Flyboys?

[Cub Driver]

I just picked up a copy of Flyboys at BJ's Wholesale Club. Read the
first two chapters last night.

I was amazed that the author uses the term Flyboys throughout the
book, or at least throughout the first chapter. I'd assumed it was
just a cute title, but no: "Flyboys were over Chici Jima" etc.

When I was growing up--which was about the time of these
events--"flyboy" was a derisive name. It's what a ground-pounder would
say when he complained about the soft life pilots (indeed air crews)
had, compared to the infantry in the mud.

Anyone else ever heard it this way? Any mllitary pilots here ever
refer to themselves as flyboys or Flyboys?

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

[C Knowles]

Nope, but I have had it thrown in my face once or twice. By a ground
pounder.
Curt

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> I just picked up a copy of Flyboys at BJ's Wholesale Club. Read the
> first two chapters last night.
>
> I was amazed that the author uses the term Flyboys throughout the
> book, or at least throughout the first chapter. I'd assumed it was
> just a cute title, but no: "Flyboys were over Chici Jima" etc.
>
> When I was growing up--which was about the time of these
> events--"flyboy" was a derisive name. It's what a ground-pounder would
> say when he complained about the soft life pilots (indeed air crews)
> had, compared to the infantry in the mud.
>
> Anyone else ever heard it this way? Any mllitary pilots here ever
> refer to themselves as flyboys or Flyboys?
>
> 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

[George Z. Bush]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> I just picked up a copy of Flyboys at BJ's Wholesale Club. Read the
> first two chapters last night.
>
> I was amazed that the author uses the term Flyboys throughout the
> book, or at least throughout the first chapter. I'd assumed it was
> just a cute title, but no: "Flyboys were over Chici Jima" etc.
>
> When I was growing up--which was about the time of these
> events--"flyboy" was a derisive name. It's what a ground-pounder would
> say when he complained about the soft life pilots (indeed air crews)
> had, compared to the infantry in the mud.
>
> Anyone else ever heard it this way? Any mllitary pilots here ever
> refer to themselves as flyboys or Flyboys?
>
> 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

We may differ on other subjects, we we sure as hell don't differ on this one. I
was a pilot during WWII, the Korean War, and the Viet Nam war, and I never once
called myself or thought of myself as a "flyboy". The people I flew with may
have been young, but they were men, and the overwhelming majority of them didn't
even vaguely resemble the irresponsible bird-brains that the term infers. It
may very well be what the green-eyed ground pounders called us, but usually not
to our faces, particularly if we outranked them. I always looked on that term
as a put down, however mistaken it might have been.

When the book first came out and got public attention, I mentioned this to my
wife, and she told me that she thought I was making too much of it. I'm glad to
learn that there are at least two of us who think otherwise.

BTW, I haven't read the book nor do I plan to. If he got that wrong, I can't
help but think that the rest of his book is probably full of other things that
he didn't quite get right.

George Z.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> I just picked up a copy of Flyboys at BJ's Wholesale Club. Read the
> first two chapters last night.
>
> I was amazed that the author uses the term Flyboys throughout the
> book, or at least throughout the first chapter. I'd assumed it was
> just a cute title, but no: "Flyboys were over Chici Jima" etc.
>
> When I was growing up--which was about the time of these
> events--"flyboy" was a derisive name. It's what a ground-pounder would
> say when he complained about the soft life pilots (indeed air crews)
> had, compared to the infantry in the mud.
>
> Anyone else ever heard it this way? Any mllitary pilots here ever
> refer to themselves as flyboys or Flyboys?

Well, I realize you have asked for a "military pilot's" opinion, but
considering everything involved with how that relates to me, I'll answer the
post anyway :-)
I just finished the book. My reaction was similar to yours, but slightly
different perhaps.
The term itself was quite common as you know back during the war. It was
used by the pounders and civilians as well. I remember my mother using the
term on occasion.
As for the Bradley; if I was reviewing the book, ( I don't "review" books
any more :-) I would come away with the feeling that he is overusing the
term both in the book as you have noted, and as well by assigning it through
inference if nothing else in a completely naval context, which in my opinion
is incorrect. I believe the use of the term was generic in assignment.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Dudley Henriques]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I just picked up a copy of Flyboys at BJ's Wholesale Club. Read the
> > first two chapters last night.
> >
> > I was amazed that the author uses the term Flyboys throughout the
> > book, or at least throughout the first chapter. I'd assumed it was
> > just a cute title, but no: "Flyboys were over Chici Jima" etc.
> >
> > When I was growing up--which was about the time of these
> > events--"flyboy" was a derisive name. It's what a ground-pounder would
> > say when he complained about the soft life pilots (indeed air crews)
> > had, compared to the infantry in the mud.
> >
> > Anyone else ever heard it this way? Any mllitary pilots here ever
> > refer to themselves as flyboys or Flyboys?
> >
> > 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
>
> We may differ on other subjects, we we sure as hell don't differ on this
one. I
> was a pilot during WWII, the Korean War, and the Viet Nam war, and I never
once
> called myself or thought of myself as a "flyboy". The people I flew with
may
> have been young, but they were men, and the overwhelming majority of them
didn't
> even vaguely resemble the irresponsible bird-brains that the term infers.
It
> may very well be what the green-eyed ground pounders called us, but
usually not
> to our faces, particularly if we outranked them. I always looked on that
term
> as a put down, however mistaken it might have been.
>
> When the book first came out and got public attention, I mentioned this to
my
> wife, and she told me that she thought I was making too much of it. I'm
glad to
> learn that there are at least two of us who think otherwise.
>
> BTW, I haven't read the book nor do I plan to. If he got that wrong, I
can't
> help but think that the rest of his book is probably full of other things
that
> he didn't quite get right.
>
> George Z.

Although I'm sure there were those who might have used this term in a
derogatory way, it should be noted that the term itself is so generic that
it's use was certainly not limited to a negative context alone.
I'm fairly certain that there were many who used this term in an extremely
positive sense as the term related to them personally, and their positive
feelings about those who were fighting above them or for them, and in many
cases, protecting them.
I know that in my years of association with those who have flown in harm's
way, I can't remember anyone having a violent reaction to the term.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Flyboys?
>From: "Dudley Henriques"
>Date: 12/16/03 7:03 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: t>
>
>
>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I just picked up a copy of Flyboys at BJ's Wholesale Club. Read the
>> first two chapters last night.
>>
>> I was amazed that the author uses the term Flyboys throughout the
>> book, or at least throughout the first chapter. I'd assumed it was
>> just a cute title, but no: "Flyboys were over Chici Jima" etc.
>>
>> When I was growing up--which was about the time of these
>> events--"flyboy" was a derisive name. It's what a ground-pounder would
>> say when he complained about the soft life pilots (indeed air crews)
>> had, compared to the infantry in the mud.
>>
>> Anyone else ever heard it this way? Any mllitary pilots here ever
>> refer to themselves as flyboys or Flyboys?
>
>Well, I realize you have asked for a "military pilot's" opinion, but
>considering everything involved with how that relates to me, I'll answer the
>post anyway :-)
>I just finished the book. My reaction was similar to yours, but slightly
>different perhaps.
>The term itself was quite common as you know back during the war. It was
>used by the pounders and civilians as well. I remember my mother using the
>term on occasion.
>As for the Bradley; if I was reviewing the book, ( I don't "review" books
>any more :-) I would come away with the feeling that he is overusing the
>term both in the book as you have noted, and as well by assigning it through
>inference if nothing else in a completely naval context, which in my opinion
>is incorrect. I believe the use of the term was generic in assignment.
>Dudley Henriques
>International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
>For personal email, please replace
>the z's with e's.
>dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>
>
>
Right you are Dudley. Flyboys was ususally a term of admiration and envy. The
best, the brightest and the chosen. The elite of the armed forces. Of course
tone of voice could mitigate that And it applied to all who flew, not just
pilots., Ground pounders applied to infantry. But those in an AAC squadron who
were not on flying status were called "Paddlefeet" I think the guy who wrote
Flyboys knew whereof he spoke

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]

>Subject: Re: Flyboys?
>From: "C Knowles"
>Date: 12/16/03 4:21 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Nope, but I have had it thrown in my face once or twice. By a ground
>pounder.
>Curt
>
>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I just picked up a copy of Flyboys at BJ's Wholesale Club. Read the
>> first two chapters last night.
>>
>> I was amazed that the author uses the term Flyboys throughout the
>> book, or at least throughout the first chapter. I'd assumed it was
>> just a cute title, but no: "Flyboys were over Chici Jima" etc.
>>
>> When I was growing up--which was about the time of these
>> events--"flyboy" was a derisive name. It's what a ground-pounder would
>> say when he complained about the soft life pilots (indeed air crews)
>> had, compared to the infantry in the mud.
>>
>> Anyone else ever heard it this way? Any mllitary pilots here ever
>> refer to themselves as flyboys or Flyboys?
>>
>> 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
>
>


Flyboy was a term of admiration and envy. Of course tone of voice had
something to do with it too.

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]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Flyboys?
> >From: "Dudley Henriques"
> >Date: 12/16/03 7:03 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: t>
> >
> >
> >"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> I just picked up a copy of Flyboys at BJ's Wholesale Club. Read the
> >> first two chapters last night.
> >>
> >> I was amazed that the author uses the term Flyboys throughout the
> >> book, or at least throughout the first chapter. I'd assumed it was
> >> just a cute title, but no: "Flyboys were over Chici Jima" etc.
> >>
> >> When I was growing up--which was about the time of these
> >> events--"flyboy" was a derisive name. It's what a ground-pounder would
> >> say when he complained about the soft life pilots (indeed air crews)
> >> had, compared to the infantry in the mud.
> >>
> >> Anyone else ever heard it this way? Any mllitary pilots here ever
> >> refer to themselves as flyboys or Flyboys?
> >
> >Well, I realize you have asked for a "military pilot's" opinion, but
> >considering everything involved with how that relates to me, I'll answer
the
> >post anyway :-)
> >I just finished the book. My reaction was similar to yours, but slightly
> >different perhaps.
> >The term itself was quite common as you know back during the war. It was
> >used by the pounders and civilians as well. I remember my mother using
the
> >term on occasion.
> >As for the Bradley; if I was reviewing the book, ( I don't "review" books
> >any more :-) I would come away with the feeling that he is overusing the
> >term both in the book as you have noted, and as well by assigning it
through
> >inference if nothing else in a completely naval context, which in my
opinion
> >is incorrect. I believe the use of the term was generic in assignment.
> >Dudley Henriques
> >International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> >Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> >For personal email, please replace
> >the z's with e's.
> >dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
> >
> >
> >
> Right you are Dudley. Flyboys was ususally a term of admiration and
envy. The
> best, the brightest and the chosen. The elite of the armed forces. Of
course
> tone of voice could mitigate that And it applied to all who flew, not
just
> pilots., Ground pounders applied to infantry. But those in an AAC squadron
who
> were not on flying status were called "Paddlefeet" I think the guy who
wrote
> Flyboys knew whereof he spoke
>
> Regards,

I think the term "flyboys" is indicative of many of like terms that sprung
up throughout the war. I believe you are absolutely correct in saying that
any meaning or connotation attached to such terms would have to include
exactly who was using the term and the context under which the term was
being used. To arbitrarily assign either a positive or negative meaning to
such a term without context being involved is in my judgment incorrect. On
one hand, you can have a disgruntled soldier looking up into the sky saying
to his buddy, "Flyboys are over rated idiots!". Then on the other hand you
have a woman standing on a London street corner in her bombed out
neighborhood watching a Spit dispatching a Ju88 muttering to herself, "Thank
GOD for the flyboys!" Both are valid uses of the term; one is negative, one
positive. It's just that kind of thing......a slang expression that brings
one closer to what one might not have the "right" words to express......a
way of expressing an intimate contact where intimate contact might not
exist.
I do believe that Bradley really overworked the term in "Flyboys".
His continuous use of the term throughout the book reminded me of some of
these rock groups where the group seemingly finds a chord or harmony run
that sounds REAL good to them, so they work it over and over and over and
over and over.....until it's been done so many times that the initial
benefit on the ear has been lost through sheer repetition.
:-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Yeff]

On 16 Dec 2003 16:17:44 GMT, ArtKramr wrote:

> Flyboy was a term of admiration and envy. Of course tone of voice had
> something to do with it too.

Sort of like when your TI in basic training calls you "hero..."
("What are you, some type of he-ro?")

