Survivability in Combat [Archive]

Dudley Henriques

December 7th 03, 02:15 AM

Leslie Swartz

December 7th 03, 04:02 AM

Speed is life.

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> Let's take two planes going on low level support missions. They will have
to
> fly through heavy ground fire including small arms fire. One plane is
equipped
> with a radial engine,. let's say an R-2800. The other with a jet engine.
Which
> plane would have a better chance of survival inder these conditions?.
Opinions?
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

Mike Marron

December 7th 03, 05:41 AM

>"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

> I would imagine after the last thread on radials that your point here might
>be that the radials have been known to take hits even to the point of taking
>out several cylinders and God knows what else and return home, as opposed to
>a jet engine where the dynamic balance of the compressor and turbine
>sections are so delicate.
>Honestly Art, I think it's a crap shoot. I know guys who flew wounded jets
>home to the boat with most of the parts banging away inside the engine and
>the aircraft shaking so badly it threatened to come apart.
>There are so many variables in this equation that it's really hard to make a
>call. For example, are the run in speeds the same? (Time in the kill zone)
>These things usually boil down to who gets lucky and who doesn't. Who takes
>what hit, how many, what caliber, and where on the airframe. This is just
>one of those subjects that can go every which way but loose.
>I know one guy who would tell you that if he had a choice of any bird in the
>world to go strafing in, it would be a Jug. He didn't like the plumbing on
>the inlines for low work. Ed will probably tell you that on the target run
>itself it's a crap shoot, but that there's nothing alive that can catch a
>Thud on a level run going in and going out...jink or no jink, especially if
>there's a drink on the bar waiting :-)).
>It's interesting that of the two examples I'm coming up with here, both
>involve The Republic Airplane and Brick Manufacturing Company. :-))

A-1 Skyraider w/badass Irishman/Germanic/English/etc. etc. pirate...

-Mike ('nuff said) Marron

Nele VII

December 7th 03, 07:19 AM

Some fragments of a post made few years ago by
(ALEXEI GRETCHIKHINE) about Su-25 Frogfoot survivability in Afghanistan:

<Quote>
.... One particular Su-25 (actually preproduction T-8-15 or Blue 15) flown by
Colonel Alexander V. Rutskoj was damaged by AAA and two (!) AIM-9L
Sidewinders launched by Pakistani F-16s. Both times the aircraft brought
pilot back to base. It was "refurbished" in Tbilisi and after receiving new
paint job and bort number Blue 301 it was displayed in Paris in 1989. It was
further modified for the weapon trials which included S-240 and S-25 330 mm
unguided rockets. This aircraft currently on display at Khodynka Museum.

Here are few more stories highlighting Su-25 roughness:

-Major Rubalov's Su-25 was hit in the engine which surged and flooded an
engine bay with fuel, the cockpit was shattered, buster controls are gone
and major's face covered with blood. None of the dials in the cockpit worked
and his wingman guided him to the final approach. After belly landing, major
rushed away from the Su-25 fearing that plane going to explode. After
figuring that this is not going to happen, he got back to the aircraft and
cut the engine.

-Another Su-25 was on fire which burned out most of the wiring and 95% of
horizontal tail controls. In few moments before the landing, fire short cut
the gear release wires and Su-25 made "conventional" landing.

-Lieutenant Golubtsov's Su-25 lost half of its rudder along with breaks.
After landing his a/c ended up off runaway and rolled into adjacent mine
field. He was forced to wait in the cockpit till mine squad cleared his way
out.

-One Su-25 brought a missile in the engine which failed to detonate. (SAM?)

-Rutskoi's Su-25 was hit by AAA (ZGU) when a missile (Blowpipe) hit right
engine (head on - it "turned off" the engine though the intake). Second AAA
finally managed to shot it down. This is a second Frogfoot he flew (not the
preproduction T-8-15 Blue 15 which was damaged twice). Rutskoi spent some
time as Pakistani POW and was shortly exchanged.
....
<End quote>
--

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA

Cub Driver

December 7th 03, 10:43 AM

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 02:15:49 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

>International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired

Dudley, would you post a brief bio for us? I think I recall P-51s, but
I don't have any notion of your career. When were you in the
USAF/USAAF? For whom a commercial pilot? Where taught?

Thanks!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

The Enlightenment

December 7th 03, 01:12 PM

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> Let's take two planes going on low level support missions. They will
have to
> fly through heavy ground fire including small arms fire. One plane
is equipped
> with a radial engine,. let's say an R-2800. The other with a jet
engine. Which
> plane would have a better chance of survival inder these
conditions?. Opinions?
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

Much of the Structure of a Gas turbine is thinner than that of the
rugged engine blocks, cylinder and heads required on piston engines
and thus penetration into a vital component by projectiles may be more
likely however gas turbines can be quite tough. The central casting
of which the shaft and combustion chambers are suspended is quite
solid and centrifugal compressors can be very rugged.

It might be possible to obtain data as to how influential compressor
type is on combat ruggedness.

I suppose that the best comparison might be to assume an aircraft such
as the B26,A26 or B29 had of been equipped with a turboprop like the
Rolls Royce Dart. (Fokker when designing the F27 (built latter by
Fairchild) resisted American Airlines's pressure to use the PW2800.)

This engine would have about 1/2rd the weight and I suspect 1/2 to
volume of the PW2800 and this in itself would reduce its chance of
being hit. The two stage centrifugal compressor was very rugged and
for the weight saved you could wrap the engine in armor.

The Allison T53 gas turbine used on the UH-1 Iroquois and many other
aircraft had a reputation for ruggedness. It kept operating with
objects like bolts ingested and stuck in the compressor. This engine
had as a first stage an axial compressor, a second stage centrifugal
stage that led to a double reverse flow combustion chamber.

The Germans seemed to have had a concern with debris ingestion
(presumably after a hit on a target) in the Jumo 004B engine of the
Me 262. For ground handling and safety reasons wire baskets had been
developed to prevent unfortunate ground crewman being ingested. The
aircraft was tested in flight with the baskets attached and apparently
suffered no reduction in performance.

The concern of 'combat ruggedness' was one reason that the RLM
technocrat Helmuth Schelp (who mapped out Germany's 15 year gas
turbine development program in 1938?) specified that the Heinkel
Hirth He S11 1300kg turbo-jet was to have a 'diagonal compressor'.
This is essentially a centrifugal compressor faired such that the air
flow exits axially (backward) instead of radialy (outward). The air
is then impinged upon a stator to get a degree of axial compression.
In the He S11 there were then 3 subsequently axial stages.

The beauty is that the ruggedness of centrifugal compressor in object
ingestion and turbulent airflow as a first stage can be combined with
subsequently more axial stages of higher efficiency. (Thus He S11
aircraft designees had very flexible air intake shapes e.g. slits in
wing leading edges )

The efficiency at the operating point for the axial unit of the Jumo
004B was 0.79. For the hybrid diagonal-axial He S11 it was 0.8. By
the time the He S11 entered production in 1945 the diagonal compressor
for the BMW 003C the HERMESO I was achieving 0.85 on the test stand
and the HERMESO II of the BMW 004D was expected to achieve 0.91. (By
this time the Germans were converting to more efficient reaction type
axial compressors over the impulse type axial seen on the Jumo 004B
and BMW 003A then in service) so they sacrificed a lot to achieve this
diagonal/compressor on the He S11.

The British style centrifugal compressors, the double sided impeller
types, must have been much more rugged than the axial types they
Germans preferred (for their low frontal area and ease of
installation)

However a shrapnel or bullet hole in the post combustion area of a
combustion chamber in either type of engine would have been fatal as a
flame would be expelled that would eventually melt or burn through
something. A holed combustion chamber or rocker cover was unlikely
to be fatal in an air cooled radial.

The answer clearly is to try and armor parts of the Jet engine, e.g.
the Chance Vought A7 used silicon carbide. Jets are free of the
oil.water cooler problems of piston engines.

The

ArtKramr

December 7th 03, 01:24 PM

>Subject: Re: Survivability in Combat
>From: "Dudley Henriques"
>Date: 12/6/03 6:15 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: et>
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> Let's take two planes going on low level support missions. They will have
>to
>> fly through heavy ground fire including small arms fire. One plane is
>equipped
>> with a radial engine,. let's say an R-2800. The other with a jet engine.
>Which
>> plane would have a better chance of survival inder these conditions?.
>Opinions?
>>
>> Regards,
>
>The one who manages to avoid getting hit of course!!!
>:-)
>
> I would imagine after the last thread on radials that your point here might
>be that the radials have been known to take hits even to the point of taking
>out several cylinders and God knows what else and return home, as opposed to
>a jet engine where the dynamic balance of the compressor and turbine
>sections are so delicate.
>Honestly Art, I think it's a crap shoot. I know guys who flew wounded jets
>home to the boat with most of the parts banging away inside the engine and
>the aircraft shaking so badly it threatened to come apart.
>There are so many variables in this equation that it's really hard to make a
>call. For example, are the run in speeds the same? (Time in the kill zone)
>These things usually boil down to who gets lucky and who doesn't. Who takes
>what hit, how many, what caliber, and where on the airframe. This is just
>one of those subjects that can go every which way but loose.
>I know one guy who would tell you that if he had a choice of any bird in the
>world to go strafing in, it would be a Jug. He didn't like the plumbing on
>the inlines for low work. Ed will probably tell you that on the target run
>itself it's a crap shoot, but that there's nothing alive that can catch a
>Thud on a level run going in and going out...jink or no jink, especially if
>there's a drink on the bar waiting :-)).
>It's interesting that of the two examples I'm coming up with here, both
>involve The Republic Airplane and Brick Manufacturing Company. :-))
>Dudley Henriques
>International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
>For personal email, please replace
>the z's with e's.
>dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>
>

I have no experience flying jets in combat, so I was just looking for some
expert opinions on the subject. But I heard a lot about a few pebbles on a
runway wrecking jet engines, so I was just wondering how they would do in low
level combat. Thanks for your reply.

Regards,

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

ArtKramr

December 7th 03, 01:28 PM

>Subject: Re: Survivability in Combat
>From: "Nele VII"
>Date: 12/6/03 11:19 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Some fragments of a post made few years ago by
>(ALEXEI GRETCHIKHINE) about Su-25 Frogfoot survivability in Afghanistan:
>
><Quote>
>... One particular Su-25 (actually preproduction T-8-15 or Blue 15) flown by
>Colonel Alexander V. Rutskoj was damaged by AAA and two (!) AIM-9L
>Sidewinders launched by Pakistani F-16s. Both times the aircraft brought
>pilot back to base. It was "refurbished" in Tbilisi and after receiving new
>paint job and bort number Blue 301 it was displayed in Paris in 1989. It was
>further modified for the weapon trials which included S-240 and S-25 330 mm
>unguided rockets. This aircraft currently on display at Khodynka Museum.
>
>Here are few more stories highlighting Su-25 roughness:
>
>-Major Rubalov's Su-25 was hit in the engine which surged and flooded an
>engine bay with fuel, the cockpit was shattered, buster controls are gone
>and major's face covered with blood. None of the dials in the cockpit worked
>and his wingman guided him to the final approach. After belly landing, major
>rushed away from the Su-25 fearing that plane going to explode. After
>figuring that this is not going to happen, he got back to the aircraft and
>cut the engine.
>
>-Another Su-25 was on fire which burned out most of the wiring and 95% of
>horizontal tail controls. In few moments before the landing, fire short cut
>the gear release wires and Su-25 made "conventional" landing.
>
>-Lieutenant Golubtsov's Su-25 lost half of its rudder along with breaks.
>After landing his a/c ended up off runaway and rolled into adjacent mine
>field. He was forced to wait in the cockpit till mine squad cleared his way
>out.
>
>-One Su-25 brought a missile in the engine which failed to detonate. (SAM?)
>
>-Rutskoi's Su-25 was hit by AAA (ZGU) when a missile (Blowpipe) hit right
>engine (head on - it "turned off" the engine though the intake). Second AAA
>finally managed to shot it down. This is a second Frogfoot he flew (not the
>preproduction T-8-15 Blue 15 which was damaged twice). Rutskoi spent some
>time as Pakistani POW and was shortly exchanged.
>...
><End quote>
>--
>
>Nele
>
>NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA
>

Thanks for that informative reply.But would it have done better with radials?
I guess we will never know.

Regards,

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

ArtKramr

December 7th 03, 01:37 PM

>Subject: Re: Survivability in Combat
>From: "The Enlightenment"
>Date: 12/7/03 5:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> Let's take two planes going on low level support missions. They will
>have to
>> fly through heavy ground fire including small arms fire. One plane
>is equipped
>> with a radial engine,. let's say an R-2800. The other with a jet
>engine. Which
>> plane would have a better chance of survival inder these
>conditions?. Opinions?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> 344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>
>
>
>Much of the Structure of a Gas turbine is thinner than that of the
>rugged engine blocks, cylinder and heads required on piston engines
>and thus penetration into a vital component by projectiles may be more
>likely however gas turbines can be quite tough. The central casting
>of which the shaft and combustion chambers are suspended is quite
>solid and centrifugal compressors can be very rugged.
>
>It might be possible to obtain data as to how influential compressor
>type is on combat ruggedness.
>
>I suppose that the best comparison might be to assume an aircraft such
>as the B26,A26 or B29 had of been equipped with a turboprop like the
>Rolls Royce Dart. (Fokker when designing the F27 (built latter by
>Fairchild) resisted American Airlines's pressure to use the PW2800.)
>
>This engine would have about 1/2rd the weight and I suspect 1/2 to
>volume of the PW2800 and this in itself would reduce its chance of
>being hit. The two stage centrifugal compressor was very rugged and
>for the weight saved you could wrap the engine in armor.
>
>The Allison T53 gas turbine used on the UH-1 Iroquois and many other
>aircraft had a reputation for ruggedness. It kept operating with
>objects like bolts ingested and stuck in the compressor. This engine
>had as a first stage an axial compressor, a second stage centrifugal
>stage that led to a double reverse flow combustion chamber.
>
>The Germans seemed to have had a concern with debris ingestion
>(presumably after a hit on a target) in the Jumo 004B engine of the
>Me 262. For ground handling and safety reasons wire baskets had been
>developed to prevent unfortunate ground crewman being ingested. The
>aircraft was tested in flight with the baskets attached and apparently
>suffered no reduction in performance.
>
>The concern of 'combat ruggedness' was one reason that the RLM
>technocrat Helmuth Schelp (who mapped out Germany's 15 year gas
>turbine development program in 1938?) specified that the Heinkel
>Hirth He S11 1300kg turbo-jet was to have a 'diagonal compressor'.
>This is essentially a centrifugal compressor faired such that the air
>flow exits axially (backward) instead of radialy (outward). The air
>is then impinged upon a stator to get a degree of axial compression.
>In the He S11 there were then 3 subsequently axial stages.
>
>The beauty is that the ruggedness of centrifugal compressor in object
>ingestion and turbulent airflow as a first stage can be combined with
>subsequently more axial stages of higher efficiency. (Thus He S11
>aircraft designees had very flexible air intake shapes e.g. slits in
>wing leading edges )
>
>The efficiency at the operating point for the axial unit of the Jumo
>004B was 0.79. For the hybrid diagonal-axial He S11 it was 0.8. By
>the time the He S11 entered production in 1945 the diagonal compressor
>for the BMW 003C the HERMESO I was achieving 0.85 on the test stand
>and the HERMESO II of the BMW 004D was expected to achieve 0.91. (By
>this time the Germans were converting to more efficient reaction type
>axial compressors over the impulse type axial seen on the Jumo 004B
>and BMW 003A then in service) so they sacrificed a lot to achieve this
>diagonal/compressor on the He S11.
>
>The British style centrifugal compressors, the double sided impeller
>types, must have been much more rugged than the axial types they
>Germans preferred (for their low frontal area and ease of
>installation)
>
>However a shrapnel or bullet hole in the post combustion area of a
>combustion chamber in either type of engine would have been fatal as a
>flame would be expelled that would eventually melt or burn through
>something. A holed combustion chamber or rocker cover was unlikely
>to be fatal in an air cooled radial.
>
>The answer clearly is to try and armor parts of the Jet engine, e.g.
>the Chance Vought A7 used silicon carbide. Jets are free of the
>oil.water cooler problems of piston engines.
>

Lots of good info. Thanks. I woiuld love to hear the take on all this by a
pilot who flew Jugs in WW II in low level operations then flew jets later and
hear comparative opinions. Any jugheads around here?

Regards,

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

Paul J. Adam

December 7th 03, 04:56 PM

In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>Let's take two planes going on low level support missions. They will have to
>fly through heavy ground fire including small arms fire. One plane is equipped
>with a radial engine,. let's say an R-2800. The other with a jet engine. Which
>plane would have a better chance of survival inder these conditions?. Opinions?

My gut feeling is the jet, if only because it's faster and spends less
time being shot at (and the higher deflection makes it harder to hit).
Also, jet aircraft can be pretty tough; stories around about them
surviving assorted insults (going as far as F-105s flying with destroyed
engines, using the afterburner as a sort-of-ramjet) so the survivability
between a jet and a radial recip isn't as pronounced.

After all, either aircraft is equally at risk from hits to pilot,
control surfaces, fuel tanks et cetera... superior survivability of the
engine is a factor, but not the only one (vice the use of P-51s rather
than P-47s in Korea)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Ed Rasimus

December 7th 03, 05:59 PM

On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 16:56:41 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>>Let's take two planes going on low level support missions. They will have to
>>fly through heavy ground fire including small arms fire. One plane is equipped
>>with a radial engine,. let's say an R-2800. The other with a jet engine. Which
>>plane would have a better chance of survival inder these conditions?. Opinions?
>
>My gut feeling is the jet, if only because it's faster and spends less
>time being shot at (and the higher deflection makes it harder to hit).
>Also, jet aircraft can be pretty tough; stories around about them
>surviving assorted insults (going as far as F-105s flying with destroyed
>engines, using the afterburner as a sort-of-ramjet) so the survivability
>between a jet and a radial recip isn't as pronounced.
>
>After all, either aircraft is equally at risk from hits to pilot,
>control surfaces, fuel tanks et cetera... superior survivability of the
>engine is a factor, but not the only one (vice the use of P-51s rather
>than P-47s in Korea)

Seems to me that you need to define a lot of additional parameters
before you can reduce the discussion to whether a radial is more
survivable than a jet.

If you say same speed, same profile, same airframe, same tactics, same
thrust(power) to weight, same performance, then I'd go to the radial
engine as being one that sustains a bit more insult. But, we've not
added the factor (significant in my mind) about the volatility of
AvGas over JP-4 (JP-8). Wet wing airplane taking a hit in the fuel
tanks? Not pretty.

