Why airplanes fly

But I'm sticking to this opinion: I get an occasional laugh out of
Mx's postulating and theorizing.

At the risk of bringing on Jim's wrath, I agree with you.

IMHO, MX is harmless, and occasionally starts interesting threads that are
actually aviation related. He may ask stupid questions, from time to time,
and he may even be a troll -- but I'll say this for him: He is always a
gentleman, and never stoops to the level of insulting fellow posters.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 22:46:27 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Feb 3, 3:50*pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Cecil E. Chapman wrote:
They fly because of money.... :/ *Money generates both lift and thrust.....


THIS is the real reason.

And let it be known as well that lift and thrust are directly
proportional to the AMOUNT of money spent :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

I guess that's why you Yeager types figure out ways to get into the
military planes. The military guys may not get paid much, but at least
they're not PAYING.

I'd wager the average fighter pilot monthly salary would not pay for
the gas the pilot uses on a single flight -- let alone the
maintenance. Even for a couple of flights!

Well, sheet. Some people are just smarter than others.

************************************************** ******************

When I was a 2nd Lt in USAAC I made $150 a month with flight pay.

The P-51 I flew burned about 60 gph at a modest cruise. With a 3 hour
mission that would be 180 gallons. Mission actually burned more gph
with full power for take off an climb power going to altitude.

So even at $1.00 a gallon, the gas for one flight cost more than my
monthly pay. To continue, I probably averaged 20 hours a month which
at 60 gph comes out to 1300 gallons, In a years time that would equate
to 15,600 gallons and my yearly pay was still $1800.

Some of us just loved to fly (fighters) and getting paid to do it was
icing on the cake )

Big John

On 2008-02-08, Jay Honeck wrote:
IMHO, MX is harmless, and occasionally starts interesting threads that are
actually aviation related. He may ask stupid questions, from time to time,
and he may even be a troll -- but I'll say this for him: He is always a
gentleman, and never stoops to the level of insulting fellow posters.

I've dropped Bertie into my killfile, reluctantly; he does have good
insights to offer, but finding the gems requires lots of wading through
crap. I'll probably drop MX in there the next time I see one of his posts.
Between that, and hitting N when I see a post that starts entirely with
quoted material, I'm missing most of the idiocy.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

I'm also very happy that the NTSB gave ATC 50% of the responsibility for
Scott's accident.

Just to clarify, the NTSB did not apportion the responsibility, but just
listed probable cause as:

"The pilot's failure to obtain updated en route weather information, which
resulted in his continued instrument flight into a widespread area of severe
convective activity, and the air traffic controller's failure to provide
adverse weather avoidance assistance, as required by Federal Aviation
Administration directives, both of which led to the airplane's encounter with
a severe thunderstorm and subsequent loss of control."

I don't know if there's a civil trial associated with the accident, but if
there is, that's where the judge or jury might set percentages.

I deal directly in the demonstration flying flight safety business every day
and interact with some of the finest pilots on the planet. Some of these
young people could fly rings around Yeager even in his prime. They are world
champions.
Almost every one of these people to a man/woman, are totally dedicated not
only to saving lives, but to furthering the general cause of aviation. These
professionals interact on their own time and dime.
The contrast between these people and someone like Yeager is astounding.
You couldn't ask to work with finer pilots anywhere....anytime.

Back in 1988 as a low-time private pilot I got a Cherokee checkout at the
local airport and the CFI was Matt Chapman. At the time I didn't know who he
was, but I remember that he was a nice guy and struck me as a conscientious
instructor. He's since moved on to bigger and better things, but according to
the FAA database he still keeps his CFI certificate current.

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 04:13:33 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote in NFQqj.20667$9j6.17497@attbi_s22:


Interesting history. Sad to see this sort of thing has happened many times.

Well, adolescent children are programmed to oppose parental
constraints in order to establish their independence as adult
individuals. It's inevitable; it's (probably) in our genes. We all
did it, and future generations will likely continue to challenge
authority in an attempt to establish their independence and announce
their adulthood. Much to the consternation of more mature adults, its
fundamental to the maturation process of transitioning from dependence
on parental oversight to becoming an autonomous person.

