Airplanes and Brakes?

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

I'm deligthted to see I'm managing to get some arguments and
discussion going. And if you notice, No Profanity?
I challenge my students to learn to taxi without brakes. and I come
down hard if they beat up the airplane with unecessary braking instead
of staying ahead of the airplane. (sometimes even with profanity! Can
you imagine that?)
How about you? If you had to pay for the brakes, tires, and
maintenance, would YOU beat up the airplane?
Ol S&B

[a[_3_]]

On Sep 15, 2:44*pm, "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
> I'm deligthted to see I'm managing to get some arguments and
> discussion going. And if you notice, No Profanity?
> I challenge my students to learn to taxi without brakes. and I come
> down hard if they beat up the airplane with unecessary braking instead
> of staying ahead of the airplane. (sometimes even with profanity! Can
> you imagine that?)
> How about you? If you had to pay for the brakes, tires, and
> maintenance, would YOU beat up the airplane?
> Ol S&B

Let's talk about the other part of flying. I consider a landing 'good'
if I make the planned turnoff without use of breaks or additional
throttle. The numbers on most runways for us GA types just identify
the runway, they should not be the touchdown target.

[[email protected]]

Ol Shy & Bashful > wrote:
> I'm deligthted to see I'm managing to get some arguments and
> discussion going. And if you notice, No Profanity?
> I challenge my students to learn to taxi without brakes. and I come
> down hard if they beat up the airplane with unecessary braking instead
> of staying ahead of the airplane. (sometimes even with profanity! Can
> you imagine that?)
> How about you? If you had to pay for the brakes, tires, and
> maintenance, would YOU beat up the airplane?
> Ol S&B

I fly a Tiger.

Got any suggestions on how to turn without brakes?

Back when I was flying 172's I never found it necessary to use the brakes
unless I had to make a REALLY tight turn, so I see your point.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Steve Foley]

> wrote in message
...
>
> I fly a Tiger.
>
> Got any suggestions on how to turn without brakes?
>

I fly a Cherokee without toe brakes.

Got any suggestions on how to turn WITH brakes? <g>

[romeomike]

a wrote:
I consider a landing 'good'
> if I make the planned turnoff without use of breaks or additional
> throttle.
>
>

"Breaks"? May be prevented by using the brakes. Sorry, couldn't resist :-)

[Jim Logajan]

"Steve Foley" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I fly a Tiger.
>>
>> Got any suggestions on how to turn without brakes?
>>
>
> I fly a Cherokee without toe brakes.
>
> Got any suggestions on how to turn WITH brakes? <g>

So far all I've ever flown is a Schweizer SGS 2-33. Not only can't I turn
it with the brake, I can't reach the brake during taxi anyway since I'm
outside the cockpit during those times. ;-)

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Sep 15, 2:44*pm, "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
> I'm deligthted to see I'm managing to get some arguments and
> discussion going. And if you notice, No Profanity?
> I challenge my students to learn to taxi without brakes. and I come
> down hard if they beat up the airplane with unecessary braking instead
> of staying ahead of the airplane. (sometimes even with profanity! Can
> you imagine that?)
> How about you? If you had to pay for the brakes, tires, and
> maintenance, would YOU beat up the airplane?
> Ol S&B

I agree completely, (and without cussing :-)

I see you are naturally getting replies from the Grumman and Cherokee
folks :-) But your point is well made. The way I would present this
issue is to simply say that brakes are put on the airplane to hold it
for the run up check and for use ONLY when your pre-planned use of
aerodynamic forces available to you, or your steering capabilities
won't make the necessary change in direction.
In other words, you shouldn't be using them on takeoff, landing, and
even while taxiing if your planning is adequate for the situation.
I like the general rule that dictates that brakes on an airplane
should be used as little as possible.

Dudley Henriques

[Viperdoc[_5_]]

I've been in a couple of planes where without the brakes the thing
accelerates too much. The F-16 comes to mind, where without intermittent
braking it picks up too much speed, and braking on landing is pretty much
SOP.

My Baron needs occasional braking on taxi, otherwise below around 1000rpm
the oil pressure drops too low. My friend's turbine Bonanza needs to use
beta during taxi or the brakes to keep from picking up too much speed.

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
On Sep 15, 2:44 pm, "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
> I'm deligthted to see I'm managing to get some arguments and
> discussion going. And if you notice, No Profanity?
> I challenge my students to learn to taxi without brakes. and I come
> down hard if they beat up the airplane with unecessary braking instead
> of staying ahead of the airplane. (sometimes even with profanity! Can
> you imagine that?)
> How about you? If you had to pay for the brakes, tires, and
> maintenance, would YOU beat up the airplane?
> Ol S&B

I agree completely, (and without cussing :-)

I see you are naturally getting replies from the Grumman and Cherokee
folks :-) But your point is well made. The way I would present this
issue is to simply say that brakes are put on the airplane to hold it
for the run up check and for use ONLY when your pre-planned use of
aerodynamic forces available to you, or your steering capabilities
won't make the necessary change in direction.
In other words, you shouldn't be using them on takeoff, landing, and
even while taxiing if your planning is adequate for the situation.
I like the general rule that dictates that brakes on an airplane
should be used as little as possible.

Dudley Henriques

[tjd]

On Sep 15, 2:44*pm, "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
> How about you? If you had to pay for the brakes, tires, and
> maintenance, would YOU beat up the airplane?

Haha - I have to admit that I didn't give it much consideration when I
was a renter. Coupled with the fact the flight school was near the
approach end of the usual runway I likely abused them to make the
early turnoff.

Funny how buying a plane and having to pay for them yourself changes
your perspective on things - now I try not to use them at all if I can
help it. Although, I would challenge you to taxi to my hangar without
using brakes - taxiway E at AGC goes down a pretty substantial hill so
I don't see that I have much choice.

Also, once when flying with an instructor and landing somewhere with a
shorter runway, I rolled down to the end with the yoke full back but
still had to brake a bit to make the last turnoff. The instructor
pointed out it's probably a good idea to find out if your brakes work
sometime before you roll down the embankment at the end... So now I
make it a point to at least give them a tap while I still have time to
do something about it if they don't work.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Sep 15, 4:47*pm, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> I've been in a couple of planes where without the brakes the thing
> accelerates too much. The F-16 comes to mind, where without intermittent
> braking it picks up too much speed, and braking on landing is pretty much
> SOP.
>
> My Baron needs occasional braking on taxi, otherwise below around 1000rpm
> the oil pressure drops too low. My friend's turbine Bonanza *needs to use
> beta during taxi or the brakes to keep from picking up too much speed.
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Sep 15, 2:44 pm, "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
>
> > I'm deligthted to see I'm managing to get some arguments and
> > discussion going. And if you notice, No Profanity?
> > I challenge my students to learn to taxi without brakes. and I come
> > down hard if they beat up the airplane with unecessary braking instead
> > of staying ahead of the airplane. (sometimes even with profanity! Can
> > you imagine that?)
> > How about you? If you had to pay for the brakes, tires, and
> > maintenance, would YOU beat up the airplane?
> > Ol S&B
>
> I agree completely, (and without cussing :-)
>
> I see you are naturally getting replies from the Grumman and Cherokee
> folks :-) But your point is well made. The way I would present this
> issue is to simply say that brakes are put on the airplane to hold it
> for the run up check and for use ONLY when your pre-planned use of
> aerodynamic forces available to you, or your steering capabilities
> won't make the necessary change in direction.
> In other words, you shouldn't be using them on takeoff, landing, and
> even while taxiing if your planning is adequate for the situation.
> I like the general rule that dictates that brakes on an airplane
> should be used as little as possible.
>
> Dudley Henriques

Had the chance to fly the Viper a few times. Didn't notice any
excessive increase in taxi speed that very light braking couldn't
handle. Did use them a bit being late with throttle reduction after a
start from a standing position until I got used to the response :-)
Landing the Viper for me anyway was a conglomeration of a lot of
things happening at once. Assuming no drag chute deployment, keeping
the nose up to 13 degrees AOA gave good aerodynamic braking down to
about 80kts. At 80 kts you could fly the nosewheel down to the runway
with good control. If I remember right, the speedbrake was restricted
to around 43 degrees with the airplane dirty and this was in play
through touchdown and until the nose was on the runway, then hitting
the SB slider again extended the boards out to full at 60 degrees.

I didn't notice anything that required excessive brake use through
roll out. In fact, I never flew the Viper with heavy externals but the
word was that landing hot and using the brakes could get you sent over
to the hot brake area to sit and sweat your butt off over there in the
sun :-))
DH

[Viperdoc[_5_]]

Saw the hot brake thing a couple of times- glowing red hot. I wouldn't want
to be standing anywhere near the wheel if the plug blew up. With the engine
running the ECS keeps the thing remarkably cool.

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:
>How about you? If you had to pay for the brakes, tires, and
>maintenance, would YOU beat up the airplane?

Now that I have to pay for my own brakes, I hardly ever use them. Back in
my Cessna days, I'd occasionally have to use them to tighten a turn during
taxi (thanks to Cessna's bungee arrangement). With the Piper's direct
linkage, I almost never use them for taxi. On landing, traffic permitting,
I just let the plane roll out and slow down on its own. The only exception
to that would be when landing at short backcountry strips. Most don't afford
the luxury of a long roll out.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200809/1

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Sep 15, 5:34*pm, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> Saw the hot brake thing a couple of times- glowing red hot. I wouldn't want
> to be standing anywhere near the wheel if the plug blew up. With the engine
> running *the ECS keeps the thing remarkably cool.

They told me what the tire pressures were but I can't remember. I do
recall it was some ungodly high pressure. I sure wouldn't want to have
one blow right next to me for sure :-))

Wonderful airplane! Just like the T38; point it where you want it to
go and hang on :-)
D

[Viperdoc[_5_]]

As I recall it was somewhere in the range of around 250psi, and the
magnesium wheels have a blow out plug to keep the thing from exploding.
However, I still wouldn't want to be anywhere near if the thing let go.

We taxied up next to one with hot brakes, which we called on the radio, and
I couldn't wait until the ordinance guys did their check to get out of
there- it seemed like the wheel was pointing right at us.

[John Godwin]

wrote in
:

> I fly a Tiger.
>
> Got any suggestions on how to turn without brakes?

Some folks turning planes with a castering nose wheels tend to stay on
the brakes when just taps on the brake will work. This technique
worked on the plane I flew unless I was taxiing too fast.


--

[Paul kgyy]

On Sep 15, 1:44*pm, "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
> I'm deligthted to see I'm managing to get some arguments and
> discussion going. And if you notice, No Profanity?
> I challenge my students to learn to taxi without brakes. and I come
> down hard if they beat up the airplane with unecessary braking instead
> of staying ahead of the airplane. (sometimes even with profanity! Can
> you imagine that?)
> How about you? If you had to pay for the brakes, tires, and
> maintenance, would YOU beat up the airplane?
> Ol S&B

Lycoming recommends a relatively high idle speed (>1000rpm) to keep
the plugs hot enough to avoid plug fouling if using leaded fuel, and
TCM has a similar suggestion. However, at this idle speed I do need
to use brakes occasionally, particularly when taxiing downwind.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Sep 15, 6:05*pm, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> As I recall it was somewhere in the range of around 250psi, and the
> magnesium wheels have a blow out plug to keep the thing from exploding.
> However, I still wouldn't want to be anywhere near if the thing let go.
>
> We taxied up next to one with hot brakes, which we called on the radio, and
> I couldn't wait until the ordinance guys did their check to get out of
> there- it seemed like the wheel was pointing right at us.

Sort of like staring into a loaded bomb I would imagine.
D

[Peter Dohm]

"Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote in message
...
> I'm deligthted to see I'm managing to get some arguments and
> discussion going. And if you notice, No Profanity?
> I challenge my students to learn to taxi without brakes. and I come
> down hard if they beat up the airplane with unecessary braking instead
> of staying ahead of the airplane. (sometimes even with profanity! Can
> you imagine that?)
> How about you? If you had to pay for the brakes, tires, and
> maintenance, would YOU beat up the airplane?
> Ol S&B

Correct tire inflation and maintenance of the nose strut are also part of
the equation. I'm pretty sure that those things are done propertly at your
school; but I doubt they are universal even today.

I hereby confess to having once inflated the main tires on a Cessna 152 to
the recommended nose wheel pressure--and found out why the recommended
pressure was so low!

Peter

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote in news:87cfb870-6f6d-4d85-
:

> I'm deligthted to see I'm managing to get some arguments and
> discussion going. And if you notice, No Profanity?

****in A!

> I challenge my students to learn to taxi without brakes. and I come
> down hard if they beat up the airplane with unecessary braking instead
> of staying ahead of the airplane. (sometimes even with profanity! Can
> you imagine that?)
> How about you? If you had to pay for the brakes, tires, and
> maintenance, would YOU beat up the airplane?


Even if I don't have to.



Bertie



>

[Rocky]

Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:
> I'm deligthted to see I'm managing to get some arguments and
> discussion going. And if you notice, No Profanity?
> I challenge my students to learn to taxi without brakes. and I come
> down hard if they beat up the airplane with unecessary braking instead
> of staying ahead of the airplane. (sometimes even with profanity! Can
> you imagine that?)
> How about you? If you had to pay for the brakes, tires, and
> maintenance, would YOU beat up the airplane?
> Ol S&B
Try this on for size.....

I had a 1960 Mooney M20A. The first two years of ownership, during
annual it needed brake relines. After this I changed my operating
practices. Ever see a car with rusty brake discs? I and the other 4
owners started using the brakes on EVERY landing and for the next three
years did not need any brake parts replaced.

Think of it this way. You never use the brakes and they rust (yes chrome
included). Then when you do use them its like rubbing sandpaper against
the pads and discs. By using them regularly, the rust isn't allowed to
form by the discs and pads aew being cleaned each use. No rust = longer
life. Thats my experience with the Mooney.

