_ humor you employ is by definition "high brow". Compare your
>>>> hairline:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.migman.com/ref/pilots/Henriques/pics/Dudley_T38.jpg
>>>>
>>>> with mine:
>>>>
>>>> http://trips.lugojweb.com/trips2005/alaska/d24images/DSC02883.jpg
>>> Okay, folks...the question is: have any of you seen Dudley and Jim
>>> together in the same room?
>>>
>>>
>> I'm sorry but judging from the lack of fur on our respective
>> noggins,this somewhat august event would probably blind everyone in
>> the room :-))
>
> We would be shining examples to everyone, though.
>
> ;-)

Oh my GOD! I've driven you over to the dark side :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>> Here - pull my finger.
>>>
>>> "Refined humor since 1956."
>> If you will eat a full can of baked beans and stand at the end of the
>> runway on roller skates, I will CONSIDER pulling your finger, but only
>> if I can stand well out of the way.
>
> But to pull my finger you have to be within harm length. :-)

You might have a "point" here!! :-)
>
>> I have to admit I do see a certain similarity in our "condition". You
>> of course seem to favor the ever popular classic Samurai "down the
>> middle" approach to hair fashion, while I on the other hand seem to
>> favor the more simplistic "Sahara" approach :-))
>
> You set a shining example that, with age, I may someday emulate.

I fear both of us will share the same pate. :-))


--
Dudley Henriques

[Jim Logajan]

Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>>> Here - pull my finger.
>>>>
>>>> "Refined humor since 1956."
>>> If you will eat a full can of baked beans and stand at the end of the
>>> runway on roller skates, I will CONSIDER pulling your finger, but only
>>> if I can stand well out of the way.
>>
>> But to pull my finger you have to be within harm length. :-)
>
> You might have a "point" here!! :-)
>>
>>> I have to admit I do see a certain similarity in our "condition". You
>>> of course seem to favor the ever popular classic Samurai "down the
>>> middle" approach to hair fashion, while I on the other hand seem to
>>> favor the more simplistic "Sahara" approach :-))
>>
>> You set a shining example that, with age, I may someday emulate.
>
> I fear both of us will share the same pate. :-))

Groan. ;-)

Hair ends this strand?

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>>>> Here - pull my finger.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Refined humor since 1956."
>>>> If you will eat a full can of baked beans and stand at the end of the
>>>> runway on roller skates, I will CONSIDER pulling your finger, but only
>>>> if I can stand well out of the way.
>>> But to pull my finger you have to be within harm length. :-)
>> You might have a "point" here!! :-)
>>>> I have to admit I do see a certain similarity in our "condition". You
>>>> of course seem to favor the ever popular classic Samurai "down the
>>>> middle" approach to hair fashion, while I on the other hand seem to
>>>> favor the more simplistic "Sahara" approach :-))
>>> You set a shining example that, with age, I may someday emulate.
>> I fear both of us will share the same pate. :-))
>
> Groan. ;-)
>
> Hair ends this strand?


I'm a 'head" of you :-)))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:01:19 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:

>Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> Hey, I know dozens of pilots. I guess that means I know 250K+
>>> people! I love statistics.
>>
>> Here's another goofy-ass statistic, gleaned from another forum:
>>
>> "I don't have the exact figures, but there are something like 600,000
>> active pilots in the US. I saw something in the paper the other day
>> there were 650,000 registered sex offenders in the US."
>>
>> Hell, if THAT doesn't make you sit up and take notice -- there are
>> more perverts in America than pilots! That really points out just how
>> few of us there are, and why we, as pilots, have so little political
>> clout...
>
>Just think how many sex offenders haven't gotten caught.
>
In Michigan it's probably the other way around. We list the teenagers
that got foolish right along with the true predators. OTOH if you
throw about half the number we have on the lists, out and replace them
by the ones that haven't been caught we might be close.

Roger (K8RI)

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:10:23 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Here is the answer (well, closer than a guess) to my questions about
>> pilots:
>>
>> See:
>> http://www.prb.org/Articles/2002/HowManyPeopleHaveEverLivedonEarth.aspx
>>
>> Using these numbers (through 2002) the best estimate is that 106
>> billion humans have ever lived on this planet.
>>
>> If we use the estimate of 5 million pilots who have ever lived, we can
>> see that the number of people in history to have achieved the ability
>> to fly is something around .0047%, or 1 in 21,200 people...
>>
>> Humans tried to fly for over 50,000 years, only figuring it out 104
>> years ago. In other words, for 99.8% of our history, we tried -- and
>> failed -- to fly. Yet, amazingly, that knowledge is now available to
>> anyone on the planet for the cost of a used Chevy Lumina.
>>
>> That, my friends, is what we call "progress"...
>>
>> ;-)
>> --
>> Jay Honeck
>> Iowa City, IA
>> Pathfinder N56993
>> www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>Actually, I believe man was capable of flying much sooner than the
>Wrights. I once heard that Iron Eaglebutt Henriques, a shamonyu medicine

Are you sure? I heard it was his apprentice, leadbutt over in Africa.
It's rumored the impact was so great it created the Great Rift Valley.
OTOH some say it was their descendant (whose I'm not sure) the great
French aviator Lardbutt who attempted to emulate the famous Icarus who
flew too near the sun. Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on your
view point, Lardbutt drowned shortly after realizing he should have
made the wings larger before jumping off that bridge. Lardbutt had no
descendents.


