🚀 go-pugleaf

   - hi; in dipspc article, <20070719.1144.7114snz@flashy.nut>,
  sum1@flashy.nut "Ian" responded in depth, and upon many topics:
>
>Er,  are we still on duty extending this now very offtopic thread to
>allow the mechanic to tinker with his software?

	- well, no-one's objected to it...

                                     - so far...  ([2,3])

	- but please feel free to snip parts that i have not, where
	you feel the context is no longer required;

>I'll chance it anyway.....
>                            ppint wrote:
>>                 - hi; sum1@flashy.nut "Ian" responded:
>> [re perfection of beauty in an aircraft's design does, or does not
>>>>	of the form of barnes wallis' proposed supersonic air-
>>>>	liner for (iirc) vickers in the lines of the concord[e].
>>>>
>>>Barnes Wallis designed a supersonic airliner, did he?  I never knew
>>	- iirc (and i may not) it was the last project he worked
>>	on for vickers, before he retired. i don't now remember
>>	the project number with any certainty, but it was of the
>>	form, "V.1000" (i.e. possibly "V.3000" or "V.2000"); and
>>	it was the first aeroplane design i ever saw, that adopted
>>	the ogival wing. barnes wallis had determined it was quite
>>	simply the form most suitable for a supersonic airliner
>>	for engineering reasons, combining fuel storage, low drag,
>>	good lift, smooth performance throughout the speed range
>>	and especially through transition from sub-sonic to super-
>>	sonic speeds, where many [all?] other forms either suffer
>>	unpredictable compressibility effects, sudden major change
>>	in flying characteristics - or, if they avoid these, have
>>	rotten low-speed lift & poor manoeverability performance.
>>	- and it's beautiful, too *vbg* *obtopic*
>
>It wouldn't have been the first  "airbus' airliner, would it?

	- no, no; it was *way* before that - before even the round
	of amalgamations of different aircraft-producing companies
	that led to the formation of the british aircraft corpor-
	ation & hawker's (hawker-siddely's?) as the two main uk
	aerocompanies got under way. it must have been in a/the
	biography of barnes wallis that i read about it - or else,
	an account of the history of vickers' aviation interests.

>I worked briefly (nights) in the early Sixties at the factory in
>south Manchester where the Vulcan V-bomber was being built, and
>alongside its production line, they were also building an airbus.
>I paid more attention to the Vulcan so don't remember much about
>the other aircraft.

	- hmmm?  the airbus project was simultanous with - even
	the end of - the building of the avro vulcan?  i'm not
	gainsaying you - but call me "provisionally astounded."
>
>>>I think the first was the Comet in the early Fifties, but two of them
>>>went into the drink because of metal fatigue if I remember aright.
>>	- yes, as to the metal fatigue, spreading from the corner
>>	of the particular square window aperture, which is why all
>>	airliners now have much smaller, and more-or-less circular
>>	(or, at least, very rounded corner) "porthole" shape pass-
>>	enger windows; as did later marks of the de Haviland Comet
>>	also; but by then the merkins had caught up with hatfield,
>>	and the long-haul large-bodied passenger market went west.
>>
>I've flown the Atlantic three times in recent years and on the two
>flights where I got a window seat, I found myself touching the rims
>of the porthole, to see if any ominous cracks were developing!

	- *g*  - and did you find any?

	(from what i've seen of modern airliner passenger porthole
	surrounds, i shouldn't've thought it very likely such'd be
	visible from the inside of the cabin - but i am no expert
	on the subject.)

>I also listened closely to the sound of the engines, but they never
>missed a beat.

	- umm; i wasn't aware of any scheduled transatlantic pass-
	enger flights by propellor-pulled aircraft in "recent"
	years; do any other aeroplanes' engines produce a beat?
>
>>	- but the Comet was strictly subsonic, as were and are all
>>	the boingggs! - and the deeceeses.
>
>I could  have sworn the Comet was a jet. Memory banks are going to
>pieces.