What is disappointing is the breakdown of the traditional method of
controlling rogue Usenet nodes that inject into the newsstream
inappropriate, off-topic, and articles clearly intended to be
disruptive. In the past, if a downstream node gatewayed abusive
content into Usenet, its upstream nodes would cut off its access to
the network through their systems until the news administrator of the
rogue site got his users back in line. Today there are at least two
reasons that method is breaking down.

First, there are news administrators who actually condone abusive
articles thinly guised in the name of free speech. While I am a firm
believer in free speech, I'm at a loss to understand their true
motivation. Any thinking adult accepts the constraints of order on
freedom. If Usenet lacked order and structure, there would only be
one newsgroup that contained the sum of all Usenet content. Clearly
that wouldn't be very useful.

But more importantly is the immunity granted Common Carriers (such as
the phone company) against liability for the content they carry. If a
news administrator can be shown to be censoring content, he is in
danger of losing that immunity. Rather than taking responsibility for
the quality of the content emanating from their nodes, these meek news
administrators abdicate that responsibility out of fear, laziness and
indifference. They are as much to blame for the decline in the
quality of Usenet content as the abusive posters whom they tolerate.

So aside from reporting articles that violate the Usenet provider's
Acceptable Use Policy to their abuse department, about the only other
acceptable course of action to stem the tide of noise is to lobby the
news administrator of the abusive node's upstream feed to disconnect
the abusive node. The identity of that site is usually discernable
from the article's 'Path:' header field.

There is also, what I would characterize as a feeble and largely
self-defeating course of action against intentionally disruptive
posters: peer pressure. Publicly admonishing them, while providing
the admonisher with a certain amount of satisfaction in venting his
frustration, in reality only contributes to reducing the newsgroup's
signal to noise ratio. But worse than that, public admonishment can
be a construed as a reward by the abuser, as it validates the abuser's
ability to affect the newsgroup's readership, and it opens a line of
communication for further off-topic articles. If one cannot resist
responding to abusive articles, he should respond to it via private
e-mail, so that the abuser is denied a public forum to spew additional
disruptive content.

As I have said before (with the exceptions above), there are only two
clear choices responsible Usenet participants are able to exercise:

1. Choosing what they read, and
2. Choosing to post or not.

That's it. Simple.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:JKQqj.20672$9j6.19927@attbi_s22...
But I'm sticking to this opinion: I get an occasional laugh out of
Mx's postulating and theorizing.

At the risk of bringing on Jim's wrath, I agree with you.

IMHO, MX is harmless, and occasionally starts interesting threads that are
actually aviation related. He may ask stupid questions, from time to
time, and he may even be a troll -- but I'll say this for him: He is
always a gentleman, and never stoops to the level of insulting fellow
posters.
So he's a polite idiot. Big deal

You need to start looking at the big picture, Jay.

MX's presence here, is like someone taking a dump in your lobby, daily, and
saying "have a nice day, kind friends," as he does it.

You really still have nice things to say about him, even as the smell
lingers?

If you do, you need to re-examine your priorities, and start taking a harder
view.

Either that, or you are such a nice guy, that you enjoy cleaning up **** out
of your lobby. Or you would rather just leave it there, because you are
afraid of offending him.

It has to be one or the other. Which?
--
Jim in NC

On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 11:56:38 -0500, "Morgans"
wrote in :

If you do, you need to re-examine your priorities, and start taking a harder
view.

Perhaps you need to consider extending a little Christian forgiveness.

In rec.aviation.student Jay Honeck wrote:
IMHO, MX is harmless, and occasionally starts interesting threads that are
actually aviation related. He may ask stupid questions, from time to time,
and he may even be a troll -- but I'll say this for him: He is always a
gentleman, and never stoops to the level of insulting fellow posters.

Just because he is not foul-mouthed does not mean he does not insult
people. His insanely inflated sense of self-worth and insanely deflated
sense of the worth of others is more than enough to do the job.

To take one personal example, he called me a bad pilot because I make poor
landings in a simulator.

Tell me that's not an insult. Tell me that's being a gentleman.

Other examples abound. Just because he is well-spoken and doesn't swear
doesn't make him nice. In fact in some ways it makes it worse, because
it's all part of a manner which is used to make him look like the victim
when he comes along and insults all of these fine people with vastly more
knowledge and experience than himself (and more than me).

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

Jay Honeck writes:

Interesting history. Sad to see this sort of thing has happened many times.

Boys will be boys, and the same bullies who make life difficult for others on
the playground make it nearly as difficult in cyberspace.