>man of the world famous Gravitigotcha tribe in South America once
>obtained an unassisted sustained flight of 3,212 feet between the top of
>Angel Falls and the forest floor in the year 1688, marking both the need
>for more efficient airfoils and for tennis shoes to be worn at the top
>of the falls.

Roger (K8RI)

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:49:28 -0800 (PST), Gene Seibel
> wrote:

>On Nov 27, 2:44 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>
>> Humans tried to fly for over 50,000 years, only figuring it out 104
>> years ago. In other words, for 99.8% of our history, we tried -- and
>> failed -- to fly. Yet, amazingly, that knowledge is now available to
>> anyone on the planet for the cost of a used Chevy Lumina.
>>
>Guess it wasn't so easy a caveman could do it. ;)

And you know this is true because...?

Roger (K8RI)

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Roger (K8RI) wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:10:23 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:


> Lardbutt had no
> descendents.

> Roger (K8RI)

Wouldn't having the wings too small have caused Lardbutt to have a
descendents issue????
--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Roger (K8RI) wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:49:28 -0800 (PST), Gene Seibel
> > wrote:
>
>> On Nov 27, 2:44 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>> Humans tried to fly for over 50,000 years, only figuring it out 104
>>> years ago. In other words, for 99.8% of our history, we tried -- and
>>> failed -- to fly. Yet, amazingly, that knowledge is now available to
>>> anyone on the planet for the cost of a used Chevy Lumina.
>>>
>> Guess it wasn't so easy a caveman could do it. ;)
>
> And you know this is true because...?
>
> Roger (K8RI)

Geico says so!!
:-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote:
>>>> Look, if the photos I've found of you on the net are correct, then
>>>> _any_ humor you employ is by definition "high brow". Compare your
>>>> hairline:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.migman.com/ref/pilots/Henriques/pics/Dudley_T38.jpg
>>>>
>>>> with mine:
>>>>
>>>> http://trips.lugojweb.com/trips2005/alaska/d24images/DSC02883.jpg
>>>
>>> Okay, folks...the question is: have any of you seen Dudley and Jim
>>> together in the same room?
>>>
>>>
>> I'm sorry but judging from the lack of fur on our respective
>> noggins,this somewhat august event would probably blind everyone in
>> the room :-))
>
> We would be shining examples to everyone, though.
>
> ;-)


HEREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE'S Dudley and Jim!!!

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>>>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote:
>>>>> Look, if the photos I've found of you on the net are correct, then
>>>>> _any_ humor you employ is by definition "high brow". Compare your
>>>>> hairline:
>>>>> http://www.migman.com/ref/pilots/Henriques/pics/Dudley_T38.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> with mine:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://trips.lugojweb.com/trips2005/alaska/d24images/DSC02883.jpg
>>>> Okay, folks...the question is: have any of you seen Dudley and Jim
>>>> together in the same room?
>>>>
>>> I'm sorry but judging from the lack of fur on our respective
>>> noggins,this somewhat august event would probably blind everyone in
>>> the room :-))
>>
>> We would be shining examples to everyone, though.
>>
>> ;-)
>
> Oh my GOD! I've driven you over to the dark side :-))
>
You should have flown him;driving is just so.....low brow!

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>>>> Here - pull my finger.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Refined humor since 1956."
>>>> If you will eat a full can of baked beans and stand at the end of the
>>>> runway on roller skates, I will CONSIDER pulling your finger, but only
>>>> if I can stand well out of the way.
>>>
>>> But to pull my finger you have to be within harm length. :-)
>>
>> You might have a "point" here!! :-)
>>>
>>>> I have to admit I do see a certain similarity in our "condition". You
>>>> of course seem to favor the ever popular classic Samurai "down the
>>>> middle" approach to hair fashion, while I on the other hand seem to
>>>> favor the more simplistic "Sahara" approach :-))
>>>
>>> You set a shining example that, with age, I may someday emulate.
>>
>> I fear both of us will share the same pate. :-))
>
> Groan. ;-)
>
> Hair ends this strand?

