Another piece of blatant ignorance by SL0WMAN

202 views
Skip to first unread message

Flyguy

unread,
Sep 11, 2021, 2:33:38 AMSep 11
to
He stated this piece of brilliance (besides not being able to spell):

"This is an over-simplication, and mostly wrong. There's an advantage in flying at higher altitude. You do have to fly faster to generate enough lift to keep you up there, but you don't generate any more drag, so you get where you want to go with less expenditure of energy. Variable pitch propellers help you do this."

So, flying faster DOESN'T generate more drag. Boy, will THAT be a revelation to aircraft designers! NEWS FLASH: flying faster DOES generate more drag! Just take the case of the fastest production aircraft ever built, the SR-71. It generated so much drag that the fuselage heated to 600F and required special cooling to get rid of the heat. This is called "parasitic drag" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_drag). But SL0WMAN is an idiot, so I don't expect him to understand this.

Tom Del Rosso

unread,
Sep 11, 2021, 2:53:56 AMSep 11
to
Flyguy wrote:
> He stated this piece of brilliance (besides not being able to spell):
>
> "This is an over-simplication, and mostly wrong. There's an advantage
> in flying at higher altitude. You do have to fly faster to generate
> enough lift to keep you up there, but you don't generate any more
> drag, so you get where you want to go with less expenditure of
> energy. Variable pitch propellers help you do this."

I take that to mean that "faster in thinner air creates the same drag as
slower in denser air."


--
Defund the Thought Police


Anthony William Sloman

unread,
Sep 11, 2021, 3:12:30 AMSep 11
to
On Saturday, September 11, 2021 at 4:33:38 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> He stated this piece of brilliance (besides not being able to spell):
>
> "This is an over-simplication, and mostly wrong. There's an advantage in flying at higher altitude. You do have to fly faster to generate enough lift to keep you up there, but you don't generate any more drag, so you get where you want to go with less expenditure of energy. Variable pitch propellers help you do this."
>
> So, flying faster DOESN'T generate more drag. Boy, will THAT be a revelation to aircraft designers! NEWS FLASH: flying faster DOES generate more drag!

Of course it does. But drag - like lift - depends not only on speed but also on the density of the air in the immediate vicinity of the wing. At higher altitude the density of the air is lower, so you have to fly faster to generate the same lift, but you also generate the same drag - not more - even though you are flying faster.

That was the message I was trying to convey, and Flyguy seems to have entirely missed. Possibly deliberately, but his next paragraph is equally defective.

>Just take the case of the fastest production aircraft ever built, the SR-71. It generated so much drag that the fuselage heated to 600F and required special cooling to get rid of the heat. This is called "parasitic drag" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_drag). But SL0WMAN is an idiot, so I don't expect him to understand this.

What Flyguy hasn't noticed is that the SR-71 was supersonic, which meant that it created shock waves over the whole air-craft - not just the fuselage - and was operating in a very different aerodynamic regime from the aircraft we were talking about.

He linked to a discussion of parasitic drag, which is all about sub-sonic flows.

As is usual when Flyguy tries to pose an an expert, he's just exposed the shallowness of his thinking. Or blatant ignorance, as he would put it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Phil Allison

unread,
Sep 11, 2021, 3:14:54 AMSep 11
to
Flyguy wrote:
==========
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There's an advantage in flying at higher altitude.
You do have to fly faster to generate enough lift to keep you up there,
but you don't generate any more drag, so you get where you want to go with less expenditure of energy.
Variable pitch propellers help you do this."
--------------------------------------------------------------
>
> So, flying faster DOESN'T generate more drag.

** Not what was said.

> NEWS FLASH: flying faster DOES generate more drag!

** Not when thinner air compensates.

> Just take the case of the fastest production aircraft ever built, the SR-71.

** ROTFLMO !!

How many " variable pitch " props did that thing have ?




..... Phil



Phil Allison

unread,
Sep 11, 2021, 3:45:06 AMSep 11
to
** Just for some context, the density air at 60,000 feet is only 10% of that at sea level.

FYI that is the cruising altitude of the Concorde.

The SR 71 likes 85,000 feet better.


..... Phil


DecadentLinux...@decadence.org

unread,
Sep 11, 2021, 5:06:56 AMSep 11
to
Flyguy <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:074e86c1-fb6d-40c5-b526-
db6372...@googlegroups.com:

> So, flying faster DOESN'T generate more drag.

No, idiot. That is not what he said.

He specifically mentioned that the air is thinner and that THAT
element meant less drag and therefore the ability to go faster for less
cost. So it isn't "more drag" it is the same drag laws and at higher
altitude with less molecules per cubic yard of air, there is less drag
for any given speed. So 500 knots at sea level impinges more on the
plane than 500 knots at 50,000 feet.

Don't see any supersonic jets going supersonic down at sea level.

DecadentLinux...@decadence.org

unread,
Sep 11, 2021, 5:09:46 AMSep 11
to
Phil Allison <palli...@gmail.com> wrote in news:d7a84419-9dbb-4968-
9778-289c...@googlegroups.com:

> How many " variable pitch " props did that thing have ?
>

It had a varible inlet and superstructure venturi shape.

Depending on the speed it acted as a ramjet.

"that thing"?

That thing between your ears needs a bullet. Do us a favor and give
it one.

DecadentLinux...@decadence.org

unread,
Sep 11, 2021, 5:11:02 AMSep 11
to
Phil Allison <palli...@gmail.com> wrote in news:be0a2933-23b3-49d6-
a9c8-e110...@googlegroups.com:

> The SR 71 likes 85,000 feet better.
>

FYI, that was just the published figure.

Phil Allison

unread,
Sep 11, 2021, 5:26:19 AMSep 11
to
DecadentLinux is Incredibly Funny: :

=============================
>
> > How many " variable pitch " props did that thing have ?
> >
> It had a varible inlet and superstructure venturi shape.

** But no props at all.

> "that thing"?

** Yep, it was a " thing ".

Just like you are a " raving idiot".


..... Phil




Phil Allison

unread,
Sep 11, 2021, 5:28:28 AMSep 11
to
DecadentLinux...= Stand Up Comedian

======================================
> > The SR 71 likes 85,000 feet better.
> >
> FYI, that was just the published figure.

** So what's the *REAL* one then ???

Maybe 850,000 ? 8.5 million ?

Make my day....

