Largest conventional-gear airplane

[gatt[_5_]]

B-17?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

gatt > wrote in news:212qgk.ete.19.1
@integratelecom.com:

>
> B-17?
>
>

Well, the Avro Lincoln was probably a good bit heavier than the 17, and
also probably the Lancaster, but I think maybe the Focke Wulf 200 was a bit
bigger than either. It certainly had more range, though probably not the
payload of even the 17.
The postwar Avor Tudor is the only other giant taildragger I can think of
that might be in competition wiht those. I can't think of any Russian
aircraft that might be in contention, but if anyone could have, it would
have been them!


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> gatt > wrote in news:212qgk.ete.19.1
> @integratelecom.com:
>
>>
>> B-17?
>>
>>
>
> Well, the Avro Lincoln was probably a good bit heavier than the 17, and
> also probably the Lancaster, but I think maybe the Focke Wulf 200 was a
> bit
> bigger than either. It certainly had more range, though probably not the
> payload of even the 17.
> The postwar Avor Tudor is the only other giant taildragger I can think of
> that might be in competition wiht those. I can't think of any Russian
> aircraft that might be in contention, but if anyone could have, it would
> have been them!
>
>
> Bertie

The 17 would still be heavier, if we stuffed your fat ass in it.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> gatt > wrote in
>> news:212qgk.ete.19.1 @integratelecom.com:
>>
>>>
>>> B-17?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Well, the Avro Lincoln was probably a good bit heavier than the 17,
>> and also probably the Lancaster, but I think maybe the Focke Wulf 200
>> was a bit
>> bigger than either. It certainly had more range, though probably not
>> the payload of even the 17.
>> The postwar Avor Tudor is the only other giant taildragger I can
>> think of that might be in competition wiht those. I can't think of
>> any Russian aircraft that might be in contention, but if anyone could
>> have, it would have been them!
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> The 17 would still be heavier, if we stuffed your fat ass in it.
>
>
>
>

Awww, still with the blind lames,


Good luck with that fjukkktard.


I'm not going anywhere... And I haven't even broken a sweat yet.





Bertie

[Dallas]

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:11:46 +0000 (UTC), gatt wrote:

> B-17?

My money's on the XB-15

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:XB-15_on_airstrip.jpg

--
Dallas

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

on 7/10/2008 7:46 PM Bertie the Bunyip said the following:
> gatt > wrote in news:212qgk.ete.19.1
> @integratelecom.com:
>
>> B-17?
>>
>>
>
> Well, the Avro Lincoln was probably a good bit heavier than the 17, and
> also probably the Lancaster, but I think maybe the Focke Wulf 200 was a bit
> bigger than either. It certainly had more range, though probably not the
> payload of even the 17.
> The postwar Avor Tudor is the only other giant taildragger I can think of
> that might be in competition wiht those. I can't think of any Russian
> aircraft that might be in contention, but if anyone could have, it would
> have been them!

Like, say, the Petlyakov Pe-8? AKA the TB-7? It was the only four-engine
bomber the Soviets had during WW II. Its max takeoff weight was 35,000
kg vs a bit less than 30,000 kg for the B-17. 39 meter wingspan vs 32
meters. A photo:

http://www.aviation.ru/Pe/8/Pe-8.jpg

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in
. net:

> on 7/10/2008 7:46 PM Bertie the Bunyip said the following:
>> gatt > wrote in
>> news:212qgk.ete.19.1 @integratelecom.com:
>>
>>> B-17?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Well, the Avro Lincoln was probably a good bit heavier than the 17,
>> and also probably the Lancaster, but I think maybe the Focke Wulf 200
>> was a bit bigger than either. It certainly had more range, though
>> probably not the payload of even the 17.
>> The postwar Avor Tudor is the only other giant taildragger I can
>> think of that might be in competition wiht those. I can't think of
>> any Russian aircraft that might be in contention, but if anyone could
>> have, it would have been them!
>
> Like, say, the Petlyakov Pe-8? AKA the TB-7? It was the only
> four-engine bomber the Soviets had during WW II. Its max takeoff
> weight was 35,000 kg vs a bit less than 30,000 kg for the B-17. 39
> meter wingspan vs 32 meters. A photo:
>
> http://www.aviation.ru/Pe/8/Pe-8.jpg
>


Hhmm, never even seen that. I've never really looked much at Soviet
airplanes from that era. I must have a rummage around..


