wrote in
:

On Jan 21, 2:49*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Bob Officer wrote
innews:ta0fn45t6pdfks8hkgigp638
:





On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 09:31:50 -0600, in alt.usenet.kooks, §ñühw¤
£f
wrote:

Bob Officer pinched out a steaming pile
:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 09:31:29 -0600, in alt.usenet.kooks, §ñühw
¤£f
wrote:

Bob Officer pinched out a steaming pile
:

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 18:20:16 +0000 (UTC), in alt.usenet.kooks,
Bertie
the Bunyip wrote:

§ñühw¤£f wrote in news:t96dnQfJw-
:

Bertie the Bunyip pinched out a
steaming
pile
:

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in
news:gkvte8$eth
$1
:

§ñühw¤£f wrote:

I propose a technological solution to the problem of bird
strikes:
turboprops.
Lets return to the good old days pre-jet engines.

Well ... while the L-188 Lockheed Electra example is a
turboprop,
the
above poster apparently didn't realize that a turboprop
engine
has a
jet
engine.

Discuss.

The large piston engines were incredibly complex, and
generally
could
drive airliners at only about half the speed of those with
the
pure
jet
engines.

yes, but they were so much more fun

Bertie

Ok ok...totally *genius* idea: dirigibles.

Excellent. I'll sign on for a course.

Yeah, think on that for a while.

Its either that or the locomotive, chaps.

Only if it's a real one. i.e. Steam

No! Hell no!

And what pray tell is wrong with steam?

Steam locomotives? Everything.

Well man spit it out! Lets not play guessing games here!

Have you ever been on a working steam locomotive?

They are very dirty (producing soot and ash. Very noisy. (usually
about 90-105 dB. They get louder under full power)

Excelelnt.



Most all locomotive engineers from the steam era were deaf. and
suffered breathing problems.

Pretty much the same as pilts, then.



Most all locomotive engineers from the diesel era still suffer
hearing loss. Most all operating employees for railroads with more
than 10 years of service have some hearing loss. About ten years
ago the railroads started losing lawsuits over hearing losses and
started a hearing conservation program. Too bad it was 27 years too
late.

Biggest complaints from crews which still use those 1st and 2nd
generation locomotives, noise and exhaust fumes in the cab.

Guess what?

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...8/toxic-fumes-
in-
airliner-cabins-ignored-by-authorities.html


http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...eindustry.ukne
ws

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...t-fumes-check-
on-
ba-jets-683819.html

http://www.welcomeaboardtoxicairline...amediapack.pdf

http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=3073

Bertie

Man, the kerosene smell of a hot re-fuel of the Otter during skydive
operations (Spaceland, Houston Gulf, '80's & '90's) was part of the
experience.

Had a chance to wander through a Blackhawk at Wings Over houston last
year and the smell brought it all back. Right down to the Sunday
morning first jump of the day when all the pickled eggs and beer farts
would begin to make an appearance at 5K. Mix in a little toxic TexMex
for flavor and you were lucky if you were sitting by the aft door.

Well, this stuff is different. it's not fuel gettng in, well there is
some of that as wel, but engine lube oil, which, depending on the brand,
contains **** that was developed as a chemical warfare agent by the
germans in the 30s
See Tricresyl organo phosphates, just to name one. In some types of
airplanes you can actually smell it. RR powered 757s and Bae 146s for
instance are amongst the worst, but anything that uses bleed air is
dumping some in. It's quite a different smell from burnt kerosene,
though.
Boeing are going with a seperate blwoer for the 787 because of this
problem.

Bertie