	- no, no; it was indeed a jet. [and still is; i believe both
	comets and nimrods both are still either flying, or capable
	of the feat.]
	  but they were and are all subsonic; as some single-engined
	propellor-pulled piston-engined aircraft of WW II were, at a
	pinch, nevertheless trans-sonic; and the vickers vanguard was
	both propellor-pulled and jet driven (and subsonic), being a
	"turboprop."

	[were vanguard & viscount both turbo-prop, or only the one?
	i disremember now.]
>
>>>I spoke with a guy in a village pub once who trained pilots to fly
>>>the RAF Vulcan Bomber at a nearby airfield, Scampton, and when I
>>>remarked that it looked very cumbersome and heavy and must be a pig
>>>to fly, he  said, no it's a marvelously good aircraft and a delight
>>>to fly. So, in that case at least, appearances were deceptive.
>>	- and in that respect :-), yes: have you never seen a pilot
>>	doing aerobatics in a Vulcan?  [a]
>>	       [a] - it's ever-so-slightly awe-inspiring...
>
>The ones taking off from Scampton always flew a straightforward, sober
>course. Of course, if these were training flights, they wouldn't be
>likely to throw the thing about I supppose. And equally unlikely if they
>were routine flights practising for the real thing.

	- *nods*  - recklessly endangering her maj's property would
	not've been very kindly regarded by their squadron leader,
	group captain - or the air ministry.

>On one occasion, I was cycling back from another town, and paused just
>past  the airfield for a smoke, and a Vulcan took off and passed almost
>overhead at a veery low altitude: I literally dropped my cigarette and
>clapped my hands over my ears- the noise level was just terrifying. The
>comical thing was, a farmworker in a field a quarter of a mile away,
>didn't even look up, just kept driving his tractor-plough thing.
>Earplugs?  Total deafness from previous exposure to it?

	- i don't know when compulsory provision of earplugs (or of
	ear defenders) for agricultural workers came in, but i'd be
	surprised, were it as early as the late sixties. (and actual
	effective enforcement upon the farm workers' making proper
	use of them later still, of course...)
>
[am i in the aircraft industry?]
>>
>>	- no, no; not at all. but it's been an absorbing field of
>>	interest for me, for a long time now - i blame "capt." w.
>>	e. johns; and later larry forrester, paul brickhill, con-
>>	stance babbington-smith, and their colleagues; and also, of
>>	course, the exceptionally skilled, talented, intelligent
>>	and frequently very matter-of-factly brave people who were
>>	the central subjects of their accounts & biographies; and
>>	also the not-so highly gifted, maybe, who nevertheless per-
>>	formed parts, oftimes of equal and even greater value. [b]
>>	    [b] - "and some there be, that have no memorial..."
>
>Aha, very like my lifelong interest (obsession) in war and military
>history, with especial reference to the  1914 - 1945 caper. Probably
>caused by growing up and becoming aware that I'd just missed some-
>thing immensely important and exciting....

	- i, too, became very interested in the Great War and its
	continuation, especially in WW II at first; but beacause
	it _was_ exciting to read eye-witness accounts and [auto/]
	biographies of those who'd fought in them, and stories well-
	based upon real experiences, not because i felt i'd missed
	out on the excitement & adventure myself - i'm pretty sure
	i was aware that it was in reality also bloody dangerous!

	- i also greatly appreciated the works of wilfred owen, so
	far as i met them in singing britten's war requiem, and in
	looking a bit further afield after, in the public library
	system; i did *not* like those who "glorified war".

>Dear old Biggles and his gang, Ginger Lacey, the Honorable Somebody,

	- bertie lissie (*g*)

>et al. And his sworn enemy, Von Scheinehund

	- "von stalhein"; which i suspect now would have meant "the
	prussian noble - or self-styled so - man of steel" - but i
	was oblivious to any german outside of stereotypical pilot's
	& observer/gunners' swearing, and the lyrics of german songs.

>                                     who was always getting foiled.