Bertie

[Mike[_22_]]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> B-17?

It's certainly not the largest, but one of the most interesting is the
Antonov AN-2. It's the largest conventional gear aircraft I've had the
privilege of taking the controls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-2

[gatt[_5_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> gatt > wrote in news:212qgk.ete.19.1
> @integratelecom.com:
>
>
>>B-17?
>>
>>
>
>
> Well, the Avro Lincoln was probably a good bit heavier than the 17, and
> also probably the Lancaster, but I think maybe the Focke Wulf 200 was a bit
> bigger than either. It certainly had more range, though probably not the
> payload of even the 17.
> The postwar Avor Tudor is the only other giant taildragger I can think of
> that might be in competition wiht those.

Good suggestions.
Length
Avro Lincoln: 78 ft 3.5 in.
Lancaster: 69 ft 5 in.
Focke Wulf 200C-3: 77 ft 1 in.
Avor Tudor 1: 79 ft 6 in. (Wiki says the Tudor 2 was 25' longer.)
B-17G: 74 ft 4 in.


I wonder what they were like to handle on the ground. The B-17 might
have been easiest of them, I suppose, because of the huge rudder.

-c

[gatt[_5_]]

Dallas wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:11:46 +0000 (UTC), gatt wrote:
>
>
>>B-17?
>
>
> My money's on the XB-15
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:XB-15_on_airstrip.jpg
>

That would be the biggest suggestion so far at 87'7", except the Avro
689 Tudor Mk. 2 at 105'7".

http://www.tgplanes.com/Public/Snitz/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=961

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

gatt wrote:
>
> Good suggestions.
> Length
> Avro Lincoln: 78 ft 3.5 in.
> Lancaster: 69 ft 5 in.
> Focke Wulf 200C-3: 77 ft 1 in.
> Avor Tudor 1: 79 ft 6 in. (Wiki says the Tudor 2 was 25' longer.)
> B-17G: 74 ft 4 in.
>

XB-15: 87 ft 7 in

[gatt[_5_]]

Maxwell wrote:

>
> The 17 would still be heavier, if we stuffed your fat ass in it.

Clearly you have absolutely nothing whatsoever to contribute.

*plonk*

[gatt[_5_]]

Mike wrote:
> "gatt" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>> B-17?
>
>
> It's certainly not the largest, but one of the most interesting is the
> Antonov AN-2. It's the largest conventional gear aircraft I've had the
> privilege of taking the controls.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-2


Somebody flew one of those to Burning Man last year. I hear you just
about can't stall 'em.

http://picasaweb.google.com/startled/MoreBurningMan/photo#5134019491939354866
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3135/2637660774_5128e411f7.jpg?v=0

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

gatt > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> gatt > wrote in
>> news:212qgk.ete.19.1 @integratelecom.com:
>>
>>
>>>B-17?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well, the Avro Lincoln was probably a good bit heavier than the 17,
>> and also probably the Lancaster, but I think maybe the Focke Wulf 200
>> was a bit bigger than either. It certainly had more range, though
>> probably not the payload of even the 17.
>> The postwar Avor Tudor is the only other giant taildragger I can
>> think of that might be in competition wiht those.
>
> Good suggestions.
> Length
> Avro Lincoln: 78 ft 3.5 in.
> Lancaster: 69 ft 5 in.
> Focke Wulf 200C-3: 77 ft 1 in.
> Avor Tudor 1: 79 ft 6 in. (Wiki says the Tudor 2 was 25'
> longer.) B-17G: 74 ft 4 in.
>
>
> I wonder what they were like to handle on the ground. The B-17 might
> have been easiest of them, I suppose, because of the huge rudder.
>

I#ve only ever talked to a Lanc pilot. A canadian guy I had a couple of
beers with in London. He said it was pretty easy to fly if it was rigged
correctly, not so easy if it wasn't.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

gatt > wrote in news:214hsh.2oc.19.1
@integratelecom.com:

> Dallas wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:11:46 +0000 (UTC), gatt wrote:
>>
>>
>>>B-17?
>>
>>
>> My money's on the XB-15
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:XB-15_on_airstrip.jpg
>>
>
> That would be the biggest suggestion so far at 87'7", except the Avro
> 689 Tudor Mk. 2 at 105'7".
>
> http://www.tgplanes.com/Public/Snitz/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=961
>

I was thinking more of weight, but it would probably correlat roughly.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

gatt > wrote in news:214kqd.dfs.19.1
@integratelecom.com:

> Maxwell wrote:
>
>>
>> The 17 would still be heavier, if we stuffed your fat ass in it.
>
> Clearly you have absolutely nothing whatsoever to contribute.
>
> *plonk*
>

Uh oh, now you've done it.
you're on the lits now

Bertie

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

on 7/11/2008 1:37 AM Bertie the Bunyip said the following:
> Rich Ahrens > wrote in
> . net:
>
>> on 7/10/2008 7:46 PM Bertie the Bunyip said the following:
>>> gatt > wrote in
>>> news:212qgk.ete.19.1 @integratelecom.com:
>>>
>>>> B-17?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Well, the Avro Lincoln was probably a good bit heavier than the 17,
>>> and also probably the Lancaster, but I think maybe the Focke Wulf 200
>>> was a bit bigger than either. It certainly had more range, though
>>> probably not the payload of even the 17.
>>> The postwar Avor Tudor is the only other giant taildragger I can
>>> think of that might be in competition wiht those. I can't think of
>>> any Russian aircraft that might be in contention, but if anyone could
>>> have, it would have been them!
>> Like, say, the Petlyakov Pe-8? AKA the TB-7? It was the only
>> four-engine bomber the Soviets had during WW II. Its max takeoff
>> weight was 35,000 kg vs a bit less than 30,000 kg for the B-17. 39
>> meter wingspan vs 32 meters. A photo:
>>
>> http://www.aviation.ru/Pe/8/Pe-8.jpg
>>
>
>
> Hhmm, never even seen that. I've never really looked much at Soviet
> airplanes from that era. I must have a rummage around..

Geez, I managed to out-trivia you for once? Shocking...

Among the Pe-8's features were hand-operated machine guns in the rear of
the inboard engine nacelles. It also had a single compressor above the
bomb bay, driven by an auxiliary engine, which fed air to the engines
via a huge duct in each wing in place of superchargers. So strictly
speaking it was a five-engine beast!

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell wrote:
>
>>
>> The 17 would still be heavier, if we stuffed your fat ass in it.
>
> Clearly you have absolutely nothing whatsoever to contribute.
>
> *plonk*

Oh worrra worra, I have been kill filed by a sock puppet.

[Mike[_22_]]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
> Mike wrote:
>> "gatt" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>> B-17?
>>
>>
>> It's certainly not the largest, but one of the most interesting is the
>> Antonov AN-2. It's the largest conventional gear aircraft I've had the
>> privilege of taking the controls.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-2
>
>
> Somebody flew one of those to Burning Man last year. I hear you just
> about can't stall 'em.
>
> http://picasaweb.google.com/startled/MoreBurningMan/photo#5134019491939354866
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3135/2637660774_5128e411f7.jpg?v=0

If you can, it's got to be at a pretty slow speed. When we landed it seemed
as if the thing was almost stopped already. For a large aircraft the short
field abilities are simply incredible.

[Dale[_3_]]

In article >,
gatt > wrote:

>
> Good suggestions.
> Length
> Avro Lincoln: 78 ft 3.5 in.
> Lancaster: 69 ft 5 in.
> Focke Wulf 200C-3: 77 ft 1 in.
> Avor Tudor 1: 79 ft 6 in. (Wiki says the Tudor 2 was 25' longer.)
> B-17G: 74 ft 4 in.
>
>
> I wonder what they were like to handle on the ground. The B-17 might
> have been easiest of them, I suppose, because of the huge rudder.
>
> -c

Curtiss C-46: Length 76'4 Wingspan 108'1

[Dale[_3_]]

In article >,
gatt > wrote:


>
>
> I wonder what they were like to handle on the ground. The B-17 might
> have been easiest of them, I suppose, because of the huge rudder.
>
> -c

That huge fin and rudder also grab a lot of crosswind. <G>

The B-17 is a pretty nice airplane to fly however. Ailerons heavy as
heck, rudder not so bad, elevator pretty light. I've flown one in
xwinds up to 40 knots (only about 30 degrees cross) and while it makes
you work it doesn't take superman....but like any t/w airplane you gotta
stay ahead of her.