But, if you let your jet go faster, pull more G, maneuver more
aggressively, build a tactics package that suppresses the defenses,
etc. then you come up with the undebatable conclusion that the jet
does better.

Have I ever mentioned that FAST is better?

Dudley Henriques

December 7th 03, 09:45 PM

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 02:15:49 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote:
>
> >International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> >Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
>
> Dudley, would you post a brief bio for us? I think I recall P-51s, but
> I don't have any notion of your career. When were you in the
> USAF/USAAF? For whom a commercial pilot? Where taught?

I am a civilian pilot Ford, not military. Obviously you haven't yet done
enough research. Lots of public record on this.

How and why I have flown military airplanes is none of your business.

Although I can't stop you from going down the road I believe you're thinking
of going with this, I will tell you that I don't like this type of post .
Do your own legwork Ford. There are many sources of public information on
me, and what's not there, I have no desire to share with someone as
obviously hostile to me as you are with this post.
I sincerely hope I'm wrong in what I'm reading from your post here. If I am,
please feel free to dig up and post anything you wish that's public
information on me. If I'm not wrong, I feel compelled to advise you to be
extremely careful where you go with this in a public forum.
Your call !
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

B2431

December 7th 03, 10:21 PM

>From: "Dudley Henriques"
>
>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message

>> Dudley, would you post a brief bio for us? I think I recall P-51s, but
>> I don't have any notion of your career. When were you in the
>> USAF/USAAF? For whom a commercial pilot? Where taught?
>
>I am a civilian pilot Ford, not military. Obviously you haven't yet done
>enough research. Lots of public record on this.
>
>How and why I have flown military airplanes is none of your business.
>
>Although I can't stop you from going down the road I believe you're thinking
>of going with this, I will tell you that I don't like this type of post .
>Do your own legwork Ford. There are many sources of public information on
>me, and what's not there, I have no desire to share with someone as
>obviously hostile to me as you are with this post.
>I sincerely hope I'm wrong in what I'm reading from your post here. If I am,
>please feel free to dig up and post anything you wish that's public
>information on me. If I'm not wrong, I feel compelled to advise you to be
>extremely careful where you go with this in a public forum.
>Your call !
>Dudley Henriques
>International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
>For personal email, please replace
>the z's with e's.
>dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>
>Dudley Henriques

Am I missing something here? I see nothing "hostile" in the request. I also see
nothing wrong with simply saying "I'd rather not say" as a response.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

ArtKramr

December 7th 03, 10:37 PM

>Subject: Re: Survivability in Combat
>From: "Leslie Swartz"
>Date: 12/6/03 8:02 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Speed is life.

But no gaurantees. Witness all those suiperfast planes lost in battle while
going superfast.

Regards,

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

Cub Driver

December 7th 03, 10:41 PM

>How and why I have flown military airplanes is none of your business.

Sheez. We're supposed to sit here awestruck at the Fighter Pilot
Fellowship, but we can't inquire as to how and why you flew military
airplanes?

Dudley, there is something fishy about you.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

ArtKramr

December 7th 03, 11:36 PM

>Subject: Re: Survivability in Combat
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 12/7/03 9:59 AM Pacific Standard Time

>>>Let's take two planes going on low level support missions. They will have
>to
>>>fly through heavy ground fire including small arms fire. One plane is
>equipped
>>>with a radial engine,. let's say an R-2800. The other with a jet engine.
>Which
>>>plane would have a better chance of survival inder these conditions?.
>Opinions?
>>
>>My gut feeling is the jet, if only because it's faster and spends less
>>time being shot at (and the higher deflection makes it harder to hit).
>>Also, jet aircraft can be pretty tough; stories around about them
>>surviving assorted insults (going as far as F-105s flying with destroyed
>>engines, using the afterburner as a sort-of-ramjet) so the survivability
>>between a jet and a radial recip isn't as pronounced.
>>
>>After all, either aircraft is equally at risk from hits to pilot,
>>control surfaces, fuel tanks et cetera... superior survivability of the
>>engine is a factor, but not the only one (vice the use of P-51s rather
>>than P-47s in Korea)
>
>Seems to me that you need to define a lot of additional parameters
>before you can reduce the discussion to whether a radial is more
>survivable than a jet.
>
>If you say same speed, same profile, same airframe, same tactics, same
>thrust(power) to weight, same performance, then I'd go to the radial
>engine as being one that sustains a bit more insult.

My inquiry was only about engines. Thanks.

But, we've not
>added the factor (significant in my mind) about the volatility of
>AvGas over JP-4 (JP-8). Wet wing airplane taking a hit in the fuel
>tanks? Not pretty.

I had not included wing design in my orignal question.

>But, if you let your jet go faster, pull more G, maneuver more
>aggressively, build a tactics package that suppresses the defenses,

Tactics packages that supress defenses vary in their effectiveness and there
are never any guarantees.

>etc. then you come up with the undebatable conclusion that the jet
>does better.

No issue is undebateable.

>Have I ever mentioned that FAST is better?

Yes Fast is better has merit, But there are no gaurantees. There are never
gaurantees, Thanks for the input.

Regards,

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

[email protected]

December 7th 03, 11:37 PM

(B2431) wrote:

>>From: "Dudley Henriques"
>>
>>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
>
>>> Dudley, would you post a brief bio for us? I think I recall P-51s, but
>>> I don't have any notion of your career. When were you in the
>>> USAF/USAAF? For whom a commercial pilot? Where taught?
>>
>>I am a civilian pilot Ford, not military. Obviously you haven't yet done
>>enough research. Lots of public record on this.
>>
>>How and why I have flown military airplanes is none of your business.
>>
>>Although I can't stop you from going down the road I believe you're thinking
>>of going with this, I will tell you that I don't like this type of post .
>>Do your own legwork Ford. There are many sources of public information on
>>me, and what's not there, I have no desire to share with someone as
>>obviously hostile to me as you are with this post.
>>I sincerely hope I'm wrong in what I'm reading from your post here. If I am,
>>please feel free to dig up and post anything you wish that's public
>>information on me. If I'm not wrong, I feel compelled to advise you to be
>>extremely careful where you go with this in a public forum.
>>Your call !
>>Dudley Henriques
>>International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>>Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
>>For personal email, please replace
>>the z's with e's.
>>dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>>
>>Dudley Henriques
>
>Am I missing something here? I see nothing "hostile" in the request. I also see
>nothing wrong with simply saying "I'd rather not say" as a response.
>
>Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>
Touchy lil ****er ain't he?...
--

-Gord.

The Enlightenment

December 8th 03, 12:00 AM

"The Enlightenment" > wrote in message >...
> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
SNIP
..
> The efficiency at the operating point for the axial unit of the Jumo
> 004B was 0.79. For the hybrid diagonal-axial He S11 it was 0.8. By
> the time the He S11 entered production in 1945 the diagonal compressor
> for the BMW 003C the HERMESO I was achieving 0.85 on the test stand
> and the HERMESO II of the BMW 004D was expected to achieve 0.91. (By
> this time the Germans were converting to more efficient reaction type
> axial compressors over the impulse type axial seen on the Jumo 004B
> and BMW 003A then in service) so they sacrificed a lot to achieve this
> diagonal/compressor on the He S11.

There is a typing mistake in my above post. All the compressors of
the BMW003 series were axial NOT diagonal.

The BMW 003A (the 4 jet engines of which used on the Arado 234C and in
its BMW003E dorsal mount form as on the Heinker He162
Salamander/VolksJaeger) in fact had an axial type compressor. This
compressor was an axial "impulse" type in which the compression is
carried out by the turbine blades and the stator merely serves to
guide the airflow. The BMW 003A produced 800kg thrust.

To increase thrust without increasing fuel consumption ABB developed
for the BMW 003C an axial compressor known as the HERMESO I. The was
of the "reaction type" in which more precise machined blades provide
around 50% of the compression. The result is higher efficiency in the
case of HERMESO I this was 0.84 Thus the BMW 003C achieved the same
thrust as the Jumo 004B with the samller weight, fuel cosumption of
the already good BMW003.

The BMW 003D had the refined HERMES0 II with a bench tested efficiency
of 0.91. The engine was expected to have a thrust of 1100kg and to be
used on on range recon versions of the Arado 234. For combat the
tougher 1300kg thrust He S11 with its diagonal compressor was seen as
superior.

Guy Alcala

December 8th 03, 12:15 AM

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 16:56:41 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
> > wrote:
>
> >In message >, ArtKramr
> > writes
> >>Let's take two planes going on low level support missions. They will have to
> >>fly through heavy ground fire including small arms fire. One plane is equipped
> >>with a radial engine,. let's say an R-2800. The other with a jet engine. Which
> >>plane would have a better chance of survival inder these conditions?. Opinions?
> >
> >My gut feeling is the jet, if only because it's faster and spends less
> >time being shot at (and the higher deflection makes it harder to hit).
> >Also, jet aircraft can be pretty tough; stories around about them
> >surviving assorted insults (going as far as F-105s flying with destroyed
> >engines, using the afterburner as a sort-of-ramjet) so the survivability
> >between a jet and a radial recip isn't as pronounced.
> >
> >After all, either aircraft is equally at risk from hits to pilot,
> >control surfaces, fuel tanks et cetera... superior survivability of the
> >engine is a factor, but not the only one (vice the use of P-51s rather
> >than P-47s in Korea)
>
> Seems to me that you need to define a lot of additional parameters
> before you can reduce the discussion to whether a radial is more
> survivable than a jet.
>
> If you say same speed, same profile, same airframe, same tactics, same
> thrust(power) to weight, same performance, then I'd go to the radial
> engine as being one that sustains a bit more insult. But, we've not
> added the factor (significant in my mind) about the volatility of
> AvGas over JP-4 (JP-8). Wet wing airplane taking a hit in the fuel
> tanks? Not pretty.

Glad someone mentioned the fuel difference. Early on, the USN and RN blended AvGas
with kerosene for jets on their carriers, as they still had a lot of piston a/c on
board. The stowage requirements were very different; Kerosene fuel could go in
unprotected fuel tanks just like ship fuel oil, while AvGas had to be carried in
tanks inside the ship's armored box. The British were even more careful with AvGas
than the US was -- they kept it inside the armored box in cylindrical tanks totally
surrounded by water filled compartments. This restricted their AvGas stowage even
more, which is one reason why the British carriers were unable to operate as many a/c
as US ones did.

It was also found that 62% of the single engined jet losses in Vietnam and the middle
east were due to damage to the fuel system. Given the far greater likelihood that a
hit in a fuel tank or line containing AvGas would cause a fire, it seems reasonably
safe to assume that this was the cause of at least as high a percentage of
piston-engined fighter losses in WW2, although no statistical data seems to have been
gathered prior to Vietnam as to specific causes of loss. FWIE, the remaining causes
of loss were pilot incapacitation, 18%, 10% to control damage, 7% to loss of engine
power, and 3% to structural damage. So engine toughness per se was a relatively
minor part of single-engined jet combat losses, at least in the 1960s.

The use of AvGas made it difficult to radically increase the a/c fuel carried by the
Essex class carriers postwar (to meet the needs of thirstier engines), owing to the
fire danger and stowage requirements. The swirtch to a higher and higher percentage
of jets meant they could carry more fuel just about anywhere, allowing over a 100%
increase in a/c fuel carried, which was very necessary to handle the jets' greater
thirst.

> But, if you let your jet go faster, pull more G, maneuver more
> aggressively, build a tactics package that suppresses the defenses,
> etc. then you come up with the undebatable conclusion that the jet
> does better.
>
> Have I ever mentioned that FAST is better?

The early centrifugal jet engines like the Nene and Tay seem to have been quite
damage tolerant (the early axials less so, but design has improved a lot since
then). Hre's Gabby Gabreski on his first MiG kill, firing from dead six on a
non-maneuvering target:

"When the sight was squarely on his mid-section I fired a short burst of
armor-piercing and incendiary from the six fifties. I could see strikes all over the
lower section of the fuselage, I kept firing for a couple of seconds and was now
directly astern, about 600 feet back. I centered the sight on his tailpipe next and
gave him another burst. I saw strikes again, around the engines as well as the
wings. Now he went into a slight dive and smoke began to stream back from the
tailpipe.

"I passed over him and broke off to the right and he started down and I kept him in
view. He was losing altitude but much to my amazement, was still under control. I
decided to make another pass from above right; my three Sabres were now strung out
behind me. There was grey smoke from the MiG; he had decelerated. In a matter of
seconds, I closed for another pass, coming in from astern, I got very close and gave
him a good, long burst. This time pieces of his aircraft began to fly off. They
might have been turbine blades from the engine and they passed me on the right. The
canopy flew off. Then the pilot ejected. His parachute opened. We turned on course
for home.

"I was surprised to see how hard it was to bring down a jet, how much damage he
absorbed before he finally went down. Later, of course, we got the bigger guns [Guy:
4 x 20mm M39] in the Sabres . . . these were fifty calibre shells. It took a lot of
them to bring one down."

[Quoted in "F-86 Sabre," by Maurice Allward]

The six .50 cal. M3s in the Sabre fired about 50% faster than the WW2 era M2s in the
P-47, and unlike the P-47 they were all mounted in the nose rather than the wings, so
when you were on target, you were _really_ on target; no need to worry about
convergence range. Elsewhere in the same book, Col. Eagleston (former 354th 'Pioneer
Mustang' group leading ace, IIRR commanded either the 4th Group or Wing in Korea; I
forget which, but both echelons existed) is mentioned as preparing a report stating
that of every three MiGs hit by his Sabres, two had escaped, and that to destroy a
MiG, an average of 1,024 rounds of .50 caliber had been fired. Russian MiG pilots
had a high opionion of the damage tolerance of their MiG-15 engines (essentially
reverse-engineered R-R Nenes), but had a lower opinion of the toughness of the
Sabre's GE J47 axial engine. To be fair, their guns were a lot more powerful than
the Sabre's .50s, so the comparison isn't exact. How well the MiG-15 would have held
up under the fire of a 37mm and two 23mms is an interesting question.

ISTR seeing navy stats that showed Navy and Marine Panthers suffered a lower loss
rate than Corsairs and maybe ADs on ground attack missions; the Panther also used a
license built Nene (J42), and later the larger but also centrifugal R-R Tay (J48). I
don't know how the Banshee, which used a pair of axial engines IIRR, stacked up, but
its involvement in Korea was limited.

It's impossible to make such a comparison on the Air Force side of Korea, as the only
piston fighter they used for ground attack was the Mustang, and there's absolutely no
doubt that a jet is superior to a water-cooled engine in damage tolerance. I've got
the USAF fighter statistical data for the Korean war, and the Mustang's loss rate is
far higher than either of the two USAF jet fighters that were largely dedicated to
ground attack. Here's the Korean War total combat sorties / losses credited to
ground fire / % loss rate (credited) to ground fire per sortie for the F-51, F-80
(centrifugal) and F-84 (axial). I've left out the losses credited to aircraft and
unknown causes:

F-51: 62,607 / 172 / 0.27%

F-80: 98,515 / 113 / 0.11%

F-84: 86,408 / 122 / 0.14%

The Republic F-84's higher loss rate compared to the F-80 may be due to a higher
vulnerability of its J35 axial engine compared to the F-80's centrifugal J33, but
it's also possible that other factors unrelated to the engine may be the cause.
Early on the F-80 flew a fair number of A/A sorties, and while the F-84s of the 27th
Fighter-Escort Wing also flew some, I suspect that the F-84 flew a higher percentage
of its sorties air to ground. The F-84 also came into the war well after the F-80,
so it may be that it was just facing stronger defenses, especially after the front
line had stagnated. The type of ordnance employed may also have affected the time
spent in threat zones, and thus loss rates -- the F-80 fired almost 4 times (80,935
vs. 22, 154) as many rockets as the F-84, while the latter dropped a considerably
higher tonnage (55,987 vs. 41,593 tons) of bombs. I lack the data to reach any hard
conclusions, but the F-84, being from the Republic 'Foundry, certainly had the
reputation of being able to take more damage than its USAF fighter contemporaries.

All in all, though, I'd say the jets have it hands down over pistons, air-cooled or
otherwise, although control issues (loss of hydraulic fluid) for jets that lack
manual reversion or FBW slightly skew things. Given the choice of doing Art's
mission in a P-47/Corsair/Skyraider, or an A-10, I know which one I'd choose, but
that's talking a 30 year technology difference.

Guy

[email protected]

December 8th 03, 12:40 AM

Cub Driver > wrote:

>
>>How and why I have flown military airplanes is none of your business.
>
>Sheez. We're supposed to sit here awestruck at the Fighter Pilot
>Fellowship, but we can't inquire as to how and why you flew military
>airplanes?
>
>Dudley, there is something fishy about you.
>
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford

C'mon Dud, obfuscate, you know you're good (albeit kinda obvious)
at it...
--

-Gord.