John Walliker

unread,
Sep 11, 2021, 6:47:14 AMSep 11
to
On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 10:06:56 UTC+1, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

> Don't see any supersonic jets going supersonic down at sea level.

You do sometimes with military jets. I've been on a boat that was overflown
by a couple of low-altitude supersonic jets. It was VERY noisy.

I can also remember the supersonic test flights over the UK during Concorde
development. These were at relatively low altitude.

John

Phil Allison

unread,
Sep 11, 2021, 7:07:37 AMSep 11
to
John Walliker wrote:
================
>
> > Don't see any supersonic jets going supersonic down at sea level.
>
> You do sometimes with military jets. I've been on a boat that was overflown
> by a couple of low-altitude supersonic jets. It was VERY noisy.
>
> I can also remember the supersonic test flights over the UK during Concorde
> development. These were at relatively low altitude.
>

** The Fairy Delta 2 ?

IIRC, along a beach area in the south on England in about 1956 ?

Just before the Russians launched Sputnik.



.... Phil





DecadentLinux...@decadence.org

unread,
Sep 11, 2021, 7:18:54 AMSep 11
to
Phil Allison <palli...@gmail.com> wrote in news:e4e1df96-e996-4239-
8fa2-b7db...@googlegroups.com:

> ** But no props at all.
>

Yeah... Like I said... A RAMJET.

No props to you. You do not deserve any, putz.

Phil Allison

unread,
Sep 11, 2021, 7:23:32 AMSep 11
to
DecadentLinux...is Hysterical
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> > ** But no props at all.
> >
> Yeah... Like I said... A RAMJET.

** ROTFL !!

This fool has missed his natural occupation - as a barber.
Cos he can trim and change context like nobody else.

Maybe he can tell side splitting, wildly racist jokes at the same time ?



...... Phil

Jeff Layman

unread,
Sep 11, 2021, 8:03:45 AMSep 11
to
On 11/09/2021 11:47, John Walliker wrote:
> On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 10:06:56 UTC+1, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
>
>> Don't see any supersonic jets going supersonic down at sea level.
>
> You do sometimes with military jets. I've been on a boat that was overflown
> by a couple of low-altitude supersonic jets. It was VERY noisy.

It's been done fairly recently:
<https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/dec/01/loud-bang-heard-across-london-caused-by-supersonic-fighter-jets>
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-55636583>

--

Jeff

jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com

unread,
Sep 11, 2021, 10:07:57 AMSep 11
to
The limiting case is orbit. Satellites can fly for centuries on very
little fuel.





--

Father Brown's figure remained quite dark and still;
but in that instant he had lost his head. His head was
always most valuable when he had lost it.




Anthony William Sloman

unread,
Sep 11, 2021, 10:29:21 AMSep 11
to
On Sunday, September 12, 2021 at 12:07:57 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2021 02:53:49 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
> <fizzbin...@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:
>
> >Flyguy wrote:
> >> He stated this piece of brilliance (besides not being able to spell):
> >>
> >> "This is an over-simplication, and mostly wrong. There's an advantage
> >> in flying at higher altitude. You do have to fly faster to generate
> >> enough lift to keep you up there, but you don't generate any more
> >> drag, so you get where you want to go with less expenditure of
> >> energy. Variable pitch propellers help you do this."
> >
> >I take that to mean that "faster in thinner air creates the same drag as
> >slower in denser air."
>
> The limiting case is orbit. Satellites can fly for centuries on very
> little fuel.

That's in the Flyguy class - satellites are in orbit, and traveling a lot faster than subsonic airliners, or any kind of electrically powered aircraft.

An satellite with an ion drive is a special case, but it is clearly not an aircraft.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Fred Bloggs

unread,
Sep 11, 2021, 11:55:09 AMSep 11
to
It's a function aircraft design. Aircraft designed for high altitude flight will generally have lots of wing area to reduce the requirement for excess velocity needed for lift a high altitude. Most of the modern airlines seem to be optimized for 500 knots at 35,000 feet. Wing areas are humongous.

SR-71 was mainly trying to evade intercept by hostile SAMs, so the ultra-high altitude, for its day, was a primary requirement.

Flyguy

unread,
Sep 11, 2021, 3:37:40 PMSep 11
to
> SL0WMAN, Sydney

Hey SL0WMAN, the drag of the SR-71 is the result of the plane pushing molecules of air aside as it pushes through it. Supersonic flight creates shockwaves, but does not eliminate drag. The SR-71 had PLENTY of drag when it flew subsonically.

Anthony William Sloman

unread,
Sep 12, 2021, 1:34:07 AMSep 12
to
On Sunday, September 12, 2021 at 5:37:40 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> On Saturday, September 11, 2021 at 12:12:30 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 11, 2021 at 4:33:38 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > He stated this piece of brilliance (besides not being able to spell):
> > >
> > > "This is an over-simplication, and mostly wrong. There's an advantage in flying at higher altitude. You do have to fly faster to generate enough lift to keep you up there, but you don't generate any more drag, so you get where you want to go with less expenditure of energy. Variable pitch propellers help you do this."
> > >
> > > So, flying faster DOESN'T generate more drag. Boy, will THAT be a revelation to aircraft designers! NEWS FLASH: flying faster DOES generate more drag!
> > Of course it does. But drag - like lift - depends not only on speed but also on the density of the air in the immediate vicinity of the wing. At higher altitude the density of the air is lower, so you have to fly faster to generate the same lift, but you also generate the same drag - not more - even though you are flying faster.
> >
> > That was the message I was trying to convey, and Flyguy seems to have entirely missed. Possibly deliberately, but his next paragraph is equally defective.
> > >Just take the case of the fastest production aircraft ever built, the SR-71. It generated so much drag that the fuselage heated to 600F and required special cooling to get rid of the heat. This is called "parasitic drag" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_drag). But SL0WMAN is an idiot, so I don't expect him to understand this.
> >
> > What Flyguy hasn't noticed is that the SR-71 was supersonic, which meant that it created shock waves over the whole air-craft - not just the fuselage - and was operating in a very different aerodynamic regime from the aircraft we were talking about.
> >
> > He linked to a discussion of parasitic drag, which is all about sub-sonic flows.
> >
> > As is usual when Flyguy tries to pose an an expert, he's just exposed the shallowness of his thinking. Or blatant ignorance, as he would put it.
>
> Hey SL0WMAN, the drag of the SR-71 is the result of the plane pushing molecules of air aside as it pushes through it.