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Flyboys?
>From: "Dudley Henriques"
>Date: 12/16/03 8:28 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: t>
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: Flyboys?
>> >From: "Dudley Henriques"
>> >Date: 12/16/03 7:03 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: t>
>> >
>> >
>> >"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>
>> >> I just picked up a copy of Flyboys at BJ's Wholesale Club. Read the
>> >> first two chapters last night.
>> >>
>> >> I was amazed that the author uses the term Flyboys throughout the
>> >> book, or at least throughout the first chapter. I'd assumed it was
>> >> just a cute title, but no: "Flyboys were over Chici Jima" etc.
>> >>
>> >> When I was growing up--which was about the time of these
>> >> events--"flyboy" was a derisive name. It's what a ground-pounder would
>> >> say when he complained about the soft life pilots (indeed air crews)
>> >> had, compared to the infantry in the mud.
>> >>
>> >> Anyone else ever heard it this way? Any mllitary pilots here ever
>> >> refer to themselves as flyboys or Flyboys?
>> >
>> >Well, I realize you have asked for a "military pilot's" opinion, but
>> >considering everything involved with how that relates to me, I'll answer
>the
>> >post anyway :-)
>> >I just finished the book. My reaction was similar to yours, but slightly
>> >different perhaps.
>> >The term itself was quite common as you know back during the war. It was
>> >used by the pounders and civilians as well. I remember my mother using
>the
>> >term on occasion.
>> >As for the Bradley; if I was reviewing the book, ( I don't "review" books
>> >any more :-) I would come away with the feeling that he is overusing the
>> >term both in the book as you have noted, and as well by assigning it
>through
>> >inference if nothing else in a completely naval context, which in my
>opinion
>> >is incorrect. I believe the use of the term was generic in assignment.
>> >Dudley Henriques
>> >International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>> >Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
>> >For personal email, please replace
>> >the z's with e's.
>> >dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> Right you are Dudley. Flyboys was ususally a term of admiration and
>envy. The
>> best, the brightest and the chosen. The elite of the armed forces. Of
>course
>> tone of voice could mitigate that And it applied to all who flew, not
>just
>> pilots., Ground pounders applied to infantry. But those in an AAC squadron
>who
>> were not on flying status were called "Paddlefeet" I think the guy who
>wrote
>> Flyboys knew whereof he spoke
>>
>> Regards,
>
>I think the term "flyboys" is indicative of many of like terms that sprung
>up throughout the war. I believe you are absolutely correct in saying that
>any meaning or connotation attached to such terms would have to include
>exactly who was using the term and the context under which the term was
>being used. To arbitrarily assign either a positive or negative meaning to
>such a term without context being involved is in my judgment incorrect. On
>one hand, you can have a disgruntled soldier looking up into the sky saying
>to his buddy, "Flyboys are over rated idiots!". Then on the other hand you
>have a woman standing on a London street corner in her bombed out
>neighborhood watching a Spit dispatching a Ju88 muttering to herself, "Thank
>GOD for the flyboys!" Both are valid uses of the term; one is negative, one
>positive. It's just that kind of thing......a slang expression that brings
>one closer to what one might not have the "right" words to express......a
>way of expressing an intimate contact where intimate contact might not
>exist.
>I do believe that Bradley really overworked the term in "Flyboys".
>His continuous use of the term throughout the book reminded me of some of
>these rock groups where the group seemingly finds a chord or harmony run
>that sounds REAL good to them, so they work it over and over and over and
>over and over.....until it's been done so many times that the initial
>benefit on the ear has been lost through sheer repetition.
>:-)
>Dudley Henriques
>International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
>For personal email, please replace
>the z's with e's.
>dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>
>

Flyboys was often used with a warm element of effection attached to it.

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]

>Subject: Re: Flyboys?
>From: Yeff
>Date: 12/16/03 8:34 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 16 Dec 2003 16:17:44 GMT, ArtKramr wrote:
>
>> Flyboy was a term of admiration and envy. Of course tone of voice had
>> something to do with it too.
>
>Sort of like when your TI in basic training calls you "hero..."
>("What are you, some type of he-ro?")
>
>-Jeff B.
>yeff at erols dot com


Yeah. That too. (grin)

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

[Chris Mark]

Flyboys was a generic term for aircrew. You might hear it used when you went
into a cafe in your uniform and sat down at the counter. The waitress, handing
you a menu, would say, "Hiya, flyboy!"
Or you might be at a train station trying to get transportation and the ticket
booth guy might turn to somebody and say, "Hey, I got a bunch of flyboys here
who need to get to Greenville."
No offense intended or implied.
The term is beaten into the ground in the book.
Just for the hell of it, I looked in a dictionary of slang to see if the term
is there. It is. The entry says, in part, "An aviator, esp. a glamorous,
heroic or daring aviator. In WWII usu. used ironically. Now derog., implying
snobbishness, youth and cautiousness."


Chris Mark

[Dudley Henriques]

"Chris Mark" > wrote in message
...

>The entry says, in part, "An aviator, esp. a glamorous,
> heroic or daring aviator".

Yup!! That would be the right one all right!!!! :-))))

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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Flyboys?
>From: "Dudley Henriques"
>Date: 12/16/03 11:17 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Chris Mark" > wrote in message
...
>
>>The entry says, in part, "An aviator, esp. a glamorous,
>> heroic or daring aviator".
>
>Yup!! That would be the right one all right!!!! :-))))
>
>Dudley Henriques
>International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
>For personal email, please replace
>the z's with e's.
>dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>
>

Aw shucks. Tweren't nuthin'. (shy grin)


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

[John R Weiss]

"Chris Mark" > wrote...
> Flyboys was a generic term for aircrew. You might hear it used when you went
> into a cafe in your uniform and sat down at the counter. The waitress,
handing
> you a menu, would say, "Hiya, flyboy!"

One crusty ol' CAG MO used to refer to us as "boy pilots" -- especially after
telling us how we broke "his" planes again...

[[email protected]]

"C Knowles" > wrote:

>Nope, but I have had it thrown in my face once or twice. By a ground
>pounder.
>Curt
>

I can confirm that that's the connotation in the Canadian
Military.

-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"

[[email protected]]

(ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>
>Flyboy was a term of admiration and envy. Of course tone of voice had
>something to do with it too.
>
>Regards,
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

That certainly wasn't my interpretation Art. Mind you, I speak
only for my impression of the Canadian Military with some contact
with other militaries, and for the 26 year period that I served.
Of course YMMV.

Can you imagine answering the question "What do you do in the
military?"...."well, I'm a flyboy" <snort>

-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"

[[email protected]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

>
>Although I'm sure there were those who might have used this term in a
>derogatory way, it should be noted that the term itself is so generic that
>it's use was certainly not limited to a negative context alone.
>I'm fairly certain that there were many who used this term in an extremely
>positive sense as the term related to them personally, and their positive
>feelings about those who were fighting above them or for them, and in many
>cases, protecting them.
>I know that in my years of association with those who have flown in harm's
>way, I can't remember anyone having a violent reaction to the term.
>Dudley Henriques

I find it amazing that you could say that, Of course you've
amazed me before so I shouldn't be surprised I guess. I suppose I
shouldn't knock your misinterpetation here because you're
speaking from almost zero experience aren't you?. That shouldn't
surprise me by now either I guess.

I'll merely state that not once in my 26 years in the military
have I ever heard anyone call anyone a 'flyboy' with other than
derision in mind. Not once. Derision only. Sorry.

-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"

[Krztalizer]

Having been a ground pounder, then an aircrewman during the 1980s, my
experience with the term is limited. As jet mechs, we called the "pretty boys"
in flight suits that never had to stand a watch or get dirty by the negative
term "fly boys". Later, when it was my time in the flightsuit, periodically I
would be approached by women that used the term with much greater affection and
appreciation. I think that the term can be used like almost every other term,
either positively or negatively.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send those old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

[[email protected]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

>
>"Chris Mark" > wrote in message
...
>
>>The entry says, in part, "An aviator, esp. a glamorous,
>> heroic or daring aviator".
>
>Yup!! That would be the right one all right!!!! :-))))
>
>Dudley Henriques

....and in another part:

Now derog., implying
snobbishness, youth and cautiousness."

Yep!!...that would be the right one... :)


-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"

[Dudley Henriques]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
> >
> >Although I'm sure there were those who might have used this term in a
> >derogatory way, it should be noted that the term itself is so generic
that
> >it's use was certainly not limited to a negative context alone.
> >I'm fairly certain that there were many who used this term in an
extremely
> >positive sense as the term related to them personally, and their positive
> >feelings about those who were fighting above them or for them, and in
many
> >cases, protecting them.
> >I know that in my years of association with those who have flown in
harm's
> >way, I can't remember anyone having a violent reaction to the term.
> >Dudley Henriques
>
> I find it amazing that you could say that, Of course you've
> amazed me before so I shouldn't be surprised I guess. I suppose I
> shouldn't knock your misinterpetation here because you're
> speaking from almost zero experience aren't you?. That shouldn't
> surprise me by now either I guess.
>
> I'll merely state that not once in my 26 years in the military
> have I ever heard anyone call anyone a 'flyboy' with other than
> derision in mind. Not once. Derision only. Sorry.
>
> -Gord.

I take it that after we delete the unnecessary and unfortunately predictable
vitriol, we have an opposing opinion here.
Perhaps next time you can try something like ;
"In my experience I've found the term more negative than positive". Makes
your point.......doesn't waste time and bandwidth....and definitely makes
for more intelligent discussion don't you think? :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Dudley Henriques]

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
> Having been a ground pounder, then an aircrewman during the 1980s, my
> experience with the term is limited. As jet mechs, we called the "pretty
boys"
> in flight suits that never had to stand a watch or get dirty by the
negative
> term "fly boys". Later, when it was my time in the flightsuit,
periodically I
> would be approached by women that used the term with much greater
affection and
> appreciation. I think that the term can be used like almost every other
term,
> either positively or negatively.
>
> v/r
> Gordon
> <====(A+C====>
> USN SAR

Exactly!!

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

[Dudley Henriques]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Chris Mark" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >>The entry says, in part, "An aviator, esp. a glamorous,
> >> heroic or daring aviator".
> >
> >Yup!! That would be the right one all right!!!! :-))))
> >
> >Dudley Henriques

>
> ...and in another part:
>
> Now derog., implying
> snobbishness, youth and cautiousness."
>
> Yep!!...that would be the right one... :)
>
>
> -Gord.

Thank you Gordo. You've made my point exactly. There are both positive and
negative connotations to this term. The key phrease being "in another part".

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

[Ed Rasimus]

On 16 Dec 2003 20:43:41 GMT, (Krztalizer) wrote:

>Having been a ground pounder, then an aircrewman during the 1980s, my
>experience with the term is limited. As jet mechs, we called the "pretty boys"
>in flight suits that never had to stand a watch or get dirty by the negative
>term "fly boys". Later, when it was my time in the flightsuit, periodically I
>would be approached by women that used the term with much greater affection and
>appreciation. I think that the term can be used like almost every other term,
>either positively or negatively.
>
>v/r
>Gordon

While I can understand the jet mechs envy that the aviators never had
to "stand a watch or get dirty", I usually asked them how long the
average jet mech spent in Hanoi as a POW, or how many of them were
lost last week during their shift. It seems to quiet the envy and pull
the plug on the green-eyed monster.

As Art often reminds us, we don't always get to walk a mile in the
other guys shoes, but while I respect the eyeball-to-eyeball
experience of the grunt, I expect that he, in return, will offer me
similar respect for where I've been and what I've done.

I probably have been called "flyboy", but don't worry too much about
it.

[Krztalizer]

>While I can understand the jet mechs envy that the aviators never had
>to "stand a watch or get dirty", I usually asked them how long the
>average jet mech spent in Hanoi as a POW, or how many of them were
>lost last week during their shift. It seems to quiet the envy and pull
>the plug on the green-eyed monster.

Well played, Ed. Besides, if flying wasn't the coolest thing on earth to be
paid for, there wouldn't be any envy in the first place. After three years
busting my knuckles on TF-34s, still ticking over from the last flight, I
thought (*cof*) that the guy snoozing all day in the rack beside mine was a
worthless, coffee-toting pansy. Then, I got a chance to go through the same
pipeline he did, with SAR swimmer and a few other variations thrown in. The
amount of work, studying, and danger between being a plane captain on the
flight deck of a carrier at night, and actually flying in helicopters that
operated off frigates at night, was not equal in my experience. Flying was of
course more FUN, but more work as well, and much more dangerous. Wouldn't
trade a minute of either experience though. One of my favorite visual memories
of my life was standing on the deck of the Ike as it swung around into the wind
at about 15 knots, just as the sun came up and swept the night away. The
orange ball on the razor thin horizon looked like it was rolling across a table
as we turned into it, and the flight deck's crowded ballet swung right under
the ball, and we started sending jets into it. Just frickin amazing view - one
out of many I am glad I have.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send those old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

[[email protected]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

>>
>> I'll merely state that not once in my 26 years in the military
>> have I ever heard anyone call anyone a 'flyboy' with other than
>> derision in mind. Not once. Derision only. Sorry.
>>
>> -Gord.
>
>I take it that after we delete the unnecessary and unfortunately predictable
>vitriol, we have an opposing opinion here.

