An era has passed...

I'm not from the south, but I know how to convert ethanol into water ;-)

And kb butted in claiming:

Your citation is one of many I am familiar with but it is directly contrary to kb "claims". I wish him to back up his assertion with sources rather than well spun tales of deceit.

Faster in level flight is faster. Don't try to spin things so you can throw rocks.

My statement stands.

Yep. I did once, just for fun.

I ran a four gallon batch (produced, not 4 gal mash) I got it up to about

Smooth, and had a really nice kick. But that was the reason, back in younger years. ;-)

I wonder if that rig is still around. I gave it to a good friend when I moved from the area.

By the way, anyone have any idea how long it takes to cook 4 gallons with a

In days of younger years..... :-))

F-86 was 'inspired' by NAA looking over the wing data from the Focke-Wulf Ta 183, (both with 35 degree sweep) to the straight winged FJ-1while the Soviets looked the earlier version of the

Curtiss had flown the the XP-42 during the war with a full flying H. stabilizer, and NACA knew all about it.

On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 17:51:47 -0600, "Six_O'Clock_High"

What language are we supposed to be using? In MY lexicon a stated lack of understanding is not an attack. Sorry that you took my clarification and explanation comments as an attack.

Enjoy yourself.

I had the names of the researchers noted somewhere, but it will take some time to find them. The research is well known in the American aviation circles (I don't count in the typical internet self-proclaimed pseudo-patriotic "aviation buff" lemmings, of course) and any source at least pretending to be objective usually makes a [very vague] reference. A good example can be found here

These numbers are closer to what I mentioned, but, of course, the page doesn't mention the name of the source, doesn't say that even these numbers involve some rather "creative" play with time frames and is prepended by the standard propaganda bullshit - just to soothe some damage and inflammation the truth can do to the sensitive mind of a typical american pseudo-patriotic lemming.

As for 10:1... Even if we assume that the numbers like 10:1 or 13:1 were not simply pulled out of someone's ass, they are most likely explained in by the simple fact that USAF counted their "kills" by the pictures from gun camera. For example, 4 MiGs got shot at, I falls down, 3 get home with as much as a small hole in the fin - American pilots draw 4 stars on their fuselages regardless.

But once again, assuming that someone one the American side actually counted the hits on film is assuming too much. Everybody knows (from Iraq wars, if not from the earlier ones) that American pilots get their combat kill numbers by throwing a dice or two. It's things like this that completely destroyed any and all respect to American combat records in the civilized world.

As for the research mentioned before - I'll find the actual reference.

On another page on the same site:

"During the war the USAF pilots claimed over 800 enemy planes. Postwar research revised that figure downward to 379, closely matching the admitted Russian losses of 345."

I have to give a credit to this page in that it mentions the most important aspect of all this: things like this are the reason why in the civilized world the Soviet combat statistics is accepted as accurate by default (until proven otherwise), while American numbers are regarded as bullshit (until proven otherwise). Of course, the main factor here was that Soviet approach always involved more scrutiny, bureaucracy and documentation, which might be more annoying in combat, but more factual when it comes to history.

Here's another page that "shyly" admits that the bullshit American propaganda was putting out was, well... bullshit

Of course, again no mentioning of the actual source to make it more difficult to discover the fact that even these revised numbers come from the rather "unusual" selection of the time frame.

It's lighter than the Colt 1911A1 (gvt) I carried for some time, lighter by far. A such a cool factor...espcially the "I only have 5 shots and they better count" On guns like that the 6th cyl is left empty with the hammer over it.

It's too cold in the garage right now. I had to remove the Lennox garage heater. I figured that it was either fall asleep OR a slight explosion and I'd be visiting Yosimite by way of an aerial tour.

-- Keith

It's lighter than the Colt 1911A1 (gvt) I carried for some time, lighter by far. A such a cool factor...espcially the "I only have 5 shots and they better count" On guns like that the 6th cyl is left empty with the hammer over it.

It's too cold in the garage right now. I had to remove the Lennox garage heater. I figured that it was either fall asleep OR a slight explosion and I'd be visiting Yosimite by way of an aerial tour.

I'm tempted to try to raise sugar beets, though I'm afraid it might be too hot here in Georgia. Supposedly the sugar beets practically raise themselves without much care and they have a fantastic yield of starch for making ethanol. Where might I obtain a copy of Firefox? Do you have the ISDN number? TIA

Ed Cregger

Hi Ed - The number is ISBN 0-385-07353-4 for the fist one, which was called "The Foxfire Book".

More info:

Air combat is essentially confused.

During the Battle of Britain, both sides claimed excessive kill rates. Gun cameras were fitted to the UK planes, and it was then realised that

Actual confirmed losses were at 20-30% of the pilots claims in both cases.

Pilot skill is very important as well. No matter how good a plane is, its an easy target if its pilot is flying straight, level, and unaware of the enemy.

Additionally, the ability to give and take damage, accounts for as much as the planes performance itself. Most air combat pilots are poor shots. Early British planes equipped with 8 machine guns were told to fire at

Likewise in te Eastern war, teh Zero was a very high performance plane - better than anything te US navy had at the time, ut it was found that it was fragile, and would fall to pieces under any sort of hit, whereas te tough, slow carrier borne planes of the time were immensely more able to take punishment. The Zero pilots wer also of the veterans of an earlier campaign - the war against China. As were the original Luftwaffe, who had cut their teeth against the Russians in the Spanish civil war.

All this makes it virtually impossible to actually assign score rates on performance alone. The classic case of the ME109 versus spitfire or hurricane, showed that whilst faster, the ME109 was not capable of such tight turns.

So in combat, a ME109 would dive, when under attack, to escape. The British planes with more wing area, were told to pull as tight a turn as possible, and, if the enemy attempted to follow, would ultimately be able to attack them.

Pilot quality, tactics, gunnery, armament, armour, all these play as much a part as performance of the plane.

HA! Lucky you mine was made by RAND. I've always like the 1911A1 over any pistol I've shot. Allowing for the Ruger Woodsman MkIII. I hate the Berreta M92F the army bought. Too thick in the grips and unsafe at any speed imo. If I can't take a pistol in mode one (locked, loaded, cocked and saftey off) throw it off a 3 story roof and NOT worry about it discharging...it's not safe. The beretta will go off if dropped from holster high. The 1911? It doesn't fire unless you want it to. But that is just one ex-cav troopers opinion.

Mea Culpa! I meant FOXFIRE books.

-- Keith

Dad has the first four books in paperback same time frame. Just right for carrying in a backpack...

-- Keith

------------

Thanks a bunch, David.

Ed Cregger

Hmm..I wonder where mine is...