Rocky

[BT]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>
> So far all I've ever flown is a Schweizer SGS 2-33. Not only can't I turn
> it with the brake, I can't reach the brake during taxi anyway since I'm
> outside the cockpit during those times. ;-)

You've never landed and then "taxied to parking"?
BT, CFI-G

[[email protected]]

On Sep 15, 12:44*pm, "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
> I'm deligthted to see I'm managing to get some arguments and
> discussion going. And if you notice, No Profanity?
> I challenge my students to learn to taxi without brakes. and I come
> down hard if they beat up the airplane with unecessary braking instead
> of staying ahead of the airplane. (sometimes even with profanity! Can
> you imagine that?)
> How about you? If you had to pay for the brakes, tires, and
> maintenance, would YOU beat up the airplane?
> Ol S&B

A lot of students and/or renters aren't thinking about brake
burnout. They've grown up driving cars that had pretty good brakes, so
they treat the airplane's brakes the same. They often don't know what
the "L" in "PRNDL" is for, or the "3-2-1" in "PRND321." They never use
those settings when going down hills, or if they have a standard, they
use the brakes on it, too, instead of gearing down. So brakes become
the fix for most instances of speed control.
So they taxi around with too much power and use the brakes to fix
that. Or land long and fast and use the brakes to fix that, too,
except that the wings are still lifting and there's little weight and
traction on the tires, so the tires suffer as well as the brakes. And
sooner or later the surface conditions are less than good and the
brakes can't fix the problem anymore and some damage ensues.
When I was instructing I was always asking the student to pull
that throttle back, please, and stop riding the brakes. Brakes that
are held on during taxi get very hot and their metallic compounds
start to weld to the disc and raise little burrs that cut the
daylights out of the pads. Those $160 discs wear out much faster, even
aside from the burrs. Tires that have to resist the thrust constantly
scrub a little and wear out quickly. And with the thrust line at the
prop hub and the drag at the surface, a rotational couple is created
that pulls the nose down so that the propeller, which is turning too
fast and moving much more air than necessary, sucks up all the little
rocks and other hard bits that eat the propeller before its time. Such
sloppy piloting costs a lot, see, and it only makes the aircraft owner
raise his rates to cover the maintenance expenses. A private owner
that's had to pay for this sort of thing becomes acutely aware of his
bad habits.

Dan

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2008-09-15 11:44:12 -0700, "Ol Shy & Bashful" > said:

> I'm deligthted to see I'm managing to get some arguments and
> discussion going. And if you notice, No Profanity?
> I challenge my students to learn to taxi without brakes. and I come
> down hard if they beat up the airplane with unecessary braking instead
> of staying ahead of the airplane. (sometimes even with profanity! Can
> you imagine that?)
> How about you? If you had to pay for the brakes, tires, and
> maintenance, would YOU beat up the airplane?
> Ol S&B

Naw. In fact, I challenge my students not to use brakes even when they
are flying! :-)

(Sorry, OSB. Couldn't help it.)
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Tman]

When renting, on most landings ('xcept the last of the day), I'll land
short and brake hard (just hard, no squealing) to minimize hobbs time
when taxing back for departure by making the first turnoff...
T



Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:
> I'm deligthted to see I'm managing to get some arguments and
> discussion going. And if you notice, No Profanity?
> I challenge my students to learn to taxi without brakes. and I come
> down hard if they beat up the airplane with unecessary braking instead
> of staying ahead of the airplane. (sometimes even with profanity! Can
> you imagine that?)
> How about you? If you had to pay for the brakes, tires, and
> maintenance, would YOU beat up the airplane?
> Ol S&B

[Jim Logajan]

"BT" > wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>>
>> So far all I've ever flown is a Schweizer SGS 2-33. Not only can't I
>> turn it with the brake, I can't reach the brake during taxi anyway
>> since I'm outside the cockpit during those times. ;-)
>
> You've never landed and then "taxied to parking"?

Sure - but have yet to sit in the aircraft during "taxi to parking"
because the 2-33 is a monowheel glider. (Caveats on the monowheel.
It has small wheels near the wingtips and a small tailwheel.)

After landing one gets out, waits for the tow vehicle (in our case a
riding lawn mower) and someone has to pick up the low wing and level it
and then walk alongside the glider while mower pulls the glider along.
Steering is by walking faster or slower than the mower. It's a grass
strip so trying to manually move the glider more than a few dozen feet
is a chore. This is the field:

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=44.195544,-123.072238&spn=0.007046,0.016522&t=h&z=17

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> "BT" > wrote:
>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> So far all I've ever flown is a Schweizer SGS 2-33. Not only can't I
>>> turn it with the brake, I can't reach the brake during taxi anyway
>>> since I'm outside the cockpit during those times. ;-)
>>
>> You've never landed and then "taxied to parking"?
>
> Sure - but have yet to sit in the aircraft during "taxi to parking"
> because the 2-33 is a monowheel glider. (Caveats on the monowheel.
> It has small wheels near the wingtips and a small tailwheel.)


he meant rolling it to the tiedown after touchdown..



Bertie

[Jim Logajan]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Jim Logajan > wrote in
> :
>
>> "BT" > wrote:
>>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> So far all I've ever flown is a Schweizer SGS 2-33. Not only can't I
>>>> turn it with the brake, I can't reach the brake during taxi anyway
>>>> since I'm outside the cockpit during those times. ;-)
>>>
>>> You've never landed and then "taxied to parking"?
>>
>> Sure - but have yet to sit in the aircraft during "taxi to parking"
>> because the 2-33 is a monowheel glider. (Caveats on the monowheel.
>> It has small wheels near the wingtips and a small tailwheel.)
>
>
> he meant rolling it to the tiedown after touchdown..

Ah - I misunderstood - no. See, there is this shallow drainage ditch in the
grass between the tie down area and the landing field that would make for
some nasty pranging at anything above walking speed. Plus the tow plane is
typically too close to the tie down area to do that safely.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Jim Logajan > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> "BT" > wrote:
>>>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> So far all I've ever flown is a Schweizer SGS 2-33. Not only can't
>>>>> I turn it with the brake, I can't reach the brake during taxi
>>>>> anyway since I'm outside the cockpit during those times. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> You've never landed and then "taxied to parking"?
>>>
>>> Sure - but have yet to sit in the aircraft during "taxi to parking"
>>> because the 2-33 is a monowheel glider. (Caveats on the monowheel.
>>> It has small wheels near the wingtips and a small tailwheel.)
>>
>>
>> he meant rolling it to the tiedown after touchdown..
>
> Ah - I misunderstood - no. See, there is this shallow drainage ditch
> in the grass between the tie down area and the landing field that
> would make for some nasty pranging at anything above walking speed.
> Plus the tow plane is typically too close to the tie down area to do
> that safely.
>

Yeah, it's not something you can do just anywhere!


Bertie

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:55:09 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

> The way I would present this
>issue is to simply say that brakes are put on the airplane to hold it
>for the run up check and for use ONLY when your pre-planned use of
>aerodynamic forces available to you, or your steering capabilities
>won't make the necessary change in direction.
>In other words, you shouldn't be using them on takeoff, landing, and
>even while taxiing if your planning is adequate for the situation.
>I like the general rule that dictates that brakes on an airplane
>should be used as little as possible.
>
>Dudley Henriques

you know that I posted a comment along this exact line of thought
about a month ago I got bagged by nearly everyone for over a week.
I'm still correct in what I wrote and you evidently are in agreement.

:-)
Stealth Pilot

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

On Sep 15, 1:55*pm, wrote:
> Ol Shy & Bashful > wrote:
>
> > I'm deligthted to see I'm managing to get some arguments and
> > discussion going. And if you notice, No Profanity?
> > I challenge my students to learn to taxi without brakes. and I come
> > down hard if they beat up the airplane with unecessary braking instead
> > of staying ahead of the airplane. (sometimes even with profanity! Can
> > you imagine that?)
> > How about you? If you had to pay for the brakes, tires, and
> > maintenance, would YOU beat up the airplane?
> > Ol S&B
>
> I fly a Tiger.
>
> Got any suggestions on how to turn without brakes?
>
> Back when I was flying 172's I never found it necessary to use the brakes
> unless I had to make a REALLY tight turn, so I see your point.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Jim
Well ya got me there! But even so, careful use of flight controls can
certainly mitigate brake use. I started flying the old AA-1 back in
the early 70's and it wasn't much different than taxiing one of the
old Volpar Beech conversions that required braking in place of nose
wheel steering.
Ol S&B

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

On Sep 15, 4:12*pm, tjd > wrote:
> On Sep 15, 2:44*pm, "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
>
> > How about you? If you had to pay for the brakes, tires, and
> > maintenance, would YOU beat up the airplane?
>
> Haha - I have to admit that I didn't give it much consideration when I
> was a renter. *Coupled with the fact the flight school was near the
> approach end of the usual runway I likely abused them to make the
> early turnoff.
>
> Funny how buying a plane and having to pay for them yourself changes
> your perspective on things - now I try not to use them at all if I can
> help it. *Although, I would challenge you to taxi to my hangar without
> using brakes - taxiway E at AGC goes down a pretty substantial hill so
> I don't see that I have much choice.
>
> Also, once when flying with an instructor and landing somewhere with a
> shorter runway, I rolled down to the end with the yoke full back but
> still had to brake a bit to make the last turnoff. *The instructor
> pointed out it's probably a good idea to find out if your brakes work
> sometime before you roll down the embankment at the end... *So now I
> make it a point to at least give them a tap while I still have time to
> do something about it if they don't work.


That sounds much like the situation here with a downslope of 40' in
5000 and a nasty ravine at the end. I teach my students to check
brakes as they reach the aiming blocks and if the pressure is gone or
going away to make a decision well before they end up going off the
end and saying "Oh Sh*&" Sorry Dudley, I couldn't resist<GG>

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

On Sep 15, 4:35*pm, "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote:
> Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:
>
> >How about you? If you had to pay for the brakes, tires, and
> >maintenance, would YOU beat up the airplane?
>
> * Now that I have to pay for my own brakes, I hardly ever use them. *Back in
> my Cessna days, I'd occasionally have to use them to tighten a turn during
> taxi (thanks to Cessna's bungee arrangement). *With the Piper's direct
> linkage, I almost never use them for taxi. * On landing, traffic permitting,
> I just let the plane roll out and slow down on its own. *The only exception
> to that would be when landing at short backcountry strips. *Most don't afford
> the luxury of a long roll out.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
> --
> Message posted via AviationKB.comhttp://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200809/1

John
Certainly we use heaving braking from time to time and especially in
the back country strips but even then the gravel doesn't help much? I
think I learned a lot about braking while flying off short strips in
the Amazon as well as in the Idaho Primitive back before it got named
the Frank Church wilderness. Come to think of it, lots of time
operating off 1200' dirt strips while crop dusting and didn't use
brakes that much.
Best Regards
Ol S&B

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

On Sep 15, 8:25*pm, C J Campbell >
wrote:
> On 2008-09-15 11:44:12 -0700, "Ol Shy & Bashful" > said:
>
> > I'm deligthted to see I'm managing to get some arguments and
> > discussion going. And if you notice, No Profanity?
> > I challenge my students to learn to taxi without brakes. and I come
> > down hard if they beat up the airplane with unecessary braking instead
> > of staying ahead of the airplane. (sometimes even with profanity! Can
> > you imagine that?)
> > How about you? If you had to pay for the brakes, tires, and
> > maintenance, would YOU beat up the airplane?
> > Ol S&B
>
> Naw. In fact, I challenge my students not to use brakes even when they
> are flying! :-)
>
> (Sorry, OSB. Couldn't help it.)
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor

WHATT????No Brakes while flying? That is terrible. Well, I guess that
prevents skids ......<ggg>

[Mick[_2_]]

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:55:09 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> The way I would present this
>>issue is to simply say that brakes are put on the airplane to hold it
>>for the run up check and for use ONLY when your pre-planned use of
>>aerodynamic forces available to you, or your steering capabilities
>>won't make the necessary change in direction.
>>In other words, you shouldn't be using them on takeoff, landing, and
>>even while taxiing if your planning is adequate for the situation.
>>I like the general rule that dictates that brakes on an airplane
>>should be used as little as possible.
>>
>>Dudley Henriques
>
> you know that I posted a comment along this exact line of thought
> about a month ago I got bagged by nearly everyone for over a week.
> I'm still correct in what I wrote and you evidently are in agreement.
>
> :-)
> Stealth Pilot

No, it just mean you are both wrong.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Sep 16, 8:13*am, "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
> On Sep 15, 4:12*pm, tjd > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 15, 2:44*pm, "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
>
> > > How about you? If you had to pay for the brakes, tires, and
> > > maintenance, would YOU beat up the airplane?
>
> > Haha - I have to admit that I didn't give it much consideration when I
> > was a renter. *Coupled with the fact the flight school was near the
> > approach end of the usual runway I likely abused them to make the
> > early turnoff.
>
> > Funny how buying a plane and having to pay for them yourself changes
> > your perspective on things - now I try not to use them at all if I can
> > help it. *Although, I would challenge you to taxi to my hangar without
> > using brakes - taxiway E at AGC goes down a pretty substantial hill so
> > I don't see that I have much choice.
>
> > Also, once when flying with an instructor and landing somewhere with a
> > shorter runway, I rolled down to the end with the yoke full back but
> > still had to brake a bit to make the last turnoff. *The instructor
> > pointed out it's probably a good idea to find out if your brakes work
> > sometime before you roll down the embankment at the end... *So now I
> > make it a point to at least give them a tap while I still have time to
> > do something about it if they don't work.
>
> That sounds much like the situation here with a downslope of 40' in
> 5000 and a nasty ravine at the end. I teach my students to check
> brakes as they reach the aiming blocks and if the pressure is gone or
> going away to make a decision well before they end up going off the
> end and saying "Oh Sh*&" Sorry Dudley, I couldn't resist<GG>

No problem. I consider the testing of an airplane's brakes after
touchdown as a whole issue unto itself. In discussing the use of
brakes with a student, I'd separate this little "gotcha" from any
discussion centered on whether or not to use brakes on landing.
Other than what should be this automatic "check" that brakes are
available, I would stress that brakes only be used when necessary and
as previously stated. :-))

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Sep 16, 8:38*am, "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote:
> "Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:55:09 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques
> > > wrote:
>
> >> The way I would present this
> >>issue is to simply say that brakes are put on the airplane to hold it
> >>for the run up check and for use ONLY when your pre-planned use of
> >>aerodynamic forces available to you, or your steering capabilities
> >>won't make the necessary change in direction.
> >>In other words, you shouldn't be using them on takeoff, landing, and
> >>even while taxiing if your planning is adequate for the situation.
> >>I like the general rule that dictates that brakes on an airplane
> >>should be used as little as possible.
>
> >>Dudley Henriques
>
> > you know that I posted a comment along this exact line of thought
> > about a month ago I got bagged by nearly everyone for over a week.
> > I'm still correct in what I wrote and you evidently are in agreement.
>
> > :-)
> > Stealth Pilot
>
> No, it just mean you are both wrong.