Of course it is, but this isn't a useful insight.

> Supersonic flight creates shockwaves, but does not eliminate drag. The SR-71 had PLENTY of drag when it flew subsonically.

Why would creating shock waves eliminate drag? And what has the SR-71's subsonic performance have to do with anything?

In fact supersonic flight does have odd features, and the SR-71 had more range when it flew faster. The British- American supersonic airliner - the Concorde had lousy fuel efficiency, and the planned Boeing competitor would have flown faster in order to do better, but Boeing ended up spending more on the design study than it cost to build the Concorde, and decided that the airliner would be much too expensive to make a profit, even with better fuel efficiency.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Phil Allison

unread,
Sep 12, 2021, 2:30:36 AMSep 12
to
Fred Bloggs wrote:
===============
>
> Aircraft designed for high altitude flight will generally have lots of wing area to reduce the
> requirement for excess velocity needed for lift a high altitude.
> Most of the modern airlines seem to be optimized for 500 knots at 35,000 feet.
> Wing areas are humongous.

** Nonsense.

Lift is a mostly function of a wing's "angle of attack" and aerofoil shape.
Passenger jets have small wing areas, with lots of movable devices fitted on the leading and trailing edges to increase lift at low speeds for take offs and landings.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Transaero_b737-400_planform_ei-cxk_arp.jpg




..... Phil

John Doe

unread,
Sep 12, 2021, 11:27:45 AMSep 12
to
"the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions" (Bill Sloman)

Bozo the Clown...

--
Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

> X-Received: by 2002:a0c:f10b:: with SMTP id i11mr4848458qvl.67.1631424844286; Sat, 11 Sep 2021 22:34:04 -0700 (PDT)
> X-Received: by 2002:a25:bc0f:: with SMTP id i15mr6832037ybh.233.1631424844009; Sat, 11 Sep 2021 22:34:04 -0700 (PDT)
> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2021 22:34:03 -0700 (PDT)
> In-Reply-To: <87917a13-8165-4ddb...@googlegroups.com>
> Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=14.202.161.14; posting-account=SJ46pgoAAABuUDuHc5uDiXN30ATE-zi-
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 14.202.161.14
> References: <074e86c1-fb6d-40c5...@googlegroups.com> <af4c2cfd-a498-4dc1...@googlegroups.com> <87917a13-8165-4ddb...@googlegroups.com>
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Message-ID: <a27eae77-5524-4d23...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Another piece of blatant ignorance by SL0WMAN
> From: Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org>
> Injection-Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2021 05:34:04 +0000
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Lines: 63
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:644401

Edward Hernandez

unread,
Sep 12, 2021, 4:00:51 PMSep 12
to
The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4...@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1...@dont-email.me>:

> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is > CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorectly formatted USENET posting on Sun, 12 Sep 2021 15:27:39 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <shl69b$ma5$4...@dont-email.me>.

Flyguy

unread,
Sep 12, 2021, 4:10:25 PMSep 12
to
All aircraft have wing area necessary to generate the lift required for the load - the higher the load the larger the wing area, in general. In comparing aircraft we commonly talk about wing loading (lbs/ft^2 or kg/m^2). The most difficult flight regime for generating lift are low speeds. Most aircraft, but not all such as the SR-71, have a geometry altering trailing edge devices called flaps (and in larger aircraft leading edge devices called slats) to generate more lift at slow speeds, typically while taking off or landing. Accidents have happened after pilots did not extend flaps for takeoff or landing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAPA_Flight_3142

Flyguy

unread,
Sep 12, 2021, 4:11:43 PMSep 12
to
And you made an "incorectly" spelled post. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

Lasse Langwadt Christensen

unread,
Sep 12, 2021, 4:25:02 PMSep 12
to
can take off and land without flaps and slats, but you'll of course have to know before hand and plan for
the extra speed and runway needed

Phil Allison

unread,
Sep 12, 2021, 4:44:08 PMSep 12
to
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 6:10:25 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> On Saturday, September 11, 2021 at 11:30:36 PM UTC-7, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > ===============
> > >
> > > Aircraft designed for high altitude flight will generally have lots of wing area to reduce the
> > > requirement for excess velocity needed for lift a high altitude.
> > > Most of the modern airlines seem to be optimized for 500 knots at 35,000 feet.
> > > Wing areas are humongous.
> > ** Nonsense.
> >
> > Lift is a mostly function of a wing's "angle of attack" and aerofoil shape.
> > Passenger jets have small wing areas, with lots of movable devices fitted on the leading and trailing edges to increase lift at low speeds for take offs and landings.
> >
> > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Transaero_b737-400_planform_ei-cxk_arp.jpg
> >
> >
>
> All aircraft have wing area necessary to generate the lift required for the load - the higher the load the larger the wing area, in general.

** Nonsense.

Look at the Lockheed F104 Starfighter for an extreme example of the direct opposite.
Often said to "... have no visible means of support " .

All you are is a serial context shifter, bullshitting obfuscator and a damn LIAR.


....... Phil




Flyguy

unread,
Sep 12, 2021, 8:50:15 PMSep 12
to
Thanks, coming from a TOTAL IDIOT! The F-104 had these wonderful flying characteristics:

"The F-104 series all had a very high wing loading (made even higher when carrying external stores). During the early stall tests, the aircraft demonstrated the tendency to suddenly "pitch up" once it reached an angle of attack of approximately 15 degrees. This "pitch up" would result in a rapid increase in angle of attack to approximately 60 degrees, accompanied by lateral and directional oscillation, and followed by sudden uncontrolled yaw and roll. At this point the aircraft would be essentially tumbling, descending at a rate of 12,000–15,000 feet per minute (3,700–4,600 m/min)."

A 15 degree angle of attack is NOT MUCH as viewed from the cockpit. And that wasn't all:

'Another serious design issue that the aircraft encountered was T-tail flutter; Dick Heppe, who served as the initial project aerodynamics engineer for the F-104 program, recalled that "without question, the single most difficult technical challenge encountered in the XF-104 and F-104A development programs was the catastrophic flutter problem of the unique T-tailed empennage configuration."'

The F-104 was not judged well by pilots highly qualified to do so:

"Erich Hartmann, the world's top-scoring fighter ace, commanded one of West Germany's first post-war jet fighter-equipped wings[148] and deemed the F-104 to be an unsafe aircraft with poor handling characteristics for aerial combat. In Navy service it lacked the safety margin of a twin engine design such as the Blackburn Buccaneer. To the dismay of his superiors, Hartmann judged the fighter unfit for Luftwaffe use even before its introduction."

