🚀 go-pugleaf

- hi; in dipspc article, <20070713.1551.7055snz@flashy.nut>,
           sum1@flashy.nut "Ian" volunteered:
>           pete@nospam.demon.co.uk wrote:
>>                 [i, too, contributed:]
>>>
>>>	- an interesting principle, the - or at least an - exact
>>>	inverse of the principle used to make first evaluations
>>>	of the designs of such aeroplanes, as the vickers-super-
>>>	marine spitfire and the de haviland mosquito: that their
>>>	lines were so beautiful, they *had* to be right...
>>
>And the late lamented Concorde, don't you think?

	- indeed; there seemed to this ppint. to be quite a bit
	of the form of barnes wallis' proposed supersonic air-
	liner for (iirc) vickers in the lines of the concord[e].

>>Indeed so and I'm sure few would disagree.  I would even include
>>the DH Comet (the air racer, not the airliner) in that list.

	- the pointy-nosed D.H.88 had, aside of the engine nacelles
	and undercarriage (when down), lines that flowed beautifully
	smoothly - but i don't actually remember now reading what
	she was like to fly. is there any account of her handling
	in a uk-published book, that you could recommend?

>>But at the other end of the beauty stakes we have helicopters (or
>>rotorcraft in general) which are so ugly and "wrong", they defy
>>the observation.  One can only conclude that designs at the
>>extremes of the spectrum are Good -- maybe because there is no
>>compromising in their design.  The dross lives in the middle ;-)

	- hmmmm... i don't believe *any* helicopter has been said
	to "fly beautifully". and, given the way the helicopter
	design plummets out of the sky when rotor power is lost
	(pure helicopter design, that is), i think it fits the
	unencumbered "beautiful lines - beautiful flyer" rule,
	rather than contradicts it.
	[the cierva autogyro, and the sixties/seventies barnes
	autogiro are an entirely different kettle of flying fish.]
>>
>>>>but maybe if we keep this thread going long enough...
>>>
>>>	- extending the length of this thread in tempora, i can
>>>	cope with; in quality (or width), however...
>>
>>Well, we were up to 570 chars or so before this reply so it's
>>getting closer -- quality or not.  And with some judiciously
>>enhanced message-IDs (see this one) we could get there quicker.
>>
>Always willing to help out.  Unlessit involves parting with money,
>of course....

	- you have a national sterotype, to which to live up?
>>
>>>>>>but hey! it's going to work first time ;-)
>> ..
>>>>Still unproven, but I stand by my earlier optimism :-)
>>>
>>>	- good, good; it's nice to see a little unwarranted blind
>>>	faith and optimism in the face of all experience, the gods,
>>>	and the fates..
>>>	                          - and the kindly ones...   *g*
>>
>>What else is there?  ;-)

	- the happy^W contented satisfaction of a puddleglum?
>>
>>Thanks for keeping the thread going,
>>
>
	- "we aim to please..." *g*

	- love, ppint.
	  [the address from which this was posted bounces e-mail;
	   please change the "f" to a "g" and drop the "v" if you
                      wish to cc. or e-mail me.]
-- 
   "What are your fees?" inquired Guyal cautiously. "I respond to three
   questions," stated the augur. "For twenty terces I phrase the answer
   in clear and actionable language; for ten I use the language of cant,
   which occasionally admits of ambiguity; for five, I speak a parable
   which you must interpret as you will; and for one terce, I babble in
   an unknown tongue."  "Guyal of Sfere", _The Dying Earth_- Jack Vance