Don't think so.

[a[_3_]]

On Sep 16, 9:59*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> On Sep 16, 8:38*am, "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:55:09 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques
> > > > wrote:
>
> > >> The way I would present this
> > >>issue is to simply say that brakes are put on the airplane to hold it
> > >>for the run up check and for use ONLY when your pre-planned use of
> > >>aerodynamic forces available to you, or your steering capabilities
> > >>won't make the necessary change in direction.
> > >>In other words, you shouldn't be using them on takeoff, landing, and
> > >>even while taxiing if your planning is adequate for the situation.
> > >>I like the general rule that dictates that brakes on an airplane
> > >>should be used as little as possible.
>
> > >>Dudley Henriques
>
> > > you know that I posted a comment along this exact line of thought
> > > about a month ago I got bagged by nearly everyone for over a week.
> > > I'm still correct in what I wrote and you evidently are in agreement.
>
> > > :-)
> > > Stealth Pilot
>
> > No, it just mean you are both wrong.
>
> Don't think so.

Minimal use of brakes on both cars and airplanes is evidence the
operator is planning well ahead of the vehicle. It provides a smoother
ride, less wear and tear, and better economy. Sure there are
circumstances where braking is needed,, but many can be anticipated.

[Mick[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
On Sep 16, 8:38 am, "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote:
> "Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:55:09 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques
> > > wrote:
>
> >> The way I would present this
> >>issue is to simply say that brakes are put on the airplane to hold it
> >>for the run up check and for use ONLY when your pre-planned use of
> >>aerodynamic forces available to you, or your steering capabilities
> >>won't make the necessary change in direction.
> >>In other words, you shouldn't be using them on takeoff, landing, and
> >>even while taxiing if your planning is adequate for the situation.
> >>I like the general rule that dictates that brakes on an airplane
> >>should be used as little as possible.
>
> >>Dudley Henriques
>
> > you know that I posted a comment along this exact line of thought
> > about a month ago I got bagged by nearly everyone for over a week.
> > I'm still correct in what I wrote and you evidently are in agreement.
>
> > :-)
> > Stealth Pilot
>
> No, it just mean you are both wrong.

Don't think so.

---------------------------------------

Sure, jump on the band wagon Dumley.

So brakes were no put on aircraft to stop them. You're both full of it.

[Mick[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
news:53aa3f73-4961-4564-8c51-

No problem. I consider the testing of an airplane's brakes after
touchdown as a whole issue unto itself. In discussing the use of
brakes with a student, I'd separate this little "gotcha" from any
discussion centered on whether or not to use brakes on landing.
Other than what should be this automatic "check" that brakes are
available, I would stress that brakes only be used when necessary and
as previously stated. :-))

---------------------------

Nonsense, you're talking out of both sides of you're mouth as usual.

No surprise.

[Blanche]

In article >, Mick <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote:
[snip]
>Sure, jump on the band wagon Dumley.
>
>So brakes were no put on aircraft to stop them. You're both full of it.

Ah, another troll with no factual evidence, who hides behind anonimity.

[Mick[_2_]]

"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Mick <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote:
> [snip]
>>Sure, jump on the band wagon Dumley.
>>
>>So brakes were no put on aircraft to stop them. You're both full of it.
>
> Ah, another troll with no factual evidence, who hides behind anonimity.
>
>

Well, who in the hell is Blanche?

What factual evidence? You want me to prove brakes were not put and airplane
to stop them?

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Sep 16, 10:05*am, a > wrote:
> On Sep 16, 9:59*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 16, 8:38*am, "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote:
>
> > > "Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
>
> > ...
>
> > > > On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:55:09 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > >> The way I would present this
> > > >>issue is to simply say that brakes are put on the airplane to hold it
> > > >>for the run up check and for use ONLY when your pre-planned use of
> > > >>aerodynamic forces available to you, or your steering capabilities
> > > >>won't make the necessary change in direction.
> > > >>In other words, you shouldn't be using them on takeoff, landing, and
> > > >>even while taxiing if your planning is adequate for the situation.
> > > >>I like the general rule that dictates that brakes on an airplane
> > > >>should be used as little as possible.
>
> > > >>Dudley Henriques
>
> > > > you know that I posted a comment along this exact line of thought
> > > > about a month ago I got bagged by nearly everyone for over a week.
> > > > I'm still correct in what I wrote and you evidently are in agreement.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Sep 16, 10:08*am, "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Sep 16, 8:38 am, "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:55:09 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques
> > > > wrote:
>
> > >> The way I would present this
> > >>issue is to simply say that brakes are put on the airplane to hold it
> > >>for the run up check and for use ONLY when your pre-planned use of
> > >>aerodynamic forces available to you, or your steering capabilities
> > >>won't make the necessary change in direction.
> > >>In other words, you shouldn't be using them on takeoff, landing, and
> > >>even while taxiing if your planning is adequate for the situation.
> > >>I like the general rule that dictates that brakes on an airplane
> > >>should be used as little as possible.
>
> > >>Dudley Henriques
>
> > > you know that I posted a comment along this exact line of thought
> > > about a month ago I got bagged by nearly everyone for over a week.
> > > I'm still correct in what I wrote and you evidently are in agreement.
>
> > > :-)
> > > Stealth Pilot
>
> > No, it just mean you are both wrong.
>
> Don't think so.
>
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Sure, jump on the band wagon Dumley.
>
> So brakes were no put on aircraft to stop them. You're both full of it.

Well Hello Maxie! Nothing but the usual I see :-))

[Mick[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
On Sep 15, 4:47 pm, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> I've been in a couple of planes where without the brakes the thing
> accelerates too much. The F-16 comes to mind, where without intermittent
> braking it picks up too much speed, and braking on landing is pretty much
> SOP.
>
> My Baron needs occasional braking on taxi, otherwise below around 1000rpm
> the oil pressure drops too low. My friend's turbine Bonanza needs to use
> beta during taxi or the brakes to keep from picking up too much speed.
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Sep 15, 2:44 pm, "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
>
> > I'm deligthted to see I'm managing to get some arguments and
> > discussion going. And if you notice, No Profanity?
> > I challenge my students to learn to taxi without brakes. and I come
> > down hard if they beat up the airplane with unecessary braking instead
> > of staying ahead of the airplane. (sometimes even with profanity! Can
> > you imagine that?)
> > How about you? If you had to pay for the brakes, tires, and
> > maintenance, would YOU beat up the airplane?
> > Ol S&B
>
> I agree completely, (and without cussing :-)
>
> I see you are naturally getting replies from the Grumman and Cherokee
> folks :-) But your point is well made. The way I would present this
> issue is to simply say that brakes are put on the airplane to hold it
> for the run up check and for use ONLY when your pre-planned use of
> aerodynamic forces available to you, or your steering capabilities
> won't make the necessary change in direction.
> In other words, you shouldn't be using them on takeoff, landing, and
> even while taxiing if your planning is adequate for the situation.
> I like the general rule that dictates that brakes on an airplane
> should be used as little as possible.
>
> Dudley Henriques

Had the chance to fly the Viper a few times. Didn't notice any
excessive increase in taxi speed that very light braking couldn't
handle. Did use them a bit being late with throttle reduction after a
start from a standing position until I got used to the response :-)
Landing the Viper for me anyway was a conglomeration of a lot of
things happening at once. Assuming no drag chute deployment, keeping
the nose up to 13 degrees AOA gave good aerodynamic braking down to
about 80kts. At 80 kts you could fly the nosewheel down to the runway
with good control. If I remember right, the speedbrake was restricted
to around 43 degrees with the airplane dirty and this was in play
through touchdown and until the nose was on the runway, then hitting
the SB slider again extended the boards out to full at 60 degrees.

I didn't notice anything that required excessive brake use through
roll out. In fact, I never flew the Viper with heavy externals but the
word was that landing hot and using the brakes could get you sent over
to the hot brake area to sit and sweat your butt off over there in the
sun :-))
DH

---------------------------------------

Shame you got thrown off Wikipedia, you would have to keep retyping this
**** every time you feel insecure.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Sep 16, 10:21*am, "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote:
> "Blanche" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > In article >, Mick <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >>Sure, jump on the band wagon Dumley.
>
> >>So brakes were no put on aircraft to stop them. You're both full of it.
>
> > Ah, another troll with no factual evidence, who hides behind anonimity.
>
> Well, who in the hell is Blanche?
>
> What factual evidence? You want me to prove brakes were not put and airplane
> to stop them?

I believe the conversation (at least excluding you that is :-) has
more to do with when brakes should be used rather than the obvious
observation that they actually exist and what they are designed to do.
I have a gun. I know that gun can kill someone; that's obvious! What
isn't so obvious is how, when, and where it's right or wrong to use
that gun.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Sep 16, 10:09*am, "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> news:53aa3f73-4961-4564-8c51-
>
> No problem. I consider the testing of an airplane's brakes after
> touchdown as a whole issue unto itself. In discussing the use of
> brakes with a student, I'd separate this little "gotcha" from any
> discussion centered on whether or not to use brakes on landing.
> Other than what should be this automatic "check" that brakes are
> available, I would stress that brakes only be used when necessary and
> as previously stated. :-))
>
> ---------------------------
>
> Nonsense, you're talking out of both sides of you're mouth as usual.
>
> No surprise.

You really "work" on this little hate thing day and night don't you
Maxie? :-)))

[Mick[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
On Sep 16, 10:21 am, "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote:
> "Blanche" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > In article >, Mick <@_#`~#@.^net>
> > wrote:
> > [snip]
> >>Sure, jump on the band wagon Dumley.
>
> >>So brakes were no put on aircraft to stop them. You're both full of it.
>
> > Ah, another troll with no factual evidence, who hides behind anonimity.
>
> Well, who in the hell is Blanche?
>
> What factual evidence? You want me to prove brakes were not put and
> airplane
> to stop them?

I believe the conversation (at least excluding you that is :-) has
more to do with when brakes should be used rather than the obvious
observation that they actually exist and what they are designed to do.
I have a gun. I know that gun can kill someone; that's obvious! What
isn't so obvious is how, when, and where it's right or wrong to use
that gun.

---------------------------------------

Yes and you are "over beating it" as usual. I guess if you can't dazzlem
with brilliance, you can always bafflem with bull****, eh Dudley?

[Mick[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
On Sep 16, 10:09 am, "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> news:53aa3f73-4961-4564-8c51-
>
> No problem. I consider the testing of an airplane's brakes after
> touchdown as a whole issue unto itself. In discussing the use of
> brakes with a student, I'd separate this little "gotcha" from any
> discussion centered on whether or not to use brakes on landing.
> Other than what should be this automatic "check" that brakes are
> available, I would stress that brakes only be used when necessary and
> as previously stated. :-))
>
> ---------------------------
>
> Nonsense, you're talking out of both sides of you're mouth as usual.
>
> No surprise.

You really "work" on this little hate thing day and night don't you
Maxie? :-)))

-------------------------------

I don't hate anyone.

I just like to acknowledge your own special flavor of ignorance, you do it
so well.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Sep 16, 10:40*am, "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Sep 15, 4:47 pm, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > I've been in a couple of planes where without the brakes the thing
> > accelerates too much. The F-16 comes to mind, where without intermittent
> > braking it picks up too much speed, and braking on landing is pretty much
> > SOP.
>
> > My Baron needs occasional braking on taxi, otherwise below around 1000rpm
> > the oil pressure drops too low. My friend's turbine Bonanza needs to use
> > beta during taxi or the brakes to keep from picking up too much speed.
>
> > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> ....
> > On Sep 15, 2:44 pm, "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
>
> > > I'm deligthted to see I'm managing to get some arguments and
> > > discussion going. And if you notice, No Profanity?
> > > I challenge my students to learn to taxi without brakes. and I come
> > > down hard if they beat up the airplane with unecessary braking instead
> > > of staying ahead of the airplane. (sometimes even with profanity! Can
> > > you imagine that?)
> > > How about you? If you had to pay for the brakes, tires, and
> > > maintenance, would YOU beat up the airplane?
> > > Ol S&B
>
> > I agree completely, (and without cussing :-)
>
> > I see you are naturally getting replies from the Grumman and Cherokee
> > folks :-) But your point is well made. The way I would present this
> > issue is to simply say that brakes are put on the airplane to hold it
> > for the run up check and for use ONLY when your pre-planned use of
> > aerodynamic forces available to you, or your steering capabilities
> > won't make the necessary change in direction.
> > In other words, you shouldn't be using them on takeoff, landing, and
> > even while taxiing if your planning is adequate for the situation.
> > I like the general rule that dictates that brakes on an airplane
> > should be used as little as possible.
>
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> Had the chance to fly the Viper a few times. Didn't notice any
> excessive increase in taxi speed that very light braking couldn't
> handle. Did use them a bit being late with throttle reduction after a
> start from a standing position until I got used to the response :-)
> Landing the Viper for me anyway was a conglomeration of a lot of
> things happening at once. Assuming no drag chute deployment, keeping
> the nose up to 13 degrees AOA gave good aerodynamic braking down to
> about 80kts. At 80 kts you could fly the nosewheel down to the runway
> with good control. If I remember right, the speedbrake was restricted
> to around 43 degrees with the airplane dirty and this was *in play
> through touchdown and until the nose was on the runway, then hitting
> the SB slider again extended the boards out to full at 60 degrees.
>
> I didn't notice anything that required excessive brake use through
> roll out. In fact, I never flew the Viper with heavy externals but the
> word was that landing hot and using the brakes could get you sent over
> to the hot brake area to sit and sweat your butt off over there in the
> sun :-))
> DH
>
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Shame you got thrown off Wikipedia, you would have to keep retyping this
> **** every time you feel insecure.