And that judgment was directly reflected in its safety record:

"The safety record of the F-104 Starfighter became high-profile news in the mid-1960s, especially in West Germany.[153] West Germany initially ordered 309 F-104s, and over time another 607.[154] Deliveries of Lockheed-built aircraft started in August 1961, and domestically produced airframes began to roll off the assembly lines in December.[31] That same month, the first of an eventual total of 292 West German F-104s had crashed."

So, before the next time you call me a "serial context shifter, bullshitting obfuscator and a damn LIAR" you better do your FUCKING RESEARCH, IDIOT!




Phil Allison

unread,
Sep 12, 2021, 9:44:53 PMSep 12
to
Flyguy wrote:
===========
> > > > >
> > > > > Aircraft designed for high altitude flight will generally have lots of wing area to reduce the
> > > > > requirement for excess velocity needed for lift a high altitude.
> > > > > Most of the modern airlines seem to be optimized for 500 knots at 35,000 feet.
> > > > > Wing areas are humongous.
> > > > ** Nonsense.
> > > >
> > > > Lift is a mostly function of a wing's "angle of attack" and aerofoil shape.
> > > > Passenger jets have small wing areas, with lots of movable devices fitted on the leading and trailing edges to increase lift at low speeds for take offs and landings.
> > > >
> > > > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Transaero_b737-400_planform_ei-cxk_arp.jpg
> > > >
> > >
> > > All aircraft have wing area necessary to generate the lift required for the load
> > - the higher the load the larger the wing area, in general.
>
> > ** Nonsense.
> >
> > Look at the Lockheed F104 Starfighter for an extreme example of the direct opposite.
> > Often said to "... have no visible means of support " .
> >
> > All you are is a serial context shifter, bullshitting obfuscator and a damn LIAR.


** I know ALL about the F104 - so you wasted your time Googling.

That it has a high "wing loading" and a tiny wing area PROVES my point - fuckwit !!!!


> So, before the next time you call me a "serial context shifter, bullshitting obfuscator

** All you are is a serial context shifter, bullshitting obfuscator and a damn LIAR.

Plus a very low IQ.

===============================================================




...... Phil


Flyguy

unread,
Sep 12, 2021, 10:01:58 PMSep 12
to
Actually there are other fighters and airliners that have HIGHER wing loading than the F-104 and they are perfectly flyable (i.e. the A380). So, it wasn't just the high wing loading that made the F-104 a "widow maker," dolt.

And, YES, they DO design aircraft with wing loading in mind, my original point.

Anthony William Sloman

unread,
Sep 12, 2021, 10:05:52 PMSep 12
to
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:50:15 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> On Sunday, September 12, 2021 at 1:44:08 PM UTC-7, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 6:10:25 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > On Saturday, September 11, 2021 at 11:30:36 PM UTC-7, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Fred Bloggs wrote:

<snip>

> So, before the next time you call me a "serial context shifter, bullshitting obfuscator and a damn LIAR" you better do your FUCKING RESEARCH, IDIOT!

Every last word of that was copied and pasted from the Wikipedia page. The newspaper reports in the UK at the time tended to mention that the German Air Forces called the F-104G "the widow maker", which doesn't seem to have got into the Wikipedia page, nor whatever it is that Flyguy uses instead of a brain.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Phil Allison

unread,
Sep 12, 2021, 10:16:56 PMSep 12
to
Flyguy is a 110% fucking IDIOT

========================
> > >
> > > > All you are is a serial context shifter, bullshitting obfuscator and a damn LIAR.
>
> > ** I know ALL about the F104 - so you wasted your time Googling.
> >
> > That it has a high "wing loading" and a tiny wing area PROVES my point - fuckwit !!!!
> > > So, before the next time you call me a "serial context shifter, bullshitting obfuscator
>>
> > ** All you are is a serial context shifter, bullshitting obfuscator and a damn LIAR.
> >
> > Plus a very low IQ.
> >
> > ===============================================================
>>

> Actually there are other fighters and airliners that have ...

** Nothing to do with the issue.

Googling irrelevances and flying by the seat of your torn & tattered pants is all you can ever manage.

Tell me -

does the name " Flyguy " refer to you pulling the wings off flies ?



...... Phil




Anthony William Sloman

unread,
Sep 12, 2021, 10:58:56 PMSep 12
to
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 12:16:56 PM UTC+10, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> Flyguy is a 110% fucking IDIOT
>
> ========================
> > > >
> > > > > All you are is a serial context shifter, bullshitting obfuscator and a damn LIAR.
> >
> > > ** I know ALL about the F104 - so you wasted your time Googling.
> > >
> > > That it has a high "wing loading" and a tiny wing area PROVES my point - fuckwit !!!!
> > > > So, before the next time you call me a "serial context shifter, bullshitting obfuscator
> >>
> > > ** All you are is a serial context shifter, bullshitting obfuscator and a damn LIAR.
> > >
> > > Plus a very low IQ.
> >>
> > Actually there are other fighters and airliners that have ...
>
> ** Nothing to do with the issue.
>
> Googling irrelevances and flying by the seat of your torn & tattered pants is all you can ever manage.
>
> Tell me -
>
> does the name " Flyguy " refer to you pulling the wings off flies ?

He has claimed to be a private pilot, and to own a plane. It's difficult to believe that he is still allowed to fly, granting the cognitive deficit that he exhibits here. He denies that he is a liar, but his grasp of reality is clearly defective, and he may be misleading us on this point, as he tries to do on so many others.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Phil Allison

unread,
Sep 13, 2021, 12:14:16 AMSep 13
to
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
=================
>
> > does the name " Flyguy " refer to you pulling the wings off flies ?
>>
> He has claimed to be a private pilot, and to own a plane.


** This him ?

https://www.gadgetking.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Cri-Cri-Worlds-Smallest-Twin-Engine-Plane-6.jpg



..... Phil

Flyguy

unread,
Sep 13, 2021, 12:22:40 AMSep 13
to
LOL! Your obsession with animal cruelty says a lot about you, and it isn't pleasant.