The Enlightenment

December 8th 03, 01:07 AM

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
> >Subject: Re: Survivability in Combat
> >From: "The Enlightenment"
> >Date: 12/7/03 5:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Let's take two planes going on low level support missions. They will
> have to
> >> fly through heavy ground fire including small arms fire. One plane
> is equipped
> >> with a radial engine,. let's say an R-2800. The other with a jet
> engine. Which
> >> plane would have a better chance of survival inder these
> conditions?. Opinions?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >>
> >> Arthur Kramer
> >> 344th BG 494th BS
> >> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> >> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> >> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
> >>
> >
> >
> >Much of the Structure of a Gas turbine is thinner than that of the
> >rugged engine blocks, cylinder and heads required on piston engines
> >and thus penetration into a vital component by projectiles may be more
> >likely however gas turbines can be quite tough. The central casting
> >of which the shaft and combustion chambers are suspended is quite
> >solid and centrifugal compressors can be very rugged.
> >
> >It might be possible to obtain data as to how influential compressor
> >type is on combat ruggedness.
> >
> >I suppose that the best comparison might be to assume an aircraft such
> >as the B26,A26 or B29 had of been equipped with a turboprop like the
> >Rolls Royce Dart. (Fokker when designing the F27 (built latter by
> >Fairchild) resisted American Airlines's pressure to use the PW2800.)
> >
> >This engine would have about 1/2rd the weight and I suspect 1/2 to
> >volume of the PW2800 and this in itself would reduce its chance of
> >being hit. The two stage centrifugal compressor was very rugged and
> >for the weight saved you could wrap the engine in armor.
> >
> >The Allison T53 gas turbine used on the UH-1 Iroquois and many other
> >aircraft had a reputation for ruggedness. It kept operating with
> >objects like bolts ingested and stuck in the compressor. This engine
> >had as a first stage an axial compressor, a second stage centrifugal
> >stage that led to a double reverse flow combustion chamber.
> >
> >The Germans seemed to have had a concern with debris ingestion
> >(presumably after a hit on a target) in the Jumo 004B engine of the
> >Me 262. For ground handling and safety reasons wire baskets had been
> >developed to prevent unfortunate ground crewman being ingested. The
> >aircraft was tested in flight with the baskets attached and apparently
> >suffered no reduction in performance.
> >
> >The concern of 'combat ruggedness' was one reason that the RLM
> >technocrat Helmuth Schelp (who mapped out Germany's 15 year gas
> >turbine development program in 1938?) specified that the Heinkel
> >Hirth He S11 1300kg turbo-jet was to have a 'diagonal compressor'.
> >This is essentially a centrifugal compressor faired such that the air
> >flow exits axially (backward) instead of radialy (outward). The air
> >is then impinged upon a stator to get a degree of axial compression.
> >In the He S11 there were then 3 subsequently axial stages.
> >
> >The beauty is that the ruggedness of centrifugal compressor in object
> >ingestion and turbulent airflow as a first stage can be combined with
> >subsequently more axial stages of higher efficiency. (Thus He S11
> >aircraft designees had very flexible air intake shapes e.g. slits in
> >wing leading edges )
> >
> >The efficiency at the operating point for the axial unit of the Jumo
> >004B was 0.79. For the hybrid diagonal-axial He S11 it was 0.8. By
> >the time the He S11 entered production in 1945 the diagonal compressor
> >for the BMW 003C the HERMESO I was achieving 0.85 on the test stand
> >and the HERMESO II of the BMW 004D was expected to achieve 0.91. (By
> >this time the Germans were converting to more efficient reaction type
> >axial compressors over the impulse type axial seen on the Jumo 004B
> >and BMW 003A then in service) so they sacrificed a lot to achieve this
> >diagonal/compressor on the He S11.
> >
> >The British style centrifugal compressors, the double sided impeller
> >types, must have been much more rugged than the axial types they
> >Germans preferred (for their low frontal area and ease of
> >installation)
> >
> >However a shrapnel or bullet hole in the post combustion area of a
> >combustion chamber in either type of engine would have been fatal as a
> >flame would be expelled that would eventually melt or burn through
> >something. A holed combustion chamber or rocker cover was unlikely
> >to be fatal in an air cooled radial.
> >
> >The answer clearly is to try and armor parts of the Jet engine, e.g.
> >the Chance Vought A7 used silicon carbide. Jets are free of the
> >oil water cooler problems of piston engines.
> >
>
>
> Lots of good info. Thanks. I woiuld love to hear the take on all this by a
> pilot who flew Jugs in WW II in low level operations then flew jets
> later and hear comparative opinions. Any jugheads around here?

It's not inconceivable that some US WW2 types such as the A26 might
have seen action with turbo props or suplemental jets slung on for
extra speed and power. Jets simply lacked the fuel efficinecy for
many missions. (Several types such as the B36,Neptune and others)

There is a Rolls royce Dart Restored Mustang out. (The Dart ranged in
power from 1650shp to 4000shp). I've found at least one restoration
attempt:
http://www.p51.mustangsmustangs.com/survivors/p51/A68-187.shtml

I recall reading an article in the last 2-3 years in "wings" on the
development of the P47 the designer (Seversky?) discusions with his
development insiders (Probably at coffee break). Lots of interesting
stuff on why he concluded that the aircraft had to be as big as it did
to do the missions and carry the armour and armament that would be
needed. (Sorry the issue is in my dusty attic and my hay fever tells
me not to go have a look)

At one point the P47 designers get around to saying that if they are
going to have turbo-super chargers that they may as well cut out the
piston engine in between. Presumbly to get Jet thurst or to make a
turbo-prop. (Indeed converting automotive turbocharges into jets and
turbo props is a common hobby pursuit these days)

Any of the Jets of the 1940 period could be modified to turbo props
simply by putting on a gearbox and a bigger (perhaps 2 stage) turbine.

The british centrifugal types were a little more suited to conversion
as the airflow path is simpler as it need not be smooth so the ducting
needed around the intake needs less care. (The axial engines of the
Germans were so much narrower it was much easier fitting them to a
wing though)

The US was doing some good work at the time, I'm just not as familiar
with it.

Quite suprisingly Hungary had a turbo-prop in 1940 that was to go into
production.

http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/ListOfEngines/EnginesOther.htm
"Designed by Gyorgy Jendrassik in 1938 the Cs-1 was the worlds first
working turboprop engine, first run in 1940 and hoped to produce 1,000
hp it never made more that 400 hp due to combustion problems. All work
on the engine was stopped in 1941 as the Daimler-Benz DB 605 engine
was to be made in Hungary. A plane was specifically made for the Cs-1
the RMI-1 X/H, which ironically was fitted with the DB 605 in 1944"

One big problem in any gas turbine was that designing the airflow in
combustion chambers needed extensive test stand experience. The
airflow has to be designed to protect direct flame impingement of
flames on metal by using films of air and a controlled flame
propagation. The Germans, Americans, British, Hungarians all faced
that. The Germans faced with horrible materials to use had the best
test stand facilities of all.

During the second world war the Arado 234 seemed to have no problem
with AA artillery even over the radar directed proximity fused guns in
the British isles. 10,000 meters at 400 knots would have meant that
the aircraft would have travelled almost 3km-5km ( 2-3 miles) before
a shell got near.

Attacking the bridges at Remagen was different and many a Arado pilot
lost his life attacking these bridges due to the super intense AAA at
low altitude. The engine once holed seemed to keep going by some
accounts) but rapidly set the whole wing on fire. (Fuel lines and
Hydraulic lines everywhere) Escaping from an Arado was very difficult
and the ejection seats intended for the awkward to egress cabin never
got fitted to the few production aircraft.

Having said that even getting near the bridges for a piston engined
aircraft must have been near to impossible.

FOI (Foreigne Object Ingestion) is an issue on jets especialy axial
types. Northrop tested the intakes of the F17 (ie F/A 18) by
sprinkling cornflakes on the floor.

The Mig 29 shutters of its intakes with a mesh and draws in airflow
via gills in the top of the intakes on the ground.

The material used probably make a difference. Using steel rather than
Aluminium.

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

The Enlightenment

December 8th 03, 02:32 AM

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 16:56:41 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
> > wrote:
>
> >In message >, ArtKramr
> > writes
> >>Let's take two planes going on low level support missions. They will have to
> >>fly through heavy ground fire including small arms fire. One plane is equipped
> >>with a radial engine,. let's say an R-2800. The other with a jet engine. Which
> >>plane would have a better chance of survival inder these conditions?. Opinions?
> >
> >My gut feeling is the jet, if only because it's faster and spends less
> >time being shot at (and the higher deflection makes it harder to hit).
> >Also, jet aircraft can be pretty tough; stories around about them
> >surviving assorted insults (going as far as F-105s flying with destroyed
> >engines, using the afterburner as a sort-of-ramjet) so the survivability
> >between a jet and a radial recip isn't as pronounced.
> >
> >After all, either aircraft is equally at risk from hits to pilot,
> >control surfaces, fuel tanks et cetera... superior survivability of the
> >engine is a factor, but not the only one (vice the use of P-51s rather
> >than P-47s in Korea)
>
> Seems to me that you need to define a lot of additional parameters
> before you can reduce the discussion to whether a radial is more
> survivable than a jet.
>
> If you say same speed, same profile, same airframe, same tactics, same
> thrust(power) to weight, same performance, then I'd go to the radial
> engine as being one that sustains a bit more insult. But, we've not
> added the factor (significant in my mind) about the volatility of
> AvGas over JP-4 (JP-8). Wet wing airplane taking a hit in the fuel
> tanks? Not pretty.
>
> But, if you let your jet go faster, pull more G, maneuver more
> aggressively, build a tactics package that suppresses the defenses,
> etc. then you come up with the undebatable conclusion that the jet
> does better.
>
> Have I ever mentioned that FAST is better?

I can feel a Lawndart versus Warthog debate comming on. Douglas
Skyraiders seem to have fullfilled niche missions well into the Jet
age.

By the end of the second world war the Japanese (J7W1 Shinden), USA
(Curtiss XP-55 Ascender) and Germans were all testing pusher piston
engined aircraft that might have managed 500-520mph and likely 577mph
with development.

Here is one of the German projections:
DO P.247 Max. Speed: 835 km/h (519 mph)
http://www.luft46.com/dornier/dop247.html

With transonic swept tip "scimatar" shaped propellors:
Dornier Do P.252 Max. Speed 930 km/h 577 mph.
http://www.luft46.com/dornier/dop252.html

So Mach 0.88 was conceivable for a piston engined propellor aircraft
with a modest amount of development no more than jet development.

Mach 0.88 is Enough to take on early Sabres and Mig 15s!

If it had not of been for the development of the Jet engine the two
stroke super charged and turbo supercharged engine probably would have
attracted development and replaced the petrol piston engine. This
type of diesel (eg Napier Nomad) is lighter and more fuel efficient
than a petrol engine and runs of diesel and jet fuel to boot.

With effort some one could have fielded a Mach 0.88 gasoline or diesel
fighter to take on Sabres, Meteors and Mig 15s during the Korean war
on close to even terms and probably with a lot more range.

The B47D with turbo-prop was once tested at 597mph.

In general its was probably not worth diverting the engineering
resources into becuase the only gain: fuel efficiency could be
circumvented by just flying higher and the speed of sound was the
ultimate limit.

Dudley Henriques

December 8th 03, 03:56 AM

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >How and why I have flown military airplanes is none of your business.
>
> Sheez. We're supposed to sit here awestruck at the Fighter Pilot
> Fellowship, but we can't inquire as to how and why you flew military
> airplanes?
>
> Dudley, there is something fishy about you.

Strange! I don't remember even coming close to requiring you or anyone else
on Usenet to be "awestruck" by either myself, my background, or the
Fellowship. Perhaps you will be kind enough to provide an example of
this........other than the simple fact that I use a tag line sig for the
Fellowship.

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Dudley Henriques

December 8th 03, 04:02 AM

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Dudley Henriques"
> >
> >"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
>
> >> Dudley, would you post a brief bio for us? I think I recall P-51s, but
> >> I don't have any notion of your career. When were you in the
> >> USAF/USAAF? For whom a commercial pilot? Where taught?
> >
> >I am a civilian pilot Ford, not military. Obviously you haven't yet done
> >enough research. Lots of public record on this.
> >
> >How and why I have flown military airplanes is none of your business.
> >
> >Although I can't stop you from going down the road I believe you're
thinking
> >of going with this, I will tell you that I don't like this type of post .
> >Do your own legwork Ford. There are many sources of public information on
> >me, and what's not there, I have no desire to share with someone as
> >obviously hostile to me as you are with this post.
> >I sincerely hope I'm wrong in what I'm reading from your post here. If I
am,
> >please feel free to dig up and post anything you wish that's public
> >information on me. If I'm not wrong, I feel compelled to advise you to be
> >extremely careful where you go with this in a public forum.
> >Your call !
> >Dudley Henriques
> >International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> >Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> >For personal email, please replace
> >the z's with e's.
> >dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
> >
> >Dudley Henriques
>
> Am I missing something here? I see nothing "hostile" in the request. I
also see
> nothing wrong with simply saying "I'd rather not say" as a response.
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

There's a history here Dan.
I know several of the surviving AVG members personally. I reviewed Ford's
book on the AVG after spending a day being briefed on it by a member of the
Tigers who wasn't at all happy with his "research". Mr. Ford and I go back a
few years, and have our "differences of opinion".
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Dudley Henriques

December 8th 03, 05:10 AM

"B2431" > wrote in message
...

> Am I missing something here? I see nothing "hostile" in the request. I
also see
> nothing wrong with simply saying "I'd rather not say" as a response.
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Just for general information;

It's considered extremely bad manners to ask for, request, or demand
personal background and/or qualifications of any individual on Usenet. These
things can be offered in an atmosphere of friendship by someone voluntarily,
but not asked for. When this is done, it's almost always done in an
atmosphere of hostility. You really need go no further than Mr. Ford's
remark, "Dudley, there is something fishy about you" to ascertain this. The
inference is that if the person being "asked" to state these things doesn't
respond to the poster's demand, that there is something to hide. The reality
however, is that only idiots post these "requests", and only idiots allow
themselves to be drawn into this scenario. These "requests" as you can see,
attract the usual posters who either like or dislike either the poster or
the person being "nailed". It's a losing proposition for everyone, and I
have no intention of getting involved too deeply with it, as aside from a
few people who have become good internet friends on the group through the
years, I don't really give a rat's ass who on Usenet believes what about
what .
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

George Z. Bush

December 8th 03, 05:53 AM

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> "B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Am I missing something here? I see nothing "hostile" in the request. I also
>> see nothing wrong with simply saying "I'd rather not say" as a response.
>>
>> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>
> Just for general information;
>
> It's considered extremely bad manners to ask for, request, or demand
> personal background and/or qualifications of any individual on Usenet. These
> things can be offered in an atmosphere of friendship by someone voluntarily,
> but not asked for. When this is done, it's almost always done in an
> atmosphere of hostility. You really need go no further than Mr. Ford's
> remark, "Dudley, there is something fishy about you" to ascertain this. The
> inference is that if the person being "asked" to state these things doesn't
> respond to the poster's demand, that there is something to hide. The reality
> however, is that only idiots post these "requests", and only idiots allow
> themselves to be drawn into this scenario. These "requests" as you can see,
> attract the usual posters who either like or dislike either the poster or
> the person being "nailed". It's a losing proposition for everyone, and I
> have no intention of getting involved too deeply with it, as aside from a
> few people who have become good internet friends on the group through the
> years, I don't really give a rat's ass who on Usenet believes what about
> what .
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> For personal email, please replace
> the z's with e's.
> dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

I personally don't give a rat's ass what kind of fighter planes you may or may
not have flown, or for whom, or with whom. The fact that you use that tag line
infers that you've done something to feel entitled to call yourself one. The
initial request seemed rather innocent to me, and I didn't detect any hostility
in it. Unfortunately, you managed to overreact in your obviously defensive
response to it and stirred up the **** storm that ensued.

Personally, I think most of you one-fan fliers have been exposed to too many Gs
in your flying careers, with the obvious damaging effect to your gray matter.
But that's another argument for another time. (^-^)))

George Z.
C-45, C-46, C-47, C-53, C-54, EC-121, UC-78, T-6, B-25 and enjoyed every minute
in every one of them, and apologize for none because that's what I was ordered
to do and I did the best I could and am here to tell you about it.

PS - Of course, if you never flew any kind of fighter plane for the military,
then you are a phony and don't belong in this NG.....so, please tell me it isn't
so, and let's move on to something else.

Dudley Henriques

December 8th 03, 06:32 AM

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > "B2431" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >> Am I missing something here? I see nothing "hostile" in the request. I
also
> >> see nothing wrong with simply saying "I'd rather not say" as a
response.
> >>
> >> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
> >
> > Just for general information;
> >
> > It's considered extremely bad manners to ask for, request, or demand
> > personal background and/or qualifications of any individual on Usenet.
These
> > things can be offered in an atmosphere of friendship by someone
voluntarily,
> > but not asked for. When this is done, it's almost always done in an
> > atmosphere of hostility. You really need go no further than Mr. Ford's
> > remark, "Dudley, there is something fishy about you" to ascertain this.
The
> > inference is that if the person being "asked" to state these things
doesn't
> > respond to the poster's demand, that there is something to hide. The
reality
> > however, is that only idiots post these "requests", and only idiots
allow
> > themselves to be drawn into this scenario. These "requests" as you can
see,
> > attract the usual posters who either like or dislike either the poster
or
> > the person being "nailed". It's a losing proposition for everyone, and I
> > have no intention of getting involved too deeply with it, as aside from
a
> > few people who have become good internet friends on the group through
the
> > years, I don't really give a rat's ass who on Usenet believes what about
> > what .
> > Dudley Henriques
> > International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> > Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> > For personal email, please replace
> > the z's with e's.
> > dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>
> I personally don't give a rat's ass what kind of fighter planes you may or
may
> not have flown, or for whom, or with whom. The fact that you use that tag
line
> infers that you've done something to feel entitled to call yourself one.
The
> initial request seemed rather innocent to me, and I didn't detect any
hostility
> in it. Unfortunately, you managed to overreact in your obviously defensive
> response to it and stirred up the **** storm that ensued.
>
> > But that's another argument for another time. (^-^)))
>
> George Z.
> C-45, C-46, C-47, C-53, C-54, EC-121, UC-78, T-6, B-25 and enjoyed every
minute
> in every one of them, and apologize for none because that's what I was
ordered
> to do and I did the best I could and am here to tell you about it.
>
> PS - Of course, if you never flew any kind of fighter plane for the
military,
> then you are a phony and don't belong in this NG.....so, please tell me it
isn't
> so, and let's move on to something else.

Well, I'll tell you this much. Yes I've flown fighters; not that it matters
a hill of beans. The Fellowship was a very real organization , not that that
matters much either, since it's not me who is making such a fuss about it ;
so unless the tag line is saying something to you through mental telepathy
that I wouldn't be saying myself......yes, let's indeed move on to something
more intelligent shall we?
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Cub Driver

December 8th 03, 10:01 AM

>It's considered extremely bad manners to ask for, request, or demand
>personal background and/or qualifications of any individual on Usenet.

Sorry, I'd never heard of this rule!

Must be an outgrowth of The New Yorker cartoon: "On the internet,
nobody knows you're a dog."

I was just curious, Dudley. Honest to God! I wanted to know about the
Fighter Pilot Fellowship.

Is Ed Rasimus a member?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

The Enlightenment

December 8th 03, 11:29 AM

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
> It's impossible to make such a comparison on the Air Force side of
Korea, as the only
> piston fighter they used for ground attack was the Mustang, and
there's absolutely no
> doubt that a jet is superior to a water-cooled engine in damage
tolerance. I've got
> the USAF fighter statistical data for the Korean war, and the
Mustang's loss rate is
> far higher than either of the two USAF jet fighters that were
largely dedicated to
> ground attack. Here's the Korean War total combat sorties / losses
credited to
> ground fire / % loss rate (credited) to ground fire per sortie for
the F-51, F-80
> (centrifugal) and F-84 (axial). I've left out the losses credited
to aircraft and
> unknown causes:
>
> F-51: 62,607 / 172 / 0.27%
>
> F-80: 98,515 / 113 / 0.11%
>
> F-84: 86,408 / 122 / 0.14%
>

It should be possible to compare the loss rate of the A36 (ground
attack version of the P51 in WW2) with the loss rate of the P47 in WW2
to extrapolate the possible loss rate of a hypothetical F47 of the
Korean war. In this way we could compare this hypothetical F47
radial with the above Jets.