I'll be sure to do that for you Maxie.

Actually, what REALLY assuages my ego and sense of superiority is when
I read your posts and see in every one of them the VAST differences on
every conceivable level between the two of us. :-)))))

[Mick[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
news:24ebb918-0868-4d39-aefe-

Actually, what REALLY assuages my ego and sense of superiority is when
I read your posts and see in every one of them the VAST differences on
every conceivable level between the two of us. :-)))))

------------------------------------------------------------------

Nonsense, every reply massages your ego. That's the only reason "has beens"
like you are here.

You're not interest in promoting aviation, you're just interested in
promoting yourself.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Sep 16, 10:53*am, "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Sep 16, 10:21 am, "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Blanche" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > In article >, Mick <@_#`~#@.^net>
> > > wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > >>Sure, jump on the band wagon Dumley.
>
> > >>So brakes were no put on aircraft to stop them. You're both full of it.

[Mick[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I'm consoled by the fact that the hundreds of people I work with daily
>> in aviation fortunately don't share this opinion
>
>
> I'm sure they don't.
>
> How much self promotion can the airport toilet cleaner get away with
> anyway?
>
>
>
>
>
> Bertie


You just responded to Dumley, Bertass.

Get a clue.

[Mick[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
news:2795f59f-0596-4e38-a257-

No, actually I already knew you couldn't walk on water. I was just wait for
you to find out.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>>> I'm consoled by the fact that the hundreds of people I work with daily
>>> in aviation fortunately don't share this opinion
>>
>>
>> I'm sure they don't.
>>
>> How much self promotion can the airport toilet cleaner get away with
>> anyway?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
> You just responded to Dumley, Bertass.

Nope.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> news:2795f59f-0596-4e38-a257-
>
> No, actually I already knew you couldn't walk on water. I was just
> wait for you to find out.
>

You wait, good k00k.



Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Sep 16, 12:51*pm, "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> news:2795f59f-0596-4e38-a257-
>
> No, actually I already knew you couldn't walk on water.

Well congratulations there Maxie. We're both on the same page for
once :-)

[Mxsmanic]

I haven't posted at all to this thread, and yet 95% of posts are still
garbage. So it's not me.

Anyway, the handful of meaningful posts on the topic have been interesting.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> I haven't posted at all to this thread, and yet 95% of posts are still
> garbage. So it's not me.
>


Who cares if it's you or not?

you're an idiot. whether or not you post.



Bertie

[Viperdoc[_5_]]

Anthony said:
>
> Anyway, the handful of meaningful posts on the topic have been
> interesting.

Well, your post certainly isn't one of the interesting ones, and no one
cares about you anyway, other than to state the obvious fact that you're an
idiot.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote

> Well, your post certainly isn't one of the interesting ones, and no one
> cares about you anyway, other than to state the obvious fact that you're
> an idiot.
An another example of Anthony's lack of perception.

If you throw out Maxie's and Dudley's private war, some meaningful exchange
was going on.

But as usual, the town idiot, whose absence was noted and appreciated, steps
forward once again.
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Viperdoc" > wrote
>
>> Well, your post certainly isn't one of the interesting ones, and no
>> one cares about you anyway, other than to state the obvious fact that
>> you're an idiot.
> An another example of Anthony's lack of perception.
>
> If you throw out Maxie's and Dudley's private war, some meaningful
> exchange was going on.
>
> But as usual, the town idiot, whose absence was noted and appreciated,
> steps forward once again.


aww, don't be so hard on yourself.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Viperdoc" > wrote
>
>> Well, your post certainly isn't one of the interesting ones, and no
>> one cares about you anyway, other than to state the obvious fact that
>> you're an idiot.
> An another example of Anthony's lack of perception.
>
> If you throw out Maxie's and Dudley's private war, some meaningful
> exchange was going on.
>
> But as usual, the town idiot, whose absence was noted and appreciated,
> steps forward once again.

ooop,s wait. nobody noticed you were missing, so it couldn't have been
you.....



Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Sep 16, 5:59*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Viperdoc" > wrote
>
> > Well, your post certainly isn't one of the interesting ones, and no one
> > cares about you anyway, other than to state the obvious fact that you're
> > an idiot.
>
> *An another example of Anthony's lack of perception.
>
> If you throw out Maxie's and Dudley's private war, some meaningful exchange
> was going on.
>
> But as usual, the town idiot, whose absence was noted and appreciated, steps
> forward once again.
> --
> Jim in NC

No, the real idiot didn't show up until YOU decided to chime in as you
always do and stir the pot to see if you can stretch things a bit
further by asserting your ever present and stupid agenda against this
person and that one.
God, you're a waste!

[Morgans[_2_]]

Up until now, I only had a problem with two people. Now, make that three.

Lordy, you are predictable. And full of it.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Sep 16, 6:46*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> Up until now, I only had a problem with two people. *Now, make that three.
>
> Lordy, you are predictable. *And full of it.

You'll have a problem with me every time you insert yourself into a
thread and use my name in one of your moronic postings as an "example"
of everything that's wrong in the world. You are either so stupid you
don't realize how inflammatory this practice is, or you are baiting
me. Either way, it's always the same scenario. I ignore you until you
post either to me or about me in some way.
Trust me you moron, the day you stop using my name on Usenet is the
day you will see the last of me posting to you, so it's up to you not
me.
Full of it? You're a f*****g moron!

[John Godwin]

"Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote in

m:

> Well ya got me there! But even so, careful use of flight controls
> can certainly mitigate brake use. I started flying the old AA-1
> back in the early 70's and it wasn't much different than taxiing
> one of the old Volpar Beech conversions that required braking in
> place of nose wheel steering.

The best way to teach judicious use of brakes is to drag students
into the hangar during an annual and make them do a complete brake
job.

--

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

> Up until now, I only had a problem with two people. Now, make that
> three.
>

The night is young.



> Lordy, you are predictable.

So are you.

And full of it.

In Dudley's case, that would be info. In your case, it's whineyness.



Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Sep 16, 7:12*pm, John Godwin > wrote:
> "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote
> m:
>
> > Well ya got me there! But even so, careful use of flight controls
> > can certainly mitigate brake use. I started flying the old AA-1
> > back in the early 70's and it wasn't much different than taxiing
> > one of the old Volpar Beech conversions that required braking in
> > place of nose wheel steering.
>
> The best way to teach judicious use of brakes is to drag students
> into the hangar during an annual and make them do a complete brake
> job.
>
> --

Even better if you make them PAY for it :-))

[Mick[_2_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
> Up until now, I only had a problem with two people. Now, make that three.
>
> Lordy, you are predictable. And full of it.
>

I have always said, if I could buy Dudley and Bertie for what they are
worth, and sell them for what they think they are worth, I'd be flying a
turbine, and they would be wearing one.

[Mick[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Morgans" > wrote in
> :
>
>> Up until now, I only had a problem with two people. Now, make that
>> three.
>>
>
> The night is young.
>
>
>
>> Lordy, you are predictable.
>
> So are you.
>
> And full of it.
>
> In Dudley's case, that would be info. In your case, it's whineyness.
>
>
>
> Bertie

No, it would all be ignorance in YOUR case.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Up until now, I only had a problem with two people. Now, make that
>> three.
>>
>> Lordy, you are predictable. And full of it.
>>
>
> I have always said, if I could buy Dudley and Bertie for what they are
> worth, and sell them for what they think they are worth, I'd be flying
> a turbine, and they would be wearing one.


Yes, which nicely displays both your delusion and your racism.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Morgans" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Up until now, I only had a problem with two people. Now, make that
>>> three.
>>>
>>
>> The night is young.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Lordy, you are predictable.
>>
>> So are you.
>>
>> And full of it.
>>
>> In Dudley's case, that would be info. In your case, it's whineyness.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> No, it would all be ignorance in YOUR case.


Yeh. Mmmkaay.

That probably makes sense in Okieland.



Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Sep 16, 7:58*pm, "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote:
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Up until now, I only had a problem with two people. *Now, make that three.
>
> > Lordy, you are predictable. *And full of it.
>
> I have always said, if I could buy Dudley and Bertie for what they are
> worth, and sell them for what they think they are worth, I'd be flying a
> turbine, and they would be wearing one.

Possibly Maxie, but I doubt it. My life isn't really worth all that
much really. I think it ranges from about $9.95 to about $30 bucks for
the book it's at least partially covered in on Amazon.

[Peter Dohm]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>On Sep 16, 8:13 am, "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
>> On Sep 15, 4:12 pm, tjd > wrote:
>> That sounds much like the situation here with a downslope of 40' in
>> 5000 and a nasty ravine at the end. I teach my students to check
>> brakes as they reach the aiming blocks and if the pressure is gone or
>> going away to make a decision well before they end up going off the
>> end and saying "Oh Sh*&" Sorry Dudley, I couldn't resist<GG>
>
>No problem. I consider the testing of an airplane's brakes after
>touchdown as a whole issue unto itself. In discussing the use of
>brakes with a student, I'd separate this little "gotcha" from any
>discussion centered on whether or not to use brakes on landing.
>Other than what should be this automatic "check" that brakes are
>available, I would stress that brakes only be used when necessary and
>as previously stated. :-))
>
Whereas that should be sufficient to keep the brakes free from rust, and has
obvious additional safety benefits, I plan to "make it mine" when I resume
flying.

Peter

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Sep 16, 8:22*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >On Sep 16, 8:13 am, "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
> >> On Sep 15, 4:12 pm, tjd > wrote:
> >> That sounds much like the situation here with a downslope of 40' in
> >> 5000 and a nasty ravine at the end. I teach my students to check
> >> brakes as they reach the aiming blocks and if the pressure is gone or
> >> going away to make a decision well before they end up going off the
> >> end and saying "Oh Sh*&" Sorry Dudley, I couldn't resist<GG>
>
> >No problem. I consider the testing of an airplane's brakes after
> >touchdown as a whole issue unto itself. In discussing the use of
> >brakes with a student, I'd separate this little "gotcha" from any
> >discussion centered on whether or not to use brakes on landing.
> >Other than what should be this automatic "check" that brakes are
> >available, I would stress that brakes only be used when necessary and
> >as previously stated. :-))
>
> Whereas that should be sufficient to keep the brakes free from rust, and has
> obvious additional safety benefits, I plan to "make it mine" when I resume
> flying.
>
> Peter

It's a good practice Pete. Just a touch is all that's required. The
trick is that this is usually done during the initial (faster) part of
the roll out after touchdown so you want to be extra careful not to
"punch" the nosewheel down hard on the strut or in the case of a
tailwheel airplane, not to push the nose down and catch a prop tip.
This is especially an issue for tail wheels on short grass uneven
strips where there might be a tendency to "test the brakes" just a bit
too aggressively :-))

[John Godwin]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in

m:

> Even better if you make them PAY for it :-))

Heck no, it's a strong lesson to have them sweat and cuss when they
wind up spending most time redoing their work. :-)



--

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Sep 16, 9:06*pm, John Godwin > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote
> m:
>
> > Even better if you make them PAY for it :-))
>
> Heck no, it's a strong lesson to have them sweat and cuss when they
> wind up spending most time redoing their work. :-)
>
> --

Good point! Seriously, it's not a bad idea at all for instructors to
have students spend a little time "observing" what goes on in the
shop. I've always encouraged this, and can remember more than a few
times when our resident A&P came running into my office begging me not
to do it any more :-))))

[Mick[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
On Sep 16, 9:06 pm, John Godwin > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote
>
> m:
>
> > Even better if you make them PAY for it :-))
>
> Heck no, it's a strong lesson to have them sweat and cuss when they
> wind up spending most time redoing their work. :-)
>
> --

Good point! Seriously, it's not a bad idea at all for instructors to
have students spend a little time "observing" what goes on in the
shop. I've always encouraged this, and can remember more than a few
times when our resident A&P came running into my office begging me not
to do it any more :-))))

You're as full of **** as a Christmas goose.

No matter what is suggested, you always find a way to embellish and
regurgitate. First bull****ter never has a chance with you around, Dumley.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Sep 16, 9:20*pm, "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Sep 16, 9:06 pm, John Godwin > wrote:
>
> > Dudley Henriques > wrote
> >
> > m:
>
> > > Even better if you make them PAY for it :-))
>
> > Heck no, it's a strong lesson to have them sweat and cuss when they
> > wind up spending most time redoing their work. :-)
>
> > --
>
> Good point! Seriously, it's not a bad idea at all for instructors to
> have students spend a little time "observing" what goes on in the
> shop. I've always encouraged this, and can remember more than a few
> times when our resident A&P came running into my office begging me not
> to do it any more :-))))
>
> You're as full of **** as a Christmas goose.
>
> No matter what is suggested, you always find a way to embellish and
> regurgitate. First bull****ter never has a chance with you around, Dumley..

Whatever you say Maxie. :-)

[Frank Olson]

Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:
> I'm deligthted to see I'm managing to get some arguments and
> discussion going. And if you notice, No Profanity?
> I challenge my students to learn to taxi without brakes. and I come
> down hard if they beat up the airplane with unecessary braking instead
> of staying ahead of the airplane. (sometimes even with profanity! Can
> you imagine that?)
> How about you? If you had to pay for the brakes, tires, and
> maintenance, would YOU beat up the airplane?
> Ol S&B

Brakes??? What are those???