Flyguy

unread,
Sep 13, 2021, 12:24:26 AMSep 13
to
> SL0WMAN, Sydney

Hey SL0WMAN, it is difficult to believe that you aren't in a mental institution given your delusions. I can PROVE what I claim - can you PROVE that you are sane?

Anthony William Sloman

unread,
Sep 13, 2021, 12:53:27 AMSep 13
to
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 2:24:26 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> On Sunday, September 12, 2021 at 7:58:56 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 12:16:56 PM UTC+10, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Flyguy is a 110% fucking IDIOT
> > >
> > > ========================
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > All you are is a serial context shifter, bullshitting obfuscator and a damn LIAR.
> > > >
> > > > > ** I know ALL about the F104 - so you wasted your time Googling.
> > > > >
> > > > > That it has a high "wing loading" and a tiny wing area PROVES my point - fuckwit !!!!
> > > > > > So, before the next time you call me a "serial context shifter, bullshitting obfuscator
> > > >>
> > > > > ** All you are is a serial context shifter, bullshitting obfuscator and a damn LIAR.
> > > > >
> > > > > Plus a very low IQ.
> > > >>
> > > > Actually there are other fighters and airliners that have ...
> > >
> > > ** Nothing to do with the issue.
> > >
> > > Googling irrelevances and flying by the seat of your torn & tattered pants is all you can ever manage.
> > >
> > > Tell me -
> > >
> > > does the name " Flyguy " refer to you pulling the wings off flies?
> >
> > He has claimed to be a private pilot, and to own a plane. It's difficult to believe that he is still allowed to fly, granting the cognitive deficit that he exhibits here. He denies that he is a liar, but his grasp of reality is clearly defective, and he may be misleading us on this point, as he tries to do on so many others.
>
> Hey Sloman, it is difficult to believe that you aren't in a mental institution given your delusions. I can PROVE what I claim - can you PROVE that you are sane?

An anonymous troll claims that he can prove that he has a current pilot's license, which would reveal his legal name. Then he has to prove that it is his real name.

If Flyguy had a working brain he'd he'd be able to see the problem there.

About the only way that anybody can prove that they are sane is to produce a document that shows that they are no longer under court protection as a certified lunatic. Since most people never get crazy enough to need that protection most of us can't manage that.

The best I can do is this

https://site.ieee.org/nsw/committe/

If I was nuts, the rest of the committee probably wouldn't trust me to look after the section's bank accounts. There's an argument that suggests that I'm nuts to do the job for nothing, but even low level altruism is a bit crazy.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Flyguy

unread,
Sep 13, 2021, 1:14:04 AMSep 13
to
> SL0WMAN, Sydney

Hey SL0WMAN, you CAN'T prove that you are SANE but I CAN prove that I am a pilot. I AM NOT going to release personal identifying information here, especially since a lunatic on this board has THREATENED TO KILL ME. But I would to a mutually agreeable third party, but there would have to be a substantial wager involved to justify the bother (and I am not talking about a few bucks!).

DecadentLinux...@decadence.org

unread,
Sep 13, 2021, 5:25:01 AMSep 13
to
FlyTard <dead2...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:74d05716-4b5a-4f28...@googlegroups.com:

> On Sunday, September 12, 2021 at 9:53:27 PM UTC-7,
> bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 2:24:26 PM UTC+10, FlyTard wrote:
>> > On Sunday, September 12, 2021 at 7:58:56 PM UTC-7,
>> > bill....@ieee.org wr
> ote:
>> > > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 12:16:56 PM UTC+10,
>> > > palli...@gmail.c
> om wrote:
>> > > > FlyTard is a 110% fucking IDIOT
>> > > > does the name " FlyTard " refer to you pulling the wings off
>> > > > flies?
>
>> > >
>> > > He has claimed to be a private pilot, and to own a plane.
>> > > It's diffic
> ult to believe that he is still allowed to fly, granting the
> cognitive deficit that he exhibits here. He denies that he is a
> liar, but his grasp of reality is clearly defective, and he may be
> misleading us on this point, as he tries to do on so many others.
>> >
>> > Hey Sloman, it is difficult to believe that you aren't in a
>> > mental inst
> itution given your delusions. I can PROVE what I claim - can you
> PROVE that you are sane?
>>
>> An anonymous troll claims that he can prove that he has a current
>> pilot's
> license, which would reveal his legal name. Then he has to prove
> that it is his real name.
>>
>> If FlyTard had a working brain he'd he'd be able to see the
>> problem there.
>
>>
>> About the only way that anybody can prove that they are sane is
>> to produc
> e a document that shows that they are no longer under court
> protection as a certified lunatic. Since most people never get
> crazy enough to need that protection most of us can't manage that.
>>
>> The best I can do is this
>>
>> https://site.ieee.org/nsw/committe/
>>
>> If I was nuts, the rest of the committee probably wouldn't trust
>> me to lo
> ok after the section's bank accounts. There's an argument that
> suggests that I'm nuts to do the job for nothing, but even low
> level altruism is a bit crazy.
>>
>> --
>> SL0WMAN, Sydney
>
> Hey SL0WMAN, you CAN'T prove that you are SANE but I CAN prove
> that I am a pilot. I AM NOT going to release personal identifying
> information here, especially since a lunatic on this board has
> THREATENED TO KILL ME. But I would to a mutually agreeable third
> party, but there would have to be a substantial wager involved to
> justify the bother (and I am not talking about a few bucks!).
>
>

Nobody "threatened to kill" you, pussified punk.

I merely laid out for you how it would happen. Never once
threatened to make it happen.

Run, pussy, run.

Anthony William Sloman

unread,
Sep 13, 2021, 6:46:52 AMSep 13
to
> Hey Sloman, you CAN'T prove that you are SANE but I CAN prove that I am a pilot.

I just provided reasonable evidence that I am sane, but you didn't seem to be able to process the information.

> I AM NOT going to release personal identifying information here, especially since a lunatic on this board has THREATENED TO KILL ME. But I would to a mutually agreeable third party, but there would have to be a substantial wager involved to justify the bother (and I am not talking about a few bucks!).

I couldn't care less whether you are a pilot or not - I just need for you to realise that you - as anonymous troll - can't prove it. You might be able to get somebody who really is a pilot to take on the opprobrium of pretending to be you, but that is the best you can manage. You don't seem to be bright enough to realise this, which is what we'd expect from all the other nonsense you post.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Phil Allison

unread,
Sep 13, 2021, 7:43:34 AMSep 13
to
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
-----------------------------------

> > >
> > > An anonymous troll claims that he can prove that he has a current pilot's license,
> > > which would reveal his legal name. Then he has to prove that it is his real name.
> > >
> > > If Flyguy had a working brain he'd he'd be able to see the problem there.
> > >
> > > About the only way that anybody can prove that they are sane is to produce
> > > a document that shows that they are no longer under court protection as a certified lunatic.