Kevin Brooks

December 8th 03, 02:28 PM

"The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > Ed Rasimus wrote:
> >
> > It's impossible to make such a comparison on the Air Force side of
> Korea, as the only
> > piston fighter they used for ground attack was the Mustang, and
> there's absolutely no
> > doubt that a jet is superior to a water-cooled engine in damage
> tolerance. I've got
> > the USAF fighter statistical data for the Korean war, and the
> Mustang's loss rate is
> > far higher than either of the two USAF jet fighters that were
> largely dedicated to
> > ground attack. Here's the Korean War total combat sorties / losses
> credited to
> > ground fire / % loss rate (credited) to ground fire per sortie for
> the F-51, F-80
> > (centrifugal) and F-84 (axial). I've left out the losses credited
> to aircraft and
> > unknown causes:
> >
> > F-51: 62,607 / 172 / 0.27%
> >
> > F-80: 98,515 / 113 / 0.11%
> >
> > F-84: 86,408 / 122 / 0.14%

Guy, these numbers do not necessarily support your contention that,
"...there's absolutely no
doubt that a jet is superior to a water-cooled engine in damage tolerance."
You are entering the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" arena with that claim
supported by these numbers. How can you be assured that the numbers purely
reflect a result of "damage tolerance"? Could they not also be influenced by
other factors, such as the increased attack speed (especially in the case of
the F-84) versus the P-51? Being a more difficult target to hit may have
been as much a factor in the jets' better survivability rateas the issue of
"damage tolerance" was. I doubt that your claim is errant in terms of the
water-cooled engine being likely more susceptable to damage from ground
fire, but the numbers you present are not solely dependent upon the factor
of "damage tolerance".

Brooks

> >
>
> It should be possible to compare the loss rate of the A36 (ground
> attack version of the P51 in WW2) with the loss rate of the P47 in WW2
> to extrapolate the possible loss rate of a hypothetical F47 of the
> Korean war. In this way we could compare this hypothetical F47
> radial with the above Jets.
>
>

ArtKramr

December 8th 03, 02:35 PM

>Subject: Re: Survivability in Combat
>From: "The Enlightenment"
>Date: 12/8/03 3:29 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <ggZAb.44513$aT.5240@news-ser

>It should be possible to compare the loss rate of the A36 (ground
>attack version of the P51 in WW2) with the loss rate of the P47 in WW2
>to extrapolate the possible loss rate of a hypothetical F47 of the
>Korean war. In this way we could compare this hypothetical F47
>radial with the above Jets.
>
>

Now that would be interesting. But leave out the P-51. It didn't have
radials.

Regards,

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

ArtKramr

December 8th 03, 02:37 PM

>Subject: Re: Fighter Pilot Fellowship (was: something else entirely)
>From: "Dudley Henriques"
>Date: 12/7/03 10:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: et>
>
>
>"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> > "B2431" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> >> Am I missing something here? I see nothing "hostile" in the request. I
>also
>> >> see nothing wrong with simply saying "I'd rather not say" as a
>response.
>> >>
>> >> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>> >
>> > Just for general information;
>> >
>> > It's considered extremely bad manners to ask for, request, or demand
>> > personal background and/or qualifications of any individual on Usenet.
>These
>> > things can be offered in an atmosphere of friendship by someone
>voluntarily,
>> > but not asked for. When this is done, it's almost always done in an
>> > atmosphere of hostility. You really need go no further than Mr. Ford's
>> > remark, "Dudley, there is something fishy about you" to ascertain this.
>The
>> > inference is that if the person being "asked" to state these things
>doesn't
>> > respond to the poster's demand, that there is something to hide. The
>reality
>> > however, is that only idiots post these "requests", and only idiots
>allow
>> > themselves to be drawn into this scenario. These "requests" as you can
>see,
>> > attract the usual posters who either like or dislike either the poster
>or
>> > the person being "nailed". It's a losing proposition for everyone, and I
>> > have no intention of getting involved too deeply with it, as aside from
>a
>> > few people who have become good internet friends on the group through
>the
>> > years, I don't really give a rat's ass who on Usenet believes what about
>> > what .
>> > Dudley Henriques
>> > International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>> > Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
>> > For personal email, please replace
>> > the z's with e's.
>> > dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>>
>> I personally don't give a rat's ass what kind of fighter planes you may or
>may
>> not have flown, or for whom, or with whom. The fact that you use that tag
>line
>> infers that you've done something to feel entitled to call yourself one.
>The
>> initial request seemed rather innocent to me, and I didn't detect any
>hostility
>> in it. Unfortunately, you managed to overreact in your obviously defensive
>> response to it and stirred up the **** storm that ensued.
>>
>> > But that's another argument for another time. (^-^)))
>>
>> George Z.
>> C-45, C-46, C-47, C-53, C-54, EC-121, UC-78, T-6, B-25 and enjoyed every
>minute
>> in every one of them, and apologize for none because that's what I was
>ordered
>> to do and I did the best I could and am here to tell you about it.
>>
>> PS - Of course, if you never flew any kind of fighter plane for the
>military,
>> then you are a phony and don't belong in this NG.....so, please tell me it
>isn't
>> so, and let's move on to something else.
>
>Well, I'll tell you this much. Yes I've flown fighters; not that it matters
>a hill of beans. The Fellowship was a very real organization , not that that
>matters much either, since it's not me who is making such a fuss about it ;
>so unless the tag line is saying something to you through mental telepathy
>that I wouldn't be saying myself......yes, let's indeed move on to something
>more intelligent shall we?
>Dudley Henriques
>International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired

Dudley,

Never suffer fools gladly.

Regards,

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

George Z. Bush

December 8th 03, 02:57 PM

Dan, he's said that he's flown fighters, and that the Fellowship is a real
organization......the only thing notable by its absence is his identification
with any of the military branches, foreign or domestic. But, since he doesn't
want to talk about it any more, my personal guess is that he was a test pilot
for Chance-Vought or Republic or some such and is a little embarrassed by his
failure to wear the uniform. Google has found a lot of stuff with his name on
it, but absent in every one of them is any reference to military service.

My conclusion, therefore, is that he didn't have any and, by so pointedly trying
to avoid mention of the subject, only succeeded in having us become aware of
what he'd rather we not know about him.

In any case, he's quite obviously quite knowledgable about flying fighter
aircraft and, phony or not, has much to offer his fellow members of RAM on those
subjects, and it would undoubtedly not be in our best interests to run him off
for that minor lack. After all, we can't all be heroes like us Troop Carrier
pilots, can we? (^-^)))

That said, shall we move on?

George Z.

Cub Driver wrote:
>> It's considered extremely bad manners to ask for, request, or demand
>> personal background and/or qualifications of any individual on Usenet.
>
> Sorry, I'd never heard of this rule!
>
> Must be an outgrowth of The New Yorker cartoon: "On the internet,
> nobody knows you're a dog."
>
> I was just curious, Dudley. Honest to God! I wanted to know about the
> Fighter Pilot Fellowship.
>
> Is Ed Rasimus a member?
>
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email:
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Kirk Stant

December 8th 03, 03:07 PM

Sorry Art, but I have to go with jets, and fast ones at that. The
record is pretty solid during Korea and Vietnam, jets were a LOT more
survivable than piston - powered aircraft. In Vietnam, the good old
A-1 had the highest loss rate of any USAF combat aircraft.

As far as speed, the A-10 had a much higher loss rate than the F-16
during Desert Storm. Of course, so did the Av-8, due to the
vulnerability of the Harriers engine to handheld SAMS!

Of course, a LOT of this has to do with the mission being flown, etc.
The only reason for going slow is to find and hit a target better - if
the weapon system allows you to do that at highter speeds and
altitudes - then faster is better. It is also a lot more expensive,
and not always necessary, and there will always be a need for
something like the A-10 to get down and dirty - I sure wish they would
make a C model with more grunt and some decent avionics!

R-2800s are wonderful - and so are J-79s - and so is no engine at all,
sometimes!

Kirk

Dudley Henriques

December 8th 03, 03:23 PM

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >It's considered extremely bad manners to ask for, request, or demand
> >personal background and/or qualifications of any individual on Usenet.
>
> Sorry, I'd never heard of this rule!

It's not a rule. It's accepted protocol.

>
> Must be an outgrowth of The New Yorker cartoon: "On the internet,
> nobody knows you're a dog."
>
> I was just curious, Dudley. Honest to God! I wanted to know about the
> Fighter Pilot Fellowship.
>
> Is Ed Rasimus a member?

Thank you Dan. I appreciate the honest, and I believe straight forward and
friendly request for information. If I misread your intent before I
apologize. I will say however that it might be better in the future if you
ask for this type of information privately instead of in the public forum
and possibly consider not asking for it in the middle of a thread discussing
a totally different issue.
Now if I can just get past your "Dudley, there's something fishy about you"
remark in connection with your initial request , I might begin to believe
you have a genuine interest in the Fellowship.

I will mention my signature tag line if I may, since it seems to be
bothering several people on the group including yourself, as you have
expressed this sentiment in your prior post. I believe you used the exact
phrasing
"We're supposed to sit here awestruck at the Fighter Pilot Fellowship".
Since I really don't want people to be "awestruck" by my use of the term
"fighter pilot", and since I am a civilian, I will allow myself a friendly
response to this since it does show some ambiguity and could possibly be
confusing to those not familiar with me and my "history".
The tag is in no way meant to impress or imply anything other than it's
single purpose; that's why I don't put "President 1971- 1985 IFPF" on the
line any longer. The tag is there because from time to time people who
actually DO remember the Fellowship will happen on a post of mine and
inquire about the health or whereabouts of an ex member of the association.
I receive letters from time to time that address this purpose.
As for the Fellowship itself; It was formed in 1971. It lasted until 1985
when we disbanded for the usual reasons organizations like ours disband. It
took a great deal of time and effort to keep it going, and none of us really
had enough of either to spend on it.
Our charter membership in 71 consisted of people from both the military and
civilian high performance aircraft communities. Many of us were from the
demonstration community. Many of the major military aerobatic teams in the
free world signed on.
The Thunderbirds were members, as were the Blues, The Red Arrows, and The
Snowbirds. Many professional organizations were members. The Naval Test
Pilot School is representative of our service professional charter
membership.
Individual members were either military, or if civilian pilots like myself,
mostly from the research, science, engineering, and test communities. ALL
of us shared the one common requirement of having flown high performance
airplanes professionally. Having flown combat in a fighter was NOT a
requirement. Naturally, many of our members had flown fighters, (hence our
name :-) but we had members from the "heavier" aircraft communities as well.
Membership was by invitation only, and that invitation had to come from the
entire group.
Our letterhead carried the following statement;
"It is the purpose of the International Fighter Pilots Fellowship to
identify with pride the pilots who fly the world's greatest high performance
aircraft; and through the establishment of a world-wide non political
fraternity of these pilots, to help promote and achieve better understanding
as the direct result of improved professional and personal communication"

I hope this information has been helpful in clearing up any misconceptions.

As for Ed Rasimus. I'm fairly certain that had we known Ed at the time, we
would have offered him an invitation. I'd like to think he would have
accepted. We were a good group of people. Many of us remaining still are.

All the best,
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Dudley Henriques

December 8th 03, 03:23 PM

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Fighter Pilot Fellowship (was: something else entirely)
> >From: "Dudley Henriques"
> >Date: 12/7/03 10:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: et>
> >
> >
> >"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Dudley Henriques wrote:
> >> > "B2431" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >
> >> >> Am I missing something here? I see nothing "hostile" in the request.
I
> >also
> >> >> see nothing wrong with simply saying "I'd rather not say" as a
> >response.
> >> >>
> >> >> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
> >> >
> >> > Just for general information;
> >> >
> >> > It's considered extremely bad manners to ask for, request, or demand
> >> > personal background and/or qualifications of any individual on
Usenet.
> >These
> >> > things can be offered in an atmosphere of friendship by someone
> >voluntarily,
> >> > but not asked for. When this is done, it's almost always done in an
> >> > atmosphere of hostility. You really need go no further than Mr.
Ford's
> >> > remark, "Dudley, there is something fishy about you" to ascertain
this.
> >The
> >> > inference is that if the person being "asked" to state these things
> >doesn't
> >> > respond to the poster's demand, that there is something to hide. The
> >reality
> >> > however, is that only idiots post these "requests", and only idiots
> >allow
> >> > themselves to be drawn into this scenario. These "requests" as you
can
> >see,
> >> > attract the usual posters who either like or dislike either the
poster
> >or
> >> > the person being "nailed". It's a losing proposition for everyone,
and I
> >> > have no intention of getting involved too deeply with it, as aside
from
> >a
> >> > few people who have become good internet friends on the group through
> >the
> >> > years, I don't really give a rat's ass who on Usenet believes what
about
> >> > what .
> >> > Dudley Henriques
> >> > International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> >> > Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> >> > For personal email, please replace
> >> > the z's with e's.
> >> > dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
> >>
> >> I personally don't give a rat's ass what kind of fighter planes you may
or
> >may
> >> not have flown, or for whom, or with whom. The fact that you use that
tag
> >line
> >> infers that you've done something to feel entitled to call yourself
one.
> >The
> >> initial request seemed rather innocent to me, and I didn't detect any
> >hostility
> >> in it. Unfortunately, you managed to overreact in your obviously
defensive
> >> response to it and stirred up the **** storm that ensued.
> >>
> >> > But that's another argument for another time. (^-^)))
> >>
> >> George Z.
> >> C-45, C-46, C-47, C-53, C-54, EC-121, UC-78, T-6, B-25 and enjoyed
every
> >minute
> >> in every one of them, and apologize for none because that's what I was
> >ordered
> >> to do and I did the best I could and am here to tell you about it.
> >>
> >> PS - Of course, if you never flew any kind of fighter plane for the
> >military,
> >> then you are a phony and don't belong in this NG.....so, please tell me
it
> >isn't
> >> so, and let's move on to something else.
> >
> >Well, I'll tell you this much. Yes I've flown fighters; not that it
matters
> >a hill of beans. The Fellowship was a very real organization , not that
that
> >matters much either, since it's not me who is making such a fuss about it
;
> >so unless the tag line is saying something to you through mental
telepathy
> >that I wouldn't be saying myself......yes, let's indeed move on to
something
> >more intelligent shall we?
> >Dudley Henriques
> >International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> >Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
>
>
> Dudley,
>
> Never suffer fools gladly.
>
> Regards,

When I get a post like this one I'll usually give the poster a shot or two
of neutral response to give them a chance to back off. If they back off and
reconsider, I'm not a vindictive person. Misunderstandings occur on Usenet.
But if it's fairly certain that they are actually as stupid as their initial
post would indicate, I just write them off as Usenet idiots or just let them
post their constant crap under me without bothering with them unless it
suits my fancy to do so for some reason of my own.
Such, unfortunately, is the very essence of Usenet.

Thanks for the kind thought :-)

Dudley

Ed Rasimus

December 8th 03, 03:38 PM

On 8 Dec 2003 07:07:26 -0800, (Kirk Stant)
wrote:

>Sorry Art, but I have to go with jets, and fast ones at that. The
>record is pretty solid during Korea and Vietnam, jets were a LOT more
>survivable than piston - powered aircraft. In Vietnam, the good old
>A-1 had the highest loss rate of any USAF combat aircraft.

>Kirk

That would be a surprise to me. Hobson indicates 201 USAF losses of
A-1s and 65 USN losses. He indicates 397 losses of F-105s and 573
losses of F-4s (both USAF and USN).

If we're talking "rate" as losses per sorties flown, my candidate for
the highest rate would be the F-111 with 11 losses for a very brief
pair of combat deployments.

We might also have to bracket a bit to get meaningful stats, since
there were considerably different loss rates for various types at
different periods and in different areas.

Regardless, I'll agree that fast is better than slow in virtually all
circumstances. Fast gets you through gun sectors more quickly, fast
lets you move out of prediction for aimed fire more quickly, fast lets
you maneuver to counter missiles more quickly and fast lets you
counter enemy aircraft attacks more effectively. Not much can be said
for going slow and even in a slow aircraft the tacit assumption is
that you are going as fast as you can.

ArtKramr

December 8th 03, 03:45 PM

>Subject: Re: Survivability in Combat
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 12/8/03 7:38 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <1769tvofbookb27uvk9fr10b00nvah

>Regardless, I'll agree that fast is better than slow in virtually all
>circumstances. Fast gets you through gun sectors more quickly, fast
>lets you move out of prediction for aimed fire more quickly, fast lets
>you maneuver to counter missiles more quickly and fast lets you
>counter enemy aircraft attacks more effectively. Not much can be said
>for going slow and even in a slow aircraft the tacit assumption is
>that you are going as fast as you can.
>
>

ED,

That begs the question. The question was not which is better in combat, fast or
slow. Nor was it do fast planes suffer fewer losses than slow planes. The
question was do radials have a higher survivability rate once hit than jet
engines? That was the question.

Regards,

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

Yeff

December 8th 03, 04:23 PM

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 09:57:13 -0500, George Z. Bush wrote:

> My conclusion, therefore, is that he didn't have any and, by so pointedly
> trying to avoid mention of the subject, only succeeded in having us
> become aware of what he'd rather we not know about him.

You mean I was imagining all those times he said he *wasn't* military?

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

Dudley Henriques

December 8th 03, 04:48 PM

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> Dan, he's said that he's flown fighters, and that the Fellowship is a real
> organization......the only thing notable by its absence is his
identification
> with any of the military branches, foreign or domestic. But, since he
doesn't
> want to talk about it any more, my personal guess is that he was a test
pilot
> for Chance-Vought or Republic or some such and is a little embarrassed by
his
> failure to wear the uniform. Google has found a lot of stuff with his
name on
> it, but absent in every one of them is any reference to military service.
>
> My conclusion, therefore, is that he didn't have any and, by so pointedly
trying
> to avoid mention of the subject, only succeeded in having us become aware
of
> what he'd rather we not know about him.
>
> In any case, he's quite obviously quite knowledgable about flying fighter
> aircraft and, phony or not, has much to offer his fellow members of RAM on
those
> subjects, and it would undoubtedly not be in our best interests to run him
off
> for that minor lack. After all, we can't all be heroes like us Troop
Carrier
> pilots, can we? (^-^)))

Sorry there ole'buddy; like most posts of this kind, you're way off base.
Air Force. Non pilot. Public record galore. Unrelated to flying history
which came later so no need to expand.
All the best anyway :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Mike Marron

December 8th 03, 05:04 PM

>Ed Rasimus > wrote:
(Kirk Stant) wrote:

>>Sorry Art, but I have to go with jets, and fast ones at that. The
>>record is pretty solid during Korea and Vietnam, jets were a LOT more
>>survivable than piston - powered aircraft. In Vietnam, the good old
>>A-1 had the highest loss rate of any USAF combat aircraft.