[Gezellig]

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:19:56 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques wrote:

> Possibly Maxie, but I doubt it. My life isn't really worth all that
> much really. I think it ranges from about $9.95 to about $30 bucks for
> the book it's at least partially covered in on Amazon.

Congratulations, mine sell for .23

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Sep 17, 11:30*am, Gezellig > wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:19:56 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > Possibly Maxie, but I doubt it. My life isn't really worth all that
> > much really. I think it ranges from about $9.95 to about $30 bucks for
> > the book it's at least partially covered in on Amazon.
>
> Congratulations, mine sell for .23

That's .23 more than I make. The author used a Reader's Digest feature
article on my early life in aviation first published back in the 80's,
so it's a reprint of a Reader's Digest property. I don't make anything
on it, so you're 23 cents ahead.

[Mick[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
On Sep 17, 11:30 am, Gezellig > wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:19:56 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > Possibly Maxie, but I doubt it. My life isn't really worth all that
> > much really. I think it ranges from about $9.95 to about $30 bucks for
> > the book it's at least partially covered in on Amazon.
>
> Congratulations, mine sell for .23

That's .23 more than I make. The author used a Reader's Digest feature
article on my early life in aviation first published back in the 80's,
so it's a reprint of a Reader's Digest property. I don't make anything
on it, so you're 23 cents ahead.


--------------------------------------------

At least they are paying you what it's worth!

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Sep 17, 1:20*pm, "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Sep 17, 11:30 am, Gezellig > wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:19:56 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > > Possibly Maxie, but I doubt it. My life isn't really worth all that
> > > much really. I think it ranges from about $9.95 to about $30 bucks for
> > > the book it's at least partially covered in on Amazon.
>
> > Congratulations, mine sell for .23
>
> That's .23 more than I make. The author used a Reader's Digest feature
> article on my early life in aviation first published back in the 80's,
> so it's a reprint of a Reader's Digest property. I don't make anything
> on it, so you're 23 cents ahead.
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
> At least they are paying you what it's worth!

Actually, Reader's Digest already paid me what it was worth Maxie, but
thanks for your interest anyway.
:-)))

[Mick[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
On Sep 17, 1:20 pm, "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Sep 17, 11:30 am, Gezellig > wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:19:56 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > > Possibly Maxie, but I doubt it. My life isn't really worth all that
> > > much really. I think it ranges from about $9.95 to about $30 bucks for
> > > the book it's at least partially covered in on Amazon.
>
> > Congratulations, mine sell for .23
>
> That's .23 more than I make. The author used a Reader's Digest feature
> article on my early life in aviation first published back in the 80's,
> so it's a reprint of a Reader's Digest property. I don't make anything
> on it, so you're 23 cents ahead.
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
> At least they are paying you what it's worth!

Actually, Reader's Digest already paid me what it was worth Maxie, but
thanks for your interest anyway.
:-)))

----------------------------------------------

If it was more than $25, I bet their ass is still stinging!

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Sep 17, 3:24*pm, "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Sep 17, 1:20 pm, "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> ....
> > On Sep 17, 11:30 am, Gezellig > wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:19:56 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > > > Possibly Maxie, but I doubt it. My life isn't really worth all that
> > > > much really. I think it ranges from about $9.95 to about $30 bucks for
> > > > the book it's at least partially covered in on Amazon.
>
> > > Congratulations, mine sell for .23
>
> > That's .23 more than I make. The author used a Reader's Digest feature
> > article on my early life in aviation first published back in the 80's,
> > so it's a reprint of a Reader's Digest property. I don't make anything
> > on it, so you're 23 cents ahead.
>
> > --------------------------------------------
>
> > At least they are paying you what it's worth!
>
> Actually, Reader's Digest already paid me what it was worth Maxie, but
> thanks for your interest anyway.
> :-)))
>
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> If it was more than $25, I bet their ass is still stinging!

Could be Maxie...could be :-)))

[george]

On Sep 18, 5:35*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> Actually, Reader's Digest already paid me what it was worth Maxie, but
> thanks for your interest anyway.
> :-)))

The trouble is that it was published in Readers Digest Dudley.
You -could- reprint it on the Net so we could read it :-)
hint hint

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Sep 17, 4:29*pm, george > wrote:
> On Sep 18, 5:35*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > Actually, Reader's Digest already paid me what it was worth Maxie, but
> > thanks for your interest anyway.
> > :-)))
>
> The trouble is that it was published in Readers Digest Dudley.
> You -could- reprint it on the Net so we could read it :-)
> hint hint

Hi George;

The story is available from RD of course, and can be found featured in
the book "Everyday Greatness" by Stephen R. Covey.
I'm not sure if reproducing it on the net is legal as RD bought the
rights to the story in 1985 and owns it outright. I believe it might
be legal on the net if RD was consulted and gave permission. The cause
I believe must be non-commercial.
I'm not meaning to suggest that you buy the book to read he story.
Contrary to my somewhat over zealous adversary and constant Usenet
companion on this thread, I'm not at all that self centered. I might
also say that I wrote the story more to profile someone else than
myself and when the story is read that should become quite obvious.
Might I suggest that if you would really like to read the story, you
might perhaps visit your local quality book store (hopefully in the
U.S...I'm not sure about other places in the world) and you can read
the story in the book store without actually having to purchase it if
you don't want to.
The name of the story is
"A Little Help From A Friend" Dudley Henriques,Reader's Digest April
1985

Hope this is helpful and all the best to you,
DH

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> news:5b14144e-9cc8-41dc-9094-ecb2417dd306
@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com.
> .. On Sep 17, 1:20 pm, "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>
>> news:24c69f34-9ec1-4ccf-b6b0-e1108b8ccf73
@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
>> ... On Sep 17, 11:30 am, Gezellig > wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:19:56 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> > > Possibly Maxie, but I doubt it. My life isn't really worth all
>> > > that much really. I think it ranges from about $9.95 to about $30
>> > > bucks for the book it's at least partially covered in on Amazon.
>>
>> > Congratulations, mine sell for .23
>>
>> That's .23 more than I make. The author used a Reader's Digest
>> feature article on my early life in aviation first published back in
>> the 80's, so it's a reprint of a Reader's Digest property. I don't
>> make anything on it, so you're 23 cents ahead.
>>
>> --------------------------------------------
>>
>> At least they are paying you what it's worth!
>
> Actually, Reader's Digest already paid me what it was worth Maxie, but
> thanks for your interest anyway.
>:-)))
>
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> If it was more than $25, I bet their ass is still stinging!
>

Wheras the details of your life would be best recorded in a bubble gum
comic.



Bertie
>
>

[a[_3_]]

On Sep 17, 5:00*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> On Sep 17, 4:29*pm, george > wrote:
>
> > On Sep 18, 5:35*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > > Actually, Reader's Digest already paid me what it was worth Maxie, but
> > > thanks for your interest anyway.
> > > :-)))
>
> > The trouble is that it was published in Readers Digest Dudley.
> > You -could- reprint it on the Net so we could read it :-)
> > hint hint
>
> Hi George;
>
> The story is available from RD of course, and can be found featured in
> the book "Everyday Greatness" by Stephen R. Covey.
> I'm not sure if reproducing it on the net is legal as RD bought the
> rights to the story in 1985 and owns it outright. I believe it might
> be legal on the net if RD was consulted and gave permission. The cause
> I believe must be non-commercial.
> I'm not meaning to suggest that you buy the book to read he story.
> Contrary to my somewhat over zealous adversary and constant Usenet
> companion on this thread, I'm not at all that self centered. I might
> also say that I wrote the story more to profile someone else than
> myself and when the story is read that should become quite obvious.
> Might I suggest that if you would really like to read the story, you
> might perhaps visit your local quality book store (hopefully in the
> U.S...I'm not sure about other places in the world) and you can read
> the story in the book store without actually having to purchase it if
> you don't want to.
> The name of the story is
> "A Little Help From A Friend" Dudley Henriques,Reader's Digest April
> 1985
>
> Hope this is helpful and all the best to you,
> DH

Hey those interested -- you can google "A little help from a friend"
and dudley and get the story.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Sep 17, 6:13*pm, a > wrote:
> On Sep 17, 5:00*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 17, 4:29*pm, george > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 18, 5:35*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > > > Actually, Reader's Digest already paid me what it was worth Maxie, but
> > > > thanks for your interest anyway.
> > > > :-)))
>
> > > The trouble is that it was published in Readers Digest Dudley.
> > > You -could- reprint it on the Net so we could read it :-)
> > > hint hint
>
> > Hi George;
>
> > The story is available from RD of course, and can be found featured in
> > the book "Everyday Greatness" by Stephen R. Covey.
> > I'm not sure if reproducing it on the net is legal as RD bought the
> > rights to the story in 1985 and owns it outright. I believe it might
> > be legal on the net if RD was consulted and gave permission. The cause
> > I believe must be non-commercial.
> > I'm not meaning to suggest that you buy the book to read he story.
> > Contrary to my somewhat over zealous adversary and constant Usenet
> > companion on this thread, I'm not at all that self centered. I might
> > also say that I wrote the story more to profile someone else than
> > myself and when the story is read that should become quite obvious.
> > Might I suggest that if you would really like to read the story, you
> > might perhaps visit your local quality book store (hopefully in the
> > U.S...I'm not sure about other places in the world) and you can read
> > the story in the book store without actually having to purchase it if
> > you don't want to.
> > The name of the story is
> > "A Little Help From A Friend" Dudley Henriques,Reader's Digest April
> > 1985
>
> > Hope this is helpful and all the best to you,
> > DH
>
> Hey those interested -- you can google "A little help from a friend"
> and dudley and get the story.

The "P51 Mustang" book is another book where the story appears. There
are actually 3 that I'm aware of; Reader's Digest, "Everyday
Greatness" by Covey, and The P51 Mustang by Hatch and Winter.

DH

[a[_3_]]

On Sep 17, 6:43*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> On Sep 17, 6:13*pm, a > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 17, 5:00*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 17, 4:29*pm, george > wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 18, 5:35*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > > > > Actually, Reader's Digest already paid me what it was worth Maxie, but
> > > > > thanks for your interest anyway.
> > > > > :-)))
>
> > > > The trouble is that it was published in Readers Digest Dudley.
> > > > You -could- reprint it on the Net so we could read it :-)
> > > > hint hint
>
> > > Hi George;
>
> > > The story is available from RD of course, and can be found featured in
> > > the book "Everyday Greatness" by Stephen R. Covey.
> > > I'm not sure if reproducing it on the net is legal as RD bought the
> > > rights to the story in 1985 and owns it outright. I believe it might
> > > be legal on the net if RD was consulted and gave permission. The cause
> > > I believe must be non-commercial.
> > > I'm not meaning to suggest that you buy the book to read he story.
> > > Contrary to my somewhat over zealous adversary and constant Usenet
> > > companion on this thread, I'm not at all that self centered. I might
> > > also say that I wrote the story more to profile someone else than
> > > myself and when the story is read that should become quite obvious.
> > > Might I suggest that if you would really like to read the story, you
> > > might perhaps visit your local quality book store (hopefully in the
> > > U.S...I'm not sure about other places in the world) and you can read
> > > the story in the book store without actually having to purchase it if
> > > you don't want to.
> > > The name of the story is
> > > "A Little Help From A Friend" Dudley Henriques,Reader's Digest April
> > > 1985
>
> > > Hope this is helpful and all the best to you,
> > > DH
>
> > Hey those interested -- you can google "A little help from a friend"
> > and dudley and get the story.
>
> The "P51 Mustang" book is another book where the story appears. There
> are actually 3 that I'm aware of; Reader's Digest, "Everyday
> Greatness" by Covey, and The P51 Mustang by Hatch and Winter.
>
> DH

And then, Dudley, there are the wannebes or wish-they-were's. Their
future is all behind them.

[Mick[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
news:36c03b4e-abb0-476d-ad1e-
The "P51 Mustang" book is another book where the story appears. There
are actually 3 that I'm aware of; Reader's Digest, "Everyday
Greatness" by Covey, and The P51 Mustang by Hatch and Winter.

DH

-----------------------------------------------

Well you like to rattle you head, retype it for us here.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> news:36c03b4e-abb0-476d-ad1e-
> The "P51 Mustang" book is another book where the story appears. There
> are actually 3 that I'm aware of; Reader's Digest, "Everyday
> Greatness" by Covey, and The P51 Mustang by Hatch and Winter.
>
> DH
>
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Well you like to rattle you head, retype it for us here.



Lame..



bertie

[Mick[_2_]]

"a" > wrote in message
...

And then, Dudley, there are the wannebes or wish-they-were's. Their
future is all behind them.

That's Dumley. I think his wife got him the computer for Christmas because
she got sick listening.

[george]

On Sep 18, 9:00*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> The name of the story is
> "A Little Help From A Friend" Dudley Henriques,Reader's Digest April
> 1985
>
> Hope this is helpful and all the best to you,

:-)
RD is NOT one of the publications I read.
To much godbothering and 'prize' hooks for the unwary and gullible.
I'll look around the net

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "a" > wrote in message
> ..
> .
>
> And then, Dudley, there are the wannebes or wish-they-were's. Their
> future is all behind them.
>
> That's Dumley. I think his wife got him the computer for Christmas
> because she got sick listening.


Aww, and your wife got you one because she got tired of ****ing you,
obviously.



Bertie

[Mick[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote in :
>
>>
>> "a" > wrote in message
>> ..
>> .
>>
>> And then, Dudley, there are the wannebes or wish-they-were's. Their
>> future is all behind them.
>>
>> That's Dumley. I think his wife got him the computer for Christmas
>> because she got sick listening.
>
>
> Aww, and your wife got you one because she got tired of ****ing you,
> obviously.
>
>
>
> Bertie

No, actually your wife got it for me to keep in touch.

