Flyboys?

"Dudley Henriques" wrote:


"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

Ok, that's fine...let's let it rest till after
Christmas...apologies to all for monopolizing the 'frequency'.

Merry Christmas to you and yours.
--

-Gord.

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


"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

Ok, that's fine...let's let it rest till after
Christmas...apologies to all for monopolizing the 'frequency'.

Merry Christmas to you and yours.
--

-Gord.

And the very best Christmas for you and yours as well. I sincerely hope the
new year brings all of us some peace in the world.
All the best,
Dudley

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.

I've come to the conclusion (about halfway through) that the technique
was to find the most startling book in English on the subject, then
borrow heavily from it. Crikey, the man doesn't even bother to rewrite
the quotes; he just throws quotation marks around them and inserts
them into his text without saying where they're from. I generally read
a book like this with my right index finger in the citations page; in
this case, it's the only way to know who he's quoting.

On Japan, he's stuck with Saburo Inega, a Japanese veteran, teacher,
and controversialist whom he describes as an eminent historian, and a
few others like Ikuhiko Hata, who is indeed an eminent historian but
hasn't written much of use to Bradley's book.

So you really don't have to do much research. Just read Inega and
maybe Herbert Bix on Hirohito. Bix did an excellent job, so in this
case Bradley lucked out in choosing his sources. In the section you
mention, you can probably rely on his interpretation, if you strip out
the journalistic eye-poppers like "the Spriit boys" and "the Boy
Soldier" (Hirohito).

As I say, I'm halfway through, and I haven't gotten to the Chichi Jima
mission(s) yet! There have been times when I was ready to give up, but
I did pay fifteen bucks at BJ's for it.




all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Since this book is about old man Bush. I can't imagine that he allowed it
to be
published wihtout going over every detail. What does that tell us?

That you are once more trolling.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:55:54 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
wrote:


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.

Killfile him. It works really well for me.

I discovered something interesting, using Google groups, sometime
back. Most of what Beaman posts are nitpicking corrections of others.
He posts very little original material.

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.

He's even worse when his opponent is a woman. Or maybe it's people
held in high regard by others, such as yourself. Jealousy, perhaps,
that some people aren't challenged when they post.

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.

Killfile him. Out of sight, out of mind. If my newsreader could
killfile on content, I'd pitch all the postings that quote him, too.

We'll see!! :-)

If nothing else, killfiling him keeps you from validating his nonsense
and abuse by keeping the exchange going.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:36:54 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

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.)

Unless this was a common occurrence, I know someone who also flew
Arnold. We were just talking about it the other day. He says that
this sort of thing is the typical "good news, bad news" the F-4 made
possible.

Good news--after two gear-up landings the airplane is still
flightworthy. Bad news--but it's going to fly sideways and really
burn fuel.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

Mary Shafer wrote:


If nothing else, killfiling him keeps you from validating his nonsense
and abuse by keeping the exchange going.

Mary

Mary (apparently) killfiled me ONLY because I argued with her
when she stated that there was no such thing as Pilot Error. That
the NTSB nor the FAA -ever- used it as a reason for a crash. She
then refused to discuss it. If you would like proof of what I say
then just let me know.
--

-Gord.

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 10:28:44 -0800, Mary Shafer
wrote:

If my newsreader could
killfile on content, I'd pitch all the postings that quote him, too.

Agent will do that (by thread title, anyhow). Here's my standard plug
for Agent:

I highly recommend Forte Agent as a newsreader. It handles newsgroup
messages far better than any "included" newsreader such as those
bundled with Internet Explorer, Outlook, Netscape, or Opera--all of
which I have tried.

Download the software at www.forteinc.com/agent/download.php

The program includes the latest version of Agent as well as its
freeware version, called Free Agent. This enables you to get the feel
of the software without paying up front.

However, where Agent really shines is in its ability to filter out
objectional subjects or posters: Control+K and you're done! It was to
get that functionality that I upgraded to the paid version a year ago,
and I have never regretted it. The cost to register the software (and
thereby to unlock the full-featured version on your computer) is $29.

(A major revison is in the works. However, if you register the current
version, the upgrade will be free.)


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 05:28:32 -0500, Cub Driver
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 10:28:44 -0800, Mary Shafer
wrote:

If my newsreader could
killfile on content, I'd pitch all the postings that quote him, too.

Agent will do that (by thread title, anyhow). Here's my standard plug
for Agent:

I know. I'm using Agent, in part because so many posters I respect
use it.

However, I don't want to pitch a whole thread, just the sub-threads
that a particular person has gotten involved with. There's no way to
do that with Agent, because it only filters on a few headers. Oh,
well.

I'll tell you one thing I'd really like filter and that's the
discussion that had evolved into two people arguing past each other
for twenty or thirty postings. Even the most informed poster can get
drawn into this, but the postings quickly become very repetitious and
there's really no need to keep reading. However, no newsreader that
I've ever heard of can take care of this, so it's an idle hope.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

Gord Beaman wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote:

C'mon, guys... you are both demeaning yourselves (not to
mention clobbering the ng). You both have contributed to
the group in the past, and will again, I am sure.

Let it go.


Jeff