Flyboys?

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Flyboys?
From: "Dudley Henriques"
Date: 12/17/03 9:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: et


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


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

DUDLEY HENRIQUES SAID ;

"Bull ****! This is a constant speed prop. RPM is a
set value. The RPM can be set at 3000 and the
manifold pressure can be anywhere between 15 inches
and 61 inches, and it's the manifold pressure
combined with the set RPM that will determine the
power.....NOT the RPM!!! Are you trying to tell
me that the rotational (energy) of a propeller is
the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?".
-D Henriques

How's that Gordo?

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

-Gord.

You're done all right!

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

-Gord.

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




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

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

Subject: Flyboys?
From: "Dudley Henriques"
Date: 12/18/03 8:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Flyboys?
From: "Dudley Henriques"
Date: 12/17/03 9:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: et


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


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

DUDLEY HENRIQUES SAID ;

"Bull ****! This is a constant speed prop. RPM is a
set value. The RPM can be set at 3000 and the
manifold pressure can be anywhere between 15 inches
and 61 inches, and it's the manifold pressure
combined with the set RPM that will determine the
power.....NOT the RPM!!! Are you trying to tell
me that the rotational (energy) of a propeller is
the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?".
-D Henriques

How's that Gordo?

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

-Gord.

You're done all right!

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

-Gord.

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




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

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




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

Regards,



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

From: Cub Driver

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

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


Chris Mark

From: Cub Driver

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

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

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


Chris Mark

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

DUDLEY HENRIQUES SAID ;

"Bull ****! This is a constant speed prop. RPM is a
set value. The RPM can be set at 3000 and the
manifold pressure can be anywhere between 15 inches
and 61 inches, and it's the manifold pressure
combined with the set RPM that will determine the
power.....NOT the RPM!!! Are you trying to tell
me that the rotational (energy) of a propeller is
the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?".
-D Henriques

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

Arthur Kramer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Arthur Kramer

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

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

Subject: Flyboys (Was: Flyboys?)
From: ost (Chris Mark)
Date: 12/18/03 9:35 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

From: Cub Driver

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

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

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


Chris Mark

No one ever dared call Willie the Wolf a female.



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

"Dudley Henriques" wrote:


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



Whatever you say dude...
--

-Gord.

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

I would if you knew enough to be a challenge for me dude...
--

-Gord.

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

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

Why not?...it seems to **** you off...sounds like a plan to me...



-Gord.

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

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

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

Arthur Kramer

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

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




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

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

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

While the book was rather poor work, Bush may at least have written off on
the term Fly Boy all the way. Makes sense to me. The only other alternative
is
to assume that Bush reviewed the manuscriptt hastily and carelessly, What
think you?

Arthur Kramer

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

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

Arthur Kramer

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

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

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