[Mick[_2_]]

"Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote in :
>>
>>>
>>> "a" > wrote in message
>>> ..
>>> .
>>>
>>> And then, Dudley, there are the wannebes or wish-they-were's. Their
>>> future is all behind them.
>>>
>>> That's Dumley. I think his wife got him the computer for Christmas
>>> because she got sick listening.
>>
>>
>> Aww, and your wife got you one because she got tired of ****ing you,
>> obviously.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> No, actually your wife got it for me to keep in touch.
>

By the way, how's my kids?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote in news:5KgAk.14026$Dj1.10978
@newsfe01.iad:
>>
>>>
>>> "a" > wrote in message
>>> news:09747b4a-f3d9-4781-973c-4e27150c8013@
59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com..
>>> .
>>>
>>> And then, Dudley, there are the wannebes or wish-they-were's. Their
>>> future is all behind them.
>>>
>>> That's Dumley. I think his wife got him the computer for Christmas
>>> because she got sick listening.
>>
>>
>> Aww, and your wife got you one because she got tired of ****ing you,
>> obviously.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> No, actually your wife got it for me to keep in touch.



Awww, IKYABWAI lames.




You so kewt Maxine! ]


and you wonder why I won't ever leave....



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "a" > wrote in message
>>>> news:09747b4a-f3d9-4781-973c-4e27150c8013@
59g2000hsb.googlegroups.co
>>>> m.. .
>>>>
>>>> And then, Dudley, there are the wannebes or wish-they-were's.
>>>> Their future is all behind them.
>>>>
>>>> That's Dumley. I think his wife got him the computer for Christmas
>>>> because she got sick listening.
>>>
>>>
>>> Aww, and your wife got you one because she got tired of ****ing you,
>>> obviously.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> No, actually your wife got it for me to keep in touch.
>>
>
> By the way, how's my kids?


Aww, you talkin to yourself. Well, I guess it's a case of having to at
this point, eh Okie?




Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Sep 17, 7:55*pm, george > wrote:
> On Sep 18, 9:00*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > The name of the story is
> > "A Little Help From A Friend" Dudley Henriques,Reader's Digest April
> > 1985
>
> > Hope this is helpful and all the best to you,
>
> :-)
> RD is NOT one of the publications I read.
> To much godbothering and 'prize' hooks for the unwary and gullible.
> I'll look around the net

As you wish.

[Mick[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
>
>
> Aww, you talkin to yourself. Well, I guess it's a case of having to at
> this point, eh Okie?
>
>
>
>
> Bertie
>

Yeah, that makes sense, dumb ass. What a hot reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>>
>> Aww, you talkin to yourself. Well, I guess it's a case of having to at
>> this point, eh Okie?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> Yeah, that makes sense, dumb ass. What a hot reply.



Thenkew


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Sep 17, 5:51 pm, "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote:
> That's Dumley. I think his wife got him the computer for Christmas because
> she got sick listening.

When, tell me, are you going to contribute something worthwhile?
When are you going to prove that you aren't just a waste of good
bandwidth? Why don't you prove that you know something---anything---
about aviation instead of proving that you have a rotten attitude? You
can call Bertie and Dudley lying trolls all you like, but you'll get
absolutely no sympathy, none at all, from anyone reading any of it
unless it's someone with a similar attitude. At least Bertie and
Dudley say things that can be proven right with just a little
Googling. Your aim in life seems to be to disrupt or condemn or
criticize or deny or rebuff anything that's worthwhile instead of
making something useful of yourself. Most of us have given up on this
group and check in once in a while just to see if the gripers have
gone off to torment someone else, but so far there's been no
improvement. Anytime someone starts a legitimate discussion, your
types jump in and attack your favorite targets, just like the mindless
mean dogs that attack mailmen. Absolutely mindless.

Dan

[Mick[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
> On Sep 17, 5:51 pm, "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote:
>> That's Dumley. I think his wife got him the computer for Christmas
>> because
>> she got sick listening.
>
> When, tell me, are you going to contribute something worthwhile?
> When are you going to prove that you aren't just a waste of good
> bandwidth? Why don't you prove that you know something---anything---
> about aviation instead of proving that you have a rotten attitude? You
> can call Bertie and Dudley lying trolls all you like, but you'll get
> absolutely no sympathy, none at all, from anyone reading any of it
> unless it's someone with a similar attitude. At least Bertie and
> Dudley say things that can be proven right with just a little
> Googling. Your aim in life seems to be to disrupt or condemn or
> criticize or deny or rebuff anything that's worthwhile instead of
> making something useful of yourself. Most of us have given up on this
> group and check in once in a while just to see if the gripers have
> gone off to torment someone else, but so far there's been no
> improvement. Anytime someone starts a legitimate discussion, your
> types jump in and attack your favorite targets, just like the mindless
> mean dogs that attack mailmen. Absolutely mindless.
>
> Dan
>
>

Feel better?

[Mick[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Logajan > wrote in
| :
|
| > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
| >> Jim Logajan > wrote in
| >> :
| >>
| >>> "BT" > wrote:
| >>>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
| >>>>>
| >>>>> So far all I've ever flown is a Schweizer SGS 2-33. Not only can't
| >>>>> I turn it with the brake, I can't reach the brake during taxi
| >>>>> anyway since I'm outside the cockpit during those times. ;-)
| >>>>
| >>>> You've never landed and then "taxied to parking"?
| >>>
| >>> Sure - but have yet to sit in the aircraft during "taxi to parking"
| >>> because the 2-33 is a monowheel glider. (Caveats on the monowheel.
| >>> It has small wheels near the wingtips and a small tailwheel.)
| >>
| >>
| >> he meant rolling it to the tiedown after touchdown..
| >
| > Ah - I misunderstood - no. See, there is this shallow drainage ditch
| > in the grass between the tie down area and the landing field that
| > would make for some nasty pranging at anything above walking speed.
| > Plus the tow plane is typically too close to the tie down area to do
| > that safely.
| >
|
| Yeah, it's not something you can do just anywhere!
|
|
| Bertie

[Mick[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
| "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote in :
|
| >
| > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
| > ...
| >>>
| >>> I'm consoled by the fact that the hundreds of people I work with daily
| >>> in aviation fortunately don't share this opinion
| >>
| >>
| >> I'm sure they don't.
| >>
| >> How much self promotion can the airport toilet cleaner get away with
| >> anyway?
| >>
| >>
| >>
| >>
| >>
| >> Bertie
| >
| >
| > You just responded to Dumley, Bertass.
|
| Nope.
|
|
|
| Bertie

[Mick[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
| "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote in :
|
| >
| > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
| > news:c43fc622-d3e0-47c7-b8a3-
| >
| > Yep, it's always all about you, isn't Dudley.
| >
| >
| >
|
| Awww, and you want it to be all about you, dontcha k00kie boi?
|
|
| Bertie

Taking up for your sock eh?

[Mick[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
| "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote in :
|
| >
| > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
| > news:2795f59f-0596-4e38-a257-
| >
| > No, actually I already knew you couldn't walk on water. I was just
| > wait for you to find out.
| >
|
| You wait, good k00k.
|
|
|
| Bertie

[Mick[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
| "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote in :
|
| >
| > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
| > .. .
| >>
| >>
| >> Aww, you talkin to yourself. Well, I guess it's a case of having to at
| >> this point, eh Okie?
| >>
| >>
| >>
| >>
| >> Bertie
| >>
| >
| > Yeah, that makes sense, dumb ass. What a hot reply.
|
|
|
| Thenkew
|
|
| Bertie

[Mick[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
| "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote in :
|
| >
| > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
| > news:36c03b4e-abb0-476d-ad1e-
| > The "P51 Mustang" book is another book where the story appears. There
| > are actually 3 that I'm aware of; Reader's Digest, "Everyday
| > Greatness" by Covey, and The P51 Mustang by Hatch and Winter.
| >
| > DH
| >
| > -----------------------------------------------
| >
| > Well you like to rattle you head, retype it for us here.
|
|
|
| Lame..
|
|
|
| bertie

[[email protected]]

On Sep 16, 9:08*am, "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Sep 16, 8:38 am, "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:55:09 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques
> > > > wrote:
>
> > >> The way I would present this
> > >>issue is to simply say that brakes are put on the airplane to hold it
> > >>for the run up check and for use ONLY when your pre-planned use of
> > >>aerodynamic forces available to you, or your steering capabilities
> > >>won't make the necessary change in direction.
> > >>In other words, you shouldn't be using them on takeoff, landing, and
> > >>even while taxiing if your planning is adequate for the situation.
> > >>I like the general rule that dictates that brakes on an airplane
> > >>should be used as little as possible.
>
> > >>Dudley Henriques
>
> > > you know that I posted a comment along this exact line of thought
> > > about a month ago I got bagged by nearly everyone for over a week.
> > > I'm still correct in what I wrote and you evidently are in agreement.
>
> > > :-)
> > > Stealth Pilot
>
> > No, it just mean you are both wrong.
>
> Don't think so.
>
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Sure, jump on the band wagon Dumley.
>
> So brakes were no put on aircraft to stop them. You're both full of it.

Using brakes to stop a plane is like using a pier to stop a boat.

And you are, in truth if not in fact, a waste of air.

[[email protected]]

On Sep 16, 9:21*am, "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote:
> "Blanche" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > In article >, Mick <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >>Sure, jump on the band wagon Dumley.
>
> >>So brakes were no put on aircraft to stop them. You're both full of it.
>
> > Ah, another troll with no factual evidence, who hides behind anonimity.
>
> Well, who in the hell is Blanche?
>
> What factual evidence? You want me to prove brakes were not put and airplane
> to stop them?

Why do you care? Still looking for a woman so pathetic as to hang
around your brain dead arse?

[chatnoir]

On Sep 23, 7:24*pm, ah > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> > "Mick" <#$$#@%%%.^^^> wrote :
>
> >> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>| "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote in news:EuQzk.11625$rV4.4487
> > @newsfe03.iad:
> >>|
> >>| >
> >>| > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> >>| > news:c43fc622-d3e0-47c7-b8a3-
> >>| >
> >>| > Yep, it's always all about you, isn't Dudley.
> >>| >
> >>| >
> >>| >
> >>|
> >>| Awww, and you want it to be all about you, dontcha k00kie boi?
> >>|
> >>|
> >>| Bertie
>
> >> Taking up for your sock eh?
>
> > God you're an idiot.
>
> > Bertie
>
> Quiet, s0ck.
> --
> ah

>Airplanes and Brakes?

Been watching Bugs Bunny again????

[ah]

chatnoir wrote:
> On Sep 23, 7:24 pm, ah > wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> > "Mick" <#$$#@%%%.^^^> wrote :
>>
>> >> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>| "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote in news:EuQzk.11625$rV4.4487
>> > @newsfe03.iad:
>> >>|
>> >>| >
>> >>| > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> >>| > news:c43fc622-d3e0-47c7-b8a3-
>> >>| >
>> >>| > Yep, it's always all about you, isn't Dudley.
>> >>| >
>> >>| >
>> >>| >
>> >>|
>> >>| Awww, and you want it to be all about you, dontcha k00kie boi?
>> >>|
>> >>|
>> >>| Bertie
>>
>> >> Taking up for your sock eh?
>>
>> > God you're an idiot.
>>
>> > Bertie
>>
>> Quiet, s0ck.
>> --
>> ah
>
>>Airplanes and Brakes?
>
> Been watching Bugs Bunny again????

Yeah. Why?
--
ah

[chatnoir]

On Sep 24, 7:10*pm, ah > wrote:
> chatnoir wrote:
> > On Sep 23, 7:24 pm, ah > wrote:
> >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >> > "Mick" <#$$#@%%%.^^^> wrote :
>
> >> >> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >>| "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote in news:EuQzk.11625$rV4.4487
> >> > @newsfe03.iad:
> >> >>|
> >> >>| >
> >> >>| > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> >> >>| > news:c43fc622-d3e0-47c7-b8a3-
> >> >>| >
> >> >>| > Yep, it's always all about you, isn't Dudley.
> >> >>| >
> >> >>| >
> >> >>| >
> >> >>|
> >> >>| Awww, and you want it to be all about you, dontcha k00kie boi?
> >> >>|
> >> >>|
> >> >>| Bertie
>
> >> >> Taking up for your sock eh?
>
> >> > God you're an idiot.
>
> >> > Bertie
>
> >> Quiet, s0ck.
> >> --
> >> ah
>
> >>Airplanes and Brakes?
>
> > Been watching Bugs Bunny again????
>
> Yeah. *Why?
> --
> ah

I remember the Brakes that were on the Airplanes in The Bugs Bunny
Cartoons! Planes could stop in mid air from proper braking! I now
know where you get your scientific info from!