>That would be a surprise to me. Hobson indicates 201 USAF losses of
>A-1s and 65 USN losses. He indicates 397 losses of F-105s and 573
>losses of F-4s (both USAF and USN).

Speaking of combat loss rates, just a quick anecdote: Dad recalled
one hellish mission that he and three other A-1E's flew in 1966...he
limped back to base (shot up) *alone*.

On a related note, here's a brief excerpt from one of Dad's letters
home, dated 9, Aug, 1966:

"I guess it's humorous; we have lost so damn many airplanes
that we are getting more time off than we are used to. I am reading
Tolstoy's, "Anna Karenina." In my spare time and at night I have
been devouring books at a fantastic rate. I guess it takes your
mind off everything and gets you to think of other things. If you sat
and pined away for home all the time you would go batty in a
short time. I saw one major who let things get carried away and
he was all curled up in the pre-natal position listening to tapes
from home. I know these were old tapes but he plays them over
and over. It just isn't healthy. I don't mean to say that I can't
understand it I just don't think it does any good to go asiatic.
Like in that book and movie; sometimes you can hear the world
hum...."

>If we're talking "rate" as losses per sorties flown, my candidate for
>the highest rate would be the F-111 with 11 losses for a very brief
>pair of combat deployments.

>We might also have to bracket a bit to get meaningful stats, since
>there were considerably different loss rates for various types at
>different periods and in different areas.

>Regardless, I'll agree that fast is better than slow in virtually all
>circumstances. Fast gets you through gun sectors more quickly, fast
>lets you move out of prediction for aimed fire more quickly, fast lets
>you maneuver to counter missiles more quickly and fast lets you
>counter enemy aircraft attacks more effectively. Not much can be said
>for going slow and even in a slow aircraft the tacit assumption is
>that you are going as fast as you can.

Doubtful anyone here would disagree that "fast is better." However,
when it comes to loitering with intent; e.g: interdiction, close air
support, air and surface escorts, armed reconnaissance and search
and rescue, nothing at the time could perform these critical duties
better than the slow, prop-driven A-1. According to Dad, it wasn't
just that the A-1 was relatively slow -- it was also the extremely
low altitudes and the tactics developed by the 602nd commander
of flying directly_into_the_enemies_gunsights so as to suppress
fire that also contributed to the A-1's high loss rate.

Having said that, low and slow or not, ISTR Dad mentioning
something about some "plan" to actually win the war using A-1's
*exclusively* -- had they been allowed to set aside the asinine
ROE.

[email protected]

December 8th 03, 05:16 PM

Yeff > wrote:

>On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 09:57:13 -0500, George Z. Bush wrote:
>
>> My conclusion, therefore, is that he didn't have any and, by so pointedly
>> trying to avoid mention of the subject, only succeeded in having us
>> become aware of what he'd rather we not know about him.
>
>You mean I was imagining all those times he said he *wasn't* military?
>
>-Jeff B.

While I've seen one *hell* of a lot that he 'has' said about
himself I don't think I've ever heard him say that he wasn't
military Jeff...you got even one cite?...he's still one of the
most obnoxious blowhard windbags that I've ever seen, bar none.

But even more disgusting is his obviously desperate squirmings to
cover his errors so as to avoid admitting to them...this latest
effort of his takes the prize...tried to ascribe ownership of
HIS statement to ME...miserable little prick...

--Gord.

"Bull ****! This is a constant speed prop. RPM is a
set value. The RPM can be set at 3000 and the
manifold pressure can be anywhere between 15 inches
and 61 inches, and it's the manifold pressure
combined with the set RPM that will determine the
power.....NOT the RPM!!! Are you trying to tell
me that the rotational (energy) of a propeller is
the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?".
-D Henriques

[email protected]

December 8th 03, 05:39 PM

Clark <stillnospam@me> wrote:

>
>" One plane is equipped with a radial engine,. let's say an R-2800. The
>other with a jet engine. Which plane would have a better chance of survival
>inder [sic] these conditions?"
>
>It seems to me that the question is indeed "which plane" not "which engine."

Yes 'literally' that is the question of course but the 'intent'
of the question is to test the 'engine' I'd say.

--Gord.

"Bull ****! This is a constant speed prop. RPM is a
set value. The RPM can be set at 3000 and the
manifold pressure can be anywhere between 15 inches
and 61 inches, and it's the manifold pressure
combined with the set RPM that will determine the
power.....NOT the RPM!!! Are you trying to tell
me that the rotational (energy) of a propeller is
the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?".
-D Henriques

ArtKramr

December 8th 03, 05:46 PM

>Subject: Re: Fighter Pilot Fellowship
>From: Yeff
>Date: 12/8/03 8:23 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 09:57:13 -0500, George Z. Bush wrote:
>
>> My conclusion, therefore, is that he didn't have any and, by so pointedly
>> trying to avoid mention of the subject, only succeeded in having us
>> become aware of what he'd rather we not know about him.
>
>You mean I was imagining all those times he said he *wasn't* military?
>
>-Jeff B.
>yeff at erols dot com

People often hear what they want to hear rather than what is actually there.
(sigh)

Regards,

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

ArtKramr

December 8th 03, 05:52 PM

>Subject: Re: Fighter Pilot Fellowship (was: something else entirely)
>From: "Dudley Henriques"
>Date: 12/8/03 8:48 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: et>
>
>
>"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>> Dan, he's said that he's flown fighters, and that the Fellowship is a real
>> organization......the only thing notable by its absence is his
>identification
>> with any of the military branches, foreign or domestic. But, since he
>doesn't
>> want to talk about it any more, my personal guess is that he was a test
>pilot
>> for Chance-Vought or Republic or some such and is a little embarrassed by
>his
>> failure to wear the uniform. Google has found a lot of stuff with his
>name on
>> it, but absent in every one of them is any reference to military service.
>>
>> My conclusion, therefore, is that he didn't have any and, by so pointedly
>trying
>> to avoid mention of the subject, only succeeded in having us become aware
>of
>> what he'd rather we not know about him.
>>
>> In any case, he's quite obviously quite knowledgable about flying fighter
>> aircraft and, phony or not, has much to offer his fellow members of RAM on
>those
>> subjects, and it would undoubtedly not be in our best interests to run him
>off
>> for that minor lack. After all, we can't all be heroes like us Troop
>Carrier
>> pilots, can we? (^-^)))
>
>Sorry there ole'buddy; like most posts of this kind, you're way off base.
>Air Force. Non pilot. Public record galore. Unrelated to flying history
>which came later so no need to expand.
>All the best anyway :-)
>Dudley Henriques
>International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
>For personal email, please replace

Dudley,

Your replies are more gentlemanly than your critics deserve. I don't know if
you were an officer, but you certainly are a gentleman unlike many of your foul
mouthed critics.

Regards,

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

Mike Marron

December 8th 03, 06:20 PM

>"George Z. Bush" > wrote:

>I personally don't give a rat's ass what kind of fighter planes you may or may
>not have flown, or for whom, or with whom. The fact that you use that tag line
>infers that you've done something to feel entitled to call yourself one. The
>initial request seemed rather innocent to me, and I didn't detect any hostility
>in it. Unfortunately, you managed to overreact in your obviously defensive
>response to it and stirred up the **** storm that ensued.

Well said, George. I couldn't care less if he flew fighters as a
civilian airshow and test pilot. I'm convinced that the reason
Henriques is so defensive and arrogant is because he thinks
that due to the fact he simply happened to fly fighter aircraft,
the fact that he did so automatically makes him above reproach
and not to be questioned or challenged in any manner. Not
unlike Kramer, the man is a legend in his own mind who suffers
terribly from delusions of grandeur!

>Personally, I think most of you one-fan fliers have been exposed to too many Gs
>in your flying careers, with the obvious damaging effect to your gray matter.
>But that's another argument for another time. (^-^)))

Or in Henrique's case, too many minutes exposed at high altitude with
a loose-fitting O2 mask.

>George Z.
>C-45, C-46, C-47, C-53, C-54, EC-121, UC-78, T-6, B-25 and enjoyed every minute
>in every one of them, and apologize for none because that's what I was ordered
>to do and I did the best I could and am here to tell you about it.

>PS - Of course, if you never flew any kind of fighter plane for the military,
>then you are a phony and don't belong in this NG.....

Exactly right! Having said that, I must admit that when I logon to RAM
(which I've been doing for almost a decade now) Ed Rasimus' posts
always get read first. I only click on a "Henriques" or a "Kramer"
blowhard post if I'm bored because without Ed, this NG would probably
wither away to just a shell of what it is today with Ed around. Kramer
and Henriques can post all they wish, but as far as THIS military brat
is concerned; Kramer couldn't possibly get any more mileage out of
his bombardier experiences nor can Henriques get any more mileage
out of his experiences as a civilian who happened to fly military
airplanes.

Ed Rasimus

December 8th 03, 06:24 PM

On 08 Dec 2003 15:45:39 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>ED,
>
>That begs the question. The question was not which is better in combat, fast or
>slow. Nor was it do fast planes suffer fewer losses than slow planes. The
>question was do radials have a higher survivability rate once hit than jet
>engines? That was the question.
>
>Regards,
>
>Arthur Kramer

I thought the question was to generate discussion.

Well, if the question is "do radials have a higher survivability rate
once hit than jet engines" then I've still got to have more
information. Are you asking if the engine is hit or the airframe that
the engine propels? I'll assume you just mean engine.

What is it hit by? Small arms, large bore AAA, SAMs (large or MANPAD),
A/A cannon fire (what caliber)? It makes a difference.

Radials are known for taking a lot of punishment, with entire jugs
being blown and still pushing. Similarly large turbojets aren't so
very FOD sensitive. The turbine blades of J-75s used to be polished by
running the engine and shoveling pecan shells into the intake. The
front stage compressor blades had considerable play so that they
rattle like tin cans falling when the engine spools down. Current
hi-bypass turbofans have even more room for stuff to pass through.

Take a hit in the compressor and maybe you loss it or maybe you don't.
Take a hit in the turbine and maybe it comes apart or maybe it
doesn't. Take a hit in the burner can and you may not even notice,
unless it takes out fuel lines or hydraulics. It depends.

The simple question without any further information is relatively
meaningless. The choice of answers I can give to the unembelished
basic question are: "yes", "no", and "maybe". Pick the one that gives
you the most mileage, but don't take it to the bank. If you don't
define the assumptions, you've got no answer.

Remember GIGO? "Garbage in, garbage out."

George Z. Bush

December 8th 03, 06:38 PM

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dan, he's said that he's flown fighters, and that the Fellowship is a real
>> organization......the only thing notable by its absence is his identification
>> with any of the military branches, foreign or domestic. But, since he
>> doesn't want to talk about it any more, my personal guess is that he was a
>> test pilot for Chance-Vought or Republic or some such and is a little
>> embarrassed by his failure to wear the uniform. Google has found a lot of
>> stuff with his name on it, but absent in every one of them is any reference
>> to military service.
>>
>> My conclusion, therefore, is that he didn't have any and, by so pointedly
>> trying to avoid mention of the subject, only succeeded in having us become
>> aware of what he'd rather we not know about him.
>>
>> In any case, he's quite obviously quite knowledgable about flying fighter
>> aircraft and, phony or not, has much to offer his fellow members of RAM on
>> those subjects, and it would undoubtedly not be in our best interests to run
>> him off for that minor lack. After all, we can't all be heroes like us
>> Troop Carrier pilots, can we? (^-^)))
>
> Sorry there ole'buddy; like most posts of this kind, you're way off base.
> Air Force. Non pilot. Public record galore. Unrelated to flying history
> which came later so no need to expand.
> All the best anyway :-)

Now, there....that wasn't painful, was it? If you had merely done that at the
very beginning of this thread in response to that innocent inquiry, we all could
have saved ourselves much time, effort and heartburn. Never too late to learn
that forgetting to drop flaps on landings makes the tires smoke, right? (^-^)))

Have a good one.

George Z.

Dudley Henriques

December 8th 03, 06:59 PM

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> Yeff > wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 09:57:13 -0500, George Z. Bush wrote:
> >
> >> My conclusion, therefore, is that he didn't have any and, by so
pointedly
> >> trying to avoid mention of the subject, only succeeded in having us
> >> become aware of what he'd rather we not know about him.
> >
> >You mean I was imagining all those times he said he *wasn't* military?
> >
> >-Jeff B.
>
> While I've seen one *hell* of a lot that he 'has' said about
> himself I don't think I've ever heard him say that he wasn't
> military Jeff...you got even one cite?...he's still one of the
> most obnoxious blowhard windbags that I've ever seen, bar none.
>
> But even more disgusting is his obviously desperate squirmings to
> cover his errors so as to avoid admitting to them...this latest
> effort of his takes the prize...tried to ascribe ownership of
> HIS statement to ME...miserable little prick...
>
> --Gord.
>
> "Bull ****! This is a constant speed prop. RPM is a
> set value. The RPM can be set at 3000 and the
> manifold pressure can be anywhere between 15 inches
> and 61 inches, and it's the manifold pressure
> combined with the set RPM that will determine the
> power.....NOT the RPM!!! Are you trying to tell
> me that the rotational (energy) of a propeller is
> the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?".
> -D Henriques

Beamon; you CAN'T be this stupid. What you are quoting constantly as being
incorrect is not only absolutely true, but it's totally inconceivable to me
that someone who professes to have been a flight engineer on Merlins doesn't
have the brains to have figured out by now how absolutely idiotic you are by
pressing this.
Please post anything and everything you wish from that stupid thread that
makes your point. You have no point, as anyone bothering to actually read
the entire thread will instantly see. I'm getting tired of teaching you what
you should already have known about the constant speed prop we were
discussing at the time; the 24D50 on the Mustang. I tried to tell
you....Vlado tried to tell you.....no one could get through that think skull
of yours.
For the last time, you inserted yourself into a discussion between myself
and someone else where I was explaining that if you yank the power back on a
51 to idle in preparation for a bail out without reducing the prop setting
from cruise, the seizure momentum will be less than that with the power at
cruise. To ANYONE knowing the first damn thing about constant speed
propellers, this would indicate that the reason the momentum is less isn't
because of the manifold pressure alone being less, but rather that the
reduction of the power will most likely put the prop below the high rpm
limiters which in turn will reduce the rpm which as you correctly stated, is
the ONLY reason for reduced rotational inertia at seizure.
The problem with you Beamon, (and anyone reasonably reading the thread in
question can see this in an instant), is that instead of asking about the
prop limiter issue, you inserted yourself blindly into the discussion as you
always seem to do with me......with a sharp correction that went on and on
and on and on about manifold pressure not being related to rotational
inertia. Hell, I know this. Everyone knows this!!! Vlado tried to tell you
about the idle issue with the 24D50, (he owns a f*****g P51 for Christ's
sake) and I tried to tell you that I wasn't addressing that issue at all but
you would have none of it. It becomes blatantly obvious to anyone reading
this thread and the dialog that transpired between the two of us that I was
merely telling you what is quoted correctly by me above; that being that
it's the combination of manifold pressure and rpm that determines power, and
posing the question to you that asks if you believe the rotational energy of
the prop is the same at 15 inches as it is at 61.
Keeping in mind that from the onset of this discussion, (unless you can post
otherwise here and now from the thread ) absolutely no one has said anything
about changing the prop setting from cruise, (where it was assumed to be in
my initial post that you interrupted with your "corrections" 101" )
Your argument would hold water if this prop would maintain cruise setting
with the power being reduced to idle, but I believe that power reduction
puts the prop beyond the limiters which was assumed, since it should be
normal procedure for this engine prop combination.
Now ONE more time, rpm and manifold pressure equals power.
RPM determines rotational inertia.
Reducing power on a 51 from cruise to idle without changing the prop setting
should reduce the rpm below the governor limits and as such reduce the
rotational inertia at seizure from the level where it was at cruise to a new
level with the power at idle.
Now, once an for all Beamon; do you get this; or do you really think that
after dealing with these props (expensively I might add) for all these
years, I actually need YOU to have explained all this to me? For Christ's
sake, give it a rest will you? It's stale to me, and probably to rest of the
group as well.
Better than that, write Vlado a letter will you. He flies the f*****g
airplane every f*****g day. He has the f****g propeller and f****g engine on
his airplane......Ask HIM!
And as for the "windbag" crap. If you would simply not insert yourself into
discussions before you have your brain engaged, there would be no need for
these long drawn out replies.

When I had commented to someone else about my flying with the
Snowbirds......no big deal.......but to you it meant the following,

"Absolutely amazing!...how did you manage that Dud?...they weren't
equipped with the Tutor until 1978"

Same modus operandi....Not only totally wrong, but inserted just like the
prop post, unnecessarily sharp and sarcastic and meant to imply something
negative rather than seek clarification.
Do as you wish, Gordo, but I really think you're on the wrong path.
I've told you before it's not necessary to do it this way. Every time you
insert in this manner, you chip away at any credibility you have by creating
the obvious impression that you dislike someone intensely. It's a very bad
Usenet mistake, and anyone with half a brain can see right through it. I'll
simply continue to respond if and when I deem it necessary with my usual
constrained response to you. I can't conceive of anyone being so bored with
life that they would actually go out and do research on the issue we're
discussing here, but if they are, they are more than welcome to go seek out
the thread you keep hollering about and read it from beginning to end. I
have no problem with that whatsoever. In fact, I've decided that I'll simply
keep a copy of this post and just paste it in as a standard response
whenever you post about me and this stupid prop issue.
Advice; the best way to discredit someone on Usenet is with a velvet glove
:-)
And do me a favor this time will you....save the long post stuff.......the
pompous ass stuff....the windbag stuff....the SOB stuff.......the "he's an
angry li'll f****r isn't he" stuff......and the "he didn't know any of this
until I told him stuff. It's predictable and boring really, and instantly
disprovable to anyone reading the engine seizure thread in toto. If you
think someone on Usenet is worth discrediting, try doing it the right way
for a change............use a velvet glove..........NEVER a sledge hammer!!!
:-)))))
All the best as usual and always regardless :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Dudley Henriques

December 8th 03, 07:13 PM

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...

> Now, there....that wasn't painful, was it? If you had merely done that at
the
> very beginning of this thread in response to that innocent inquiry, we all
could
> have saved ourselves much time, effort and heartburn. Never too late to
learn
> that forgetting to drop flaps on landings makes the tires smoke, right?
(^-^)))
>
> Have a good one.
>
> George Z.

You of course mean THIS "innocent inquiry", ?

"Sheez. We're supposed to sit here awestruck at the Fighter Pilot
Fellowship, but we can't inquire as to how and why you flew military
airplanes?

"Dudley, there is something fishy about you".

Give it a rest and get a life.