Vitriol?...God, you've lived a very sheltered life haven't
you?...



--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]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:


>> >"Chris Mark" wrote:
>> >>The entry says, in part, "An aviator, esp. a glamorous,
>> >> heroic or daring aviator".
>> >
>> >Yup!! That would be the right one all right!!!! :-))))
>> >
>> >Dudley Henriques
>
>>
>> ...and in another part:
>>
>> Now derog., implying
>> snobbishness, youth and cautiousness."
>>
>> Yep!!...that would be the right one... :)
>>
>>
>> -Gord.
>
>Thank you Gordo. You've made my point exactly. There are both positive and
>negative connotations to this term. The key phrease being "in another part".
>
>Dudley Henriques

<snort> ...you -are- a piece of work indeed...


--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

[Dudley Henriques]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

> <snort> ...you -are- a piece of work indeed...
>
>
> --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

Correct as always!
1. Manifold pressure and rpm equal power
2. The rotational energy of a 24D50 is less at 15 inches than it is at 61 if
the power is brought back past the high rpm limiter.
Simple! Since the limiter is physically impossible to eliminate from the
statement, it's existence and function is assumed.
Is there something about all this you don't understand? :-))
DH

[Dudley Henriques]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
> >>
> >> I'll merely state that not once in my 26 years in the military
> >> have I ever heard anyone call anyone a 'flyboy' with other than
> >> derision in mind. Not once. Derision only. Sorry.
> >>
> >> -Gord.
> >
> >I take it that after we delete the unnecessary and unfortunately
predictable
> >vitriol, we have an opposing opinion here.
>
> Vitriol?...God, you've lived a very sheltered life haven't
> you?...

Not really, but fairly well educated...at least enough to know that vitriol
is defined as sharp or caustic speech or writing, such as your opening lines
to me below....you know, the stuff you "didn't include in your quote pickup
here :-)

>I find it amazing that you could say that, Of course you've
>amazed me before so I shouldn't be surprised I guess. I >suppose I
>shouldn't knock your misinterpetation here because you're
>speaking from almost zero experience aren't you?. That >shouldn't
>surprise me by now either I guess.

Yup! That's vitriol, sheltered or unsheltered. :-)


"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

[fudog50]

I'm thinkin the term is used just like when SGT Mickland on
"Blacksheep Squadron" used to call Pappy Boyington "College Boy" (of
course it was only TV, but we used to use it occasionally on the "Fly
Boys" in our squadron too).
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 05:53:04 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>
>I just picked up a copy of Flyboys at BJ's Wholesale Club. Read the
>first two chapters last night.
>
>I was amazed that the author uses the term Flyboys throughout the
>book, or at least throughout the first chapter. I'd assumed it was
>just a cute title, but no: "Flyboys were over Chici Jima" etc.
>
>When I was growing up--which was about the time of these
>events--"flyboy" was a derisive name. It's what a ground-pounder would
>say when he complained about the soft life pilots (indeed air crews)
>had, compared to the infantry in the mud.
>
>Anyone else ever heard it this way? Any mllitary pilots here ever
>refer to themselves as flyboys or Flyboys?
>
>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

[Cub Driver]

>I do believe that Bradley really overworked the term in "Flyboys".
>His continuous use of the term throughout the book reminded me of some of
>these rock groups

As I get farther along, I find he's doing it with other terms. In
chapter three he explains that the cruder gang who took over the
Japanese military after the Russo-Japanese War concluded from that war
that everything depended on the spirit of the soldier. He segues from
that to calling them the Spirit Boys.

I guess it's just an irritating tic that I'll have to accept. The man
has discovered a few concepts and wants to make sure that we remember
them. Apart from that, I thought his ten-or--twelve page history of
Japan was a damn good summary of a world that westerners find it
almost impossible to understand. (We are still arguing about the
emperor's role in starting the war, never mind ending it.)

Thanks, everybody!


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

[Mike Beede]

In article >, Cub Driver > wrote:

> I was amazed that the author uses the term Flyboys throughout the
> book, or at least throughout the first chapter. I'd assumed it was
> just a cute title, but no: "Flyboys were over Chici Jima" etc.

That was only one of the things I found irritating and cute about the
book. Overall it struck me as overblown and posturing. Others
may have a different opinion. There were some passages where
I though "this guy should have had someone that knows something
about WWII military aviation read this," though I'm not going to
reread it to give citations. The good part was it was dirt cheap.
The "amazing revelations" weren't. I thought it was a trifle disingenuous
(if that's how you spell it...) to hype it as having something to do with
the first President Bush. It had almost as much to do with the Wright
Brothers.

However, it's a rare aviation book that isn't worth reading at all,
and this one was no exception. My advice is to get it from the
library and use the savings to buy a couple used copies of _Fate
Is The Hunter_ to give to friends for Christmas!

Happy anniverary of flight to everyone out there. Looks like the
weather in Minnesota won't encourage me to get up today.
Damn it.

Mike Beede

[Dudley Henriques]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >I do believe that Bradley really overworked the term in "Flyboys".
> >His continuous use of the term throughout the book reminded me of some of
> >these rock groups
>
> As I get farther along, I find he's doing it with other terms. In
> chapter three he explains that the cruder gang who took over the
> Japanese military after the Russo-Japanese War concluded from that war
> that everything depended on the spirit of the soldier. He segues from
> that to calling them the Spirit Boys.
>
> I guess it's just an irritating tic that I'll have to accept. The man
> has discovered a few concepts and wants to make sure that we remember
> them. Apart from that, I thought his ten-or--twelve page history of
> Japan was a damn good summary of a world that westerners find it
> almost impossible to understand. (We are still arguing about the
> emperor's role in starting the war, never mind ending it.)
>
> Thanks, everybody!
>
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email:

I noticed on the flyleaf that Bradley had accompanied George Bush Sr. on his
trip to the island. Bush's trip I understand, was arranged by one of the
cable channels; History I think, for the purpose of "filling in the blanks"
on Bush's war experiences near the island, and of course in the process,
generating some viewer interest in the History channel for it's sponsors :-)
Bradley's presence on this trip would indicate to me anyway, an association
of his book with the Bush legacy. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but
noteworthy just the same if one is viewing Bradley's book from a pure
historical standpoint.
What's interesting to me is that the story itself has some historical legs,
and could have been presented much better than the amateurish way it was.
The Japanese background workup into the story was fairly well done, but I'm
with the rest of you on the grossly overworked and sophomoric, not to
mention totally boring continuous use of catch phrases throughout the book.
Sad really!
The story had interesting characters, location, and historical timing. It
could have been a descent work with a better approach to presentation.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[[email protected]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> I'll merely state that not once in my 26 years in the military
>> >> have I ever heard anyone call anyone a 'flyboy' with other than
>> >> derision in mind. Not once. Derision only. Sorry.
>> >>
>> >> -Gord.
>> >
>> >I take it that after we delete the unnecessary and unfortunately
>predictable
>> >vitriol, we have an opposing opinion here.
>>
>> Vitriol?...God, you've lived a very sheltered life haven't
>> you?...
>
>Not really, but fairly well educated...at least enough to know that vitriol
>is defined as sharp or caustic speech or writing, such as your opening lines
>to me below....you know, the stuff you "didn't include in your quote pickup
>here :-)
>
>>I find it amazing that you could say that, Of course you've
>>amazed me before so I shouldn't be surprised I guess. I >suppose I
>>shouldn't knock your misinterpetation here because you're
>>speaking from almost zero experience aren't you?. That >shouldn't
>>surprise me by now either I guess.
>
>Yup! That's vitriol, sheltered or unsheltered. :-)
>
>
>"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
>
>

Oh God!!...my ribs!...my ribs!!

I would have given a lot to have been a fly on your wall when you
saw your error here!

(I suppose you'll say that you included that on purpose?) <sigh>

You really should cut your losses and quit this before you make
any more of a fool of yourself dud old chappie :)

-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"

[[email protected]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
>> <snort> ...you -are- a piece of work indeed...
>>
>>
>> --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
>
>Correct as always!
>1. Manifold pressure and rpm equal power
>2. The rotational energy of a 24D50 is less at 15 inches than it is at 61 if
>the power is brought back past the high rpm limiter.
>Simple! Since the limiter is physically impossible to eliminate from the
>statement, it's existence and function is assumed.
>Is there something about all this you don't understand? :-))
>DH
>
>
Poor Dudley <sigh>

-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"

[Chris Mark]

>From: "Dudley Henriques"

>What's interesting to me is that the story itself has some historical legs,
>and could have been presented much better than the amateurish way it was.

While wading through Bradley's book, having read his flying tiger book I kept
wondering how much better presented the material would have been if old Cub
Driver had penned it instead. I have a suspicion that CD was thinking the same
thing when he read it :)


Chris Mark

[Dudley Henriques]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I'll merely state that not once in my 26 years in the military
> >> >> have I ever heard anyone call anyone a 'flyboy' with other than
> >> >> derision in mind. Not once. Derision only. Sorry.
> >> >>
> >> >> -Gord.
> >> >
> >> >I take it that after we delete the unnecessary and unfortunately
> >predictable
> >> >vitriol, we have an opposing opinion here.
> >>
> >> Vitriol?...God, you've lived a very sheltered life haven't
> >> you?...
> >
> >Not really, but fairly well educated...at least enough to know that
vitriol
> >is defined as sharp or caustic speech or writing, such as your opening
lines
> >to me below....you know, the stuff you "didn't include in your quote
pickup
> >here :-)
> >
> >>I find it amazing that you could say that, Of course you've
> >>amazed me before so I shouldn't be surprised I guess. I >suppose I
> >>shouldn't knock your misinterpetation here because you're
> >>speaking from almost zero experience aren't you?. That >shouldn't
> >>surprise me by now either I guess.
> >
> >Yup! That's vitriol, sheltered or unsheltered. :-)
> >
> >
> >"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
> >
> >
>
> Oh God!!...my ribs!...my ribs!!
>
> I would have given a lot to have been a fly on your wall when you
> saw your error here!
>
> (I suppose you'll say that you included that on purpose?) <sigh>
>
> You really should cut your losses and quit this before you make
> any more of a fool of yourself dud old chappie :)
>
> -Gord.

I'm changing my mind about you Beamon. You actually might be this stupid.
That was no error. I've decided that I'm going to include this in every post
I answer from you just to illustrate to you how totally idiotic and stupid
you actually are by posting it yourself.
Let me clue you in on something old buddy. The quote is correct. You made a
mistake when you barged in on the seizure thread ranting on about power. You
completely forgot the rpm limiter didn't you? Hell Beamon, I know you know
about propellers. The problem is simply that you're an ass hole. You
couldn't resist trying to nail me, and you were totally wrong. The statement
stands. In fact, it stands scrutiny so well that I have no problem at all
using it as my own signature on any post I answer from you.
Here, take a good look below. It's no mistake. I'll discuss this quote with
anyone who cares to discuss it......even you Beamon.
Here's your "mistake";
DUDLEY HENRIQUES SAID ;

"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

How's that Gordo? Do me a favor. Go read up on constant speed prop governor
rpm limiters for the 24D50 Hamilton ; then come back and I'll give you
another lesson; or post your usual personal attack tripe that skirts an
issue entirely. :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Dudley Henriques]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
> >
> >> <snort> ...you -are- a piece of work indeed...
> >>
> >>
> >> --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
> >
> >Correct as always!
> >1. Manifold pressure and rpm equal power
> >2. The rotational energy of a 24D50 is less at 15 inches than it is at 61
if
> >the power is brought back past the high rpm limiter.
> >Simple! Since the limiter is physically impossible to eliminate from the
> >statement, it's existence and function is assumed.
> >Is there something about all this you don't understand? :-))
> >DH
> >
> >
> Poor Dudley <sigh>

I notice that "poor Dudley" doesn't address constant speed prop governor
high rpm limiter does it Gordo? Com'on, you can do better than this can't
you? After all, you have 26 years experience dealing with these things. Go
on; tell me how the seizure momentum is the same at 15 inches as it is at
61?

and oh yes, let's not forget;

"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

Waiting for your answer on seizure! :-)

[Dudley Henriques]

"Chris Mark" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Dudley Henriques"
>
> >What's interesting to me is that the story itself has some historical
legs,
> >and could have been presented much better than the amateurish way it was.
>
> While wading through Bradley's book, having read his flying tiger book I
kept
> wondering how much better presented the material would have been if old
Cub
> Driver had penned it instead. I have a suspicion that CD was thinking the
same
> thing when he read it :)
>
>
> Chris Mark

I wouldn't be at all surprised. :-))

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

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:39:01 GMT, Ed Rasimus > wrote:

>On 16 Dec 2003 20:43:41 GMT, (Krztalizer) wrote:
>
>>Having been a ground pounder, then an aircrewman during the 1980s, my
>>experience with the term is limited. As jet mechs, we called the "pretty boys"
>>in flight suits that never had to stand a watch or get dirty by the negative
>>term "fly boys". Later, when it was my time in the flightsuit, periodically I
>>would be approached by women that used the term with much greater affection and
>>appreciation. I think that the term can be used like almost every other term,
>>either positively or negatively.
>>
>>v/r
>>Gordon
>
>While I can understand the jet mechs envy that the aviators never had
>to "stand a watch or get dirty", I usually asked them how long the
>average jet mech spent in Hanoi as a POW, or how many of them were
>lost last week during their shift. It seems to quiet the envy and pull
>the plug on the green-eyed monster.
>
>As Art often reminds us, we don't always get to walk a mile in the
>other guys shoes, but while I respect the eyeball-to-eyeball
>experience of the grunt, I expect that he, in return, will offer me
>similar respect for where I've been and what I've done.
>
>I probably have been called "flyboy", but don't worry too much about
>it.
>
I think that the difference between Navy and Air Force is related to
this. Think of the Forrestal fire, the Oriskany fire, or the Enterprise.
A lot of pilots saw a lot of their "ground crew" killed and horribly
burned trying to rescue the "junior birdmen". On a ship
everyone is in combat, from mess cook to Captain. No
remfs allowed.

