If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"William Black" wrote in message ... "Stinky Pete" wrote in message t... No. Stolen. They bought a very small number from the Brits. They then copied the design illegally, i.e. stolen. I thought they were given them rather than any purchase. Incorrect they were sold a number of Nenes and Derwents, RR and the board of trade were hoping for large orders but the Soviets simply copied them The Whittle design was done while he was a serving officer and so any rights, patents, etc. rest with the Crown. Incorrect, the initial patents were indeed lodged in 1930 when he was an RAF officer but they were allowed to lapse in 1936 when Air Ministry decided NOT to pay the fee of £5 required to renew them Whittle got permission from the Air Ministry to found a company, Power Jets which raised further patents under its control and funded the development that made the engine workable. At this point the Government stepped in, handed Whittles work and control of the project to Rolls Royce and nationalised Power Jets leaving Whittle with nothing. The UK government of the day didn't make an issue of it, and the person responsible, the then President of the Board of Trade, is now dead, so we can't ask him. It was the height of the cold war by the time it was realised what had happened and it was scarcely in the Governments interest to let the country know the truth by making a fuss. I should add that as he went on to become Prime Minister it obviously didn't do his political career any harm either... Indeed. Keith |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:36:44 GMT, "Stinky Pete"
wrote: No. Stolen. They bought a very small number from the Brits. They then copied the design illegally, i.e. stolen. You don't know what you're talking about. "They" didn't buy any engines from the Brits. The U.S. was given one Whittle Unit that wasn't airworthy, which GE modified into a working engine. This engine powered the Bell Airacomet, but had no further application. Postwar, a $4 million payment was negotiated with the British government in settlement. The British govt awarded Whittle 100,000 quid and a knighthood, but he was sufficiently annoyed by the whole thing that he relocated to the United States, where he was better appreciated (and paid). www.warbirdforum.com/whittle.htm all the best -- Dan Ford email: (requires authentication) see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"Cub Driver" wrote in message ... On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:36:44 GMT, "Stinky Pete" wrote: No. Stolen. They bought a very small number from the Brits. They then copied the design illegally, i.e. stolen. You don't know what you're talking about. "They" didn't buy any engines from the Brits. The U.S. was given one Whittle Unit that wasn't airworthy, which GE modified into a working engine. He was talking about the Soviets. This engine powered the Bell Airacomet, but had no further application. Hardly, Whittle derived engines powered the P-80 amongst other aircraft http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/engines/eng44.htm Postwar, a $4 million payment was negotiated with the British government in settlement. The British govt awarded Whittle 100,000 quid and a knighthood, but he was sufficiently annoyed by the whole thing that he relocated to the United States, where he was better appreciated (and paid). He moved to the USA in 1976 , this was almost 30 years later. Keith |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ... "Cub Driver" wrote in message ... On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:36:44 GMT, "Stinky Pete" wrote: No. Stolen. They bought a very small number from the Brits. They then copied the design illegally, i.e. stolen. You don't know what you're talking about. "They" didn't buy any engines from the Brits. The U.S. was given one Whittle Unit that wasn't airworthy, which GE modified into a working engine. He was talking about the Soviets. This engine powered the Bell Airacomet, but had no further application. Hardly, Whittle derived engines powered the P-80 amongst other aircraft http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/engines/eng44.htm Postwar, a $4 million payment was negotiated with the British government in settlement. The British govt awarded Whittle 100,000 quid and a knighthood, but he was sufficiently annoyed by the whole thing that he relocated to the United States, where he was better appreciated (and paid). He moved to the USA in 1976 , this was almost 30 years later. Keith During the war and in the postwar era he spent much of his time consulting and working in the United States, even though his home of record was in Britain. He finally changed that final detail with his divorce. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
It was the Korea CIVIL WAR before USA invasion. North Korea's army, under the direction of its government in Pyongyang, invaded South Korea across an internationally recognized border or demarcation line. If the Republic of Ireland sent its army into Northern Ireland. would that represent civil war (and nobody's business)? If Israel occupies the West Bank, is that civil war? If the Federal Republic of Germany had invaded East Germany (DRG), would that be a civil war? If Poland invaded Ukraine to recover the territory that was Polish in 1939, is that civil war? The eastern seaboard of the United States once consisted mostly of 13 British colonies. If Britain invades them, is that civil war? all the best -- Dan Ford email: (requires authentication) see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Cub Driver wrote in message . ..
