Connies, pt 3 - Constellation with McNamara 1970.jpg (1/1)

[Mitchell Holman]

[Alan Erskine[_3_]]

"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
...

Even the landing gear's beautiful - look at that nose wheel hub!

[Mitchell Holman]

"Alan Erskine" > wrote in news:zT8Ij.4483$n8.3823
@news-server.bigpond.net.au:

> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> Even the landing gear's beautiful - look at that nose wheel hub!
>
>

Easy to see why it won............

[Alan Erskine[_3_]]

"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
...
> "Alan Erskine" > wrote in news:zT8Ij.4483$n8.3823
> @news-server.bigpond.net.au:
>
> > "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > Even the landing gear's beautiful - look at that nose wheel hub!
> >
> >
>
> Easy to see why it won............

Absolutely! In my books, it's the most beautiful aircraft of all - followed
in a distant second place by the Boeing 727 - the wing on that aircraft is
aeronautical perfection.

[Mitchell Holman]

"Alan Erskine" > wrote in
:

> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Alan Erskine" > wrote in
>> news:zT8Ij.4483$n8.3823 @news-server.bigpond.net.au:
>>
>> > "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> > Even the landing gear's beautiful - look at that nose wheel hub!
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Easy to see why it won............
>
> Absolutely! In my books, it's the most beautiful aircraft of all -
> followed in a distant second place by the Boeing 727 - the wing on that
> aircraft is aeronautical perfection.
>

The Mystic is the closest second in my book, maybe
tied with the Handley-Page 42.

But nothing beats a Connie...........

[Alan Erskine[_3_]]

"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
...
> The Mystic is the closest second in my book, maybe
> tied with the Handley-Page 42.
>
> But nothing beats a Connie...........

Mystic? I don't know that one.

[Mitchell Holman]

"Alan Erskine" > wrote in news:4SiIj.4631$n8.795
@news-server.bigpond.net.au:

> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The Mystic is the closest second in my book, maybe
>> tied with the Handley-Page 42.
>>
>> But nothing beats a Connie...........
>
> Mystic? I don't know that one.
>
>
>

[Alan Erskine[_3_]]

"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
...
> "Alan Erskine" > wrote in news:4SiIj.4631$n8.795
> @news-server.bigpond.net.au:
>
> > "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> The Mystic is the closest second in my book, maybe
> >> tied with the Handley-Page 42.
> >>
> >> But nothing beats a Connie...........
> >
> > Mystic? I don't know that one.

Ok.... Similar mission to the U-2 I gather.

[Mitchell Holman]

"Alan Erskine" > wrote in news:YuqIj.4802$n8.2736
@news-server.bigpond.net.au:

> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Alan Erskine" > wrote in news:4SiIj.4631$n8.795
>> @news-server.bigpond.net.au:
>>
>> > "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> The Mystic is the closest second in my book, maybe
>> >> tied with the Handley-Page 42.
>> >>
>> >> But nothing beats a Connie...........
>> >
>> > Mystic? I don't know that one.
>
> Ok.... Similar mission to the U-2 I gather.
>


Yep. Only more graceful.....

[Alan Erskine[_3_]]

"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
...
> "Alan Erskine" > wrote in news:YuqIj.4802$n8.2736
> @news-server.bigpond.net.au:
> >> > Mystic? I don't know that one.
> >
> > Ok.... Similar mission to the U-2 I gather.
> >
>
>
> Yep. Only more graceful.....

Dunno 'bout that - remember, it's 40 years newer in design. I like the
RS-71 (correct designation as I remember the story - Johnson got the
designation wrong when announcing the aircraft to the public and it was
dutifuly re-titled as the SR-71 - can't have a President that's wrong, can
we? ;-) as the best looking recon aircraft.