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Cub Driver

December 8th 03, 09:28 PM

>That said, shall we move on?

Sure. I wasn't a military pilot either. In fact, I'm not much of a
civilian pilot either.

My own biography is online at www.warbirdforum.com/dan.htm

What does the middle initial stand for--Zounds? Zulu?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Cub Driver

December 8th 03, 09:29 PM

>You of course mean THIS "innocent inquiry", ?
>
>"Sheez. We're supposed to sit here awestruck at the Fighter Pilot
>Fellowship, but we can't inquire as to how and why you flew military
>airplanes?

No, that was a response to your response to my innocent inquiry.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Dudley Henriques

December 8th 03, 09:29 PM

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >That said, shall we move on?
>
> Sure. I wasn't a military pilot either. In fact, I'm not much of a
> civilian pilot either.

Oh I don't know. Anyone who can handle a J3 on a windy day in August must
have SOMETHING on the ball! :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Ron

December 8th 03, 09:32 PM

> Sure. I wasn't a military pilot either. In fact, I'm not much of a
>> civilian pilot either.
>
>Oh I don't know. Anyone who can handle a J3 on a windy day in August must
>have SOMETHING on the ball! :-)

Didnt a British Airways pilot once say that a Cub pilot can fly a Corcorde, but
the reverse isnt neccessarily true.

Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

ArtKramr

December 8th 03, 09:34 PM

>Subject: Re: Fighter Pilot Fellowship (was: something else entirely)
>From: "Dudley Henriques"

> Sure. I wasn't a military pilot either. In fact, I'm not much of a
>> civilian pilot either.

>Oh I don't know. Anyone who can handle a J3 on a windy day in August must
>have SOMETHING on the ball! :-

Always courteous no matter what. Good for you.

Regards,

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

[email protected]

December 8th 03, 09:40 PM

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>> Yeff > wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 09:57:13 -0500, George Z. Bush wrote:
>> >
>> >> My conclusion, therefore, is that he didn't have any and, by so
>pointedly
>> >> trying to avoid mention of the subject, only succeeded in having us
>> >> become aware of what he'd rather we not know about him.
>> >
>> >You mean I was imagining all those times he said he *wasn't* military?
>> >
>> >-Jeff B.
>>
>> While I've seen one *hell* of a lot that he 'has' said about
>> himself I don't think I've ever heard him say that he wasn't
>> military Jeff...you got even one cite?...he's still one of the
>> most obnoxious blowhard windbags that I've ever seen, bar none.
>>
>> But even more disgusting is his obviously desperate squirmings to
>> cover his errors so as to avoid admitting to them...this latest
>> effort of his takes the prize...tried to ascribe ownership of
>> HIS statement to ME...miserable little prick...
>>
>> --Gord.
>>
>> "Bull ****! This is a constant speed prop. RPM is a
>> set value. The RPM can be set at 3000 and the
>> manifold pressure can be anywhere between 15 inches
>> and 61 inches, and it's the manifold pressure
>> combined with the set RPM that will determine the
>> power.....NOT the RPM!!! Are you trying to tell
>> me that the rotational (energy) of a propeller is
>> the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?".
>> -D Henriques
>
>Beamon; you CAN'T be this stupid. What you are quoting constantly as being
>incorrect is not only absolutely true, but it's totally inconceivable to me
>that someone who professes to have been a flight engineer on Merlins doesn't
>have the brains to have figured out by now how absolutely idiotic you are by
>pressing this.
>Please post anything and everything you wish from that stupid thread that
>makes your point. You have no point, as anyone bothering to actually read
>the entire thread will instantly see. I'm getting tired of teaching you what
>you should already have known about the constant speed prop we were
>discussing at the time; the 24D50 on the Mustang. I tried to tell
>you....Vlado tried to tell you.....no one could get through that think skull
>of yours.
>For the last time, you inserted yourself into a discussion between myself
>and someone else where I was explaining that if you yank the power back on a
>51 to idle in preparation for a bail out without reducing the prop setting
>from cruise, the seizure momentum will be less than that with the power at
>cruise. To ANYONE knowing the first damn thing about constant speed
>propellers, this would indicate that the reason the momentum is less isn't
>because of the manifold pressure alone being less, but rather that the
>reduction of the power will most likely put the prop below the high rpm
>limiters which in turn will reduce the rpm which as you correctly stated, is
>the ONLY reason for reduced rotational inertia at seizure.
>The problem with you Beamon, (and anyone reasonably reading the thread in
>question can see this in an instant), is that instead of asking about the
>prop limiter issue, you inserted yourself blindly into the discussion as you
>always seem to do with me......with a sharp correction that went on and on
>and on and on about manifold pressure not being related to rotational
>inertia. Hell, I know this. Everyone knows this!!! Vlado tried to tell you
>about the idle issue with the 24D50, (he owns a f*****g P51 for Christ's
>sake) and I tried to tell you that I wasn't addressing that issue at all but
>you would have none of it. It becomes blatantly obvious to anyone reading
>this thread and the dialog that transpired between the two of us that I was
>merely telling you what is quoted correctly by me above; that being that
>it's the combination of manifold pressure and rpm that determines power, and
>posing the question to you that asks if you believe the rotational energy of
>the prop is the same at 15 inches as it is at 61.
>Keeping in mind that from the onset of this discussion, (unless you can post
>otherwise here and now from the thread ) absolutely no one has said anything
>about changing the prop setting from cruise, (where it was assumed to be in
>my initial post that you interrupted with your "corrections" 101" )
>Your argument would hold water if this prop would maintain cruise setting
>with the power being reduced to idle, but I believe that power reduction
>puts the prop beyond the limiters which was assumed, since it should be
>normal procedure for this engine prop combination.
>Now ONE more time, rpm and manifold pressure equals power.
>RPM determines rotational inertia.
>Reducing power on a 51 from cruise to idle without changing the prop setting
>should reduce the rpm below the governor limits and as such reduce the
>rotational inertia at seizure from the level where it was at cruise to a new
>level with the power at idle.
>Now, once an for all Beamon; do you get this; or do you really think that
>after dealing with these props (expensively I might add) for all these
>years, I actually need YOU to have explained all this to me? For Christ's
>sake, give it a rest will you? It's stale to me, and probably to rest of the
>group as well.
>Better than that, write Vlado a letter will you. He flies the f*****g
>airplane every f*****g day. He has the f****g propeller and f****g engine on
>his airplane......Ask HIM!
>And as for the "windbag" crap. If you would simply not insert yourself into
>discussions before you have your brain engaged, there would be no need for
>these long drawn out replies.
>
>
>When I had commented to someone else about my flying with the
>Snowbirds......no big deal.......but to you it meant the following,
>
>
>"Absolutely amazing!...how did you manage that Dud?...they weren't
>equipped with the Tutor until 1978"
>
>Same modus operandi....Not only totally wrong, but inserted just like the
>prop post, unnecessarily sharp and sarcastic and meant to imply something
>negative rather than seek clarification.
>Do as you wish, Gordo, but I really think you're on the wrong path.
>I've told you before it's not necessary to do it this way. Every time you
>insert in this manner, you chip away at any credibility you have by creating
>the obvious impression that you dislike someone intensely. It's a very bad
>Usenet mistake, and anyone with half a brain can see right through it. I'll
>simply continue to respond if and when I deem it necessary with my usual
>constrained response to you. I can't conceive of anyone being so bored with
>life that they would actually go out and do research on the issue we're
>discussing here, but if they are, they are more than welcome to go seek out
>the thread you keep hollering about and read it from beginning to end. I
>have no problem with that whatsoever. In fact, I've decided that I'll simply
>keep a copy of this post and just paste it in as a standard response
>whenever you post about me and this stupid prop issue.
>Advice; the best way to discredit someone on Usenet is with a velvet glove
>:-)
>And do me a favor this time will you....save the long post stuff.......the
>pompous ass stuff....the windbag stuff....the SOB stuff.......the "he's an
>angry li'll f****r isn't he" stuff......and the "he didn't know any of this
>until I told him stuff. It's predictable and boring really, and instantly
>disprovable to anyone reading the engine seizure thread in toto. If you
>think someone on Usenet is worth discrediting, try doing it the right way
>for a change............use a velvet glove..........NEVER a sledge hammer!!!
>:-)))))
>All the best as usual and always regardless :-)
>Dudley Henriques
>International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
>For personal email, please replace
>the z's with e's.
>dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>
>

....I rest my case...

--

-Gord.

Dudley Henriques

December 8th 03, 09:42 PM

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> > Sure. I wasn't a military pilot either. In fact, I'm not much of a
> >> civilian pilot either.
> >
> >Oh I don't know. Anyone who can handle a J3 on a windy day in August must
> >have SOMETHING on the ball! :-)
>
> Didnt a British Airways pilot once say that a Cub pilot can fly a
Corcorde, but
> the reverse isnt neccessarily true.
>
>
> Ron
> Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

I think so. I know I've learned a lot about flying in J3's, both flying them
and teaching others to fly them. I believe it's the only airplane I've ever
flown that was showing me a negative ground speed once or twice in fairly
high winds aloft. :-))))
I also enjoyed flying one all the way down the east coast to the Florida
Keys one summer; most of the flight with the two side panels open wide to
the world allowing me to holler down to people on boats waving as I went by
merrily on my way.
It's a wonderful airplane.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Dudley Henriques

December 8th 03, 09:45 PM

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> >You of course mean THIS "innocent inquiry", ?
> >
> >"Sheez. We're supposed to sit here awestruck at the Fighter Pilot
> >Fellowship, but we can't inquire as to how and why you flew military
> >airplanes?
>
> No, that was a response to your response to my innocent inquiry.

I'm assuming it WAS an innocent inquiry Dan, and as well that I jumped the
gun on you a bit with my reply. Time will tell.
ATB,
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Dudley Henriques

December 8th 03, 09:47 PM

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Yeff > wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 09:57:13 -0500, George Z. Bush wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> My conclusion, therefore, is that he didn't have any and, by so
> >pointedly
> >> >> trying to avoid mention of the subject, only succeeded in having us
> >> >> become aware of what he'd rather we not know about him.
> >> >
> >> >You mean I was imagining all those times he said he *wasn't* military?
> >> >
> >> >-Jeff B.
> >>
> >> While I've seen one *hell* of a lot that he 'has' said about
> >> himself I don't think I've ever heard him say that he wasn't
> >> military Jeff...you got even one cite?...he's still one of the
> >> most obnoxious blowhard windbags that I've ever seen, bar none.
> >>
> >> But even more disgusting is his obviously desperate squirmings to
> >> cover his errors so as to avoid admitting to them...this latest
> >> effort of his takes the prize...tried to ascribe ownership of
> >> HIS statement to ME...miserable little prick...
> >>
> >> --Gord.
> >>
> >> "Bull ****! This is a constant speed prop. RPM is a
> >> set value. The RPM can be set at 3000 and the
> >> manifold pressure can be anywhere between 15 inches
> >> and 61 inches, and it's the manifold pressure
> >> combined with the set RPM that will determine the
> >> power.....NOT the RPM!!! Are you trying to tell
> >> me that the rotational (energy) of a propeller is
> >> the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?".
> >> -D Henriques
> >
> >Beamon; you CAN'T be this stupid. What you are quoting constantly as
being
> >incorrect is not only absolutely true, but it's totally inconceivable to
me
> >that someone who professes to have been a flight engineer on Merlins
doesn't
> >have the brains to have figured out by now how absolutely idiotic you are
by
> >pressing this.
> >Please post anything and everything you wish from that stupid thread that
> >makes your point. You have no point, as anyone bothering to actually read
> >the entire thread will instantly see. I'm getting tired of teaching you
what
> >you should already have known about the constant speed prop we were
> >discussing at the time; the 24D50 on the Mustang. I tried to tell
> >you....Vlado tried to tell you.....no one could get through that think
skull
> >of yours.
> >For the last time, you inserted yourself into a discussion between myself
> >and someone else where I was explaining that if you yank the power back
on a
> >51 to idle in preparation for a bail out without reducing the prop
setting
> >from cruise, the seizure momentum will be less than that with the power
at
> >cruise. To ANYONE knowing the first damn thing about constant speed
> >propellers, this would indicate that the reason the momentum is less
isn't
> >because of the manifold pressure alone being less, but rather that the
> >reduction of the power will most likely put the prop below the high rpm
> >limiters which in turn will reduce the rpm which as you correctly stated,
is
> >the ONLY reason for reduced rotational inertia at seizure.
> >The problem with you Beamon, (and anyone reasonably reading the thread in
> >question can see this in an instant), is that instead of asking about the
> >prop limiter issue, you inserted yourself blindly into the discussion as
you
> >always seem to do with me......with a sharp correction that went on and
on
> >and on and on about manifold pressure not being related to rotational
> >inertia. Hell, I know this. Everyone knows this!!! Vlado tried to tell
you
> >about the idle issue with the 24D50, (he owns a f*****g P51 for Christ's
> >sake) and I tried to tell you that I wasn't addressing that issue at all
but
> >you would have none of it. It becomes blatantly obvious to anyone reading
> >this thread and the dialog that transpired between the two of us that I
was
> >merely telling you what is quoted correctly by me above; that being that
> >it's the combination of manifold pressure and rpm that determines power,
and
> >posing the question to you that asks if you believe the rotational energy
of
> >the prop is the same at 15 inches as it is at 61.
> >Keeping in mind that from the onset of this discussion, (unless you can
post
> >otherwise here and now from the thread ) absolutely no one has said
anything
> >about changing the prop setting from cruise, (where it was assumed to be
in
> >my initial post that you interrupted with your "corrections" 101" )
> >Your argument would hold water if this prop would maintain cruise setting
> >with the power being reduced to idle, but I believe that power reduction
> >puts the prop beyond the limiters which was assumed, since it should be
> >normal procedure for this engine prop combination.
> >Now ONE more time, rpm and manifold pressure equals power.
> >RPM determines rotational inertia.
> >Reducing power on a 51 from cruise to idle without changing the prop
setting
> >should reduce the rpm below the governor limits and as such reduce the
> >rotational inertia at seizure from the level where it was at cruise to a
new
> >level with the power at idle.
> >Now, once an for all Beamon; do you get this; or do you really think that
> >after dealing with these props (expensively I might add) for all these
> >years, I actually need YOU to have explained all this to me? For Christ's
> >sake, give it a rest will you? It's stale to me, and probably to rest of
the
> >group as well.
> >Better than that, write Vlado a letter will you. He flies the f*****g
> >airplane every f*****g day. He has the f****g propeller and f****g engine
on
> >his airplane......Ask HIM!
> >And as for the "windbag" crap. If you would simply not insert yourself
into
> >discussions before you have your brain engaged, there would be no need
for
> >these long drawn out replies.
> >
> >
> >When I had commented to someone else about my flying with the
> >Snowbirds......no big deal.......but to you it meant the following,
> >
> >
> >"Absolutely amazing!...how did you manage that Dud?...they weren't
> >equipped with the Tutor until 1978"
> >
> >Same modus operandi....Not only totally wrong, but inserted just like the
> >prop post, unnecessarily sharp and sarcastic and meant to imply something
> >negative rather than seek clarification.
> >Do as you wish, Gordo, but I really think you're on the wrong path.
> >I've told you before it's not necessary to do it this way. Every time you
> >insert in this manner, you chip away at any credibility you have by
creating
> >the obvious impression that you dislike someone intensely. It's a very
bad
> >Usenet mistake, and anyone with half a brain can see right through it.
I'll
> >simply continue to respond if and when I deem it necessary with my usual
> >constrained response to you. I can't conceive of anyone being so bored
with
> >life that they would actually go out and do research on the issue we're
> >discussing here, but if they are, they are more than welcome to go seek
out
> >the thread you keep hollering about and read it from beginning to end. I
> >have no problem with that whatsoever. In fact, I've decided that I'll
simply
> >keep a copy of this post and just paste it in as a standard response
> >whenever you post about me and this stupid prop issue.
> >Advice; the best way to discredit someone on Usenet is with a velvet
glove
> >:-)
> >And do me a favor this time will you....save the long post
stuff.......the
> >pompous ass stuff....the windbag stuff....the SOB stuff.......the "he's
an
> >angry li'll f****r isn't he" stuff......and the "he didn't know any of
this
> >until I told him stuff. It's predictable and boring really, and instantly
> >disprovable to anyone reading the engine seizure thread in toto. If you
> >think someone on Usenet is worth discrediting, try doing it the right way
> >for a change............use a velvet glove..........NEVER a sledge
hammer!!!
> >:-)))))
> >All the best as usual and always regardless :-)
> >Dudley Henriques
> >International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> >Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> >For personal email, please replace
> >the z's with e's.
> >dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
> >
> >
>
> ....I rest my case...

Same. Let's just let it go shall we? :-)
DH

Dudley Henriques

December 8th 03, 09:48 PM

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Fighter Pilot Fellowship (was: something else entirely)
> >From: "Dudley Henriques"
>
> > Sure. I wasn't a military pilot either. In fact, I'm not much of a
> >> civilian pilot either.
>
> >Oh I don't know. Anyone who can handle a J3 on a windy day in August must
> >have SOMETHING on the ball! :-
>
> Always courteous no matter what. Good for you.
>
> Regards,

I'm TRYIN!!!!!! :-))))))
D

George Z. Bush

December 8th 03, 09:49 PM

Cub Driver wrote:
>> That said, shall we move on?
>
> Sure. I wasn't a military pilot either. In fact, I'm not much of a
> civilian pilot either.
>
> My own biography is online at www.warbirdforum.com/dan.htm
>
> What does the middle initial stand for--Zounds? Zulu?

Whatever rings your chimes.....it's a family secret. (^-^))))

George Z.

ArtKramr

December 8th 03, 09:51 PM

>Subject: Re: Fighter Pilot Fellowship (was: something else entirely)
>From: "Dudley Henriques"
>Date: 12/8/03 1:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: et>
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: Fighter Pilot Fellowship (was: something else entirely)
>> >From: "Dudley Henriques"
>>
>> > Sure. I wasn't a military pilot either. In fact, I'm not much of a
>> >> civilian pilot either.
>>
>> >Oh I don't know. Anyone who can handle a J3 on a windy day in August must
>> >have SOMETHING on the ball! :-
>>
>> Always courteous no matter what. Good for you.
>>
>> Regards,
>
>I'm TRYIN!!!!!! :-))))))
>D
>
>

Nobody ever said it was going to be easy. But your eternal patience is
remarkable.

Regards,

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

Dudley Henriques

December 8th 03, 09:53 PM

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> Cub Driver wrote:
> >> That said, shall we move on?
> >
> > Sure. I wasn't a military pilot either. In fact, I'm not much of a
> > civilian pilot either.
> >
> > My own biography is online at www.warbirdforum.com/dan.htm
> >
> > What does the middle initial stand for--Zounds? Zulu?
>
> Whatever rings your chimes.....it's a family secret. (^-^))))
>
> George Z.