[Dave[_5_]]

On Jul 10, 7:11*pm, gatt > wrote:
> B-17?

How about the Maxim Gorky (AKA Tupolev ANT-20). Eight engines, 33M
long (108 Ft), 42,000Kg gross (92,400 Lbs).
Pretty impressive.

Here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_ANT-20

Dave

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article >,
Dale > wrote:

> In article >,
> gatt > wrote:
>
> >
> > Good suggestions.
> > Length
> > Avro Lincoln: 78 ft 3.5 in.
> > Lancaster: 69 ft 5 in.
> > Focke Wulf 200C-3: 77 ft 1 in.
> > Avor Tudor 1: 79 ft 6 in. (Wiki says the Tudor 2 was 25' longer.)
> > B-17G: 74 ft 4 in.
> >
> >
> > I wonder what they were like to handle on the ground. The B-17 might
> > have been easiest of them, I suppose, because of the huge rudder.
> >
> > -c
>
> Curtiss C-46: Length 76'4 Wingspan 108'1

Boeing XB-15:

Length: 87 ft 7 in
Span: 149 ft
Height: 19 ft 5 in
Empty Wt: 37709 lb
Gross Wt: 65068 lb
Power: 4 x P&W R-1830-11, 1000 hp @TO; 850 hp @6000 ft
Top Speed: 197 mph @6000 ft
Cruise: 171 mph
Landing: 70 mph

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:KaPdk.18084$3q7.16364
@newsfe15.lga:

>
> "gatt" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Maxwell wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The 17 would still be heavier, if we stuffed your fat ass in it.
>>
>> Clearly you have absolutely nothing whatsoever to contribute.
>>
>> *plonk*
>
> Oh worrra worra, I have been kill filed by a sock puppet.


Soon you'lll slip away. Just like Tinkerbelle.


C'mon everyone, believe in Maxie !


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in news:4877a11f$0$90342$804603d3
@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com:

> on 7/11/2008 1:37 AM Bertie the Bunyip said the following:
>> Rich Ahrens > wrote in
>> . net:
>>
>>> on 7/10/2008 7:46 PM Bertie the Bunyip said the following:
>>>> gatt > wrote in
>>>> news:212qgk.ete.19.1 @integratelecom.com:
>>>>
>>>>> B-17?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Well, the Avro Lincoln was probably a good bit heavier than the 17,
>>>> and also probably the Lancaster, but I think maybe the Focke Wulf
200
>>>> was a bit bigger than either. It certainly had more range, though
>>>> probably not the payload of even the 17.
>>>> The postwar Avor Tudor is the only other giant taildragger I can
>>>> think of that might be in competition wiht those. I can't think of
>>>> any Russian aircraft that might be in contention, but if anyone
could
>>>> have, it would have been them!
>>> Like, say, the Petlyakov Pe-8? AKA the TB-7? It was the only
>>> four-engine bomber the Soviets had during WW II. Its max takeoff
>>> weight was 35,000 kg vs a bit less than 30,000 kg for the B-17. 39
>>> meter wingspan vs 32 meters. A photo:
>>>
>>> http://www.aviation.ru/Pe/8/Pe-8.jpg
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hhmm, never even seen that. I've never really looked much at Soviet
>> airplanes from that era. I must have a rummage around..
>
> Geez, I managed to out-trivia you for once? Shocking...


I'm as surprised as anyone!