Al Minyard

[[email protected]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

>DUDLEY HENRIQUES SAID ;
>
>"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
>
>How's that Gordo?

<sigh> I believe that I'm done with you henry...enough is enough.
Good night.
--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> <snort> ...you -are- a piece of work indeed...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --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
>> >
>> >Correct as always!
>> >1. Manifold pressure and rpm equal power
>> >2. The rotational energy of a 24D50 is less at 15 inches than it is at 61
>if
>> >the power is brought back past the high rpm limiter.
>> >Simple! Since the limiter is physically impossible to eliminate from the
>> >statement, it's existence and function is assumed.
>> >Is there something about all this you don't understand? :-))
>> >DH
>> >
>> >
>> Poor Dudley <sigh>
>
>I notice that "poor Dudley" doesn't address constant speed prop governor
>high rpm limiter does it Gordo? Com'on, you can do better than this can't
>you? After all, you have 26 years experience dealing with these things. Go
>on; tell me how the seizure momentum is the same at 15 inches as it is at
>61?
>
>and oh yes, let's not forget;
>
>"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
>
>Waiting for your answer on seizure! :-)
>
>
>
Oh God...what an unmitigated fool you are sir...you're even worse
than JT pretends to be, he at least is just yanking chains for
fun. You really have convinced yourself that you're right even
though you've been told by several that you're not. It does no
good to prove to you that you're in error because you just
obfuscate until nobody can tell what you believe.

I'm quite done with you now. Goodnight.
--

-Gord.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
> >DUDLEY HENRIQUES SAID ;
> >
> >"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
> >
> >How's that Gordo?
>
> <sigh> I believe that I'm done with you henry...enough is enough.
> Good night.
> --
>
> -Gord.

You're done all right! :-) Go back to school Gordo, then perhaps after you
stop all this useless bull ****, we can talk again sometime.
Take care up there. Dress warm!
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[[email protected]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>>
>> >DUDLEY HENRIQUES SAID ;
>> >
>> >"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
>> >
>> >How's that Gordo?
>>
>> <sigh> I believe that I'm done with you henry...enough is enough.
>> Good night.
>> --
>>
>> -Gord.
>
>You're done all right!

<snort> Of course I have... beating you isn't any great shakes
after all...
--

-Gord.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> <snort> ...you -are- a piece of work indeed...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --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
> >> >
> >> >Correct as always!
> >> >1. Manifold pressure and rpm equal power
> >> >2. The rotational energy of a 24D50 is less at 15 inches than it is at
61
> >if
> >> >the power is brought back past the high rpm limiter.
> >> >Simple! Since the limiter is physically impossible to eliminate from
the
> >> >statement, it's existence and function is assumed.
> >> >Is there something about all this you don't understand? :-))
> >> >DH
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Poor Dudley <sigh>
> >
> >I notice that "poor Dudley" doesn't address constant speed prop governor
> >high rpm limiter does it Gordo? Com'on, you can do better than this can't
> >you? After all, you have 26 years experience dealing with these things.
Go
> >on; tell me how the seizure momentum is the same at 15 inches as it is at
> >61?
> >
> >and oh yes, let's not forget;
> >
> >"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
> >
> >Waiting for your answer on seizure! :-)
> >
> >
> >
> Oh God...what an unmitigated fool you are sir...you're even worse
> than JT pretends to be, he at least is just yanking chains for
> fun. You really have convinced yourself that you're right even
> though you've been told by several that you're not. It does no
> good to prove to you that you're in error because you just
> obfuscate until nobody can tell what you believe.
>
> I'm quite done with you now. Goodnight.
> --
>
> -Gord.


Is THIS how you deal with a request to engage in a dialog on engine seizure
and rotational force? :-))))))
Seems a bit lacking in content don't you think?
Here. I'll give you an opening for one of your "windbag" answers
:-)

Keep in mind old buddy, that what I'm writing here is as much for other
readers as it is for you personally, so don't think I'm going to all this
trouble just for you :-)))

I'll make it simple for you. Since I'm writing it here, it can't be changed
by me at any time and as such can't be "obfuscated" as you like to say.
" When you bring the power back on a P51 Mustang from cruise with the prop
set at a median cruise setting such as 2500RPM, the rotational force of the
prop if the engine seizes at idle power (using 15 inches with normal air
loads on the prop) will be LESS, not the same, as it would have been had the
engine seized at the cruise setting; due to the prop exceeding the high rpm
stop on the governor as it tries to maintain the constant speed setting as
the power comes back to idle, thus reducing the RPM, which is the
determining factor for rotational force" Therefore, it is entirely proper to
say that the rotational velocity (force) of this prop will be less at 15
inches than it is at 61 inches.
I realize you're having trouble understanding this, but here it is AGAIN in
black and white. Perhaps some of those people who agree with you on this
would care to comment. I can't make it any more open and available for
dissent than I have right here.
Now, either confirm this as being true or false with your countering
explanation, or copy and paste the EXACT post you say you made to me to
"explain" all this to me because I didn't know it.
Fair enough?


You know, I think this "being right" thing might mean a lot more to you than
it does to me. I honestly think you might have a problem being in too deep
in this and you simply can't respond at this point. That's why you keep
posting all this useless bull**** while evading me on the issue. I'll play
this game with you without using any personal attack response if possible
and see if I can get you to respond in a normal manner and deal with the
issue itself rather than who's right and who's wrong.
This is Usenet fella. Nobody cares if I'm right or you're right, or even
who's wrong. I'm giving you every opportunity to respond to the issue and
get away from the personal attack mode you constantly use with me. I could
just ignore you, but you interest me for some unknown reason. I don't mind
the insults. They're amusing really. My personal email on our little
difference of opinion is highly in favor of ignoring you I might add.
Anyone who knows me doesn't need to be convinced about the information I
give on Usenet. Hell, I've been posting around here for years. I think I
understand your problem with this thing. You feel that I'm some idiot pilot
who didn't respond to your explanation about rotational forces and props.
Problem is, you entered a thread under me with this "lecture" of yours and
you forgot the prop limiter. I can't help that. It isn't my problem. My
problem is that I went about two posts with you in that thread before I
realized you didn't have a clue about the limiter. Now you're in too deep
with all this posting of quotes that you think makes your case. Hell man,
don't you realize by now that I don't give a hoot who thinks I know this
about that and who doesn't.
I'm not your enemy but I am having some fun with you FWIW. If you're right,
engage me on the issue. Then there will be no doubt will there? But don't
just post all this bull crap. Take me on! Don't be afraid. I won't bite you!
Let's talk props, not "obfuscation"!! What more can I do? Tell me!! Hell,
I'm asking you to take me on in a public forum. Do you actually think I
would give you such an open opportunity if I was afraid of the outcome?
Think man....think!!!! :-)
I'll tell you this Gordo. It's you who keeps posting under me with all this
crap....not me posting under you. I have the choice to respond or ignore
you. I've chosen to engage politely in response.The more you flame around
with this thing the nicer I'm going to be:-) If you keep posting the
personal remarks and evading the issue, I'll just keep prodding you to
respond. Sooner or later you'll either take the friendly challenge or stop
all this foolishness of yours.
I'll tell you this also. I'm not trying to prove you wrong either. I know
you know props. You just inserting yourself under me before your brain is
engaged. I've done it myself, so don't feel bad.
Com'on Gordo.....isn't there ANYTHING I can do or say that will get you to
openly discuss this prop thing with me? I promise I'll keep trying as long
as you keep posting to me in the manner you have chosen.

and let's not forget..........

>"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

So which is it gonna be tonight Gordo, an answer dealing with the issue, or
just another "God, what a windbag" post? Your choice
:-))
DH

[Dudley Henriques]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >DUDLEY HENRIQUES SAID ;
> >> >
> >> >"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
> >> >
> >> >How's that Gordo?
> >>
> >> <sigh> I believe that I'm done with you henry...enough is enough.
> >> Good night.
> >> --
> >>
> >> -Gord.
> >
> >You're done all right!
>
> <snort> Of course I have... beating you isn't any great shakes
> after all...
> --
>
> -Gord.

You just never learn do you? It's not about "beating" anyone Gordo. It's
about dialog and discourse. Try it sometime :-)
:-)
DH

[[email protected]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >DUDLEY HENRIQUES SAID ;
>> >> >
>> >> >"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
>> >> >
>> >> >How's that Gordo?
>> >>
>> >> <sigh> I believe that I'm done with you henry...enough is enough.
>> >> Good night.
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >> -Gord.
>> >
>> >You're done all right!
>>
>> <snort> Of course I have... beating you isn't any great shakes
>> after all...
>> --
>>
>> -Gord.
>
>You just never learn do you? It's not about "beating" anyone Gordo. It's
>about dialog and discourse. Try it sometime :-)
>:-)
>DH
>

Whatever you say dude...
--

-Gord.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >DUDLEY HENRIQUES SAID ;
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"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
> >> >> >
> >> >> >How's that Gordo?
> >> >>
> >> >> <sigh> I believe that I'm done with you henry...enough is enough.
> >> >> Good night.
> >> >> --
> >> >>
> >> >> -Gord.
> >> >
> >> >You're done all right!
> >>
> >> <snort> Of course I have... beating you isn't any great shakes
> >> after all...
> >> --
> >>
> >> -Gord.
> >
> >You just never learn do you? It's not about "beating" anyone Gordo. It's
> >about dialog and discourse. Try it sometime :-)
> >:-)
> >DH
> >
>
> Whatever you say dude...
> --
>
> -Gord.

I say props Gordo.......let's talk PROPS!!! :-)
DH

[[email protected]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

>> >
>>
>> Whatever you say dude...
>> --
>>
>> -Gord.
>
>I say props Gordo.......let's talk PROPS!!! :-)
>DH
>
I would if you knew enough to be a challenge for me dude...
--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote

--reams of obfuscation mercifully removed--

>and let's not forget..........
>
>>"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
>

Certainly...I've been telling you that for months...when are you
going to believe it?...
--

-Gord.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
> >> >
> >>
> >> Whatever you say dude...
> >> --
> >>
> >> -Gord.
> >
> >I say props Gordo.......let's talk PROPS!!! :-)
> >DH
> >
> I would if you knew enough to be a challenge for me dude...
> --
>
> -Gord.

Well, I can challenge you with this much anyway ole buddy. With this answer,
you now have a total of thirteen straight posts where I have asked you in a
very friendly manner to engage me on the issue that you swear I don't know
anything about with nothing but a personal attack one liner or a personally
insulting remark or both that avoids that engaging discussion. Do you really
think this is doing anything to help you ? I don't think so. And every time
you do it you add one more post to the ever growing list, and don't forget,
these posts are a permanent record.
No Gordo; I'm afraid my initial opinion of you as being an intelligent
person who just made a goof was a bit off. In fact, this whole thing from
beginning to end looks to anyone reading it as exactly what it is; me
bending over backwards to be nice to you; accommodate you in every
conceivable way possible, and you just rambling on and on with one long
continuing series of posts refusing to deal with the issue and filled with
nothing but personal attacks and nonsense. I honestly think you're afraid to
engage on the issue and won't do so for this reason. This leaves you with
nothing but the type of post you've made here again. You're all mouth my
friend, and as you continue posting the way you are with me to any one
person on Usenet, it becomes more and more obvious to anyone reading these
continuous refusals to engage that you are in fact simply avoiding the issue
at hand by posting nothing but personal harassment of a single individual
for reasons of your own.