	- just about always, yes; but they did, eventually, bury the
	hatchet; and even come to a strange kind of almost-friendship.

>Later of course I read the likes of Brickhill's The Last Enemy, Douglas
>Bader's Reach for the Sky, and I Flew for the Fuehrer, and The One That
>Got Away, Elleston Trevor's Squadron Airborne.

	- *nods*, *nods*, *nods*, *nods*; nope, missed that; would
	you recommend it, now?

	(also many, many more - through the late fifties and early-
	to-mid-sixties, i was reading upwards of three dozen books a
	week, much/most of the time.) (i got a serious-though-friendly
	quiz from the county librarian when _I Flew for the Fuerher_
	and _The Red Knight of Germany_ both came in from the county
	reserve collection for me...) (the lcc county reserve collect-
	ion, i think.) (all now broken up and dispersed, thanks to
	bloody thatcher, alas.) (and also to major, i should allow.)

>Have you read Len Deighton's  Goodbye Mickey Mouse?  It mainly ccenters
>round a USAAF fighter squadron in 1944, flying the  ... P41 was it? It's
>described as a powerful engine with wings, brutally fast, lots of
>firepower. It has some of the best descriptions of aerial combat I've
>read.
	- yes; but only the once, and not very long before i was
	vegetablised, so i've lost much of what i gained from it,
	i suspect. including:

>And a poignant twist at the end too.

	- if ever i sort out my books at home, i shall _definitely_
	re-read it.
>
>>>>>Always willing to help out.  Unless it involves parting with money,
>>>>>of course....
>>>Scottish, you mean? Well, yes, also I was heavily influenced at some-
>>>where between my  6th and 8th year by reading A Christmas Carol. Hey,
>>>thinks I, this Scrooge guy has it right: stay single and avoid having
>>>to pay for childrens' upkeep and maintenance for some 18 years (for
>>>which huge outlay you get a zero return),
>>	- *g*  paying - in time, effort, consideration and energy as
>>	well as in money - for the raising of your, any partner[s]',
>>	friends', neighbours' and, ultimately the whole damned race's
>>	kids' upkeep, maintenance, civilisation & education is simul-
>>	taneously a form of investment where we've already received
>>	the dividends/interest - "it's reannual accountancy, terry!" -
>>	*and* in a half-way sane society, investment in our own well-
>>	being in our future, failing years - long-delayed and slow,
>>	until the final stage, may the eventual failure be.
>>
>Oh, I didn't get much in the pre-paid return!  Food rationing, a tiny
>amount of weekly pocket money, harsh discipline at school, I'm sur-
>prised we survived at all! Education was pretty good but I only got
>eight years of it.

	- "rising five" to thirteen?  i *think* there were yet four-
	teen-year-old leavers, when i were at summerside...  but i
	don't remember being aware of there still being any, by the
	time i was lucky enough to get an assisted place to a direct
	grant grammar school - which would've been c. september 1963.

	(the drop in my class numbers on moving schools was a major
	shock - from being one amongst forty-four, to being one of
	only twenty-six; and whilst i was very much less aware of it
	at the time, the change in quality of the teachers - not so
	much, of the very best of them, but that "only" one or two
	were poor-to-lousy at the job of teaching children, rather
	than maybe one in three...)

>Things could only get better after that...

	- do i detect a slightly bitter edge,or a touch of cynicism?

	- well, you may have cause; but i should say that, if we fail
	to provide our children with opportunities to take advantage
	of better education, than was available to us, as a society,
	then we're not only failing them: we're also putting at risk
	the society in which we'll shortly be living, and upon which
	our own standards of life & living depend, now and in future.
>
>>>                                         don't go throwing your money
>>>around, frugal living, and repel any requests for a generous donation
>>>to a worthy cause with contempt. I didn't like the subsequent events
>>>in the story, when he hallucinates and loses his marbles and probably
>>>ended up a poverty-stricken bankrupt after having foolishly given away
>>>all his wealth.
>>	- hmm. "adequate-and-affordable" donations investing in
>>	the ability of the needy recipient[s] to become and remain
>>	self-sufficient, strike me as a necessary part of a sane in-
>>	vestment strategy, upon the personal, national and species
>>	levels, all; but dickens - and scrooge - lived in rather
>>	different circumstances from ours.
>
>Some of the annual demand from the Federal income tax scoundrels I
>have to fork out should go to these worthy causes  IMO. But King
>George the First fixed it so that charitable organizations would do
>it instead.

