R680 Powered Beech 18

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
om...
It must be extremely marginal on one engine with any kind of load. A
Bamboo
Bomber won't hardly stay up with one running.

Isn't the "Bamboo Bomber" the nickname given the Cessna T50 Bobcat? I never
heard it used to describe a Beech 18.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
om...
It must be extremely marginal on one engine with any kind of load. A
Bamboo
Bomber won't hardly stay up with one running.

Isn't the "Bamboo Bomber" the nickname given the Cessna T50 Bobcat? I
never
heard it used to describe a Beech 18.

Pete


The Bamboo Bomber is A Cessna T50 or UC78. I did not refer to a Twin Beech
as a Bamboo Bomber. Simply stated a BB with similar engines has trouble
staying in the air on one engine even though it is a considerably smaller
airplane.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
om...
The Bamboo Bomber is A Cessna T50 or UC78. I did not refer to a Twin
Beech
as a Bamboo Bomber. Simply stated a BB with similar engines has trouble
staying in the air on one engine even though it is a considerably smaller
airplane.

Sorry. I missed the part in your original post where you mentioned that the
Beech 18 "is a considerably smaller airplane". Or where you pointed out
that the two aircraft have similar engines. I guess you wrote those bits in
invisible ink.

Sorry. I missed the part in your original post where you mentioned that the
Beech 18 "is a considerably smaller airplane". Or where you pointed out
that the two aircraft have similar engines. I guess you wrote those bits in
invisible ink.

It was clear to me. Anyone else have a problem with it?


-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*

"Ditch" wrote in message
...
It was clear to me. Anyone else have a problem with it?

Probably because you are familiar enough with the airplanes.

If Dave wanted to reply in a way that was useful only to someone who already
knew all the facts then a) he should've sent email, and b) why bother
replying at all? If he's going to post to the Usenet, it makes no sense at
all to write something cryptic and nonsensical to people who aren't familiar
with the aircraft in question.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Ditch" wrote in message
...
It was clear to me. Anyone else have a problem with it?

Probably because you are familiar enough with the airplanes.

If Dave wanted to reply in a way that was useful only to someone who
already
knew all the facts then a) he should've sent email, and b) why bother
replying at all? If he's going to post to the Usenet, it makes no sense
at
all to write something cryptic and nonsensical to people who aren't
familiar
with the aircraft in question.

Pete

If the subject is beyond you maybe you should stay out of the conversation.
Don't expect a complete historical and technical dissertation with every
post. That's what Juptners is for. In this case my guess is Volume 8
covers the subject aircraft but I am not going to look it up for you.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
. com...
If the subject is beyond you maybe you should stay out of the
conversation.

The point of public discussion is so that others may participate and learn
from what others have to share.

Your comment made sense only to someone that already knows enough about the
airplanes in question that they would already know what you said. Why say
it at all, if you don't feel you should make your comment understandable to
folks not "in the know"?

Pete