Are you going to make it fourteen refusals ? :-)
DH

[Dudley Henriques]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>
> --reams of obfuscation mercifully removed--
>
> >and let's not forget..........
> >
> >>"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
> >
>
> Certainly...I've been telling you that for months...when are you
> going to believe it?...
> --
>
> -Gord.

Then you're saying this statement is correct?

If that's so, and you have been "telling me this for months" why have you
been posting it all this time without further comment? :-) That would make
no sense at all to a sane person. CLEARLY the inference in posting this as
it is with no further comment from you about it would be for the person
reading it to come away with the impression that the statement is totally
incorrect would it not? In fact, I can produce in your own words a post that
states emphatically that this quote is incorrect. Why did you post it if
it's correct? Do you simply wish to affirm it's truth ? Seems to me that if
you wanted to use it in a negative context like you have been doing for
about thirteen posts now, you would have added something about me not
knowing this was correct until you had to tell me each time you posted it.
That would make sense Gordo!!! :-) But you haven't done that have you Gordo?
You just put it out there word for word without comment didn't you; and now
you're saying it's correct....and that's EXACTLY what you have just posted
above. "Certainly" you said, I've been telling you this for months.....when
am I going to believe it"
Well, let me put your mind at ease at least. I believe it! In fact, I
believed it all along......even before you barged in with your lecture on
rotational velocity.
How do you get out of this one Gordo? Is the statement correct or incorrect?
And if it's correct, how do you explain "teaching" someone about something
that they obviously already knew WAS correct, since your "lecture" came
AFTER the statement was made! :-)
Your move chess player!! This ought to be good. At least make it good will
you. I'm saving these "exchanges" of ours for my grandchildren to read over
the holidays. -))))

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

[Cub Driver]

I took the liberty of moving the thread :)

As I get deeper into Flyboys, my irritation increases. Bradley
regularly refers to the North American B-25 Mitchell bomber as a
Billy. "Flyboy" as a word for pilot or air crew is bad enough, but
Billy! Where did he pick that up?

I'm also despairing that his 10-to-12 page histories are continuing.
I'm about halfway through the book and we still haven't come back to
Chichi Jima. He's trying to cover the entire 19th-20th century misteps
of Japan *and* the United States in this fairly slender volume, and he
just doesn't know what he's talking about half the time. It all
depends on which source volume he picked up (take a look at his
citations: there'll be one book cited, then ibid, ibid, ibid).

He doesn't know the difference between casualties and deaths. Airplane
engines stall in mid-air. And of course there's the famous jet fuel on
carrier decks.

But what really set me off was his account of the Doolittle raid,
which ends with the statement: "The U.S. and Japan were even" -- they
mounted a sneak attack on us; we mounted a sneak attack on them.
Bradley is able to overlook the rather important difference that in
April 1942 Japan and the United States were at war!



On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 05:12:53 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>
>>I do believe that Bradley really overworked the term in "Flyboys".
>>His continuous use of the term throughout the book reminded me of some of
>>these rock groups
>
>As I get farther along, I find he's doing it with other terms. In
>chapter three he explains that the cruder gang who took over the
>Japanese military after the Russo-Japanese War concluded from that war
>that everything depended on the spirit of the soldier. He segues from
>that to calling them the Spirit Boys.
>
>I guess it's just an irritating tic that I'll have to accept. The man
>has discovered a few concepts and wants to make sure that we remember
>them. Apart from that, I thought his ten-or--twelve page history of
>Japan was a damn good summary of a world that westerners find it
>almost impossible to understand. (We are still arguing about the
>emperor's role in starting the war, never mind ending it.)
>
>Thanks, everybody!
>
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford
>email:
>
>see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
>and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

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]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> I took the liberty of moving the thread :)
>
> As I get deeper into Flyboys, my irritation increases. Bradley
> regularly refers to the North American B-25 Mitchell bomber as a
> Billy. "Flyboy" as a word for pilot or air crew is bad enough, but
> Billy! Where did he pick that up?
>
> I'm also despairing that his 10-to-12 page histories are continuing.
> I'm about halfway through the book and we still haven't come back to
> Chichi Jima. He's trying to cover the entire 19th-20th century misteps
> of Japan *and* the United States in this fairly slender volume, and he
> just doesn't know what he's talking about half the time. It all
> depends on which source volume he picked up (take a look at his
> citations: there'll be one book cited, then ibid, ibid, ibid).
>
> He doesn't know the difference between casualties and deaths. Airplane
> engines stall in mid-air. And of course there's the famous jet fuel on
> carrier decks.
>
> But what really set me off was his account of the Doolittle raid,
> which ends with the statement: "The U.S. and Japan were even" -- they
> mounted a sneak attack on us; we mounted a sneak attack on them.
> Bradley is able to overlook the rather important difference that in
> April 1942 Japan and the United States were at war!

> I took the liberty of moving the thread :)

Thank you!!!!!!

I don't think I've ever heard anyone else refer to the 25 as a "Billy", and
I've been in and around warbirds all my life. I could be wrong, but that one
just might be a bridge too far!! :-)
He does scatter back and forth way too much without proper segway. I got a
bit lost through all his complicated "weaving".
I think he could have learned a lot from studying Harold Robbins, who,
although a fiction writer, was a master at presenting background through
brilliant segway.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Mike Marron]

>Chris Mark: The entry says, in part, "An aviator, esp. a glamorous,
>heroic or daring aviator".

Correct term nowadays is "flyperson" therefore the entry should
read; "glamorous, heroic or daring aviator from a BYGONE ERA
(see: 21st century smart bombs, unmanned combat air vehicles,
Lieutenant Sallys in their maternity uniforms, etc.)

>Art Kramer:
>Aw shucks. Tweren't nuthin'. (shy grin)

Exactly right. Compared to pilots (esp. fighter pilots) "tweren't
nuthin" glamorous, heroic or daring about navigators and
bombardiers. If anything, sitting out there totally exposed like
a goldfish in a bowl in the plexiglas nosecone of a lumbering
old bomber without being allowed to touch the controls is an
*uneviable* position.

>Dudley Henriques:
>I say props Gordo.......let's talk PROPS!!! :-)

>Gord Beaman:
>I would if you knew enough to be a challenge for me dude...

Pardon me for interupting in this incredibly childish ****ing contest
between you two, but valley girl slang went out in the early 80's and
the subject is "flyboys," not props. :-)

[Dudley Henriques]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> >Chris Mark: The entry says, in part, "An aviator, esp. a glamorous,
> >heroic or daring aviator".
>
> Correct term nowadays is "flyperson" therefore the entry should
> read; "glamorous, heroic or daring aviator from a BYGONE ERA
> (see: 21st century smart bombs, unmanned combat air vehicles,
> Lieutenant Sallys in their maternity uniforms, etc.)
>
> >Art Kramer:
> >Aw shucks. Tweren't nuthin'. (shy grin)
>
> Exactly right. Compared to pilots (esp. fighter pilots) "tweren't
> nuthin" glamorous, heroic or daring about navigators and
> bombardiers. If anything, sitting out there totally exposed like
> a goldfish in a bowl in the plexiglas nosecone of a lumbering
> old bomber without being allowed to touch the controls is an
> *uneviable* position.
>
> >Dudley Henriques:
> >I say props Gordo.......let's talk PROPS!!! :-)
>
> >Gord Beaman:
> >I would if you knew enough to be a challenge for me dude...
>
> Pardon me for interupting in this incredibly childish ****ing contest
> between you two, but valley girl slang went out in the early 80's and
> the subject is "flyboys," not props. :-)

See new thread. Hopefully It's been reclaimed.
DH

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Flyboys (Was: Re: Flyboys?)
>From: "Dudley Henriques"
>Date: 12/18/03 6:26 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I took the liberty of moving the thread :)
>>
>> As I get deeper into Flyboys, my irritation increases. Bradley
>> regularly refers to the North American B-25 Mitchell bomber as a
>> Billy. "Flyboy" as a word for pilot or air crew is bad enough, but
>> Billy! Where did he pick that up?
>>
>> I'm also despairing that his 10-to-12 page histories are continuing.
>> I'm about halfway through the book and we still haven't come back to
>> Chichi Jima. He's trying to cover the entire 19th-20th century misteps
>> of Japan *and* the United States in this fairly slender volume, and he
>> just doesn't know what he's talking about half the time. It all
>> depends on which source volume he picked up (take a look at his
>> citations: there'll be one book cited, then ibid, ibid, ibid).
>>
>> He doesn't know the difference between casualties and deaths. Airplane
>> engines stall in mid-air. And of course there's the famous jet fuel on
>> carrier decks.
>>
>> But what really set me off was his account of the Doolittle raid,
>> which ends with the statement: "The U.S. and Japan were even" -- they
>> mounted a sneak attack on us; we mounted a sneak attack on them.
>> Bradley is able to overlook the rather important difference that in
>> April 1942 Japan and the United States were at war!
>
>> I took the liberty of moving the thread :)
>
>Thank you!!!!!!
>
>I don't think I've ever heard anyone else refer to the 25 as a "Billy", and
>I've been in and around warbirds all my life. I could be wrong, but that one
>just might be a bridge too far!! :-)
>He does scatter back and forth way too much without proper segway. I got a
>bit lost through all his complicated "weaving".
>I think he could have learned a lot from studying Harold Robbins, who,
>although a fiction writer, was a master at presenting background through
>brilliant segway.
>Dudley Henriques
>International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
>For personal email, please replace
>the z's with e's.
>dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>
>

Since this book is about old man Bush. I can't imagine that he allowed it to be
published wihtout going over every detail. What does that tell us?

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]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Flyboys (Was: Re: Flyboys?)
> >From: "Dudley Henriques"
> >Date: 12/18/03 6:26 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> I took the liberty of moving the thread :)
> >>
> >> As I get deeper into Flyboys, my irritation increases. Bradley
> >> regularly refers to the North American B-25 Mitchell bomber as a
> >> Billy. "Flyboy" as a word for pilot or air crew is bad enough, but
> >> Billy! Where did he pick that up?
> >>
> >> I'm also despairing that his 10-to-12 page histories are continuing.
> >> I'm about halfway through the book and we still haven't come back to
> >> Chichi Jima. He's trying to cover the entire 19th-20th century misteps
> >> of Japan *and* the United States in this fairly slender volume, and he
> >> just doesn't know what he's talking about half the time. It all
> >> depends on which source volume he picked up (take a look at his
> >> citations: there'll be one book cited, then ibid, ibid, ibid).
> >>
> >> He doesn't know the difference between casualties and deaths. Airplane
> >> engines stall in mid-air. And of course there's the famous jet fuel on
> >> carrier decks.
> >>
> >> But what really set me off was his account of the Doolittle raid,
> >> which ends with the statement: "The U.S. and Japan were even" -- they
> >> mounted a sneak attack on us; we mounted a sneak attack on them.
> >> Bradley is able to overlook the rather important difference that in
> >> April 1942 Japan and the United States were at war!
> >
> >> I took the liberty of moving the thread :)
> >
> >Thank you!!!!!!
> >
> >I don't think I've ever heard anyone else refer to the 25 as a "Billy",
and
> >I've been in and around warbirds all my life. I could be wrong, but that
one
> >just might be a bridge too far!! :-)
> >He does scatter back and forth way too much without proper segway. I got
a
> >bit lost through all his complicated "weaving".
> >I think he could have learned a lot from studying Harold Robbins, who,
> >although a fiction writer, was a master at presenting background through
> >brilliant segway.
> >Dudley Henriques
> >International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> >Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> >For personal email, please replace
> >the z's with e's.
> >dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
> >
> >
>
> Since this book is about old man Bush. I can't imagine that he allowed it
to be
> published wihtout going over every detail. What does that tell us?