[Alan Erskine[_3_]]

Seems I am the one who's wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR-71_Blackbird#Name_and_designation

[Peter Twydell]

In message >, Mitchell Holman
> writes
>"Alan Erskine" > wrote in
:
>
>> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Alan Erskine" > wrote in
>>> news:zT8Ij.4483$n8.3823 @news-server.bigpond.net.au:
>>>
>>> > "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
>>> > ...
>>> >
>>> > Even the landing gear's beautiful - look at that nose wheel hub!
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> Easy to see why it won............
>>
>> Absolutely! In my books, it's the most beautiful aircraft of all -
>> followed in a distant second place by the Boeing 727 - the wing on that
>> aircraft is aeronautical perfection.
>>
>
> The Mystic is the closest second in my book, maybe
>tied with the Handley-Page 42.
>
> But nothing beats a Connie...........
>
>
>
Although I don't agree with some of your ideas of ugly (especially the
HP Victor and the Bucc), there's no doubt in my mind that the Connie is
by far the best-looking piston-engined airliner.

First saw Connies at Heathrow in the fifties, and remember being amazed
at the angle the nose leg and wheel took when the aircraft turned.

Let's hope we'll see at least one on the UK air show circuit this year.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[Mitchell Holman]

Peter Twydell > wrote in
:

> In message >, Mitchell Holman
> > writes
>>"Alan Erskine" > wrote in
:
>>
>>> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Alan Erskine" > wrote in
>>>> news:zT8Ij.4483$n8.3823 @news-server.bigpond.net.au:
>>>>
>>>> > "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
>>>> > ...
>>>> >
>>>> > Even the landing gear's beautiful - look at that nose wheel hub!
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Easy to see why it won............
>>>
>>> Absolutely! In my books, it's the most beautiful aircraft of all -
>>> followed in a distant second place by the Boeing 727 - the wing on that
>>> aircraft is aeronautical perfection.
>>>
>>
>> The Mystic is the closest second in my book, maybe
>>tied with the Handley-Page 42.
>>
>> But nothing beats a Connie...........
>>
>>
>>
> Although I don't agree with some of your ideas of ugly (especially the
> HP Victor and the Bucc),


The Victor wasn't in my Ugly Airplanes collection.

[Alan Erskine[_3_]]

"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Twydell > wrote in
> :

> > Although I don't agree with some of your ideas of ugly (especially the
> > HP Victor and the Bucc),
>
>
> The Victor wasn't in my Ugly Airplanes collection.

Peter might be referring to my comment - I think the Victor is one of the
ugliest aircraft ever flown - mind you, 'beauty is, as beauty does' applies.

[Peter Twydell]

In message >, Mitchell Holman
> writes
>Peter Twydell > wrote in
:
>
>> In message >, Mitchell Holman
>> > writes
>>>"Alan Erskine" > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "Alan Erskine" > wrote in
>>>>> news:zT8Ij.4483$n8.3823 @news-server.bigpond.net.au:
>>>>>
>>>>> > "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
>>>>> > ...
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Even the landing gear's beautiful - look at that nose wheel hub!
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> Easy to see why it won............
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely! In my books, it's the most beautiful aircraft of all -
>>>> followed in a distant second place by the Boeing 727 - the wing on that
>>>> aircraft is aeronautical perfection.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The Mystic is the closest second in my book, maybe
>>>tied with the Handley-Page 42.
>>>
>>> But nothing beats a Connie...........
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Although I don't agree with some of your ideas of ugly (especially the
>> HP Victor and the Bucc),
>
>
> The Victor wasn't in my Ugly Airplanes collection.
>
>
>
Sorry, it must have been somebody else. It's sometimes difficult to
remember who posted what. One of my brain cells is feeling lonely
because the other one's asleep.

I don't think the Gannet's ugly, either. OTOH, the TT versions of the
Mosquito and Sturgeon are, whereas the aircraft they're based on aren't.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[Ron Monroe]

Well, Wikipedia may be a quick reference point, but, it has it's share of
errors, It's like saying the History Channel only shows true history. There
may be an attempt, but, I don't think either tries to prove or improve the
accuracy of whatever they are given to print or show. So, I wouldn't ever
use Wikipedia to win a bet, or prove a point.
Ron

"Alan Erskine" > wrote in message
...
> Seems I am the one who's wrong:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR-71_Blackbird#Name_and_designation
>
>