"Zounds" is what one says to one's self when one discovers the joy involved
in flying something as challenging an airplane as the Bamboo Bomber!! :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Andrew Chaplin

December 8th 03, 09:54 PM

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> Cub Driver wrote:
> >> That said, shall we move on?
> >
> > Sure. I wasn't a military pilot either. In fact, I'm not much of a
> > civilian pilot either.
> >
> > My own biography is online at www.warbirdforum.com/dan.htm
> >
> > What does the middle initial stand for--Zounds? Zulu?
>
> Whatever rings your chimes.....it's a family secret. (^-^))))

Zebulon, Zebedee, Zacharias, Zerottenschwein... :^)
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

Dudley Henriques

December 8th 03, 09:55 PM

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Fighter Pilot Fellowship (was: something else entirely)
> >From: "Dudley Henriques"
> >Date: 12/8/03 1:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: et>
> >
> >
> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >Subject: Re: Fighter Pilot Fellowship (was: something else entirely)
> >> >From: "Dudley Henriques"
> >>
> >> > Sure. I wasn't a military pilot either. In fact, I'm not much of a
> >> >> civilian pilot either.
> >>
> >> >Oh I don't know. Anyone who can handle a J3 on a windy day in August
must
> >> >have SOMETHING on the ball! :-
> >>
> >> Always courteous no matter what. Good for you.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >
> >I'm TRYIN!!!!!! :-))))))
> >D
> >
> >
>
> Nobody ever said it was going to be easy. But your eternal patience is
> remarkable.
>
> Regards,

I believe I have been known to depart from this "inner tranquility" on
occasion :-)))))
D

Juvat

December 8th 03, 10:16 PM

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ron
blurted out:

>Didnt a British Airways pilot once say that a Cub pilot can fly a Corcorde, but
>the reverse isnt neccessarily true.

Clearly he was being the typical well mannered brit, didn't want to
honestly answer the question, "Could you fly the Concorde?...Not
bloody well likely."

Imagine the smiles on the passengers as they listened to the PA...

"Ladies and Gentlemen, today it is British Airways' honour and extreme
pleasure to have Elmo Bowlogritz, Cub pilot extraordinaire, in command
of this flight. Mr Bowlogritz will be attempting his first takeoff and
landing in a supersonic transport aircraft...with passengers..."

Juvat

Paul J. Adam

December 8th 03, 10:35 PM

In message >, Juvat
> writes
>After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ron
>blurted out:
>>Didnt a British Airways pilot once say that a Cub pilot can fly a
>>Corcorde, but
>>the reverse isnt neccessarily true.
>
>Clearly he was being the typical well mannered brit, didn't want to
>honestly answer the question, "Could you fly the Concorde?...Not
>bloody well likely."
>
>Imagine the smiles on the passengers as they listened to the PA...
>
>"Ladies and Gentlemen, today it is British Airways' honour and extreme
>pleasure to have Elmo Bowlogritz, Cub pilot extraordinaire, in command
>of this flight. Mr Bowlogritz will be attempting his first takeoff and
>landing in a supersonic transport aircraft...with passengers..."

With my huge and exhaustive flying experience (twelve hours total as
wannabe driver) I will say that the aircraft I was learning in could
damn well fly itself, and was only at risk from the ham-handed
intervention of its pilot. Even spin recovery was basically "let go and
wait, she'll sort herself out" if you were clumsy and stupid enough to
force a spin at all. (My instructor cheerfully showed me 'incipient
spin' and how to avoid it, which was mostly 'let go' - then coached me
through the now-optional "this is a spin, how do we recover?" which was
basically 'let go and let her recover'!" Mind you, inducing a spin in
G-TOUR needed not just negligence but outright malice...)

I don't think many military aircraft are so forgiving, and I doubt that
large civil aircraft are as generous to unskilled pilots.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Bob McKellar

December 9th 03, 01:16 AM

Cub Driver wrote:

> >That said, shall we move on?
>
> Sure. I wasn't a military pilot either. In fact, I'm not much of a
> civilian pilot either.
>

Damn! You mean there's TWO of us on this group?

Bob McKellar, guilty of both of Dan's sins

monkey

December 9th 03, 01:54 AM

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message et>...
> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > >It's considered extremely bad manners to ask for, request, or demand
> > >personal background and/or qualifications of any individual on Usenet.
> >
> > Sorry, I'd never heard of this rule!
>
> It's not a rule. It's accepted protocol.
>
> >
> > Must be an outgrowth of The New Yorker cartoon: "On the internet,
> > nobody knows you're a dog."
> >
> > I was just curious, Dudley. Honest to God! I wanted to know about the
> > Fighter Pilot Fellowship.
> >
> > Is Ed Rasimus a member?
>
> Thank you Dan. I appreciate the honest, and I believe straight forward and
> friendly request for information. If I misread your intent before I
> apologize. I will say however that it might be better in the future if you
> ask for this type of information privately instead of in the public forum
> and possibly consider not asking for it in the middle of a thread discussing
> a totally different issue.
> Now if I can just get past your "Dudley, there's something fishy about you"
> remark in connection with your initial request , I might begin to believe
> you have a genuine interest in the Fellowship.
>
> I will mention my signature tag line if I may, since it seems to be
> bothering several people on the group including yourself, as you have
> expressed this sentiment in your prior post. I believe you used the exact
> phrasing
> "We're supposed to sit here awestruck at the Fighter Pilot Fellowship".
> Since I really don't want people to be "awestruck" by my use of the term
> "fighter pilot", and since I am a civilian, I will allow myself a friendly
> response to this since it does show some ambiguity and could possibly be
> confusing to those not familiar with me and my "history".
> The tag is in no way meant to impress or imply anything other than it's
> single purpose; that's why I don't put "President 1971- 1985 IFPF" on the
> line any longer. The tag is there because from time to time people who
> actually DO remember the Fellowship will happen on a post of mine and
> inquire about the health or whereabouts of an ex member of the association.
> I receive letters from time to time that address this purpose.
> As for the Fellowship itself; It was formed in 1971. It lasted until 1985
> when we disbanded for the usual reasons organizations like ours disband. It
> took a great deal of time and effort to keep it going, and none of us really
> had enough of either to spend on it.
> Our charter membership in 71 consisted of people from both the military and
> civilian high performance aircraft communities. Many of us were from the
> demonstration community. Many of the major military aerobatic teams in the
> free world signed on.
> The Thunderbirds were members, as were the Blues, The Red Arrows, and The
> Snowbirds. Many professional organizations were members. The Naval Test
> Pilot School is representative of our service professional charter
> membership.
> Individual members were either military, or if civilian pilots like myself,
> mostly from the research, science, engineering, and test communities. ALL
> of us shared the one common requirement of having flown high performance
> airplanes professionally. Having flown combat in a fighter was NOT a
> requirement. Naturally, many of our members had flown fighters, (hence our
> name :-) but we had members from the "heavier" aircraft communities as well.
> Membership was by invitation only, and that invitation had to come from the
> entire group.
> Our letterhead carried the following statement;
> "It is the purpose of the International Fighter Pilots Fellowship to
> identify with pride the pilots who fly the world's greatest high performance
> aircraft; and through the establishment of a world-wide non political
> fraternity of these pilots, to help promote and achieve better understanding
> as the direct result of improved professional and personal communication"
>
> I hope this information has been helpful in clearing up any misconceptions.
>
> As for Ed Rasimus. I'm fairly certain that had we known Ed at the time, we
> would have offered him an invitation. I'd like to think he would have
> accepted. We were a good group of people. Many of us remaining still are.
>
> All the best,
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> For personal email, please replace
> the z's with e's.
> dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Sorry, as far as I'm concerned, you shouldn't be in any "Fighter
Pilots Fellowship" unless you are or were indeed, a fighter pilot.

Just my 2 cents,

A fighter pilot.

monkey

December 9th 03, 01:55 AM

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message et>...
> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > >How and why I have flown military airplanes is none of your business.
> >
> > Sheez. We're supposed to sit here awestruck at the Fighter Pilot
> > Fellowship, but we can't inquire as to how and why you flew military
> > airplanes?
> >
> > Dudley, there is something fishy about you.
>
> Strange! I don't remember even coming close to requiring you or anyone else
> on Usenet to be "awestruck" by either myself, my background, or the
> Fellowship. Perhaps you will be kind enough to provide an example of
> this........other than the simple fact that I use a tag line sig for the
> Fellowship.
>
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> For personal email, please replace
> the z's with e's.
> dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Like I said before, dud, you shouldn't be in any fellowship for
"fighter pilots" unless that's what you are/were.

Mortimer Schnerd, RN

December 9th 03, 02:39 AM

Bob McKellar wrote:
>> Sure. I wasn't a military pilot either. In fact, I'm not much of a
>> civilian pilot either.
>>
>
> Damn! You mean there's TWO of us on this group?
>
> Bob McKellar, guilty of both of Dan's sins

I've got all you weinies beat: not only was I not a military pilot, but I've
crashed twice. FWIW, I am an AFB.

--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

Bob McKellar

December 9th 03, 02:42 AM

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:

> Bob McKellar wrote:
> >> Sure. I wasn't a military pilot either. In fact, I'm not much of a
> >> civilian pilot either.
> >>
> >
> > Damn! You mean there's TWO of us on this group?
> >
> > Bob McKellar, guilty of both of Dan's sins
>
> I've got all you weinies beat: not only was I not a military pilot, but I've
> crashed twice. FWIW, I am an AFB.
>
> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>
>
> http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

But I've never heard of Mortimer Schnerd Air Force Base!

BRAC victim?

Bob McKellar

Mortimer Schnerd, RN

December 9th 03, 02:53 AM

monkey wrote:
> Like I said before, dud, you shouldn't be in any fellowship for
> "fighter pilots" unless that's what you are/were.

Therein lies the conundrum: were you a fighter pilot if you flew P-51s on the
airshow circuit? The Mustang was most definitely a fighter. Were you only a
fighter pilot if you flew fighters for a military service? Or only if you've
fired your guns in anger?

This seems to be a grey area to me.

--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[email protected]

December 9th 03, 03:38 AM

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:

>monkey wrote:
>> Like I said before, dud, you shouldn't be in any fellowship for
>> "fighter pilots" unless that's what you are/were.
>
>
>Therein lies the conundrum: were you a fighter pilot if you flew P-51s on the
>airshow circuit? The Mustang was most definitely a fighter. Were you only a
>fighter pilot if you flew fighters for a military service? Or only if you've
>fired your guns in anger?
>
>This seems to be a grey area to me.

I agree, it is...and while I can't stand the gasbag I hate to see
an injustice done (if it is indeed being done). About the only
authorities qualified to speak are former or current military
fighter pilots. (IMO). I wonder what Ed thinks? Perhaps dude
could ask him? :)

-Gord.

"I'm trying to get as old as I can,
and it must be working 'cause I'm
the oldest now that I've ever been"

ArtKramr

December 9th 03, 03:43 AM

>Subject: Re: Fighter Pilot Fellowship (was: something else entirely)
>From: "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
>Date: 12/8/03 6:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>monkey wrote:
>> Like I said before, dud, you shouldn't be in any fellowship for
>> "fighter pilots" unless that's what you are/were.
>
>
>Therein lies the conundrum: were you a fighter pilot if you flew P-51s on
>the
>airshow circuit? The Mustang was most definitely a fighter. Were you only a
>fighter pilot if you flew fighters for a military service? Or only if you've
>fired your guns in anger?
>
>This seems to be a grey area to me.
>
>
>
>--
>Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>

>http://www.mortimerschnerd.com
>
>
>

Not gray at all. You can fly fighters but never have been in combat. You are
still a fighter pilot because you piloted a fighter. But COMBAT pilot is
another matter entirely. Combat is a world apart.

Regards,

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

Dudley Henriques

December 9th 03, 04:23 AM

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
. com...
> monkey wrote:
> > Like I said before, dud, you shouldn't be in any fellowship for
> > "fighter pilots" unless that's what you are/were.
>
>
> Therein lies the conundrum: were you a fighter pilot if you flew P-51s on
the
> airshow circuit? The Mustang was most definitely a fighter. Were you
only a
> fighter pilot if you flew fighters for a military service? Or only if
you've
> fired your guns in anger?
>
> This seems to be a grey area to me.

It might just be a little "grayer" than you imagine!! :-)))

Please allow me to give some of you "interested people" who are commenting
on my life........a little hint on a few "things" if I might inject some
fact into all this fantasy please...... :-)
I'm afraid my association with the fighter community has little to do with
the flying of warbirds per se'. It is more directly involved with over
fifty years of association with the fighter community dealing with such
issues as the enhancement of flight safety and additional issues directly of
interest to the community.
Although my association with the fighter community is honorary, I must admit
that I has "honored" to be asked by that community to serve as the President
of it's Fellowship; then first as the Maryland State Director ; then as the
Regional Director of the Combat Pilots Association of the United States. I
was equally "honored" to be asked to narrate the flight demonstrations of
both the prototype YF17 Cobra AND the F14 Tomcat by both the Navy and
Northrop's demonstration test team. I was "honored" to do research test
flying in both the F14 and the T38. I was also "honored" to be asked to fly
with the Canadian Snowbirds. I have also been "honored" to work within the
fighter community on many issues pertaining to the testing of high
performance aircraft. I am "honored" to have my name and bio appear in the
official book on the history of the P51Mustang along side those who flew her
in harm's way. I have been "honored" by the Naval Test Pilot School being
asked to attend their reunions, but I believe I was "honored" most when the
Thunderbirds invited my wife and I down to Andrews AFB to celebrate my
"retirement" as a pilot with them. This "official occasion" was celebrated
in the preflight brief with the team all signing the last page of a logbook
dedicated to a lifetime's work in the air.
I remain to this day, involved with work dedicated to the saving of lives
within the fighter community as a consultant.
I'm deeply sorry that some of you fine folks on Usenet don't think I should
identify myself with the fighter community since I'm not technically a
fighter pilot, but if you folks REALLY don't object too much, I think I'll
just accept my association with the community as it is, and continue to
enjoy the mutual respect I have shared with the fighter community all
through my aviation career.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Juvat

December 9th 03, 04:34 AM

>"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:
>
>> I've got all you weinies beat: not only was I not a military pilot, but I've
>> crashed twice. FWIW, I am an AFB.

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Bob
McKellar blurted out:

>But I've never heard of Mortimer Schnerd Air Force Base!
>
>BRAC victim?

Too funny

Steve Hix

December 9th 03, 05:08 AM

In article >,
"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

> Yeff > wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 09:57:13 -0500, George Z. Bush wrote:
> >
> >> My conclusion, therefore, is that he didn't have any and, by so pointedly
> >> trying to avoid mention of the subject, only succeeded in having us
> >> become aware of what he'd rather we not know about him.
> >
> >You mean I was imagining all those times he said he *wasn't* military?
>
> While I've seen one *hell* of a lot that he 'has' said about
> himself I don't think I've ever heard him say that he wasn't
> military Jeff

Don't know about Jeff, but I thought that Dudley had made it quite clear
many times that he'd always flown as a civilian.

>...you got even one cite?...he's still one of the
> most obnoxious blowhard windbags that I've ever seen, bar none.

That's true enough...you clearly think so.

John Keeney

December 9th 03, 06:09 AM

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> I personally don't give a rat's ass what kind of fighter planes you may or
may
> not have flown, or for whom, or with whom.

Hmm, a bit of inconsistency between these two statements, George?

> PS - Of course, if you never flew any kind of fighter plane for the
military,
> then you are a phony and don't belong in this NG.....so, please tell me it
isn't
> so, and let's move on to something else.

George Z. Bush

December 9th 03, 06:19 AM

Andrew Chaplin wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Cub Driver wrote:
>>>> That said, shall we move on?
>>>
>>> Sure. I wasn't a military pilot either. In fact, I'm not much of a
>>> civilian pilot either.
>>>
>>> My own biography is online at www.warbirdforum.com/dan.htm
>>>
>>> What does the middle initial stand for--Zounds? Zulu?
>>
>> Whatever rings your chimes.....it's a family secret. (^-^))))
>
> Zebulon, Zebedee, Zacharias, Zerottenschwein... :^)

I'll never tell. (^-^))

George Z.

George Z. Bush

December 9th 03, 06:25 AM

John Keeney wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I personally don't give a rat's ass what kind of fighter planes you may or
>> may not have flown, or for whom, or with whom.
>
> Hmm, a bit of inconsistency between these two statements, George?
>
>> PS - Of course, if you never flew any kind of fighter plane for the military,
>> then you are a phony and don't belong in this NG.....so, please tell me it
>> isn't so, and let's move on to something else.

I plead guilty, John. And if there's anything I'm well known for, it's my
inconsistencies. Please forgive me my sins....it's just hell when you get
carried away! (^-^)))

George Z.

Mortimer Schnerd, RN

December 9th 03, 10:32 AM

Bob McKellar wrote:
>> I've got all you weinies beat: not only was I not a military pilot,
>> but I've crashed twice. FWIW, I am an AFB.
>
> But I've never heard of Mortimer Schnerd Air Force Base!

You should have; I think it has a nice ring to it. In this case however, AFB is
"Air Force Brat".

--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

Stephen Harding

December 9th 03, 01:52 PM

"George Z. Bush" wrote:

> Dan, he's said that he's flown fighters, and that the Fellowship is a real
> organization......the only thing notable by its absence is his identification
> with any of the military branches, foreign or domestic. But, since he doesn't
> want to talk about it any more, my personal guess is that he was a test pilot
> for Chance-Vought or Republic or some such and is a little embarrassed by his
> failure to wear the uniform. Google has found a lot of stuff with his name on
> it, but absent in every one of them is any reference to military service.

Given my "collision" with him earlier this year and a little "lecture" on
"only military people can understand", he'd damn well *better* have a
military background!

I'd presumed he was military (F-102?) with non-combat experience.

> My conclusion, therefore, is that he didn't have any and, by so pointedly trying
> to avoid mention of the subject, only succeeded in having us become aware of
> what he'd rather we not know about him.
>
> In any case, he's quite obviously quite knowledgable about flying fighter
> aircraft and, phony or not, has much to offer his fellow members of RAM on those
> subjects, and it would undoubtedly not be in our best interests to run him off
> for that minor lack. After all, we can't all be heroes like us Troop Carrier
> pilots, can we? (^-^)))

And my Dad! (22nd TCS in Japan by retirement; I'd always read those MATS guys
could fly circles around the SAC boys!!)

This is a military aviation NG so anything about the subject is valid.
Personalities, planes, policies and experiences.

