Re: Supersonic BizJet

[Bertie the Bunyip]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:iMy2k.3070$yi.1260
@newsfe13.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" <A...@AA.AA> wrote in message
> news:g2ecas$mkg$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:B6x2k.5566$QI2.5373
>> @newsfe23.lga:
>>
>>>
>>> "Nomen Nescio" <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in message
>>> news:75415bdd0d5000c9...@dizum.com...
>>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>>> news:tFt2k.109$QN1...@newsfe15.lga:
>>>>
>>>> Nope. Wrong yet again, dip stick.
>>>>
>>>> Now go back to the glory hole you service, dumb fuck.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ok fine,
>>>
>>> so if you're not Bertie, one of his socks, or otherwise one of his
ilk,
>>> what's your point?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Seems to me little or no clarification is required.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>>
>
> That's because you thrive on pointless conversation. Quarter wit.
> ###

Obviosuly. That's why I respond to all of your poasts.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:bWy2k.3103$yi.488
@newsfe13.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" <A...@AA.AA> wrote in message

> news:g2edg2$mkg$6...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...

>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:iMy2k.3070$yi.1260
>> @newsfe13.lga:
>>
>>

>> Obviosuly. That's why I respond to all of your poasts.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>

> No it snot. You answer all posts because you are a sicko that can't stop.
>
> Should we post a 100 or so today Squirty. Are you feeling the need, and
> aching from the peace and quiet?

I only post in response to your's fjukkwit.. The rest are mostly aviation
poasts. Except for the obvious FWJ poasts.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:R%A2k.4502$t07.1893
@newsfe22.lga:

>
> "Nomen Nescio" <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in message

> news:bee54d62faac9570...@dizum.com...
>>
>> The point is that you Maxwell are a fucking asshole.
>>
>> You don't know shit from shinola about aviation.
>>
>
> Oh bullshit, you know nothing about me.

You know nothing, period.
>
> You're just sockpuppeting for the ButtLipps.
>
>
>
>

See? You don;'t even know what a sockpuppet is!

Never mind, more grist for the mill.

Bertie

[John]

OK I started this thread and still have some questions. I can
understand the danger of mach tuck trying to fly an aircraft not
designed for the supersonic regime past Mach 1. However, the F-86
Sabre was not designed for supersonic flight but could do so briefly
in a dive and apparently without any problems. Even the straight wing
CF-100 Canuck actually broke Mach one (probably exceptional) day in a
dive. Neither of these aircraft had area rule fuselages, neither was
destroyed by mach tuck. So why could they break mach without
problems? Is it a matter of being more heavily built to military
standards than say a Citation X would be? Or that the fuselage area
was so much smaller?

John Dupre'

[More_Flaps]

On Jun 10, 5:08 am, John <jdupre5...@aol.com> wrote:
> OK I started this thread and still have some questions.  I can
> understand the danger of mach tuck trying to fly an aircraft not
> designed for the supersonic regime past Mach 1.

It was designed to be transonic.

Cheers