I'm gonna pull the rug out from under this thread.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>>>>> Here - pull my finger.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Refined humor since 1956."
>>>>> If you will eat a full can of baked beans and stand at the end of the
>>>>> runway on roller skates, I will CONSIDER pulling your finger, but only
>>>>> if I can stand well out of the way.
>>>> But to pull my finger you have to be within harm length. :-)
>>> You might have a "point" here!! :-)
>>>>> I have to admit I do see a certain similarity in our "condition". You
>>>>> of course seem to favor the ever popular classic Samurai "down the
>>>>> middle" approach to hair fashion, while I on the other hand seem to
>>>>> favor the more simplistic "Sahara" approach :-))
>>>> You set a shining example that, with age, I may someday emulate.
>>> I fear both of us will share the same pate. :-))
>> Groan. ;-)
>>
>> Hair ends this strand?
>
> I'm gonna pull the rug out from under this thread.
>
>
It's awful being a pun slave.

It starts for most of us in the damn flight office on a rainy day when
all the students come in and can't fly and everybody starts to chew the
fat and hit the coke machine. The first thing you know somebody lays a
pun on somebody else and you're standing there with a coke in your hand
when suddenly the perfect response just pops into your stupid CFI brain.
It's a moment of truth!! Do you lay it out there or do you just stand
there with that stupid smile on your puss swilling down your coke?

I tell you it's physical pain keeping a pun to yourself in the flight
office. Only the finest among us can resist the pun force.

ATP's can usually resist. When ATP's get their rating, they get a shot
of anti-pun elixir in the armpit that turns them into serious people.

For CFI's and the regular pilot community...forget it. WE are pun city!
First thing you know...out it comes....you're hooked...it's puns for
life....puns with the wife....puns with the kids....the grandkids....the
great grandkids.......the family cat runs into the kitchen when you look
at him. He thinks you're going to throw a pun at him. He's heard them
all. He hates puns!
PLEASE GOD!!!!! MAKE IT STOP!!!!!!!
:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))


--
Dudley Henriques

[Jay Honeck]

> Quite an impressive feet of pilotage!

That's *very* cool.

I'm not saying ballooning isn't fun, and it's definitely worth doing
-- it's just not *flying*, to me. I want absolute control in all 3
dimensions before I'll call it "flying".

If all I wanted was a good view, I could go to the top of a tall
building, or stand on the edge of a cliff. It's the control part that
is teh allure, for me.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:

>>>
>>> Hair ends this strand?
>>
>> I'm gonna pull the rug out from under this thread.
> It's awful being a pun slave.
>
> It starts for most of us in the damn flight office on a rainy day when all
> the students come in and can't fly and everybody starts to chew the fat
> and hit the coke machine.

Cans wouldn't drop, huh?

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>>>>>> Here - pull my finger.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Refined humor since 1956."
>>>>>> If you will eat a full can of baked beans and stand at the end of the
>>>>>> runway on roller skates, I will CONSIDER pulling your finger, but
>>>>>> only
>>>>>> if I can stand well out of the way.
>>>>> But to pull my finger you have to be within harm length. :-)
>>>> You might have a "point" here!! :-)
>>>>>> I have to admit I do see a certain similarity in our "condition". You
>>>>>> of course seem to favor the ever popular classic Samurai "down the
>>>>>> middle" approach to hair fashion, while I on the other hand seem to
>>>>>> favor the more simplistic "Sahara" approach :-))
>>>>> You set a shining example that, with age, I may someday emulate.
>>>> I fear both of us will share the same pate. :-))
>>> Groan. ;-)
>>>
>>> Hair ends this strand?
>>
>> I'm gonna pull the rug out from under this thread.
> It's awful being a pun slave.
>
> It starts for most of us in the damn flight office on a rainy day when all
> the students come in and can't fly and everybody starts to chew the fat
> and hit the coke machine. The first thing you know somebody lays a pun on
> somebody else and you're standing there with a coke in your hand when
> suddenly the perfect response just pops into your stupid CFI brain. It's a
> moment of truth!! Do you lay it out there or do you just stand there with
> that stupid smile on your puss swilling down your coke?
>
> I tell you it's physical pain keeping a pun to yourself in the flight
> office. Only the finest among us can resist the pun force.
>
> ATP's can usually resist. When ATP's get their rating, they get a shot of
> anti-pun elixir in the armpit that turns them into serious people.
>
> For CFI's and the regular pilot community...forget it. WE are pun city!
> First thing you know...out it comes....you're hooked...it's puns for
> life....puns with the wife....puns with the kids....the grandkids....the
> great grandkids.......the family cat runs into the kitchen when you look
> at him. He thinks you're going to throw a pun at him. He's heard them all.
> He hates puns!
> PLEASE GOD!!!!! MAKE IT STOP!!!!!!!
> :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
>
OH!!!! THE HUMANITY!!