[Mick[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
| "Mick" <#$$#@%%%.^^^> wrote in :
|
| >
| > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
| > ...
| >| Jim Logajan > wrote in
| >| :
| >|
| >| > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
| >| >> Jim Logajan > wrote in
| >| >> :
| >| >>
| >| >>> "BT" > wrote:
| >| >>>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
| >| >>>>>
| >| >>>>> So far all I've ever flown is a Schweizer SGS 2-33. Not only
| can't
| >| >>>>> I turn it with the brake, I can't reach the brake during taxi
| >| >>>>> anyway since I'm outside the cockpit during those times. ;-)
| >| >>>>
| >| >>>> You've never landed and then "taxied to parking"?
| >| >>>
| >| >>> Sure - but have yet to sit in the aircraft during "taxi to
| parking"
| >| >>> because the 2-33 is a monowheel glider. (Caveats on the
| monowheel.
| >| >>> It has small wheels near the wingtips and a small tailwheel.)
| >| >>
| >| >>
| >| >> he meant rolling it to the tiedown after touchdown..
| >| >
| >| > Ah - I misunderstood - no. See, there is this shallow drainage
| ditch
| >| > in the grass between the tie down area and the landing field that
| >| > would make for some nasty pranging at anything above walking speed.
| >| > Plus the tow plane is typically too close to the tie down area to
| do
| >| > that safely.
| >| >
| >|
| >| Yeah, it's not something you can do just anywhere!
| >|
| >|
| >| Bertie
| >
| >
| >
| >
|
| a
| a
| a
| a
| a
| a
| a
| a
| a
| a
| a
| a
| a
|
| aa
|
|
|
|
| aa
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| w
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| b
|
| b
|
|
|
| j
|
|
|
|
| h
|
|
|
| n
|
|
|
| h
|
|
|
|
| n
|
| b
|
| g
|
|
|
|
| t
|
| r
|
| f
|
|
| v
| c
|
| d
| e
|
|
|
|
|
| i
|
| o
|
| p
| l
|
|
|
|
| k
|
|
| m
| n
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| x
|
| x
|
| s
| w
|
|
| q
|
| a
| z
|
|
|
|
| r
|
| t
|
| 5
|
| 6
|
|
|
| 0
|
|
| 9
|
|
|
|
|
|

[Mick[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
| "Mick" <#$$#@%%%.^^^> wrote in :
|
| >
| > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
| > ...
| >| "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote in news:EuQzk.11625$rV4.4487
| @newsfe03.iad:
| >|
| >| >
| >| > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
| >| > news:c43fc622-d3e0-47c7-b8a3-
| >| >
| >| > Yep, it's always all about you, isn't Dudley.
| >| >
| >| >
| >| >
| >|
| >| Awww, and you want it to be all about you, dontcha k00kie boi?
| >|
| >|
| >| Bertie
| >
| > Taking up for your sock eh?
| >
| >
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| >
| >
|
| God you're an idiot.
|
|
|
|
| Bertie

[Mick[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
On Sep 16, 9:08 am, "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Sep 16, 8:38 am, "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:55:09 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques
> > > > wrote:
>
> > >> The way I would present this
> > >>issue is to simply say that brakes are put on the airplane to hold it
> > >>for the run up check and for use ONLY when your pre-planned use of
> > >>aerodynamic forces available to you, or your steering capabilities
> > >>won't make the necessary change in direction.
> > >>In other words, you shouldn't be using them on takeoff, landing, and
> > >>even while taxiing if your planning is adequate for the situation.
> > >>I like the general rule that dictates that brakes on an airplane
> > >>should be used as little as possible.
>
> > >>Dudley Henriques
>
> > > you know that I posted a comment along this exact line of thought
> > > about a month ago I got bagged by nearly everyone for over a week.
> > > I'm still correct in what I wrote and you evidently are in agreement.
>
> > > :-)
> > > Stealth Pilot
>
> > No, it just mean you are both wrong.
>
> Don't think so.
>
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Sure, jump on the band wagon Dumley.
>
> So brakes were no put on aircraft to stop them. You're both full of it.

Using brakes to stop a plane is like using a pier to stop a boat.

And you are, in truth if not in fact, a waste of air.

----------------------------------

And you, a half assed sock puppet.

[Mick[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
| "Mick" <#$$#@%%%.^^^> wrote in :
|
| >
| > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
| > ...
| >| "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote in :
| >|
| >| >
| >| > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
| >| > news:2795f59f-0596-4e38-a257-
| >| >
| >| > No, actually I already knew you couldn't walk on water. I was just
| >| > wait for you to find out.
| >| >
| >|
| >| You wait, good k00k.
| >|
| >|
| >|
| >| Bertie
| >
| >
| >
| >
|
|
|

[Mick[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
| "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote in :
|
| >
| > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
| > ...
| >> "Morgans" > wrote in
| >> :
| >>
| >>> Up until now, I only had a problem with two people. Now, make that
| >>> three.
| >>>
| >>
| >> The night is young.
| >>
| >>
| >>
| >>> Lordy, you are predictable.
| >>
| >> So are you.
| >>
| >> And full of it.
| >>
| >> In Dudley's case, that would be info. In your case, it's whineyness.
| >>
| >>
| >>
| >> Bertie
| >
| > No, it would all be ignorance in YOUR case.
|
|
| Yeh. Mmmkaay.
|
| That probably makes sense in Okieland.
|
|
|
| Bertie

[Mick[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
| "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote in :
|
| >
| > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
| > news:5b14144e-9cc8-41dc-9094-ecb2417dd306
| @m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com.
| > .. On Sep 17, 1:20 pm, "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote:
| >> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
| >>
| >> news:24c69f34-9ec1-4ccf-b6b0-e1108b8ccf73
| @j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
| >> ... On Sep 17, 11:30 am, Gezellig > wrote:
| >>
| >> > On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:19:56 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques wrote:
| >> > > Possibly Maxie, but I doubt it. My life isn't really worth all
| >> > > that much really. I think it ranges from about $9.95 to about $30
| >> > > bucks for the book it's at least partially covered in on Amazon.
| >>
| >> > Congratulations, mine sell for .23
| >>
| >> That's .23 more than I make. The author used a Reader's Digest
| >> feature article on my early life in aviation first published back in
| >> the 80's, so it's a reprint of a Reader's Digest property. I don't
| >> make anything on it, so you're 23 cents ahead.
| >>
| >> --------------------------------------------
| >>
| >> At least they are paying you what it's worth!
| >
| > Actually, Reader's Digest already paid me what it was worth Maxie, but
| > thanks for your interest anyway.
| >:-)))
| >
| > ----------------------------------------------
| >
| > If it was more than $25, I bet their ass is still stinging!
| >
|
| Wheras the details of your life would be best recorded in a bubble gum
| comic.
|
|
|
| Bertie
| >
| >
|

[Mick[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
| "Mick" <#$$#@%%%.^^^> wrote in :
|
| >
| > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
| > .. .
| >| "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote in
| >| :
| >|
| >| >
| >| > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
| >| > .. .
| >| >>
| >| >>
| >| >> Aww, you talkin to yourself. Well, I guess it's a case of having
| >| >> to at this point, eh Okie?
| >| >>
| >| >>
| >| >>
| >| >>
| >| >> Bertie
| >| >>
| >| >
| >| > Yeah, that makes sense, dumb ass. What a hot reply.
| >|
| >|
| >|
| >| Thenkew
| >|
| >|
| >| Bertie
| >
| >
| >
| >
|
|
|

[Mick[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
| "Mick" <#$$#@%%%.^^^> wrote in :
|
| >
| > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
| > ...
| >| "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote in news:ECgAk.13876$Dj1.10396
| @newsfe01.iad:
| >|
| >| >
| >| > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
| >| > news:36c03b4e-abb0-476d-ad1e-
| >| > The "P51 Mustang" book is another book where the story appears.
| There
| >| > are actually 3 that I'm aware of; Reader's Digest, "Everyday
| >| > Greatness" by Covey, and The P51 Mustang by Hatch and Winter.
| >| >
| >| > DH
| >| >
| >| > -----------------------------------------------
| >| >
| >| > Well you like to rattle you head, retype it for us here.
| >|
| >|
| >|
| >| Lame..
| >|
| >|
| >|
| >| bertie
| >
| >
| >
| >
|
| a
| a
| a
| a
| a
| a
| a
| a
| a
| a
| a
| a
| a
| a
| a
| a
| a
| a
| a
| a
| a
| a
| a
|
|
| a
| a
| a
| a
| a
| a
| a
| a
| a
|
| a
| a
| a
| a
| a
| a
|
| s
|
| s
| a
|
| a
| s
|
| a
|
| a
|
| s
| a
|
| s
| a
| s
| a
| s
|
| a
| sa
| s
| q
| a
| a
|
|
| s
| s
| s
| s
| d
|
|
| f
| g
| h
| n
|
| n
| j
| k
|
| k
| k
|
| k
| k
| k
|
|
| m
|
| m
| m
| m
| m
|
| j
|
|
| uy
| g
|
| b
|
|
|
| y
| y
| t
|
| t
| 6
| 7
|
| 7
| 8
|
| 9
| 0
|
| o
| k
| k
| l
|
| m
|
| n
| b
|
| b
| vv
| v
|
|
|
|
|
| f
|
| f
| t
| r
|
| e
|
| e
|
|
|
| d
| d
|
| d
| s
|
| s
|
| x
|
| c
|
|
|
| m
|
| m
|
|
| l
| o
|
| p
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7
| 8
|
|
| i
|
| j
|
| n
|
| h
| y
|
| t
| r
|
| r
| e
|
| e
|
|
|
|
|
| f
|
| g
|
| h
| j
|
| jk
| k
| k
|
|
| l
| l
|
| ;
|
| o
| p
|
| i
|
|
|
|
|
| 7
| 6
|
| y
|
| h
|
| n
|
| b
|
| v
|
|
| g
|
| tr
|
| r
|
|
| 4
|
|
|
|
|
| r
| r
| t
|
| 5
| 6
|
| 6
| 7
| 7
|
|
|

[Mick[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
| "Mick" <#$$#@%%%.^^^> wrote in :
|
| >
| > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
| > ...
| >| "Mick" <#$$#@%%%.^^^> wrote in
| >| :
| >|
| >| >
| >| > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
| >| > ...
| >| >| "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote in
| >| >| :
| >| >|
| >| >| >
| >| >| > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
| >| >| > news:2795f59f-0596-4e38-a257-
| >| >| >
| >| >| > No, actually I already knew you couldn't walk on water. I was
| >| >| > just wait for you to find out.
| >| >| >
| >| >|
| >| >| You wait, good k00k.
| >| >|
| >| >|
| >| >|
| >| >| Bertie
| >| >
| >| >
| >| >
| >| >
| >|
| >|
| >|
| >
| >
| >
|
|
|
|

[Mick[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
| "Mick" <#$$#@%%%.^^^> wrote in :
|
| >
| > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
| > ...
| >| "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote in news:rMXzk.13005$Dj1.7482
| @newsfe01.iad:
| >|
| >| >
| >| > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
| >| > ...
| >| >> "Morgans" > wrote in
| >| >> :
| >| >>
| >| >>> Up until now, I only had a problem with two people. Now, make
| that
| >| >>> three.
| >| >>>
| >| >>
| >| >> The night is young.
| >| >>
| >| >>
| >| >>
| >| >>> Lordy, you are predictable.
| >| >>
| >| >> So are you.
| >| >>
| >| >> And full of it.
| >| >>
| >| >> In Dudley's case, that would be info. In your case, it's
| whineyness.
| >| >>
| >| >>
| >| >>
| >| >> Bertie
| >| >
| >| > No, it would all be ignorance in YOUR case.
| >|
| >|
| >| Yeh. Mmmkaay.
| >|
| >| That probably makes sense in Okieland.
| >|
| >|
| >|
| >| Bertie
| >
| >
| >
|
|
|
|

[Mick[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
| "Mick" <#$$#@%%%.^^^> wrote in :
|
| >
| > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
| > ...
| >| "Mick" <#$$#@%%%.^^^> wrote in news:5d4Ck.17870$wr1.8784
| @newsfe02.iad:
| >|
| >| >
| >| > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
| >| > ...
| >| >| "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote in news:ECgAk.13876$Dj1.10396
| >| @newsfe01.iad:
| >| >|
| >| >| >
| >| >| > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
| >| >| > news:36c03b4e-abb0-476d-ad1e-
| >| >| > The "P51 Mustang" book is another book where the story appears.
| >| There
| >| >| > are actually 3 that I'm aware of; Reader's Digest, "Everyday
| >| >| > Greatness" by Covey, and The P51 Mustang by Hatch and Winter.
| >| >| >
| >| >| > DH
| >| >| >
| >| >| > -----------------------------------------------
| >| >| >
| >| >| > Well you like to rattle you head, retype it for us here.
| >| >|
| >| >|
| >| >|
| >| >| Lame..
| >| >|
| >| >|
| >| >|
| >| >| bertie
| >| >
| >| >
| >| >
| >| >
| >|
| >| a
| >| a
| >| a
| >| a
| >| a
| >| a
| >| a
| >| a
| >| a
| >| a
| >| a
| >| a
| >| a
| >| a
| >| a
| >| a
| >| a
| >| a
| >| a
| >| a
| >| a
| >| a
| >| a
| >|
| >|
| >| a
| >| a
| >| a
| >| a
| >| a
| >| a
| >| a
| >| a
| >| a
| >|
| >| a
| >| a
| >| a
| >| a
| >| a
| >| a
| >|
| >| s
| >|
| >| s
| >| a
| >|
| >| a
| >| s
| >|
| >| a
| >|
| >| a
| >|
| >| s
| >| a
| >|
| >| s
| >| a
| >| s
| >| a
| >| s
| >|
| >| a
| >| sa
| >| s
| >| q
| >| a
| >| a
| >|
| >|
| >| s
| >| s
| >| s
| >| s
| >| d
| >|
| >|
| >| f
| >| g
| >| h
| >| n
| >|
| >| n
| >| j
| >| k
| >|
| >| k
| >| k
| >|
| >| k
| >| k
| >| k
| >|
| >|
| >| m
| >|
| >| m
| >| m
| >| m
| >| m
| >|
| >| j
| >|
| >|
| >| uy
| >| g
| >|
| >| b
| >|
| >|
| >|
| >| y
| >| y
| >| t
| >|
| >| t
| >| 6
| >| 7
| >|
| >| 7
| >| 8
| >|
| >| 9
| >| 0
| >|
| >| o
| >| k
| >| k
| >| l
| >|
| >| m
| >|
| >| n
| >| b
| >|
| >| b
| >| vv
| >| v
| >|
| >|
| >|
| >|
| >|
| >| f
| >|
| >| f
| >| t
| >| r
| >|
| >| e
| >|
| >| e
| >|
| >|
| >|
| >| d
| >| d
| >|
| >| d
| >| s
| >|
| >| s
| >|
| >| x
| >|
| >| c
| >|
| >|
| >|
| >| m
| >|
| >| m
| >|
| >|
| >| l
| >| o
| >|
| >| p
| >|
| >|
| >|
| >|
| >|
| >|
| >|
| >| 7
| >| 8
| >|
| >|
| >| i
| >|
| >| j
| >|
| >| n
| >|
| >| h
| >| y
| >|
| >| t
| >| r
| >|
| >| r
| >| e
| >|
| >| e
| >|
| >|
| >|
| >|
| >|
| >| f
| >|
| >| g
| >|
| >| h
| >| j
| >|
| >| jk
| >| k
| >| k
| >|
| >|
| >| l
| >| l
| >|
| >| ;
| >|
| >| o
| >| p
| >|
| >| i
| >|
| >|
| >|
| >|
| >|
| >| 7
| >| 6
| >|
| >| y
| >|
| >| h
| >|
| >| n
| >|
| >| b
| >|
| >| v
| >|
| >|
| >| g
| >|
| >| tr
| >|
| >| r
| >|
| >|
| >| 4
| >|
| >|
| >|
| >|
| >|
| >| r
| >| r
| >| t
| >|
| >| 5
| >| 6
| >|
| >| 6
| >| 7
| >| 7
| >|
| >|
| >|
| >
| >
| >
|
|
|