** Or they can say as "Sheldon Cooper" regularly does:

" I am NOT not crazy - my mother had me tested ".


> I couldn't care less whether you are a pilot or not

** I believe he has a private licence to fly some tiny, POS plane for fun.
Millions do, I know a few. Most are total ratbags.

Authorities have no concerns OR liability if such idiots kill themselves or others stupid enough to get aboard.


.... Phil

Lasse Langwadt Christensen

unread,
Sep 13, 2021, 11:43:43 AMSep 13
to
West Germany must have used the F-104 differently because they seemed to have many more crashes than other countries using them.

what the point in comparing a Blackburn Buccaneer with a Starfighter? its half the weight and twice as fast and super sonic

Flyguy

unread,
Sep 13, 2021, 11:50:03 AMSep 13
to
> SL0WMAN, Sydney

Hey SL0WMAN, you say you don't care but you keep on posting about it - YOU'RE LYING AGAIN! I said how I would prove it to you, do you want to go down that path OR NOT?

Flyguy

unread,
Sep 13, 2021, 11:51:32 AMSep 13
to
Anybody that has a valid pilot's license knows FAR MORE about aviation, flying and aircraft than YOU DO. But, then again, that's not SAYING MUCH!

Anthony William Sloman

unread,
Sep 13, 2021, 12:33:48 PMSep 13
to
> West Germany must have used the F-104 differently because they seemed to have many more crashes than other countries using them.

Germany did get it's own version of the F-104 - the F-104G (where the G stood for German). Most air forces lost lot of them to crashes, but "The best accident rate was achieved by the Spanish Air Force, which ended its Starfighter era with a perfect safety record. The Ejército del Aire lost none of its 18 F-104Gs and 3 TF-104Gs over a total of seven years and 17,500 flight hours". Military fighter planes do crash quite often, and - even in peace-time - do tend to do dangerous things.

When I was working backstage in Luton (hobby - not for money) around 1975 an ex-Lighting pilot told me how he flown one of them across the Atlantic in a small squadron, with a lot in-flight refueling episodes along the way. He'd found it a bit hair-raising.

The Lightning was a point interceptor and could climb straight up - vertically - for couple of miles before the atmosphere got too thin for the engines deliver enough thrust to sustain a vertical climb. It had a very limited range

They tended not to go supersonic until they'd got to the tropopause (around 11,000 metres - 36,000 feet). One intercepted a U-2 at 60,000 feet.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Steve Wilson

unread,
Sep 13, 2021, 12:37:47 PMSep 13
to
The F-104 paid for the small wing area with an exceptionally high landing
speed, in excess of 170 knots, and high stall speed. Both are dangerous.
The small wing area also limited maneuverability, essential in dogfights.

Quote:

The Starfighter featured a radical design, with thin, stubby wings attached
farther back on the fuselage than most contemporary aircraft. The wing
provided excellent supersonic and high-speed, low-altitude performance, but
also poor turning capability and high landing speeds.

The Starfighter eventually flew with fifteen air forces but its poor safety
record, especially in Luftwaffe service, brought it substantial criticism.
The Germans lost 292 of 916 aircraft and 116 pilots from 1961 to 1989, its
high accident rate earning it the nickname "the Widowmaker" from the German
public.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter

Phil, there is no need to reply, or to try to insult me. I won't see it.

I have had you plonked for many years, for obvious reasons.




--
The best ideas occur in the theta state. - sw

Anthony William Sloman

unread,
Sep 13, 2021, 12:52:50 PMSep 13
to
> Hey Sloman, you say you don't care but you keep on posting about it - YOU'RE LYING AGAIN! I said how I would prove it to you, do you want to go down that path OR NOT?

I don't care whether you are a pilot, but I do enjoy encouraging you to remind us - once again - just how remarkably stupid you are,

And you've rewarded me with another example of your capacity to miss the point. Thank you.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Anthony William Sloman

unread,
Sep 13, 2021, 12:57:25 PMSep 13
to
On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 1:51:32 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 4:43:34 AM UTC-7, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> > bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > -----------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > An anonymous troll claims that he can prove that he has a current pilot's license,
> > > > > which would reveal his legal name. Then he has to prove that it is his real name.
> > > > >
> > > > > If Flyguy had a working brain he'd he'd be able to see the problem there.
> > > > >
> > > > > About the only way that anybody can prove that they are sane is to produce
> > > > > a document that shows that they are no longer under court protection as a certified lunatic.
> > ** Or they can say as "Sheldon Cooper" regularly does:
> >
> > " I am NOT not crazy - my mother had me tested ".
> > > I couldn't care less whether you are a pilot or not
> > ** I believe he has a private licence to fly some tiny, POS plane for fun.
> > Millions do, I know a few. Most are total ratbags.
> >
> > Authorities have no concerns OR liability if such idiots kill themselves or others stupid enough to get aboard.
>
> Anybody that has a valid pilot's license knows FAR MORE about aviation, flying and aircraft than YOU DO. But, then again, that's not SAYING MUCH!

Flyguy does have inflated ideas about his judgement. He couldn't find his bottom with both hands, but he thinks he can judge other peoples competence from whether or not they agree with his silly ideas. Not a reliable criterion, but when you are as silly as he is, you aren't equipped to do better.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Brent Locher

unread,
Sep 13, 2021, 1:18:48 PMSep 13
to
On Saturday, September 11, 2021 at 2:33:38 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
> He stated this piece of brilliance (besides not being able to spell):
>
> "This is an over-simplication, and mostly wrong. There's an advantage in flying at higher altitude. You do have to fly faster to generate enough lift to keep you up there, but you don't generate any more drag, so you get where you want to go with less expenditure of energy. Variable pitch propellers help you do this."
>
> So, flying faster DOESN'T generate more drag. Boy, will THAT be a revelation to aircraft designers! NEWS FLASH: flying faster DOES generate more drag! Just take the case of the fastest production aircraft ever built, the SR-71. It generated so much drag that the fuselage heated to 600F and required special cooling to get rid of the heat. This is called "parasitic drag" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_drag). But SL0WMAN is an idiot, so I don't expect him to understand this.