Not exactly sure what it would say in this instance, but it usually involves
a writer who has approached the subject with an agenda, Could be a soft or
hard agenda...who knows really. But what often happens results in a
"collaboration" of all the interested people with their "agendas" of course
being their first priority. Bush no doubt was tied into the History Channel
and visa versa. Bradley fitted right in with all this. He accompanied both
the History channel and the ex-president back to the island for the TV
"agenda". Next comes the book which I'm sure was reviewed as you have noted.
All in all, at best, it's questionable as pure objectively researched
history. Just too many "agendas" going on here at one time :-))
The real rub in all this is that Bradley could have written a better book
and didn't. The story was there all right, the characters were interesting
and the environment was ripe for something to be done with it. It could have
been a good read if he had only done it more professionally.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Flyboys?
>From: "Dudley Henriques"
>Date: 12/17/03 9:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: t>
>
>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >DUDLEY HENRIQUES SAID ;
>> >> >
>> >> >"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
>> >> >
>> >> >How's that Gordo?
>> >>
>> >> <sigh> I believe that I'm done with you henry...enough is enough.
>> >> Good night.
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >> -Gord.
>> >
>> >You're done all right!
>>
>> <snort> Of course I have... beating you isn't any great shakes
>> after all...
>> --
>>
>> -Gord.
>
>You just never learn do you? It's not about "beating" anyone Gordo. It's
>about dialog and discourse. Try it sometime :-)
>:-)
>DH
>
>


I think he may be discussing an engine pulling 61" of mercury at a constant
speed of zero RPM. (guffaw)



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]

>Subject: Re: Flyboys (Was: Re: Flyboys?)
>From: "Dudley Henriques"
>Date: 12/18/03 8:27 AM Pacific Standard Time

> Since this book is about old man Bush. I can't imagine that he allowed it
>to be
>> published wihtout going over every detail. What does that tell us?
>
>Not exactly sure what it would say in this instance, but it usually involves
>a writer who has approached the subject with an agenda, Could be a soft or
>hard agenda...who knows really. But what often happens results in a
>"collaboration" of all the interested people with their "agendas" of course
>being their first priority. Bush no doubt was tied into the History Channel
>and visa versa. Bradley fitted right in with all this. He accompanied both
>the History channel and the ex-president back to the island for the TV
>"agenda". Next comes the book which I'm sure was reviewed as you have noted.
>All in all, at best, it's questionable as pure objectively researched
>history. Just too many "agendas" going on here at one time :-))
>The real rub in all this is that Bradley could have written a better book
>and didn't. The story was there all right, the characters were interesting
>and the environment was ripe for something to be done with it. It could have
>been a good read if he had only done it more professionally.
>Dudley Henriques
>International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
>For personal email, please replace
>the z's with e's.
>dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>
>


My point is that Bush as a WWII flier was totally familiar with the term "Fly
Boys" to a far greater extent that anyone on this NG who never was in WW II.
After all the term was strictly a WW II Americanism.
While the book was rather poor work, Bush may at least have written off on
the term Fly Boy all the way. Makes sense to me. The only other alternative is
to assume that Bush reviewed the manuscriptt hastily and carelessly, What
think 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

[Dudley Henriques]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Flyboys?
> >From: "Dudley Henriques"
> >Date: 12/17/03 9:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: t>
> >
> >
> >"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >DUDLEY HENRIQUES SAID ;
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"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
> >> >> >
> >> >> >How's that Gordo?
> >> >>
> >> >> <sigh> I believe that I'm done with you henry...enough is enough.
> >> >> Good night.
> >> >> --
> >> >>
> >> >> -Gord.
> >> >
> >> >You're done all right!
> >>
> >> <snort> Of course I have... beating you isn't any great shakes
> >> after all...
> >> --
> >>
> >> -Gord.
> >
> >You just never learn do you? It's not about "beating" anyone Gordo. It's
> >about dialog and discourse. Try it sometime :-)
> >:-)
> >DH
> >
> >
>
>
> I think he may be discussing an engine pulling 61" of mercury at a
constant
> speed of zero RPM. (guffaw)

It's a shame really. I don't want to fight with this guy. I've tried
ignoring him. I've tried friendly engagement. I've tried every way I know to
either make friends with him or get rid of him. He just keeps coming
on...again and again. I never post to him. It's always him posting under me,
changing the subject into some personal attack thing. I wish I knew what his
problem is but I don't.
This kind of thing happens all the time on Usenet. You somehow pick up one
of these people who think it's about keeping score. He goes one down and
becomes a heated enemy for the next thousand years or so.
Oh well, perhaps he'll get tired of doing it. Ford tried reassigning the
thread. Maybe that will work. I'll try my best not to respond to him any
more than I have to. Maybe that will help a bit as well.
We'll see!! :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Flyboys?
>From: "Dudley Henriques"
>Date: 12/18/03 8:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: et>
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: Flyboys?
>> >From: "Dudley Henriques"
>> >Date: 12/17/03 9:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: t>
>> >
>> >
>> >"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >DUDLEY HENRIQUES SAID ;
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"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
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >How's that Gordo?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> <sigh> I believe that I'm done with you henry...enough is enough.
>> >> >> Good night.
>> >> >> --
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -Gord.
>> >> >
>> >> >You're done all right!
>> >>
>> >> <snort> Of course I have... beating you isn't any great shakes
>> >> after all...
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >> -Gord.
>> >
>> >You just never learn do you? It's not about "beating" anyone Gordo. It's
>> >about dialog and discourse. Try it sometime :-)
>> >:-)
>> >DH
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> I think he may be discussing an engine pulling 61" of mercury at a
>constant
>> speed of zero RPM. (guffaw)
>
>It's a shame really. I don't want to fight with this guy. I've tried
>ignoring him. I've tried friendly engagement. I've tried every way I know to
>either make friends with him or get rid of him. He just keeps coming
>on...again and again. I never post to him. It's always him posting under me,
>changing the subject into some personal attack thing. I wish I knew what his
>problem is but I don't.
>This kind of thing happens all the time on Usenet. You somehow pick up one
>of these people who think it's about keeping score. He goes one down and
>becomes a heated enemy for the next thousand years or so.
>Oh well, perhaps he'll get tired of doing it. Ford tried reassigning the
>thread. Maybe that will work. I'll try my best not to respond to him any
>more than I have to. Maybe that will help a bit as well.
>We'll see!! :-)
>Dudley Henriques
>International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
>For personal email, please replace
>the z's with e's.
>dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>
>


Nothing in life is more futile than trying to please the unpleaseable.

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

[Chris Mark]

>From: Cub Driver

>But what really set me off was his account of the Doolittle raid,
>which ends with the statement: "The U.S. and Japan were even" -- they
>mounted a sneak attack on us; we mounted a sneak attack on them.

That's the core theme of the book, really. A better writer could have made a
more convinicing case of it. He's no Gar Alperovitz : )


Chris Mark

[Chris Mark]

>From: Cub Driver

>As I get deeper into Flyboys, my irritation increases. Bradley
>regularly refers to the North American B-25 Mitchell bomber as a
>Billy.

Matilda or Gertrude, maybe, but not Billy. Definitely not a male but a placid,
homely, dependable, strong-as-an-ox female.

As to "flyboy," I asked an old friend if he ever recalled being referred to by
anyone as "flyboy," and he said, "No....., unless it was in a bar and some
gyrine used it while trying to muscle in on my girl. Broken beer bottle fight
following immediately, of course."


Chris Mark

[Ed Rasimus]

On 18 Dec 2003 16:38:47 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>> >> >DUDLEY HENRIQUES SAID ;
>>> >> >
>>> >> >"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
>
>I think he may be discussing an engine pulling 61" of mercury at a constant
>speed of zero RPM. (guffaw)
>
>Arthur Kramer

Despite the somewhat pre-pubescent banter between two apparent adults
who appear to either have dosage problems with their medication or
simply are descending into dotage, I will note the complexity of the
conventional engine which is something that I never was able to
fathom.

In one of the darkest periods of my military career, I was forced to
check out in the T-29 for "support flying" during a headquarters tour
at Randolph AFB. As a jet type, I knew that the lever(s) on the left
of my chair controlled perspective--push forward the houses get
smaller, pull back, they get larger again. There also seemed to be
some linkage to the airspeed indicator as well.

The T-29, however, placed the levers on the wrong side of my chair and
also put them in a cluster with a bunch of other levers with small
colored balls on top and cryptic letters. Instead of nice simple
engine limitations like a fixed exhaust gas temperature or maximum
percent RPM, they gave me some sort of arcane formula that included
not only RPM (which I understood) but manifold pressure (which I
didn't) and in the case of the T-29, something called Torque Oil
Pressure as well as mixture controls.

It seemed that whenever I thought I knew what I wanted, the instructor
pilot or the flight mechanic would slap my hand away from the
throttles, which I had always assumed I owned after saying "I have the
airplane."

The idea that if I wanted to climb, I couldn't simply push the
throttles forward, but also had to do something, in some sequence or
other with the props, the mixture and some other gadgetry was simply
too complex.

On my pilot qual check, I kept pushing the throttles up for
go-arounds, only to have the flight mech pull them back. When I got to
the single-engine exercises, I simply pushed the good engine up, well
short of max, to a minimum controllable power setting and then
finessed the airplane through the climbout. Should have busted the
check for lack of engine knowledge, but they passed me on condition
that I would never fly with passengers (oh, darn!) and that I would
never again touch the engine controls. I simply would ask the flight
mech for more or less power.

I don't know how you old guys did it!

[Ed Rasimus]

On 18 Dec 2003 16:55:15 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>
>
>My point is that Bush as a WWII flier was totally familiar with the term "Fly
>Boys" to a far greater extent that anyone on this NG who never was in WW II.
>After all the term was strictly a WW II Americanism.
>While the book was rather poor work, Bush may at least have written off on
>the term Fly Boy all the way. Makes sense to me. The only other alternative is
>to assume that Bush reviewed the manuscriptt hastily and carelessly, What
>think you?
>
>Arthur Kramer

What I think, is that you haven't read the book. The description of
Bush' shoot down and recovery is only one small anecdote in the book,
which develops additional importance because of what George H. W. Bush
eventually became.

I think that the fact that the book, for better or for worse, can be
as bad as it is, probably indicates that like most public figures,
Bush had little to do with editing, approval, or input. I can't
imagine the former president or any member of his staff having any
level of editorial oversight.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Flyboys (Was: Re: Flyboys?)
>From: (Chris Mark)
>Date: 12/18/03 9:35 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>From: Cub Driver
>
>>As I get deeper into Flyboys, my irritation increases. Bradley
>>regularly refers to the North American B-25 Mitchell bomber as a
>>Billy.
>
>Matilda or Gertrude, maybe, but not Billy. Definitely not a male but a
>placid,
>homely, dependable, strong-as-an-ox female.
>
>As to "flyboy," I asked an old friend if he ever recalled being referred to
>by
>anyone as "flyboy," and he said, "No....., unless it was in a bar and some
>gyrine used it while trying to muscle in on my girl. Broken beer bottle
>fight
>following immediately, of course."
>
>
>Chris Mark

No one ever dared call Willie the Wolf a female.



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]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Whatever you say dude...
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >> -Gord.
>> >
>> >I say props Gordo.......let's talk PROPS!!! :-)
>> >DH
>> >
>> I would if you knew enough to be a challenge for me dude...
>> --
>>
>> -Gord.
>
>Well, I can challenge you with this much anyway ole buddy. With this answer,
>you now have a total of thirteen straight posts where I have asked you in a
>very friendly manner to engage me on the issue that you swear I don't know
>anything about with nothing but a personal attack one liner or a personally
>insulting remark or both that avoids that engaging discussion. Do you really
>think this is doing anything to help you ? I don't think so. And every time
>you do it you add one more post to the ever growing list, and don't forget,
>these posts are a permanent record.
>No Gordo; I'm afraid my initial opinion of you as being an intelligent
>person who just made a goof was a bit off. In fact, this whole thing from
>beginning to end looks to anyone reading it as exactly what it is; me
>bending over backwards to be nice to you; accommodate you in every
>conceivable way possible, and you just rambling on and on with one long
>continuing series of posts refusing to deal with the issue and filled with
>nothing but personal attacks and nonsense. I honestly think you're afraid to
>engage on the issue and won't do so for this reason. This leaves you with
>nothing but the type of post you've made here again. You're all mouth my
>friend, and as you continue posting the way you are with me to any one
>person on Usenet, it becomes more and more obvious to anyone reading these
>continuous refusals to engage that you are in fact simply avoiding the issue
>at hand by posting nothing but personal harassment of a single individual
>for reasons of your own.
>
>Are you going to make it fourteen refusals ? :-)
>DH
>
Why not?...it seems to **** you off...sounds like a plan to me...
:)


-Gord.

"You are completely focused on RPM as the
single factor producing rotational velocity"
-Guess who?