Dudley has a lot of good stuff to say about this subject, and until someone
exposes him as a phony, he'll have high credibility for me in this subject.

You don't have to like the guy or think much of his personality to like what
he writes.

> That said, shall we move on?

Geez George, we agree for once!!

SMH

Stephen Harding

December 9th 03, 02:13 PM

monkey wrote:
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> >
> > "We're supposed to sit here awestruck at the Fighter Pilot Fellowship".
> > Since I really don't want people to be "awestruck" by my use of the term
> > "fighter pilot", and since I am a civilian, I will allow myself a friendly
> > response to this since it does show some ambiguity and could possibly be
> > confusing to those not familiar with me and my "history".
>
> Sorry, as far as I'm concerned, you shouldn't be in any "Fighter
> Pilots Fellowship" unless you are or were indeed, a fighter pilot.
>
> Just my 2 cents,
>
> A fighter pilot.

As mentioned by another, there could be a lot of gray area in the
definition. It also depends on how the organization wants to define
itself.

A person flying a fighter is a "fighter pilot" in the most general
of ways, so that doesn't seem a conflict to me.

Obviously, a unit based organization, especially one that might have
seen tough times in combat, wouldn't want members who "weren't there",
but a generic sort of organization could have a range of types that
have flown fighters over a broad range of circumstances.

I personally see no reason why a broad based "fighter pilot fellowship"
wouldn't want people with combat, aircraft test and development, general
operations and even air show circuit (entertainment???) backgrounds.

If you saw combat experience in a certain type of aircraft, wouldn't
you be thrilled to have a Bob Hoover or what's his name (famous P-38 test
pilot) be a member of your organization?

Heck, why not even throw in some of the maintenance types that kept
those fighters in the air?

SMH

Ed Rasimus

December 9th 03, 02:17 PM

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 03:38:43 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

>"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:
>
>>monkey wrote:
>>> Like I said before, dud, you shouldn't be in any fellowship for
>>> "fighter pilots" unless that's what you are/were.
>>
>>
>>Therein lies the conundrum: were you a fighter pilot if you flew P-51s on the
>>airshow circuit? The Mustang was most definitely a fighter. Were you only a
>>fighter pilot if you flew fighters for a military service? Or only if you've
>>fired your guns in anger?

>I agree, it is...and while I can't stand the gasbag I hate to see
>an injustice done (if it is indeed being done). About the only
>authorities qualified to speak are former or current military
>fighter pilots. (IMO). I wonder what Ed thinks? Perhaps dude
>could ask him? :)
>
>-Gord.

Well, since you asked...the long answer can be found in Chapter 16 of
When Thunder Rolled. The chapter title is "Pilots Flying Fighters" and
refers to the truism that assignment to a fighter does not make one a
fighter pilot.

The short answer is that being a "fighter pilot" is a state of mind;
an attitude about life and achievement. While I was operations officer
in the 613th TFS in Spain, I had a young FAIP (First Assignment
Instructor Pilot--plow-back into training command instructing in
undergraduate pilot training) show up in the squadron with a nametag
declaring himself "Jim Teak--Fighter Pilot".

I explained to him that he might be flying a fighter, but he would be
a fighter pilot when other folks told him that he was. That remains a
good criteria for donning the mantle. In the meantime, I suggested
that his name tag was misspelled and poorly punctuated. It should have
read: "Jim, ---Weak Fighter Pilot". And, from that day forward, his
nickname was Weak. He wore it proudly and eventually was recognized as
a Fighter Pilot.

As for Dudley, despite his initial intemperate reaction to Dan's
question, I think that he has enough experience flying tactical
aircraft and the acknowledgement of enough fighter pilots throughout
the US military community to be able to associate his name freely with
the Fellowship. If Fighter Pilots call you a Fighter Pilot, then, by
my definition you are one.

Peter Stickney

December 9th 03, 03:37 PM

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message >...
> Bob McKellar wrote:
> >> I've got all you weinies beat: not only was I not a military pilot,
> >> but I've crashed twice. FWIW, I am an AFB.
> >
> > But I've never heard of Mortimer Schnerd Air Force Base!
>
>
> You should have; I think it has a nice ring to it. In this case however, AFB is
> "Air Force Brat"

Mortimer Schnerd AFB - It works as well as a number of others.
After the USAF was the same service that built Dickie Goober AFB.
(Well, O.K., Richards-Gebaur)

And to tie into another thread - Northern Tier Bases aren't/weren't a
pain for just the Missileers. In slightly earlier days, you could
have had the pleasure of, if you were a B-52 or KC-135 guy, being
posted to Garden Spots like Loring AFB (Boring Loring). If there's a
Bright Spot in the Center of the Universe, Loring wasn't near it. (I
can say that - my Wife was born in Caribou. The fact that she married
me shows the lengths that people will go to to leave)

--
Pete Stickney
(On my Coffee Break)

Mike Marron

December 9th 03, 03:41 PM

>Ed Rasimus > wrote:

[snipped for brevity]

>The short answer is that being a "fighter pilot" is a state of mind;
>an attitude about life and achievement.

By that definition, then Dud is NOT a "fighter pilot." Case in point:
below are a couple of examples showing his attitude about "life
and achievement"....

************************************************** ***********************
"I don't know what the hell your pilot quals are and I frankly don't
give a flying f**k."
************************************************** ***********************

AND...

************************************************** ***********************
"Nobody gives a flying **** what you can fly and what ratings you
have."
************************************************** ***********************

This, from the same guy who proudly includes his OWN pilot quals
and ratings (not to mention his infamous "Fighter Pilot Fellowship"
tagline) on every post he writes?! Go figger...

>As for Dudley, despite his initial intemperate reaction to Dan's
>question, I think that he has enough experience flying tactical
>aircraft and the acknowledgement of enough fighter pilots throughout
>the US military community to be able to associate his name freely with
>the Fellowship. If Fighter Pilots call you a Fighter Pilot, then, by
>my definition you are one.

I can buy that. However, in Dud's case there is a PATTERN of "initial
intemperate reactions" against anyone who refuses to kiss his ass or
whom simply questions or disagrees with him regardless of the topic.
Posting on RAM is an ego thing for Dud (who can forget the time he
went absolutely bonkers and tore you a new one simply for quoting
BFM to him and how DARE you do that since Dud "wrote half the book"
on BFM!) See the pattern yet? Then, after tearing his opponents to
shreds, of course Dud thinks that he should be exempt from being torn
apart himself due to his oft-repeated status as a member of the
"Fighter Pilot Fellowship."

Alan Minyard

December 9th 03, 03:42 PM

On 9 Dec 2003 05:43:59 GMT, Clark <stillnospam@me> wrote:

>"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in
:
>
>> Clark <stillnospam@me> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>" One plane is equipped with a radial engine,. let's say an R-2800. The
>>>other with a jet engine. Which plane would have a better chance of
>>>survival inder [sic] these conditions?"
>>>
>>>It seems to me that the question is indeed "which plane" not "which
>>>engine."
>>
>> Yes 'literally' that is the question of course but the 'intent'
>> of the question is to test the 'engine' I'd say.
>>
>How can you separate the engine from the aircraft?

With a wrench???

Al Minyard

George Z. Bush

December 9th 03, 04:54 PM

Stephen Harding wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" wrote:
>
>> Dan, he's said that he's flown fighters, and that the Fellowship is a real
>> organization......the only thing notable by its absence is his identification
>> with any of the military branches, foreign or domestic. But, since he
>> doesn't want to talk about it any more, my personal guess is that he was a
>> test pilot for Chance-Vought or Republic or some such and is a little
>> embarrassed by his failure to wear the uniform. Google has found a lot of
>> stuff with his name on it, but absent in every one of them is any reference
>> to military service.
>
> Given my "collision" with him earlier this year and a little "lecture" on
> "only military people can understand", he'd damn well *better* have a
> military background!
>
> I'd presumed he was military (F-102?) with non-combat experience.
>
>> My conclusion, therefore, is that he didn't have any and, by so pointedly
>> trying to avoid mention of the subject, only succeeded in having us become
>> aware of what he'd rather we not know about him.
>>
>> In any case, he's quite obviously quite knowledgable about flying fighter
>> aircraft and, phony or not, has much to offer his fellow members of RAM on
>> those subjects, and it would undoubtedly not be in our best interests to run
>> him off for that minor lack. After all, we can't all be heroes like us
>> Troop Carrier pilots, can we? (^-^)))
>
> And my Dad! (22nd TCS in Japan by retirement; I'd always read those MATS guys
> could fly circles around the SAC boys!!)
>
> This is a military aviation NG so anything about the subject is valid.
> Personalities, planes, policies and experiences.
>
> Dudley has a lot of good stuff to say about this subject, and until someone
> exposes him as a phony, he'll have high credibility for me in this subject.
>
> You don't have to like the guy or think much of his personality to like what
> he writes.
>
>> That said, shall we move on?
>
> Geez George, we agree for once!!

Yup. BTW, in an earlier life, I was in a tenant outfit at Tachikawa flying
C-46s (344th TCS) up until we transitioned Japanese pilots into the birds and
transferred them to the Japan Air Self Defense Force towards the end of '58.
Seems to me that the 374 TCG had three flying squadrons then.....one flying
C-54s and the other two (the 21st and 22nd TCS) flying Big Shaky (C-124s).

Your comment about us MATS (actually, 315th ADiv) guys flying circles around
those guys with our eyes closed was well taken. We often did that quite
literally! Not too hard to do when you have another guy up front with you.
(^-^)))

George Z.
>
>
> SMH

Brian Colwell

December 9th 03, 05:06 PM

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
> . com...
> > monkey wrote:
> > > Like I said before, dud, you shouldn't be in any fellowship for
> > > "fighter pilots" unless that's what you are/were.
> >
> >
> > Therein lies the conundrum: were you a fighter pilot if you flew P-51s
on
> the
> > airshow circuit? The Mustang was most definitely a fighter. Were you
> only a
> > fighter pilot if you flew fighters for a military service? Or only if
> you've
> > fired your guns in anger?
> >
> > This seems to be a grey area to me.
>
> It might just be a little "grayer" than you imagine!! :-)))
>
> Please allow me to give some of you "interested people" who are
commenting
> on my life........a little hint on a few "things" if I might inject some
> fact into all this fantasy please...... :-)
> I'm afraid my association with the fighter community has little to do with
> the flying of warbirds per se'. It is more directly involved with over
> fifty years of association with the fighter community dealing with such
> issues as the enhancement of flight safety and additional issues directly
of
> interest to the community.
> Although my association with the fighter community is honorary, I must
admit
> that I has "honored" to be asked by that community to serve as the
President
> of it's Fellowship; then first as the Maryland State Director ; then as
the
> Regional Director of the Combat Pilots Association of the United States. I
> was equally "honored" to be asked to narrate the flight demonstrations of
> both the prototype YF17 Cobra AND the F14 Tomcat by both the Navy and
> Northrop's demonstration test team. I was "honored" to do research test
> flying in both the F14 and the T38. I was also "honored" to be asked to
fly
> with the Canadian Snowbirds. I have also been "honored" to work within the
> fighter community on many issues pertaining to the testing of high
> performance aircraft. I am "honored" to have my name and bio appear in the
> official book on the history of the P51Mustang along side those who flew
her
> in harm's way. I have been "honored" by the Naval Test Pilot School being
> asked to attend their reunions, but I believe I was "honored" most when
the
> Thunderbirds invited my wife and I down to Andrews AFB to celebrate my
> "retirement" as a pilot with them. This "official occasion" was celebrated
> in the preflight brief with the team all signing the last page of a
logbook
> dedicated to a lifetime's work in the air.
> I remain to this day, involved with work dedicated to the saving of lives
> within the fighter community as a consultant.
> I'm deeply sorry that some of you fine folks on Usenet don't think I
should
> identify myself with the fighter community since I'm not technically a
> fighter pilot, but if you folks REALLY don't object too much, I think I'll
> just accept my association with the community as it is, and continue to
> enjoy the mutual respect I have shared with the fighter community all
> through my aviation career.
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> For personal email, please replace
> the z's with e's.
> dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>
Well said, Dudley....Perhaps this will put an end this matter !

Regards, BMC

Dudley Henriques

December 9th 03, 05:10 PM

"Brian Colwell" > wrote in message
news:uinBb.619639$6C4.13587@pd7tw1no...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
> > . com...
> > > monkey wrote:
> > > > Like I said before, dud, you shouldn't be in any fellowship for
> > > > "fighter pilots" unless that's what you are/were.
> > >
> > >
> > > Therein lies the conundrum: were you a fighter pilot if you flew
P-51s
> on
> > the
> > > airshow circuit? The Mustang was most definitely a fighter. Were you
> > only a
> > > fighter pilot if you flew fighters for a military service? Or only if
> > you've
> > > fired your guns in anger?
> > >
> > > This seems to be a grey area to me.
> >
> > It might just be a little "grayer" than you imagine!! :-)))
> >
> > Please allow me to give some of you "interested people" who are
> commenting
> > on my life........a little hint on a few "things" if I might inject some
> > fact into all this fantasy please...... :-)
> > I'm afraid my association with the fighter community has little to do
with
> > the flying of warbirds per se'. It is more directly involved with over
> > fifty years of association with the fighter community dealing with such
> > issues as the enhancement of flight safety and additional issues
directly
> of
> > interest to the community.
> > Although my association with the fighter community is honorary, I must
> admit
> > that I has "honored" to be asked by that community to serve as the
> President
> > of it's Fellowship; then first as the Maryland State Director ; then as
> the
> > Regional Director of the Combat Pilots Association of the United States.
I
> > was equally "honored" to be asked to narrate the flight demonstrations
of
> > both the prototype YF17 Cobra AND the F14 Tomcat by both the Navy and
> > Northrop's demonstration test team. I was "honored" to do research test
> > flying in both the F14 and the T38. I was also "honored" to be asked to
> fly
> > with the Canadian Snowbirds. I have also been "honored" to work within
the
> > fighter community on many issues pertaining to the testing of high
> > performance aircraft. I am "honored" to have my name and bio appear in
the
> > official book on the history of the P51Mustang along side those who flew
> her
> > in harm's way. I have been "honored" by the Naval Test Pilot School
being
> > asked to attend their reunions, but I believe I was "honored" most when
> the
> > Thunderbirds invited my wife and I down to Andrews AFB to celebrate my
> > "retirement" as a pilot with them. This "official occasion" was
celebrated
> > in the preflight brief with the team all signing the last page of a
> logbook
> > dedicated to a lifetime's work in the air.
> > I remain to this day, involved with work dedicated to the saving of
lives
> > within the fighter community as a consultant.
> > I'm deeply sorry that some of you fine folks on Usenet don't think I
> should
> > identify myself with the fighter community since I'm not technically a
> > fighter pilot, but if you folks REALLY don't object too much, I think
I'll
> > just accept my association with the community as it is, and continue to
> > enjoy the mutual respect I have shared with the fighter community all
> > through my aviation career.
> > Dudley Henriques
> > International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> > Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> > For personal email, please replace
> > the z's with e's.
> > dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
> >
> Well said, Dudley....Perhaps this will put an end this matter !
>
> Regards, BMC

It should Brian, but knowing Usenet......... :-)))

Dudley

ArtKramr

December 9th 03, 05:53 PM

>Subject: Re: Fighter Pilot Fellowship (was: something else entirely)
>From: "Dudley Henriques"
>Date: 12/9/03 9:10 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: t>
>
>
>"Brian Colwell" > wrote in message
>news:uinBb.619639$6C4.13587@pd7tw1no...
>>
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>> >
>> > "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
>> > . com...
>> > > monkey wrote:
>> > > > Like I said before, dud, you shouldn't be in any fellowship for
>> > > > "fighter pilots" unless that's what you are/were.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Therein lies the conundrum: were you a fighter pilot if you flew
>P-51s
>> on
>> > the
>> > > airshow circuit? The Mustang was most definitely a fighter. Were you
>> > only a
>> > > fighter pilot if you flew fighters for a military service? Or only if
>> > you've
>> > > fired your guns in anger?
>> > >
>> > > This seems to be a grey area to me.
>> >
>> > It might just be a little "grayer" than you imagine!! :-)))
>> >
>> > Please allow me to give some of you "interested people" who are
>> commenting
>> > on my life........a little hint on a few "things" if I might inject some
>> > fact into all this fantasy please...... :-)
>> > I'm afraid my association with the fighter community has little to do
>with
>> > the flying of warbirds per se'. It is more directly involved with over
>> > fifty years of association with the fighter community dealing with such
>> > issues as the enhancement of flight safety and additional issues
>directly
>> of
>> > interest to the community.
>> > Although my association with the fighter community is honorary, I must
>> admit
>> > that I has "honored" to be asked by that community to serve as the
>> President
>> > of it's Fellowship; then first as the Maryland State Director ; then as
>> the
>> > Regional Director of the Combat Pilots Association of the United States.
>I
>> > was equally "honored" to be asked to narrate the flight demonstrations
>of
>> > both the prototype YF17 Cobra AND the F14 Tomcat by both the Navy and
>> > Northrop's demonstration test team. I was "honored" to do research test
>> > flying in both the F14 and the T38. I was also "honored" to be asked to
>> fly
>> > with the Canadian Snowbirds. I have also been "honored" to work within
>the
>> > fighter community on many issues pertaining to the testing of high
>> > performance aircraft. I am "honored" to have my name and bio appear in
>the
>> > official book on the history of the P51Mustang along side those who flew
>> her
>> > in harm's way. I have been "honored" by the Naval Test Pilot School
>being
>> > asked to attend their reunions, but I believe I was "honored" most when
>> the
>> > Thunderbirds invited my wife and I down to Andrews AFB to celebrate my
>> > "retirement" as a pilot with them. This "official occasion" was
>celebrated
>> > in the preflight brief with the team all signing the last page of a
>> logbook
>> > dedicated to a lifetime's work in the air.
>> > I remain to this day, involved with work dedicated to the saving of
>lives
>> > within the fighter community as a consultant.
>> > I'm deeply sorry that some of you fine folks on Usenet don't think I
>> should
>> > identify myself with the fighter community since I'm not technically a
>> > fighter pilot, but if you folks REALLY don't object too much, I think
>I'll
>> > just accept my association with the community as it is, and continue to
>> > enjoy the mutual respect I have shared with the fighter community all
>> > through my aviation career.
>> > Dudley Henriques
>> > International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>> > Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
>> > For personal email, please replace
>> > the z's with e's.
>> > dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>> >
>> Well said, Dudley....Perhaps this will put an end this matter !
>>
>> Regards, BMC
>
>It should Brian, but knowing Usenet......... :-)))
>
>Dudley
>
>

If all those with fewer air hours than Dudley are eliminated from this sad
thread, the matter will never be discussed again.

Regards,

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