>
> Among the Pe-8's features were hand-operated machine guns in the rear
of
> the inboard engine nacelles. It also had a single compressor above the
> bomb bay, driven by an auxiliary engine, which fed air to the engines
> via a huge duct in each wing in place of superchargers. So strictly
> speaking it was a five-engine beast!
>

Hmm, interesting solution to the problem. They had and have some very
clever guys there..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dale > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> gatt > wrote:
>
>>
>> Good suggestions.
>> Length
>> Avro Lincoln: 78 ft 3.5 in.
>> Lancaster: 69 ft 5 in.
>> Focke Wulf 200C-3: 77 ft 1 in.
>> Avor Tudor 1: 79 ft 6 in. (Wiki says the Tudor 2 was 25'
>> longer.) B-17G: 74 ft 4 in.
>>
>>
>> I wonder what they were like to handle on the ground. The B-17 might
>> have been easiest of them, I suppose, because of the huge rudder.
>>
>> -c
>
> Curtiss C-46: Length 76'4 Wingspan 108'1
>

But lighter over all, I think . I know a few guys who flew them up into the
late '70s. It was not highly thought of.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in news:ng8lfw$ci5
:

> Bertie the Bunyip, ye shrill-gorged mind diseas'd minion, live and love
> thy misery, ye derided:
>
>> Soon you'lll slip away. Just like Tinkerbelle.
>
> Hey, what's Snarky got to do with it?
>
> <runs off laughing>
>

You'd better run! It's good for your circulation.


Bertie

[Kadaitcha Man[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip, ye shrill-gorged mind diseas'd minion, live and love
thy misery, ye derided:

> Soon you'lll slip away. Just like Tinkerbelle.

Hey, what's Snarky got to do with it?

<runs off laughing>

--
Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk

[Cardinal Snarky of the Fannish Inquisition]

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:11:44 -1200, Kadaitcha Man sat in thee Comfee
Chaire, and didst finally confess, after taking Muche Tea:
> Bertie the Bunyip, ye shrill-gorged mind diseas'd minion, live and love
> thy misery, ye derided:
>
>> Soon you'lll slip away. Just like Tinkerbelle.
>
> Hey, what's Snarky got to do with it?
>
> <runs off laughing>

<releases the hunting Boojums> AFTER HIM!

--
__________________________________________________ ______________________
Hail Eris! Usenet Ruiner #5; Most Hated Usenetizen of All Time #13
Demon Prince of Absurdity; COOSN-029-06-71069; Official Chung Demon
Top Asshole #3; Lits Slut #16; AUK Psycho & Felon #21
Gutter Chix0r #17; BowTie's Spuriously Accused Pedo Photographer #4
Parrot & Zombie #2; Anonymous Psycho Criminal #18
"Lola Stonewall Riot" is not part of my email addy.
"If I were a Deep One...blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub,
bloody, bloody, blub..."
"For those of you without hope, we have rooms with color TV, cable and
air conditioning"

Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle
Trainer of PorchMonkey4Life
http://www.screedbomb.info/porchie/

"Oftentimes people ask me, 'Why is it that you're so focused on helping
the hungry and diseased in strange parts of the world?'" --George W.
Bush, Washington, D.C., April 18, 2008

Things We(TINW) Didn't Need To Know About Icebreaker, #5:
"I expose myself all the time" Message-ID:
>

"Hey Theophan, I need your help again. Will you please come assist me
again? aggreen is after me again. He has been after me for a year and
counting now. I want you to destroy his character for me. I can't do
it." -- Olympiada: Not too proud to beg for help when it comes to
character assassination, and Mistress of the Bleeding Obvious.
MID: >

"I think we have taken care of the net.KKKopping in alt.gothic. Could
all the kookologists trim alt.gothic from their headers and leave us
alone now? It has gone on long enough. I can take care of myself in there
from here on out. Thanks. I know how to fight off trolls now. Thank you
for the education." -- Olympiada thinks she's had an education, and that
means it's time for those nice kookologists to go away and leave her
sandbox alone now, in MID: >

"Who booby-traps a dead end? That's just not right." -- Cordelia

>> Are you the Peter J Ross that I've heard so much about?
>
> Probably. I'm the one who doesn't resort to forgery after losing an
> argument.