It was the Korea CIVIL WAR before USA invasion. North Korea's army, under the direction of its government in Pyongyang, invaded South Korea across an internationally recognized border or demarcation line. I have answered this questions in the statements right after the statement you are commenting. You know I was right and then you delete them. Here I re-quote: " USA army was the FIRST FOREIGN army entered Korea CIVIL WAR. In 1950, including USA saw Korea as a WHOLE country. Both Korea governments also thought this way. In late 1940s, USA initiated a resolution in UN to hold an election in WHOLE Korea and the resolution was passed. So clearly Korea was viewed by both USA and UN as an SINGLE independent country rather than two separate countries. However, the elections were hold separately and two governments were elected. So, before USA army invaded Korea, there was Korea CIVIL WAR and the aggressor in the CIVIL war was NK. It is the internal affairs of Korea and UN charter clearly prevent FOREIGN forces to intervene the internal affairs of an independent country, especially military invasion intervention. So it is crystal clear that USA intervention was an invasion to Korea. Korea future should be decided by Korea people and army rather than by foreign invasion army. If the Korea were two separate countries and if both Korea governments, the world thought that way, yes, USA could legally help country SK against country NK aggressive attack. Same rules apply to the Vietnam war and so called protection to Taiwan province of China against mainland Chinese government." Hope this time you could read the whole paragraph before you jump into the discussion. 38th parallel whatever you call it, was NOT a border of two countries, and the world including USA, both Korea governments thought the Korea was a whole country. That is why USA initiated the resolution in UN to hold ONE election in WHOLE Korea rather than two elections in two separate countries. If the Republic of Ireland sent its army into Northern Ireland. would that represent civil war (and nobody's business)? No. Of cause not. You pretend you do not know the difference or you intentionally try to confuse the netters? Republic of Ireland and "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" are two different countries. This is recognized by both countries and the world. So if "Republic of Ireland" sent its army to a FOREIGN country "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", she was the invader as USA sent her army to Korea. If "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" sent her army from England Island to Northern Ireland of her own territory as NK of Korea sent her army to SK of Korea, it is not the business of any other countries. That is exactly current case. UK was fighting with Ireland republican army in Northern Ireland. It is not the business of any other countries. If Israel occupies the West Bank, is that civil war? Israel from beginning was created by FOREIGN imperialists to occupy the Palestinian's land and to control the oil of middle east. How can Jews minority had the right to rob most of Palestinian lands of British Palestine, i.e. the 55% lands against the will of majority people of Palestine lands? Most of Jews in Israel was moved to the area AFTER Israel robbery. Israel still refuse the right of Palestine refugees to return to their OWN lands and want to move more Jews (1 million more) to the area to enhance their robbery. You may support the robbery but I do not. Learn the real history and FACTS before you comment on some thing you do not know, OK? If the Federal Republic of Germany had invaded East Germany (DRG), would that be a civil war? May be not. the Germany was the criminal of WWII. The Allies and UN had resolution to co-occupy the German and this occupation continued. Both countries were UN members. Both governments and UN agree they are two separate countries created after WWII. Korea was occupied by Japan in 1895 and Annexed in 1910. After USSR started to attack Japan in North-East China USSR Aug. 9th, 1945, she declared she would enter Korea to fight Japan. USA really want to share the occupation of Korea with USSR but the nearest USA troops were in Okinawa which is thousands miles away from Korea. USA had no chance to send her troops to Korea before USSR took the whole Korea. Then a USA colonel was required to create a share plan at night of Aug. 10th, 1945. He even had no Korea map in his office, but a world map. So it is impossible for him to divide Korea according to Korea administrative region, then he found 38th parallel divide Korea even. Then he made the