Flyboys?

On 18 Dec 2003 17:43:56 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

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.

That's something that arguably never occured during the operational
life of the aircraft.


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

I don't recall attributing gender to my F-105, the "Bat Bird", but
typically all airplanes and ships are referred to in the femine
gender.

My F-4E, was nicknamed "Arnold--the Pig" before I got my name on the
canopy rail. It was bestowed because of Arnold's tendency to fly
sidways, thereby consumming much more fuel than anyone else in the
flight--a result of two gear-up landings (neither of which I had
anything to do with.)

Ed Rasimus wrote:


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

Well done Ed...I can see why you're a successful
author...hilarious...

BTW, I liked your book...very interesting, the kind that's
difficult to put down (even at 0400 local)
--

-Gord.

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.

Ed, you can't imagine how comforting those words are to the rest of
us!


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On 18 Dec 2003 17:49:38 GMT,

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.

I found the background on the development of post-isolationist Japan much
more interesting. I wish I had the time to do more research to see how
accurate he was.

Glenn D.

"Dudley Henriques" wrote:


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

--reams of obfuscation mercifully removed--

and let's not forget..........

"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


Certainly...I've been telling you that for months...when are you
going to believe it?...
--

-Gord.

Then you're saying this statement is correct?

If that's so, and you have been "telling me this for months" why have you
been posting it all this time without further comment? :-) That would make
no sense at all to a sane person. CLEARLY the inference in posting this as
it is with no further comment from you about it would be for the person
reading it to come away with the impression that the statement is totally
incorrect would it not? In fact, I can produce in your own words a post that
states emphatically that this quote is incorrect. Why did you post it if
it's correct? Do you simply wish to affirm it's truth ? Seems to me that if
you wanted to use it in a negative context like you have been doing for
about thirteen posts now, you would have added something about me not
knowing this was correct until you had to tell me each time you posted it.
That would make sense Gordo!!! :-) But you haven't done that have you Gordo?
You just put it out there word for word without comment didn't you; and now
you're saying it's correct....and that's EXACTLY what you have just posted
above. "Certainly" you said, I've been telling you this for months.....when
am I going to believe it"
Well, let me put your mind at ease at least. I believe it! In fact, I
believed it all along......even before you barged in with your lecture on
rotational velocity.
How do you get out of this one Gordo? Is the statement correct or incorrect?
And if it's correct, how do you explain "teaching" someone about something
that they obviously already knew WAS correct, since your "lecture" came
AFTER the statement was made! :-)
Your move chess player!! This ought to be good. At least make it good will
you. I'm saving these "exchanges" of ours for my grandchildren to read over
the holidays. -))))

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt


Poor dude...you're really having trouble with your reading
comprehension aren't you?. Calling that 'sig' that I use
occasionally a 'statement' when it's really about three
statements, an expletive and a question. I suppose that I could
break it down and teach you something about props but why
bother?. yawn


-Gord.

"You are completely focused on RPM as the
single factor producing rotational velocity"
-Dude Henrickles

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...

-Gord.

"You are completely focused on RPM as the
single factor producing rotational velocity"
-Dude Henrickles

..........whereas the high rpm governor limit, impossible to eliminate from
the equation for the purpose of establishing seizure momentum as power is
reduced , (and thus affecting the rpm) is the other factor. :-)

and that's Dudley Henriques.

No flame from me.....no return misuse of your name.....no personal attack;
simply the issue. This will be my return policy with you from now on. :-)
DH

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
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!

I had the opposite reaction when I climbed into fast jets. I don't think I
ever got used to the simplicity of operation that a jet engine offers as
opposed to the constant checking and rechecking involved with recips. This
was always especially noticeable for me at the end of the runway just before
takeoff when I would sometimes instinctively start looking around the
cockpit for things to touch and check. NOTHING TO DO!!! Just point it in the
right direction, do the line up check and push the big handle on the left in
the direction you wanted to go! Wonderful!!!! and oh yes........HANG
ON!!!! :-)
Dudley (old doting person type M1)

In article , ArtKramr wrote:

Since this book is about old man Bush.[...]

I didn't see anything significant about Bush Sr. in the book at
all. I thought it was just something that the author and publisher
were alluding to in order to increase sales. I'm glad some other
folks thought it clanked, too--I was wondering if I was just being
too hard on it.

Mike Beede

"Dudley Henriques" wrote:


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
.. .

-Gord.

"You are completely focused on RPM as the
single factor producing rotational velocity"
-Dude Henrickles

.........whereas the high rpm governor limit, impossible to eliminate from
the equation for the purpose of establishing seizure momentum as power is
reduced , (and thus affecting the rpm) is the other factor. :-)


Ok...I'll work with you a little here...(and only if you refrain
from obfuscation).

Your above statement isn't valid because it's the RPM only which
is relevant to the momentum of a prop (besides the mass which
isn't variable in this case)

What caused the RPM is completely immaterial.

You say 'It's the other factor' but it is not. There's only one
parameter that determines momentum (besides mass) and that's RPM.
--

-Gord.

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


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
.. .

-Gord.

"You are completely focused on RPM as the
single factor producing rotational velocity"
-Dude Henrickles

.........whereas the high rpm governor limit, impossible to eliminate
from
the equation for the purpose of establishing seizure momentum as power is
reduced , (and thus affecting the rpm) is the other factor. :-)


Ok...I'll work with you a little here...(and only if you refrain
from obfuscation).

Your above statement isn't valid because it's the RPM only which
is relevant to the momentum of a prop (besides the mass which
isn't variable in this case)

What caused the RPM is completely immaterial.

You say 'It's the other factor' but it is not. There's only one
parameter that determines momentum (besides mass) and that's RPM.
--

-Gord.

Ok, and I'd like to work with you a bit also if I can. I kind of miss the
old days when the two of us were talking to each other.

You are absolutely right in everything you are saying here as well as what
you said back in the seizure thread. I never doubted your knowledge and
experience with these things for a moment. I believe the problem involved
both of us misunderstanding the other. I had assumed the limiter would
reduce the rpm when the power was reduced back to idle in prep for the bail
out. I should have mentioned that in my dialog with the poster I was dealing
with when you entered the thread, but I didn't. You no doubt thought, from
the way I posted my remarks that I was under the impression that it was
power that controlled the seizure momentum. When you posted without
mentioning the limiter, I grossly over reacted to the inference that I didn'
t know what I was talking about. I shouldn't have done that and I apologize.
You on the other hand, could have asked me to clarify whether or not I was
dealing with the issue without the limiter in question. You didn't. The rest
went downhill in a handbasket. I answered several of your posts thinking you
knew about the rpm change with the limiter involved and were lecturing me
anyway, which of course would have been wrong. By the time I realized we
were talking about different things, it was too late.
Gordo, I am sincerely sorry for my part in this misunderstanding.
I don't believe either one of us, after spending all our lives involved with
airplanes and engines, is ignorant of the simple fact that it's rpm that
determines rotational velocity. Let's put this thing to bed and forget it if
possible. To be honest with you, I hate all this unnecessary crap going back
and forth between two people who should be friends.
Sincerely,
Dudley