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:41:25 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:10:23 -0500, Dudley Henriques
>> > wrote:
>
>
>> Lardbutt had no
>> descendents.
>
>> Roger (K8RI)
>
>Wouldn't having the wings too small have caused Lardbutt to have a
>descendents issue????

As yes. Actually I believe they say he rapidly discovered as he was
descending, his chances of having any descendents was descending
faster than his rate of descent.

Roger (K8RI)

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Quite an impressive feet of pilotage!
>
> That's *very* cool.
>
> I'm not saying ballooning isn't fun, and it's definitely worth doing
> -- it's just not *flying*, to me. I want absolute control in all 3
> dimensions before I'll call it "flying".

Well, we each get to have our own definition, but yours rules our
gliders and I definitely consider them to be flying.

Matt

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Roger (K8RI) wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:41:25 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:10:23 -0500, Dudley Henriques
>>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Lardbutt had no
>>> descendents.
>>> Roger (K8RI)
>> Wouldn't having the wings too small have caused Lardbutt to have a
>> descendents issue????
>
> As yes. Actually I believe they say he rapidly discovered as he was
> descending, his chances of having any descendents was descending
> faster than his rate of descent.
>
> Roger (K8RI)

Now THAT is what I call a decent post :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Jay Honeck]

> Well, we each get to have our own definition, but yours rules our
> gliders and I definitely consider them to be flying.

How does my desire for absolute control in 3 dimensions rule out
gliders?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:c3cd5384-f87d-45ce-9428-
:

>> Well, we each get to have our own definition, but yours rules our
>> gliders and I definitely consider them to be flying.
>
> How does my desire for absolute control in 3 dimensions rule out
> gliders?
> --

In your case, I woudl guess, and it would be an educated one. absolutely..


Bertie ... Silver C..

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Well, we each get to have our own definition, but yours rules our
>> gliders and I definitely consider them to be flying.
>
> How does my desire for absolute control in 3 dimensions rule out
> gliders?

You don't have absolute control in the +z direction. No thermals, no
altitude gain. Even a balloon can go up and down at will. :-)

Matt

[Jay Honeck]

> You don't have absolute control in the +z direction. No thermals, no
> altitude gain. Even a balloon can go up and down at will. :-)

What, no tow plane?

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:qp04j.980$2n4.26157
@news1.epix.net:

> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> Well, we each get to have our own definition, but yours rules our
>>> gliders and I definitely consider them to be flying.
>>
>> How does my desire for absolute control in 3 dimensions rule out
>> gliders?
>
> You don't have absolute control in the +z direction. No thermals, no
> altitude gain.


I got my gold altitude gain on a thermal-less day..

ASnd I wasn't even hunting for WMDs at the time.



Bertie

[Stefan]

Matt Whiting schrieb:

> You don't have absolute control in the +z direction. No thermals, no
> altitude gain. Even a balloon can go up and down at will. :-)

By your definition, even a 400 hp SU-31 doesn't have *absolute* 3D control.

Doing glider aeros myself, I think gliders have fair 3D control. E.g.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUMWvunRNVY (No, it's not me.)

[Matt Whiting]

Stefan wrote:
> Matt Whiting schrieb:
>
>> You don't have absolute control in the +z direction. No thermals, no
>> altitude gain. Even a balloon can go up and down at will. :-)
>
> By your definition, even a 400 hp SU-31 doesn't have *absolute* 3D control.

I never provided a definition.

[Stefan]

Matt Whiting schrieb:
> Stefan wrote:
>> Matt Whiting schrieb:
>>
>>> You don't have absolute control in the +z direction. No thermals, no
>>> altitude gain. Even a balloon can go up and down at will. :-)
>>
>> By your definition, even a 400 hp SU-31 doesn't have *absolute* 3D
>> control.
>
> I never provided a definition.

Yawn.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> Stefan wrote:
>> Matt Whiting schrieb:
>>
>>> You don't have absolute control in the +z direction. No thermals,
>>> no altitude gain. Even a balloon can go up and down at will. :-)
>>
>> By your definition, even a 400 hp SU-31 doesn't have *absolute* 3D
>> control.
>
> I never provided a definition.
>

And you still believe there was the potentiallity of the possibility of a
hint of a rumour of WMDs



Bertie

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:00:28 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:41:25 -0500, Dudley Henriques
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:10:23 -0500, Dudley Henriques
>>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lardbutt had no
>>>> descendents.
>>>> Roger (K8RI)
>>> Wouldn't having the wings too small have caused Lardbutt to have a
>>> descendents issue????
>>
>> As yes. Actually I believe they say he rapidly discovered as he was
>> descending, his chances of having any descendents was descending
>> faster than his rate of descent.
>>
>> Roger (K8RI)
>
>Now THAT is what I call a decent post :-))
Sorry, but I think I just ran out of straight lines. Your turn again.
<:-))

Roger (K8I)