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Flyboys (Was: Re: Flyboys?)
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 12/18/03 9:41 AM Pacific

>>My point is that Bush as a WWII flier was totally familiar with the term
>"Fly
>>Boys" to a far greater extent that anyone on this NG who never was in WW II.
>>After all the term was strictly a WW II Americanism.
>>While the book was rather poor work, Bush may at least have written off on
>>the term Fly Boy all the way. Makes sense to me. The only other alternative
>is
>>to assume that Bush reviewed the manuscriptt hastily and carelessly, What
>>think you?
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>What I think, is that you haven't read the book. The description of
>Bush' shoot down and recovery is only one small anecdote in the book,
>which develops additional importance because of what George H. W. Bush
>eventually became.

Are you saying the book is good because he became president?. Or if he never
became president the book would be bad? Or just what are you saying?




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

[Ed Rasimus]

On 18 Dec 2003 17:49:38 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Flyboys (Was: Re: Flyboys?)
>>From: Ed Rasimus

>>>While the book was rather poor work, Bush may at least have written off on
>>>the term Fly Boy all the way. Makes sense to me. The only other alternative
>>is
>>>to assume that Bush reviewed the manuscriptt hastily and carelessly, What
>>>think you?
>>>
>>>Arthur Kramer
>>
>>What I think, is that you haven't read the book. The description of
>>Bush' shoot down and recovery is only one small anecdote in the book,
>>which develops additional importance because of what George H. W. Bush
>>eventually became.
>
>Are you saying the book is good because he became president?. Or if he never
>became president the book would be bad? Or just what are you saying?
>
>Arthur Kramer

The language seemed pretty clear when I wrote it. I didn't say the
book was good for any reason. It certainly wouldn't gain credibility
because he became president. But, the anecdote about a young Navy
aviator being shot down and rescued and the additional information
about the handling of prisoners in the area by the Japanese gains
historic importance because that aviator eventually became president.
(It's much like the importance of the PT-109 story because JFK became
president.)

If Bush had not become president, the book would not be better or
worse. I don't think it is a very good book, but the Bush anecdote is
only a small part of the story. President or not, I think the book is
marginal history, poorly written.

Similarly, I think that Steven Ambrose' coverage of B-24 operations
and his lionizing of George McGovern in Wild Blue is poor also. And it
would still be poor even if McGovern had become president.

[Ed Rasimus]

On 18 Dec 2003 17:43:56 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Flyboys (Was: Re: Flyboys?)
>>From: (Chris Mark)
>>Date: 12/18/03 9:35 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>>From: Cub Driver
>>
>>>As I get deeper into Flyboys, my irritation increases. Bradley
>>>regularly refers to the North American B-25 Mitchell bomber as a
>>>Billy.

That's something that arguably never occured during the operational
life of the aircraft.
>>
>>
>>As to "flyboy," I asked an old friend if he ever recalled being referred to
>>by anyone as "flyboy," and he said, "No....., unless it was in a bar and some
>>gyrine used it while trying to muscle in on my girl. Broken beer bottle
>>fight following immediately, of course."
>>
>>Chris Mark
>
>No one ever dared call Willie the Wolf a female.
>
>Arthur Kramer

I don't recall attributing gender to my F-105, the "Bat Bird", but
typically all airplanes and ships are referred to in the femine
gender.

My F-4E, was nicknamed "Arnold--the Pig" before I got my name on the
canopy rail. It was bestowed because of Arnold's tendency to fly
sidways, thereby consumming much more fuel than anyone else in the
flight--a result of two gear-up landings (neither of which I had
anything to do with.)

[[email protected]]

Ed Rasimus > wrote:

>
>I don't know how you old guys did it!
>
Well done Ed...I can see why you're a successful
author...hilarious...

BTW, I liked your book...very interesting, the kind that's
difficult to put down (even at 0400 local)
--

-Gord.

[Cub Driver]

>The T-29, however, placed the levers on the wrong side of my chair and
>also put them in a cluster with a bunch of other levers with small
>colored balls on top and cryptic letters. Instead of nice simple
>engine limitations like a fixed exhaust gas temperature or maximum
>percent RPM, they gave me some sort of arcane formula that included
>not only RPM (which I understood) but manifold pressure (which I
>didn't) and in the case of the T-29, something called Torque Oil
>Pressure as well as mixture controls.

Ed, you can't imagine how comforting those words are to the rest of
us!


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

[Glenn Dowdy]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On 18 Dec 2003 17:49:38 GMT, >
>
> If Bush had not become president, the book would not be better or
> worse. I don't think it is a very good book, but the Bush anecdote is
> only a small part of the story. President or not, I think the book is
> marginal history, poorly written.
>
I found the background on the development of post-isolationist Japan much
more interesting. I wish I had the time to do more research to see how
accurate he was.

Glenn D.

[[email protected]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>>
>> --reams of obfuscation mercifully removed--
>>
>> >and let's not forget..........
>> >
>> >>"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
>> >
>>
>> Certainly...I've been telling you that for months...when are you
>> going to believe it?...
>> --
>>
>> -Gord.
>
>Then you're saying this statement is correct?
>
>If that's so, and you have been "telling me this for months" why have you
>been posting it all this time without further comment? :-) That would make
>no sense at all to a sane person. CLEARLY the inference in posting this as
>it is with no further comment from you about it would be for the person
>reading it to come away with the impression that the statement is totally
>incorrect would it not? In fact, I can produce in your own words a post that
>states emphatically that this quote is incorrect. Why did you post it if
>it's correct? Do you simply wish to affirm it's truth ? Seems to me that if
>you wanted to use it in a negative context like you have been doing for
>about thirteen posts now, you would have added something about me not
>knowing this was correct until you had to tell me each time you posted it.
>That would make sense Gordo!!! :-) But you haven't done that have you Gordo?
>You just put it out there word for word without comment didn't you; and now
>you're saying it's correct....and that's EXACTLY what you have just posted
>above. "Certainly" you said, I've been telling you this for months.....when
>am I going to believe it"
>Well, let me put your mind at ease at least. I believe it! In fact, I
>believed it all along......even before you barged in with your lecture on
>rotational velocity.
>How do you get out of this one Gordo? Is the statement correct or incorrect?
>And if it's correct, how do you explain "teaching" someone about something
>that they obviously already knew WAS correct, since your "lecture" came
>AFTER the statement was made! :-)
>Your move chess player!! This ought to be good. At least make it good will
>you. I'm saving these "exchanges" of ours for my grandchildren to read over
>the holidays. -))))
>
>Dudley Henriques
>International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
>For personal email, please replace
>the z's with e's.
>dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>
>
Poor dude...you're really having trouble with your reading
comprehension aren't you?. Calling that 'sig' that I use
occasionally a 'statement' when it's really about three
statements, an expletive and a question. I suppose that I could
break it down and teach you something about props but why
bother?. <yawn>


-Gord.

"You are completely focused on RPM as the
single factor producing rotational velocity"
-Dude Henrickles

[Dudley Henriques]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...

> -Gord.
>
> "You are completely focused on RPM as the
> single factor producing rotational velocity"
> -Dude Henrickles

..........whereas the high rpm governor limit, impossible to eliminate from
the equation for the purpose of establishing seizure momentum as power is
reduced , (and thus affecting the rpm) is the other factor. :-)

and that's Dudley Henriques.

No flame from me.....no return misuse of your name.....no personal attack;
simply the issue. This will be my return policy with you from now on. :-)
DH

[Dudley Henriques]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On 18 Dec 2003 16:38:47 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
> >>> >> >DUDLEY HENRIQUES SAID ;
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >"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
> >
> >I think he may be discussing an engine pulling 61" of mercury at a
constant
> >speed of zero RPM. (guffaw)
> >
> >Arthur Kramer
>
> Despite the somewhat pre-pubescent banter between two apparent adults
> who appear to either have dosage problems with their medication or
> simply are descending into dotage, I will note the complexity of the
> conventional engine which is something that I never was able to
> fathom.
>
> In one of the darkest periods of my military career, I was forced to
> check out in the T-29 for "support flying" during a headquarters tour
> at Randolph AFB. As a jet type, I knew that the lever(s) on the left
> of my chair controlled perspective--push forward the houses get
> smaller, pull back, they get larger again. There also seemed to be
> some linkage to the airspeed indicator as well.
>
> The T-29, however, placed the levers on the wrong side of my chair and
> also put them in a cluster with a bunch of other levers with small
> colored balls on top and cryptic letters. Instead of nice simple
> engine limitations like a fixed exhaust gas temperature or maximum
> percent RPM, they gave me some sort of arcane formula that included
> not only RPM (which I understood) but manifold pressure (which I
> didn't) and in the case of the T-29, something called Torque Oil
> Pressure as well as mixture controls.
>
> It seemed that whenever I thought I knew what I wanted, the instructor
> pilot or the flight mechanic would slap my hand away from the
> throttles, which I had always assumed I owned after saying "I have the
> airplane."
>
> The idea that if I wanted to climb, I couldn't simply push the
> throttles forward, but also had to do something, in some sequence or
> other with the props, the mixture and some other gadgetry was simply
> too complex.
>
> On my pilot qual check, I kept pushing the throttles up for
> go-arounds, only to have the flight mech pull them back. When I got to
> the single-engine exercises, I simply pushed the good engine up, well
> short of max, to a minimum controllable power setting and then
> finessed the airplane through the climbout. Should have busted the
> check for lack of engine knowledge, but they passed me on condition
> that I would never fly with passengers (oh, darn!) and that I would
> never again touch the engine controls. I simply would ask the flight
> mech for more or less power.
>
> I don't know how you old guys did it!

I had the opposite reaction when I climbed into fast jets. I don't think I
ever got used to the simplicity of operation that a jet engine offers as
opposed to the constant checking and rechecking involved with recips. This
was always especially noticeable for me at the end of the runway just before
takeoff when I would sometimes instinctively start looking around the
cockpit for things to touch and check. NOTHING TO DO!!! Just point it in the
right direction, do the line up check and push the big handle on the left in
the direction you wanted to go! Wonderful!!!! and oh yes........HANG
ON!!!! :-)
Dudley (old doting person type M1)

[Mike Beede]

In article >, ArtKramr > wrote:

> Since this book is about old man Bush.[...]

I didn't see anything significant about Bush Sr. in the book at
all. I thought it was just something that the author and publisher
were alluding to in order to increase sales. I'm glad some other
folks thought it clanked, too--I was wondering if I was just being
too hard on it.

Mike Beede

[[email protected]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>
>> -Gord.
>>
>> "You are completely focused on RPM as the
>> single factor producing rotational velocity"
>> -Dude Henrickles
>
>.........whereas the high rpm governor limit, impossible to eliminate from
>the equation for the purpose of establishing seizure momentum as power is
>reduced , (and thus affecting the rpm) is the other factor. :-)
>

Ok...I'll work with you a little here...(and only if you refrain
from obfuscation).

Your above statement isn't valid because it's the RPM only which
is relevant to the momentum of a prop (besides the mass which
isn't variable in this case)

What caused the RPM is completely immaterial.

You say 'It's the other factor' but it is not. There's only one
parameter that determines momentum (besides mass) and that's RPM.
--

-Gord.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >> -Gord.
> >>
> >> "You are completely focused on RPM as the
> >> single factor producing rotational velocity"
> >> -Dude Henrickles
> >
> >.........whereas the high rpm governor limit, impossible to eliminate
from
> >the equation for the purpose of establishing seizure momentum as power is
> >reduced , (and thus affecting the rpm) is the other factor. :-)
> >
>
> Ok...I'll work with you a little here...(and only if you refrain
> from obfuscation).
>
> Your above statement isn't valid because it's the RPM only which
> is relevant to the momentum of a prop (besides the mass which
> isn't variable in this case)
>
> What caused the RPM is completely immaterial.
>
> You say 'It's the other factor' but it is not. There's only one
> parameter that determines momentum (besides mass) and that's RPM.
> --
>
> -Gord.

Ok, and I'd like to work with you a bit also if I can. I kind of miss the
old days when the two of us were talking to each other.