	- georgie did?  - or the treacherously-ungrateful middle-
	classes of the colonies' persuading the working-classes to
	fight, and be prepared to die, so as to preserve the profits
	of those rich from being taxed to pay for the very war that
	had brought them a goodly measure of their wealth, and also
	their security from looting, pillaging and dispossession by
	french troops and french-allied indians - and just about
	bankrupted georgie's treasury? (*vbg* - [1])

>>	i _suspect_ scrooge will not've died a pauper, though he
>>	'll have quite possibly considerably reduced his capital:
>
>Exactly! And that's bad news. The more it accumulates the more it
>generates: a wonderful setup. But recklessly giving any part of
>it away... shudder. God forbid. Why, it's a kind of black heresy!

	- oh, if we're getting onto discussing matters of religion,
	i think this part of the thread, at least, should tranlated
	be to another place. unless the religious dispute be as to
	the superiority of dosses... *g*
>
>>	but he will have actually enjoyed the last twenty to forty
>>	years of his life, or the greater part of them; which will
>>	have been a major change from what would otherwise've been
>>	his likeliest prospects - no?
>>
>I'll take the miserable friendless life any day, if the alternative
>is parting with cash to feed the needy! (Are there no workhouses,
>are there no prisons?)

	- *g*  - i'faith, very few of the former survive to be
	reported to your august self; and of the latter, and of
	their ability to deal with the secure housing of those
	that the magisterial classes would there inter all who
	threaten their property, let alone their health, there is
	considerable doubt...

>And if anyone comes round at Christmas with jolly seasonal greetings
>on their lips, well, let them look out for the anti-personnel mines
>I've strategically planted in my front yard .... heh heh.

	- <fx: suitably impressed>: do you also eat babies?

>>	(- "bah, humbug!" says the stereotype *g*)
>
>I do in fact tend to say similar, more up to date  things in that vein
>as the Yuletide season comes around. It doesn't cost me a cent, need-
>less to say.

	- i never have understood why everyone gives presents to
	everone else, upon the occasion of a birthday anniversary.
	i mean to say, it's not as though i know any significant
	fraction of those so engaged - and nor have they, most of
	them, ever heard of me. it's a puzzlement, and must be put
	down to the general insanity of humanity.

>>>>	- the happy^W contented satisfaction of a puddleglum?
>>>You been at the cooking sherry again?
>>	- ah, you've snipped the crucial context - without which,
>>	most of its implicit references fall.
>>
>Oh, it's a quote?  Not one I recognize I'm afraid.
>
>>	                                wish to cc. or e-mail me.]
>
>If the need for keeping this thread is now gone, I'll have to if you wish
>to take it further. My Reply To address is of course not valid.
>
	[- detailed in the other current branch of this thread;
	though now to be found under another subject: line, and
	so no longer identified by snews as the same thread...]

	- if you'd prefer to proceed to conduct this thread upon
	a newsgroup where some others might appreciate it, and
	perhaps even join in, just mention the group [so long as
	it be fairly low-traffic; or alt.fan.pratchett *g*] and
	cross-post with followup-to: set; and i will respond to
	it there. but we don't _seem_ to be annoying anyone...[3]

	- 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.]

	[3] - famous last words - ?

	[2] - maybe they're all asleep, soaking up the sun in the
	      summer's heat?
-- 
         [1] -   "I like rhetorical questions;
                   I usually get them right."
                    - joann l.dominik, 6/95