You do know that he lives for these kind of posts --right?

Anthony William Sloman

unread,
Sep 13, 2021, 1:28:44 PMSep 13
to
I certainly had fun with that one. Flyguy had missed the point massively, as several other people had pointed out. One of his better exhibitions of mindless stupidity.

And he keeps on rewarding me with more!

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Phil Allison

unread,
Sep 13, 2021, 6:03:57 PMSep 13
to
On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 1:51:32 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 4:43:34 AM UTC-7, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> > bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > -----------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > An anonymous troll claims that he can prove that he has a current pilot's license,
> > > > > which would reveal his legal name. Then he has to prove that it is his real name.
> > > > >
> > > > > If Flyguy had a working brain he'd he'd be able to see the problem there.
> > > > >
> > > > > About the only way that anybody can prove that they are sane is to produce
> > > > > a document that shows that they are no longer under court protection as a certified lunatic.
> > ** Or they can say as "Sheldon Cooper" regularly does:
> >
> > " I am NOT not crazy - my mother had me tested ".
> > > I couldn't care less whether you are a pilot or not
> > ** I believe he has a private licence to fly some tiny, POS plane for fun.
> > Millions do, I know a few. Most are total ratbags.
> >
> > Authorities have no concerns OR liability if such idiots kill themselves or others stupid enough to get aboard.
> >
>
> Anybody that has a valid pilot's license knows FAR MORE about aviation, flying and aircraft than YOU DO.
>

** ROTFL - that is sooooo fucking funny.

Pilots have no reason to study "aviation" and rarely ever do.
Mostly they know SFA about it.

What often happens is, soon as they get a license that gives them the right to kill themselves and others, their HEADS swell up to the size of a planet and they walk around all day acting like they are flying a plane all the time.

I know quite a few GA and commercial pilots, all of them total wankers.
Like you.


...... Phil

Flyguy

unread,
Sep 13, 2021, 8:25:47 PMSep 13
to
This report addresses the issue in detail:
https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1218&context=jate
The F-104 had a higher accident rate than its cohorts, and the USAF accident rate was even higher than the Germans. The F-104 had a somewhat unreliable engine (which caused 41% of the accidents). It was a demanding aircraft that punished any pilot mistakes quickly and severely.

Flyguy

unread,
Sep 13, 2021, 8:32:57 PMSep 13
to
> SL0WMAN, Sydney

Hey SL0WMAN, there you go AGAIN, libeling me without any evidence or facts. And you are unapologetically plagiarizing my words ("SL0WMAN couldn't find his asshole with both hands"), a sign of a mediocre mind. Let's be clear: I AM a licensed pilot with decades and thousands of hours of experience and you are an idiot with NO IDEA WHATSOEVER how to operate an aircraft. Those are the simple FACTS. I also take it that you DIDN'T contact CASA as I recommended.

Flyguy

unread,
Sep 13, 2021, 8:38:10 PMSep 13
to
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 3:03:57 PM UTC-7, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 1:51:32 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 4:43:34 AM UTC-7, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > -----------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > An anonymous troll claims that he can prove that he has a current pilot's license,
> > > > > > which would reveal his legal name. Then he has to prove that it is his real name.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If Flyguy had a working brain he'd he'd be able to see the problem there.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > About the only way that anybody can prove that they are sane is to produce
> > > > > > a document that shows that they are no longer under court protection as a certified lunatic.
> > > ** Or they can say as "Sheldon Cooper" regularly does:
> > >
> > > " I am NOT not crazy - my mother had me tested ".
> > > > I couldn't care less whether you are a pilot or not
> > > ** I believe he has a private licence to fly some tiny, POS plane for fun.
> > > Millions do, I know a few. Most are total ratbags.
> > >
> > > Authorities have no concerns OR liability if such idiots kill themselves or others stupid enough to get aboard.
> > >
> >
> > Anybody that has a valid pilot's license knows FAR MORE about aviation, flying and aircraft than YOU DO.
> >
> ** ROTFL - that is sooooo fucking funny.
>
> Pilots have no reason to study "aviation" and rarely ever do.

LOL! That is, possibly, the DUMBEST statement I have EVER READ!! That is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE, you BRAIN DEAD IDIOT!!! That would be like saying an English major would have no reason to study ENGLISH!!!

> What often happens is, soon as they get a license that gives them the right to kill themselves and others, their HEADS swell up to the size of a planet and they walk around all day acting like they are flying a plane all the time.

Do you have any FUCKING IDEA how many licensed pilots there are in the world and what PERCENTAGE of those pilots that have "killed themselves?" Obviously NOT, you diminished mentality fool!!!!

>
> I know quite a few GA and commercial pilots, all of them total wankers.
> Like you.

Yeah, I am SURE YOU DO!!!!!!

Lasse Langwadt Christensen

unread,
Sep 13, 2021, 8:42:08 PMSep 13
to
"somewhat unreliable engine " that had twice the power of what came before it and more than 17000 have been build

Phil Allison

unread,
Sep 13, 2021, 8:51:53 PMSep 13
to
Flyguy is Hysterically & Unintentionally Funny.

=======================================

> >
> > ** ROTFL - that is sooooo fucking funny.
> >
> > Pilots have no reason to study "aviation" and rarely ever do.

> LOL! That is, possibly, the DUMBEST statement I have EVER READ!!

** It is in fact a very well informed statement.

> That would be like saying an English major would have no reason to study ENGLISH!!!

** ROTFLMAO wot a hoot,

>What often happens is, soon as they get a license that gives them the right to kill themselves and others, their HEADS swell up to the size > of a planet and they walk around all day acting like they are flying a plane all the time.

> > I know quite a few GA and commercial pilots, all of them total wankers.
> > Like you.

> Yeah, I am SURE YOU DO!!!!!!

** I really do, just my bad luck I guess.

But take heart - YOU are a far bigger WANKER than any of them.



...... Phil

Flyguy

unread,
Sep 13, 2021, 9:18:28 PMSep 13
to
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 5:51:53 PM UTC-7, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> Flyguy is Hysterically & Unintentionally Funny.
>
> =======================================
> > >
> > > ** ROTFL - that is sooooo fucking funny.
> > >
> > > Pilots have no reason to study "aviation" and rarely ever do.
>
> > LOL! That is, possibly, the DUMBEST statement I have EVER READ!!
> ** It is in fact a very well informed statement.