"You're the one with the extensive brain damage... okay I see. You're
gonna be easily to own them." -- PorchMonkey4Life: Not aware of too many
things. MID: <bf7xh.834$hH2.64@trnddc02>

At last! See Joxer The Mity Monkey on camera! Watch him freak out!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_WuaENGqz0

"You're just mad that you got tard stomped again fagg0t. You throw
something incredibly lame out there and I ramming it right back down
your throat. And you wonder how I just did what I did to you. You wonder
how I can make something so lame that you tossed out there so gosh darn
amusing when I fling it back at ya.

"Here's the secret: Unlike you, I am *not* retarded. You're tardness
gets in your way every single time, fagboi.

"Are you still crying over your keyboard, c0ckslurper? Is your mouth
wide open and drool falling out. Is your chunky body convulsing as you
think about how you were once again made a fool of? Are yellow boogie
snots running out of your unnaturally large nose down your triple chins?

"Look at what I reduced you too, tard.. I thoroughly enjoy owning and
abusing you.. Thanks for being so tarded and so easy to beat." -- The
PorchMonkey4Life has gone on to re-define red as yellow, black as white,
and being run over by a truck as just a scratch. Message-ID:
<kX3Nh.525$vI1.380@trnddc02>

"And no, I did not have sex with my son. But if I did I certainly
wouldn't tell you. Something so beautiful and precious should be kept
private." -- Kathy L. Mosesian, or possibly not really her, confesses
she may be a liar and committer of incest with her own son, in MID:
mailer.net>

The reporter asked Colin Powell (or George Bush), "What proof do you
have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?"
He replied, "We kept the receipts." -- Bill Hicks

Looney Maroon nominee for August 2006 Johnny D Wentzky foamed:
"You never asked someone who goes into areas of the internet that are
only for adults who has an underage id somehow or another if they are a
cop posing as an underage person online?
I guess lots of people just don't watch dateline or read stories much.
Why don;t you go to pervertedjustice,com and see what they do. They are
awash in their self-proclaimed glory after they lied to membners of the
public.
They are awash in their self-proclaimed glory after they posed as an
underage person and agreed to do all sorts of sex acts wioth adult
males, and they are adults posing as teenager themselves. They make
themsleves into liars by falsely impersonating underage persons and by
not fuilfilling the words they tell the victims online in their chats.
Why don't you read it where they tell these victims of their deceit
about how they have been with grown men and such? Why don't you read it
where they say, "That would be cool." after someone makes an advance
towards an adult who is posing as a teenager? And, where they agree to
meet the person, etc.
Lost control, didn't you?
Is that why you feel as if you need to lie so much now? I see where lots
of these false impersonation games are not sticking. They feel as if
they can lie and then order the victims to get counseling in the
gayblade, governmental, pro-choice tax leech counseling centers. They
are doing nothing more than usury and fraud in many cases." -- Wentzky
almost comes out of the closet as a pedo/ephebophile in MID:
>

To Whom It May Concern: Michael J. Cranston attorney kook is a dog****er

[Kadaitcha Man[_2_]]

Cardinal Snarky of the Fannish Inquisition, ye fly-eating sly divel, a
bankrupt, a prodigal, who dare scarce show thy head on Usenet, ye
pecked:

> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:11:44 -1200, Kadaitcha Man sat in thee Comfee
> Chaire, and didst finally confess, after taking Muche Tea:
>> Bertie the Bunyip, ye shrill-gorged mind diseas'd minion, live and love
>> thy misery, ye derided:
>>
>>> Soon you'lll slip away. Just like Tinkerbelle.
>>
>> Hey, what's Snarky got to do with it?
>>
>> <runs off laughing>
>
> <releases the hunting Boojums> AFTER HIM!


lol

--
Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk

[JanBen Hëlmüt]

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 09:11:44 +0200, Kadaitcha Man wrote
(in article >):

> Bertie the Bunyip, ye shrill-gorged mind diseas'd minion, live and love
> thy misery, ye derided:
>
>> Soon you'lll slip away. Just like Tinkerbelle.
>
> Hey, what's Snarky got to do with it?
>
> <runs off laughing>
>
>

Your opinion is important to me.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

-- ‹-- ‹-- ‹-- ‹-- ‹-- ‹-- ‹-- ‹-- ‹
Brutality Personified

http://www.asshelmets.com/

http://thetrolls.net/phpbb/

http://www.trollvalhalla.com/

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:co4ek.20328$%q.9180
@newsfe24.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> But lighter over all, I think . I know a few guys who flew them up into
>> the
>> late '70s. It was not highly thought of.
>>
>>
> You don't know ****, you're just attempting to troll.
>
>
>

It's pretty obvious to everyone but you when I'm trolling. that's what
makes me the best, Okie boi.