[Mick[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
| "Mick" <#$$#@%%%.^^^> wrote in :
|
| >
| > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
| > ...
| >| "Mick" <#$$#@%%%.^^^> wrote in news:5d4Ck.17869$wr1.1649
| @newsfe02.iad:
| >|
| >| >
| >| > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
| >| > .. .
| >| >| "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote in
| >| >| :
| >| >|
| >| >| >
| >| >| > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
| >| >| > .. .
| >| >| >>
| >| >| >>
| >| >| >> Aww, you talkin to yourself. Well, I guess it's a case of
| having
| >| >| >> to at this point, eh Okie?
| >| >| >>
| >| >| >>
| >| >| >>
| >| >| >>
| >| >| >> Bertie
| >| >| >>
| >| >| >
| >| >| > Yeah, that makes sense, dumb ass. What a hot reply.
| >| >|
| >| >|
| >| >|
| >| >| Thenkew
| >| >|
| >| >|
| >| >| Bertie
| >| >
| >| >
| >| >
| >| >
| >|
| >|
| >|
| >
| >
| >
|
|
|

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

"Mick" <#$$#@%%%.^^^> wrote in :

>
> > wrote in message
> news:4817e8f1-a5c6-46f0-89ee-fc21b8c95634
@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com.
> .. On Sep 16, 9:08 am, "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>
>> news:4f4bb25a-a5ed-4a39-a5dd-

>> ... On Sep 16, 8:38 am, "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > > On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:55:09 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques
>> > > > wrote:
>>
>> > >> The way I would present this
>> > >>issue is to simply say that brakes are put on the airplane to
>> > >>hold it for the run up check and for use ONLY when your
>> > >>pre-planned use of aerodynamic forces available to you, or your
>> > >>steering capabilities won't make the necessary change in
>> > >>direction. In other words, you shouldn't be using them on
>> > >>takeoff, landing, and even while taxiing if your planning is
>> > >>adequate for the situation. I like the general rule that dictates
>> > >>that brakes on an airplane should be used as little as possible.
>>
>> > >>Dudley Henriques
>>
>> > > you know that I posted a comment along this exact line of thought
>> > > about a month ago I got bagged by nearly everyone for over a
>> > > week. I'm still correct in what I wrote and you evidently are in
>> > > agreement.
>>
>> > > :-)
>> > > Stealth Pilot
>>
>> > No, it just mean you are both wrong.
>>
>> Don't think so.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------
>>
>> Sure, jump on the band wagon Dumley.
>>
>> So brakes were no put on aircraft to stop them. You're both full of
>> it.
>
> Using brakes to stop a plane is like using a pier to stop a boat.
>
> And you are, in truth if not in fact, a waste of air.
>
> ----------------------------------
>
> And you, a half assed sock puppet.
>
>
>

Wow. A sock puppet lame from Maxie. That musta stung Andrew.


Bertie

[ah]

chatnoir wrote:
> On Sep 24, 7:10 pm, ah > wrote:
>> chatnoir wrote:
>> > On Sep 23, 7:24 pm, ah > wrote:
>> >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> >> > "Mick" <#$$#@%%%.^^^> wrote :
>>
>> >> >> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >>| "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote in news:EuQzk.11625$rV4.4487
>> >> > @newsfe03.iad:
>> >> >>|
>> >> >>| >
>> >> >>| > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> >> >>| > news:c43fc622-d3e0-47c7-b8a3-
>> >> >>| >
>> >> >>| > Yep, it's always all about you, isn't Dudley.
>> >> >>| >
>> >> >>| >
>> >> >>| >
>> >> >>|
>> >> >>| Awww, and you want it to be all about you, dontcha k00kie boi?
>> >> >>|
>> >> >>|
>> >> >>| Bertie
>>
>> >> >> Taking up for your sock eh?
>>
>> >> > God you're an idiot.
>>
>> >> > Bertie
>>
>> >> Quiet, s0ck.
>> >> --
>> >> ah
>>
>> >>Airplanes and Brakes?
>>
>> > Been watching Bugs Bunny again????
>>
>> Yeah. Why?
>> --
>> ah
>
> I remember the Brakes that were on the Airplanes in The Bugs Bunny
> Cartoons! Planes could stop in mid air from proper braking! I now
> know where you get your scientific info from!

Are you high?
--
ah

[[email protected]]

On Sep 25, 9:26*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Mick" <#$$#@%%%.^^^> wrote :
>
>
>
> > > wrote in message
> > news:4817e8f1-a5c6-46f0-89ee-fc21b8c95634
>
> @k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com.> .. On Sep 16, 9:08 am, "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote:
> >> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> >> news:4f4bb25a-a5ed-4a39-a5dd-
>
>
>
>
>
> >> ... On Sep 16, 8:38 am, "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote:
>
> >> > "Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
>
> >> ...
>
> >> > > On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:55:09 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques
> >> > > > wrote:
>
> >> > >> The way I would present this
> >> > >>issue is to simply say that brakes are put on the airplane to
> >> > >>hold it for the run up check and for use ONLY when your
> >> > >>pre-planned use of aerodynamic forces available to you, or your
> >> > >>steering capabilities won't make the necessary change in
> >> > >>direction. In other words, you shouldn't be using them on
> >> > >>takeoff, landing, and even while taxiing if your planning is
> >> > >>adequate for the situation. I like the general rule that dictates
> >> > >>that brakes on an airplane should be used as little as possible.
>
> >> > >>Dudley Henriques
>
> >> > > you know that I posted a comment along this exact line of thought
> >> > > about a month ago I got bagged by nearly everyone for over a
> >> > > week. I'm still correct in what I wrote and you evidently are in
> >> > > agreement.
>
> >> > > :-)
> >> > > Stealth Pilot
>
> >> > No, it just mean you are both wrong.
>
> >> Don't think so.
>
> >> ---------------------------------------
>
> >> Sure, jump on the band wagon Dumley.
>
> >> So brakes were no put on aircraft to stop them. You're both full of
> >> it.
>
> > Using brakes to stop a plane is like using a pier to stop a boat.
>
> > And you are, in truth if not in fact, a waste of air.
>
> > ----------------------------------
>
> > And you, a half assed sock puppet.
>
> Wow. A sock puppet lame from Maxie. That musta stung Andrew.
>
> Bertie

Now I have a boo-boo! Someplace...<searches>...nope, apparently
not...DARN SOCKS!!

Hmmm...was that an epithet or an imperative? If we darn socks then
what will Maxipad do for therapy?

And he/she/it's still a waste of air. OTOH, if it's an attempt at a
Turing program than the programmer should be shot- too limited
responses, esp. the repost without a reply- juvie at best. I wonder
if he/she/it holds its breath and turns blue after 'send'?

[chatnoir]

On Sep 26, 4:41*am, ah > wrote:
> chatnoir wrote:
> > On Sep 24, 7:10 pm, ah > wrote:
> >> chatnoir wrote:
> >> > On Sep 23, 7:24 pm, ah > wrote:
> >> >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >> >> > "Mick" <#$$#@%%%.^^^> wrote :
>
> >> >> >> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >>| "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote in news:EuQzk.11625$rV4.4487
> >> >> > @newsfe03.iad:
> >> >> >>|
> >> >> >>| >
> >> >> >>| > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> >> >> >>| > news:c43fc622-d3e0-47c7-b8a3-
> >> >> >>| >
> >> >> >>| > Yep, it's always all about you, isn't Dudley.
> >> >> >>| >
> >> >> >>| >
> >> >> >>| >
> >> >> >>|
> >> >> >>| Awww, and you want it to be all about you, dontcha k00kie boi?
> >> >> >>|
> >> >> >>|
> >> >> >>| Bertie
>
> >> >> >> Taking up for your sock eh?
>
> >> >> > God you're an idiot.
>
> >> >> > Bertie
>
> >> >> Quiet, s0ck.
> >> >> --
> >> >> ah
>
> >> >>Airplanes and Brakes?
>
> >> > Been watching Bugs Bunny again????
>
> >> Yeah. *Why?
> >> --
> >> ah
>
> > I remember the Brakes that were on the Airplanes in The Bugs Bunny
> > Cartoons! *Planes could stop in mid air from proper braking! *I now
> > know where you get your scientific info from!
>
> Are you high?
> --
> ah

Not at all! I also remember Bugs in a hopeless situation where the
plane is going to crash; but it runs out of gas and stops in the air!
just before it hits the earth! Then I remember you scientific sayings
- Yep he got it from watching Bugs Bunny!

[Robert M. Gary]

On Sep 15, 11:44*am, "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
> I'm deligthted to see I'm managing to get some arguments and
> discussion going. And if you notice, No Profanity?
> I challenge my students to learn to taxi without brakes. and I come
> down hard if they beat up the airplane with unecessary braking instead
> of staying ahead of the airplane. (sometimes even with profanity! Can
> you imagine that?)
> How about you? If you had to pay for the brakes, tires, and
> maintenance, would YOU beat up the airplane?

To be honest I'm always amazed at how cheap tires and brakes are for
airplanes. Almost car prices. There are lots of expensive parts on
airplanes but some parts (brakes, tires, batteries) are very
reasonable. I don't think twice about changing one out.
To your question, it depends on the airplane. Some airplanes can taxi
just fine without brakes and I don't allow my students to use brakes
during taxi in those airplanes. However, an old 172 with worn out
bungies isn't going to turn without some brakes so what-ya-gonna-do?

-Robert, CFII

[Robert M. Gary]

On Sep 15, 6:25*pm, C J Campbell >
wrote:

> Naw. In fact, I challenge my students not to use brakes even when they
> are flying! :-)

I had that happen with a student once. I guess he hit the brake in
flight. Once we landed we got a pretty good surprise because the brake
had stuck.

-Robert

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

"Mick" <#$$#@%%%.^^^> wrote in :

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>| "Mick" <#$$#@%%%.^^^> wrote in :
>|
>| >
>| > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>| > ...
>| >| "Mick" <#$$#@%%%.^^^> wrote in
>| >| :
>| >|
>| >| >
>| >| > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>| >| > ...
>| >| >| "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote in
>| >| >| :
>| >| >|
>| >| >| >
>| >| >| > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>| >| >| > news:2795f59f-0596-4e38-a257-
>| >| >| >
>| >| >| > No, actually I already knew you couldn't walk on water. I was
>| >| >| > just wait for you to find out.
>| >| >| >
>| >| >|
>| >| >| You wait, good k00k.
>| >| >|
>| >| >|
>| >| >|
>| >| >| Bertie
>| >| >
>| >| >
>| >| >
>| >| >
>| >|
>| >|
>| >|
>| >
>| >
>| >
>|
>|
>|
>|
>
>
>

If anyone ever deserved this, it's Maxwell. He's currently trying to
"wear me down" by making hundreds of blank poasts in
rec.aviation.piloting.



He obviously don't know me very well, do he?


Bertie

[ah]

chatnoir wrote:
> On Sep 26, 4:41 am, ah > wrote:
>> chatnoir wrote:
>> > On Sep 24, 7:10 pm, ah > wrote:
>> >> chatnoir wrote:
>> >> > On Sep 23, 7:24 pm, ah > wrote:
>> >> >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> >> >> > "Mick" <#$$#@%%%.^^^> wrote :
>>
>> >> >> >> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >>| "Mick" <@_#`~#@.^net> wrote in news:EuQzk.11625$rV4.4487
>> >> >> > @newsfe03.iad:
>> >> >> >>|
>> >> >> >>| >
>> >> >> >>| > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >>| > news:c43fc622-d3e0-47c7-b8a3-
>> >> >> >>| >
>> >> >> >>| > Yep, it's always all about you, isn't Dudley.
>> >> >> >>| >
>> >> >> >>| >
>> >> >> >>| >
>> >> >> >>|
>> >> >> >>| Awww, and you want it to be all about you, dontcha k00kie boi?
>> >> >> >>|
>> >> >> >>|
>> >> >> >>| Bertie
>>
>> >> >> >> Taking up for your sock eh?
>>
>> >> >> > God you're an idiot.
>>
>> >> >> > Bertie
>>
>> >> >> Quiet, s0ck.
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> ah
>>
>> >> >>Airplanes and Brakes?
>>
>> >> > Been watching Bugs Bunny again????
>>
>> >> Yeah. Why?
>> >> --
>> >> ah
>>
>> > I remember the Brakes that were on the Airplanes in The Bugs Bunny
>> > Cartoons! Planes could stop in mid air from proper braking! I now
>> > know where you get your scientific info from!
>>
>> Are you high?
>> --
>> ah
>
> Not at all! I also remember Bugs in a hopeless situation where the
> plane is going to crash; but it runs out of gas and stops in the air!
> just before it hits the earth! Then I remember you scientific sayings
> - Yep he got it from watching Bugs Bunny!

Heathen!
--
ah