No, it is the DUMBEST STATEMENT of the decade, fool.

> > That would be like saying an English major would have no reason to study ENGLISH!!!
> ** ROTFLMAO wot a hoot,

Yeah, you realized exactly how DUMB what you said is.

> >What often happens is, soon as they get a license that gives them the right to kill themselves and others, their HEADS swell up to the size > of a planet and they walk around all day acting like they are flying a plane all the time.
> > > I know quite a few GA and commercial pilots, all of them total wankers.
> > > Like you.
>
> > Yeah, I am SURE YOU DO!!!!!!
> ** I really do, just my bad luck I guess.

No, you don't.

>
> But take heart - YOU are a far bigger WANKER than any of them.

Hardly - you are just BLOWING SMOKE! You can't even name a SINGLE pilot you know, let alone one that KILLED THEMSELVES.

Phil Allison

unread,
Sep 13, 2021, 9:54:39 PMSep 13
to
Flyguy is Hysterically & Unintentionally Funny.

====================================

** Now for some more belly laughs...

> > =======================================
> > > >
> > > > ** ROTFL - that is sooooo fucking funny.
> > > >
> > > > Pilots have no reason to study "aviation" and rarely ever do.
> >
> > > LOL! That is, possibly, the DUMBEST statement I have EVER READ!!
>>
> > ** It is in fact a very well informed statement.
>>
> No, it is the DUMBEST STATEMENT of the decade, fool.

** It's an absolute fact - you narcissistic MORON !!.


> > > That would be like saying an English major would have no reason to study ENGLISH!!!
>
> > ** ROTFLMAO wot a hoot,


> > >What often happens is, soon as they get a license that gives them the right to kill themselves and others,
> > >their HEADS swell up to the size > of a planet and they walk around all day acting like they are flying a plane all the time.
>>
> > > > I know quite a few GA and commercial pilots, all of them total wankers.
> > > > Like you.
> >
> > > Yeah, I am SURE YOU DO!!!!!!
> > ** I really do, just my bad luck I guess.
>
> No, you don't.

** Guy living next door for 3 years, David Henderson.
Ex RAAF ground crew.
Licensed to fly single and twin engine Pipers.
Talked about it all the time.
Was nearly killed twice, that I know of.

1. Flying over Bass Straight at night with a load of fresh seafood, DH became
disoriented seeing the moon reflected on the surface of the sea.
Lost it & nearly crashed into the water.

2. Invited me to accompany him and his lovey ladyfriend ( Pauline) on a short, daylight trip in a twin.
I politely declined. The destination was Sydney Airport.
When I saw Pauline a few hours later, she looked white as a ghost and would not speak.
Eventually she told me what had a happened.
On approach to Sydney, DH flew straight into the wake of a big jet while at low altitude.
The twin became inverted and started to dive, she screamed her head off.

** Same address, different pilot, Italian gent who flew helicopters for the NSW police.
He drove a Lancia sedan. We chatted a lot.,
Nice enough guy - but all Italians & heli pilots are nuts.

** Friend and colleague Gary Dunn learned to fly a Cessna 172.
Strictly fair weather and in daylight, still yet to crash.

** Famous Aussie musician " Ian Moss " - I know him as a customer.
Rides a huge Indian motorbike and has learnt to fly a light single.
Crazy man.

** I met and chatted with an Australian Mosquito pilot, we used to make those here at Bankstown.
He spoke about firing the 4 x 20mm cannons at a target range in Queensland.
I also know a woman " Molly Cribb" who helped build Mosquitos during WW2.



....... Phil







Anthony William Sloman

unread,
Sep 13, 2021, 11:04:43 PMSep 13
to
On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 10:38:10 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 3:03:57 PM UTC-7, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 1:51:32 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 4:43:34 AM UTC-7, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > -----------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > An anonymous troll claims that he can prove that he has a current pilot's license,
> > > > > > > which would reveal his legal name. Then he has to prove that it is his real name.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If Flyguy had a working brain he'd he'd be able to see the problem there.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > About the only way that anybody can prove that they are sane is to produce
> > > > > > > a document that shows that they are no longer under court protection as a certified lunatic.
> > > > ** Or they can say as "Sheldon Cooper" regularly does:
> > > >
> > > > " I am NOT not crazy - my mother had me tested ".
> > > > > I couldn't care less whether you are a pilot or not
> > > > ** I believe he has a private licence to fly some tiny, POS plane for fun.
> > > > Millions do, I know a few. Most are total ratbags.
> > > >
> > > > Authorities have no concerns OR liability if such idiots kill themselves or others stupid enough to get aboard.
> > >
> > > Anybody that has a valid pilot's license knows FAR MORE about aviation, flying and aircraft than YOU DO.
> > >
> > ** ROTFL - that is sooooo fucking funny.
> >
> > Pilots have no reason to study "aviation" and rarely ever do.
>
> LOL! That is, possibly, the DUMBEST statement I have EVER READ!! That is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE, you BRAIN DEAD IDIOT!!! That would be like saying an English major would have no reason to study ENGLISH!!!

English majors study English literature. Writers in training - would be journalist and writers - study English expression. Flyguy won't appreciate that there is a difference.

> > What often happens is, soon as they get a license that gives them the right to kill themselves and others, their HEADS swell up to the size of a planet and they walk around all day acting like they are flying a plane all the time.
>
> Do you have any FUCKING IDEA how many licensed pilots there are in the world and what PERCENTAGE of those pilots that have "killed themselves?" Obviously NOT, you diminished mentality fool!!!!

One of my undergraduate friends was an aviation freak who was studying engineering with the aim of becoming a flight engineer. He had a private pilot's license and was working on getting enough hours to qualify for the lowest level commercial license - freight only. He kept a scrap book of light aviation accidents. There were a lot of them.

> > I know quite a few GA and commercial pilots, all of them total wankers.
> > Like you.
>
> Yeah, I am SURE YOU DO!!!!!!

Aviation is popular in Australia. None of my relatives took it up, but my brother-in-law spent his career as a nonflying RAAF officer, and took to hang-gliding after he retired.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Flyguy

unread,
Sep 13, 2021, 11:10:03 PMSep 13
to
So, none of them killed themselves as you said.

Flyguy

unread,
Sep 13, 2021, 11:13:13 PMSep 13
to