suggestion and the telegraph was sent to Moscow next day. Stalin accepted the suggestion and Red Army stopped at 38th parallel. Only 20 days after, USA army reached 38th parallel from South. On December 31st, 1948, all USSR troops withdrew from NK. On June 30th, 1949 because feel shame, all US troops withdrew from SK. Now Korea should only up to Korea people to decide who should govern. USA suggested an election in WHOLE KOREA in UN and the resolution was passed. However, the election were conducted separately and NK, SK elected their own governments. Both think they represent the whole Korea. Communists countries led by USSR recognize NK, and western countries recognized SK. Unlike Germany, Korea was not the criminal country of WWII. The occupation of Germany continued, or the foreign troops keep stay in the Germany according to an agreement, but not Korea. The world including US and Korea governments saw Korea as a whole country but that was not the case in Germany. It is true 38th line had her international affair history and that is not the case of Taiwan. Taiwan is more a pure internal affair of China but the cowboy of U.S. of A. still shamelessly claim US would use whatever methods to protect Taiwan province of China from China. As I said in last post: "Unfortunately, in the 21st century, we still see this kind of invasion. The preemption conducted by JIA, NZ become official policy of some countries though it clearly violate the international laws and sovereignty of other countries. What a pity!" If Poland invaded Ukraine to recover the territory that was Polish in 1939, is that civil war? No. Both countries are UN members. Both governments and UN accepted current borders are borders of two separate countries. The eastern seaboard of the United States once consisted mostly of 13 British colonies. If Britain invades them, is that civil war? Yes, when they were British colonies, it was civil war. The USA revolutionary war could be called as a Civil war of UK. After USA defeated UK and found her own country, especially after UK accepted this independence, if UK invaded USA, it is an invasion. Any more question? I am glad to answer. Learn the FACTS first, you will be much smarter. It is better for you to take logic 101 before you post. Have a nice day! Dazuixia |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"Dazuixia" wrote in message m... Cub Driver wrote in message . .. It was the Korea CIVIL WAR before USA invasion. North Korea's army, under the direction of its government in Pyongyang, invaded South Korea across an internationally recognized border or demarcation line. I have answered this questions in the statements right after the statement you are commenting. You know I was right and then you delete them. Here I re-quote: " USA army was the FIRST FOREIGN army entered Korea CIVIL WAR. In 1950, including USA saw Korea as a WHOLE country. Both Korea governments also thought this way. In late 1940s, USA initiated a resolution in UN to hold an election in WHOLE Korea and the resolution was passed. So clearly Korea was viewed by both USA and UN as an SINGLE independent country rather than two separate countries. However, the elections were hold separately and two governments were elected. So, before USA army invaded Korea, there was Korea CIVIL WAR and the aggressor in the CIVIL war was NK. The UN decided otherwise. The force deployed in Korea was US led but its intervention was mandated by the UN security council and troops from many other nations took part. It is the internal affairs of Korea and UN charter clearly prevent FOREIGN forces to intervene the internal affairs of an independent country, especially military invasion intervention. On the contrary the action in Korea was specifically authorised by the UN resolutions 82,83,84 and 85 of 1950 Keith |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
On 15 Mar 2004 21:36:40 -0800, (Dazuixia) wrote:
You know I was right Actually, I know you are wrong. The first foreign army to enter South Korean was the In Min Gun. The Americans came along about a week later. all the best -- Dan Ford email: (requires authentication) see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Russian Air Force Woes - Time to start again? | Peter Kemp | Military Aviation | 31 | February 21st 04 02:10 AM |
[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots? | No Spam! | Military Aviation | 120 | January 27th 04 10:19 AM |
US kill loss ratio versus Russian pilots in Korean War? | Rats | Military Aviation | 21 | January 26th 04 08:56 AM |
RUSSIAN WAR PLANES IN ASIA | James | Military Aviation | 2 | October 1st 03 11:25 PM |