Bertie

[romeomike]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>
> Uh oh, now you've done it.
> you're on the lits now
>
> Bertie

Don't really have anything to ask or say to you. Just wanted to make
sure I make the next list. I was dropped from last one )-:

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"romeomike" > wrote in message
...
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>>
>> Uh oh, now you've done it.
>> you're on the lits now
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Don't really have anything to ask or say to you. Just wanted to make sure
> I make the next list. I was dropped from last one )-:
>

Nah, if you do it jus to make the list, you're obviously just another sock.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

romeomike > wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>>
>> Uh oh, now you've done it.
>> you're on the lits now
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Don't really have anything to ask or say to you. Just wanted to make
> sure I make the next list. I was dropped from last one )-:
>
>

Now he'll leave you off it for spite.

Oh wait, it's Maxie. I forgot. He's not that bright.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "romeomike" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Uh oh, now you've done it.
>>> you're on the lits now
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Don't really have anything to ask or say to you. Just wanted to make
>> sure I make the next list. I was dropped from last one )-:
>>
>
> Nah, if you do it jus to make the list, you're obviously just another
> sock.
>
>
>

Well, I wass right about him not being that bright. Anyhow, be fair and at
least put him on the sock lits.


Bertie

[gatt[_5_]]

Dale wrote:

> The B-17 is a pretty nice airplane to fly however. Ailerons heavy as
> heck, rudder not so bad, elevator pretty light. I've flown one in
> xwinds up to 40 knots (only about 30 degrees cross) and while it makes
> you work it doesn't take superman....but like any t/w airplane you gotta
> stay ahead of her.

Outstanding. Thanks for sharing. I'm envious; such a magnificent
airplane. It's not the most beautiful multi-engine airplane ever built I
don't know what is.

-c

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

gatt > wrote in
:

> Dale wrote:
>
>> The B-17 is a pretty nice airplane to fly however. Ailerons heavy as
>> heck, rudder not so bad, elevator pretty light. I've flown one in
>> xwinds up to 40 knots (only about 30 degrees cross) and while it
>> makes you work it doesn't take superman....but like any t/w airplane
>> you gotta stay ahead of her.
>
> Outstanding. Thanks for sharing. I'm envious; such a magnificent
> airplane. It's not the most beautiful multi-engine airplane ever built
> I don't know what is.
>
> -c
>
>
>

I'd vote ofr the DeHavilland Mosqito, or this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q_zNrj0GpM


Bertie

[yeadeagisss]

gatt wrote:

> Dale wrote:
>
>> The B-17 is a pretty nice airplane to fly however.
>
>
> Outstanding. Thanks for sharing. I'm envious; such a magnificent
> airplane. It's not the most beautiful multi-engine airplane ever built I
> don't know what is.

I'd apply the "most beautiful" sobriquet to the Lockheed Connie, flawed
Wright Cyclones and all.

[gatt[_5_]]

yeadeagisss wrote:
> gatt wrote:
>
>> Dale wrote:
>>
>>> The B-17 is a pretty nice airplane to fly however.
>>
>> Outstanding. Thanks for sharing. I'm envious; such a magnificent
>> airplane. It's not the most beautiful multi-engine airplane ever built
>> I don't know what is.
>
> I'd apply the "most beautiful" sobriquet to the Lockheed Connie, flawed
> Wright Cyclones and all.

Fascinating. Similar to Bertie's Albatross vote.

I saw a Connie and a B-17 together at Nellis one time. Definately
beautiful. I'd also nominate the P-38.

For singles, probably the Spitfire.

-c