You are absolutely right in everything you are saying here as well as what
you said back in the seizure thread. I never doubted your knowledge and
experience with these things for a moment. I believe the problem involved
both of us misunderstanding the other. I had assumed the limiter would
reduce the rpm when the power was reduced back to idle in prep for the bail
out. I should have mentioned that in my dialog with the poster I was dealing
with when you entered the thread, but I didn't. You no doubt thought, from
the way I posted my remarks that I was under the impression that it was
power that controlled the seizure momentum. When you posted without
mentioning the limiter, I grossly over reacted to the inference that I didn'
t know what I was talking about. I shouldn't have done that and I apologize.
You on the other hand, could have asked me to clarify whether or not I was
dealing with the issue without the limiter in question. You didn't. The rest
went downhill in a handbasket. I answered several of your posts thinking you
knew about the rpm change with the limiter involved and were lecturing me
anyway, which of course would have been wrong. By the time I realized we
were talking about different things, it was too late.
Gordo, I am sincerely sorry for my part in this misunderstanding.
I don't believe either one of us, after spending all our lives involved with
airplanes and engines, is ignorant of the simple fact that it's rpm that
determines rotational velocity. Let's put this thing to bed and forget it if
possible. To be honest with you, I hate all this unnecessary crap going back
and forth between two people who should be friends.
Sincerely,
Dudley

[[email protected]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> >> -Gord.
>> >>
>> >> "You are completely focused on RPM as the
>> >> single factor producing rotational velocity"
>> >> -Dude Henrickles
>> >
>> >.........whereas the high rpm governor limit, impossible to eliminate
>from
>> >the equation for the purpose of establishing seizure momentum as power is
>> >reduced , (and thus affecting the rpm) is the other factor. :-)
>> >
>>
>> Ok...I'll work with you a little here...(and only if you refrain
>> from obfuscation).
>>
>> Your above statement isn't valid because it's the RPM only which
>> is relevant to the momentum of a prop (besides the mass which
>> isn't variable in this case)
>>
>> What caused the RPM is completely immaterial.
>>
>> You say 'It's the other factor' but it is not. There's only one
>> parameter that determines momentum (besides mass) and that's RPM.
>> --
>>
>> -Gord.
>
>Ok, and I'd like to work with you a bit also if I can. I kind of miss the
>old days when the two of us were talking to each other.
>
>You are absolutely right in everything you are saying here as well as what
>you said back in the seizure thread. I never doubted your knowledge and
>experience with these things for a moment. I believe the problem involved
>both of us misunderstanding the other. I had assumed the limiter would
>reduce the rpm when the power was reduced back to idle in prep for the bail
>out. I should have mentioned that in my dialog with the poster I was dealing
>with when you entered the thread, but I didn't. You no doubt thought, from
>the way I posted my remarks that I was under the impression that it was
>power that controlled the seizure momentum. When you posted without
>mentioning the limiter, I grossly over reacted to the inference that I didn'
>t know what I was talking about. I shouldn't have done that and I apologize.
>You on the other hand, could have asked me to clarify whether or not I was
>dealing with the issue without the limiter in question. You didn't. The rest
>went downhill in a handbasket. I answered several of your posts thinking you
>knew about the rpm change with the limiter involved and were lecturing me
>anyway, which of course would have been wrong. By the time I realized we
>were talking about different things, it was too late.
>Gordo, I am sincerely sorry for my part in this misunderstanding.
>I don't believe either one of us, after spending all our lives involved with
>airplanes and engines, is ignorant of the simple fact that it's rpm that
>determines rotational velocity. Let's put this thing to bed and forget it if
>possible. To be honest with you, I hate all this unnecessary crap going back
>and forth between two people who should be friends.
>Sincerely,
>Dudley
>
Ok, that's fine...let's let it rest till after
Christmas...apologies to all for monopolizing the 'frequency'.

Merry Christmas to you and yours.
--

-Gord.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> >> -Gord.
> >> >>
> >> >> "You are completely focused on RPM as the
> >> >> single factor producing rotational velocity"
> >> >> -Dude Henrickles
> >> >
> >> >.........whereas the high rpm governor limit, impossible to eliminate
> >from
> >> >the equation for the purpose of establishing seizure momentum as power
is
> >> >reduced , (and thus affecting the rpm) is the other factor. :-)
> >> >
> >>
> >> Ok...I'll work with you a little here...(and only if you refrain
> >> from obfuscation).
> >>
> >> Your above statement isn't valid because it's the RPM only which
> >> is relevant to the momentum of a prop (besides the mass which
> >> isn't variable in this case)
> >>
> >> What caused the RPM is completely immaterial.
> >>
> >> You say 'It's the other factor' but it is not. There's only one
> >> parameter that determines momentum (besides mass) and that's RPM.
> >> --
> >>
> >> -Gord.
> >
> >Ok, and I'd like to work with you a bit also if I can. I kind of miss the
> >old days when the two of us were talking to each other.
> >
> >You are absolutely right in everything you are saying here as well as
what
> >you said back in the seizure thread. I never doubted your knowledge and
> >experience with these things for a moment. I believe the problem involved
> >both of us misunderstanding the other. I had assumed the limiter would
> >reduce the rpm when the power was reduced back to idle in prep for the
bail
> >out. I should have mentioned that in my dialog with the poster I was
dealing
> >with when you entered the thread, but I didn't. You no doubt thought,
from
> >the way I posted my remarks that I was under the impression that it was
> >power that controlled the seizure momentum. When you posted without
> >mentioning the limiter, I grossly over reacted to the inference that I
didn'
> >t know what I was talking about. I shouldn't have done that and I
apologize.
> >You on the other hand, could have asked me to clarify whether or not I
was
> >dealing with the issue without the limiter in question. You didn't. The
rest
> >went downhill in a handbasket. I answered several of your posts thinking
you
> >knew about the rpm change with the limiter involved and were lecturing me
> >anyway, which of course would have been wrong. By the time I realized we
> >were talking about different things, it was too late.
> >Gordo, I am sincerely sorry for my part in this misunderstanding.
> >I don't believe either one of us, after spending all our lives involved
with
> >airplanes and engines, is ignorant of the simple fact that it's rpm that
> >determines rotational velocity. Let's put this thing to bed and forget it
if
> >possible. To be honest with you, I hate all this unnecessary crap going
back
> >and forth between two people who should be friends.
> >Sincerely,
> >Dudley
> >
> Ok, that's fine...let's let it rest till after
> Christmas...apologies to all for monopolizing the 'frequency'.
>
> Merry Christmas to you and yours.
> --
>
> -Gord.

And the very best Christmas for you and yours as well. I sincerely hope the
new year brings all of us some peace in the world.
All the best,
Dudley

[Cub Driver]

>I found the background on the development of post-isolationist Japan much
>more interesting. I wish I had the time to do more research to see how
>accurate he was.

I've come to the conclusion (about halfway through) that the technique
was to find the most startling book in English on the subject, then
borrow heavily from it. Crikey, the man doesn't even bother to rewrite
the quotes; he just throws quotation marks around them and inserts
them into his text without saying where they're from. I generally read
a book like this with my right index finger in the citations page; in
this case, it's the only way to know who he's quoting.

On Japan, he's stuck with Saburo Inega, a Japanese veteran, teacher,
and controversialist whom he describes as an eminent historian, and a
few others like Ikuhiko Hata, who is indeed an eminent historian but
hasn't written much of use to Bradley's book.

So you really don't have to do much research. Just read Inega and
maybe Herbert Bix on Hirohito. Bix did an excellent job, so in this
case Bradley lucked out in choosing his sources. In the section you
mention, you can probably rely on his interpretation, if you strip out
the journalistic eye-poppers like "the Spriit boys" and "the Boy
Soldier" (Hirohito).

As I say, I'm halfway through, and I haven't gotten to the Chichi Jima
mission(s) yet! There have been times when I was ready to give up, but
I did pay fifteen bucks at BJ's for it.




all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

[John Keeney]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> Since this book is about old man Bush. I can't imagine that he allowed it
to be
> published wihtout going over every detail. What does that tell us?

That you are once more trolling.

[Mary Shafer]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:55:54 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:


> It's a shame really. I don't want to fight with this guy. I've tried
> ignoring him. I've tried friendly engagement. I've tried every way I know to
> either make friends with him or get rid of him. He just keeps coming
> on...again and again. I never post to him. It's always him posting under me,
> changing the subject into some personal attack thing. I wish I knew what his
> problem is but I don't.

Killfile him. It works really well for me.

I discovered something interesting, using Google groups, sometime
back. Most of what Beaman posts are nitpicking corrections of others.
He posts very little original material.

> This kind of thing happens all the time on Usenet. You somehow pick up one
> of these people who think it's about keeping score. He goes one down and
> becomes a heated enemy for the next thousand years or so.

He's even worse when his opponent is a woman. Or maybe it's people
held in high regard by others, such as yourself. Jealousy, perhaps,
that some people aren't challenged when they post.

> Oh well, perhaps he'll get tired of doing it. Ford tried reassigning the
> thread. Maybe that will work. I'll try my best not to respond to him any
> more than I have to. Maybe that will help a bit as well.

Killfile him. Out of sight, out of mind. If my newsreader could
killfile on content, I'd pitch all the postings that quote him, too.

> We'll see!! :-)

If nothing else, killfiling him keeps you from validating his nonsense
and abuse by keeping the exchange going.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Mary Shafer]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:36:54 GMT, Ed Rasimus >
wrote:

> My F-4E, was nicknamed "Arnold--the Pig" before I got my name on the
> canopy rail. It was bestowed because of Arnold's tendency to fly
> sidways, thereby consumming much more fuel than anyone else in the
> flight--a result of two gear-up landings (neither of which I had
> anything to do with.)

Unless this was a common occurrence, I know someone who also flew
Arnold. We were just talking about it the other day. He says that
this sort of thing is the typical "good news, bad news" the F-4 made
possible.

Good news--after two gear-up landings the airplane is still
flightworthy. Bad news--but it's going to fly sideways and really
burn fuel.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[[email protected]]

Mary Shafer > wrote:

>
>If nothing else, killfiling him keeps you from validating his nonsense
>and abuse by keeping the exchange going.
>
>Mary

Mary (apparently) killfiled me ONLY because I argued with her
when she stated that there was no such thing as Pilot Error. That
the NTSB nor the FAA -ever- used it as a reason for a crash. She
then refused to discuss it. If you would like proof of what I say
then just let me know.
--

-Gord.

[Cub Driver]

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 10:28:44 -0800, Mary Shafer >
wrote:

>If my newsreader could
>killfile on content, I'd pitch all the postings that quote him, too.

Agent will do that (by thread title, anyhow). Here's my standard plug
for Agent:

I highly recommend Forte Agent as a newsreader. It handles newsgroup
messages far better than any "included" newsreader such as those
bundled with Internet Explorer, Outlook, Netscape, or Opera--all of
which I have tried.

Download the software at www.forteinc.com/agent/download.php

The program includes the latest version of Agent as well as its
freeware version, called Free Agent. This enables you to get the feel
of the software without paying up front.

However, where Agent really shines is in its ability to filter out
objectional subjects or posters: Control+K and you're done! It was to
get that functionality that I upgraded to the paid version a year ago,
and I have never regretted it. The cost to register the software (and
thereby to unlock the full-featured version on your computer) is $29.

(A major revison is in the works. However, if you register the current
version, the upgrade will be free.)


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

[Mary Shafer]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 05:28:32 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 10:28:44 -0800, Mary Shafer >
> wrote:
>
> >If my newsreader could
> >killfile on content, I'd pitch all the postings that quote him, too.
>
> Agent will do that (by thread title, anyhow). Here's my standard plug
> for Agent:

I know. I'm using Agent, in part because so many posters I respect
use it.

However, I don't want to pitch a whole thread, just the sub-threads
that a particular person has gotten involved with. There's no way to
do that with Agent, because it only filters on a few headers. Oh,
well.

I'll tell you one thing I'd really like filter and that's the
discussion that had evolved into two people arguing past each other
for twenty or thirty postings. Even the most informed poster can get
drawn into this, but the postings quickly become very repetitious and
there's really no need to keep reading. However, no newsreader that
I've ever heard of can take care of this, so it's an idle hope.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Jeff Crowell]

Gord Beaman wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote:

C'mon, guys... you are both demeaning yourselves (not to
mention clobbering the ng). You both have contributed to
the group in the past, and will again, I am sure.

Let it go.


Jeff

[[email protected]]

Cub Driver > wrote:
>
>I guess it's just an irritating tic that I'll have to accept. The man
>has discovered a few concepts and wants to make sure that we remember
>them. Apart from that, I thought his ten-or--twelve page history of
>Japan was a damn good summary of a world that westerners find it
>almost impossible to understand. (We are still arguing about the
>emperor's role in starting the war, never mind ending it.)
>

.... *ALSO* whether or not he was properly dressed when he did so
eh?... :)
--

-Gord.

[KenG]

Are you speaking of the parable of "The Emperors New Clothes"?

wrote:
> Cub Driver > wrote:
>
>>I guess it's just an irritating tic that I'll have to accept. The man
>>has discovered a few concepts and wants to make sure that we remember
>>them. Apart from that, I thought his ten-or--twelve page history of
>>Japan was a damn good summary of a world that westerners find it
>>almost impossible to understand. (We are still arguing about the
>>emperor's role in starting the war, never mind ending it.)
>>
>
>
> ... *ALSO* whether or not he was properly dressed when he did so
> eh?... :)
> --
>
> -Gord.