dark light

Edgar Brooks

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 781 through 795 (of 1,308 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: General Discussion #246505
    Edgar Brooks
    Participant

    😉 i’ve been lost since page 1

    Just think school playground, and “Yah, boo, sucks to you.”

    in reply to: The mole's role is a hole #1845353
    Edgar Brooks
    Participant

    😉 i’ve been lost since page 1

    Just think school playground, and “Yah, boo, sucks to you.”

    in reply to: Endurance or range of a PR Spitfire #961872
    Edgar Brooks
    Participant

    In 1942, the still-air range of the Spitfire (presumably standard Mk.V) for direct flight to Malta was given as 1380 miles, with the 170-gallon overload tank.
    One item, which might have a bearing, especially at height, I recently read a book by a Norwegian pilot, in which he recounts the occasional problem they had with the jetstream (though they didn’t know of its existence at the time.) He said that there were times that they flew out at an unusually high speed, then struggled to get home, sometimes arriving with minimal fuel.

    in reply to: General Discussion #248541
    Edgar Brooks
    Participant

    If dictating to others means that offensive words and phrases can’t be used to denigrate and abuse others then that is a good thing. I cannot see why anyone would think otherwise..

    Offensive to whom, though? “Midget” has been derived from an Old English word, and been used for hundreds of years, and anyone who believes that the word, on a pot of jam, offends a person, must be able to put on their trousers over their head; it also is not exclusively to do with humanity, but can refer to flora and fauna. Going to get offended on behalf of a dwarf tree, now, are you? It’s a great shame that the company did not have the moral courage to tell that woman to concentrate more on her child’s character and personality, and less on giving the child an inferiority complex about her size.

    There are those who think decrying PC means that they can throw insults around without any consequence to the feelings of anyone else. We see it on this forum and in the wider world. To be honest many do it just to get a reaction in much the same way as babies cry to get attention.

    Utter garbage, and I bet you can’t produce a single justification for it. Will we see you campaigning for the deletion of “bald,” “fat,” “overweight,” ” obese” “skinny?” No, I thought not; all (except for the last) of those have been hurled at me over the years, and I’ve just had to grin and bear it.

    I would imagine that the vast majority of those decrying PC will be white and male. The section of society has been oppressed the least. I don’t think that’s a coincidence

    Have you done any research on this, or are you just guessing? Do you really believe that the BBC’s abandoning of “actress,” “comedienne,” and “girls” so that all participants in a show are “guys,” “actors” and “comedians,” whatever their sex, is anything other than pathetic? It’s this sort of nonsense that is arousing such ire, not the banning of coarse, offensive insults, and to pretend that it is so, is simply making mischief.

    in reply to: A new word we can't use… #1847206
    Edgar Brooks
    Participant

    If dictating to others means that offensive words and phrases can’t be used to denigrate and abuse others then that is a good thing. I cannot see why anyone would think otherwise..

    Offensive to whom, though? “Midget” has been derived from an Old English word, and been used for hundreds of years, and anyone who believes that the word, on a pot of jam, offends a person, must be able to put on their trousers over their head; it also is not exclusively to do with humanity, but can refer to flora and fauna. Going to get offended on behalf of a dwarf tree, now, are you? It’s a great shame that the company did not have the moral courage to tell that woman to concentrate more on her child’s character and personality, and less on giving the child an inferiority complex about her size.

    There are those who think decrying PC means that they can throw insults around without any consequence to the feelings of anyone else. We see it on this forum and in the wider world. To be honest many do it just to get a reaction in much the same way as babies cry to get attention.

    Utter garbage, and I bet you can’t produce a single justification for it. Will we see you campaigning for the deletion of “bald,” “fat,” “overweight,” ” obese” “skinny?” No, I thought not; all (except for the last) of those have been hurled at me over the years, and I’ve just had to grin and bear it.

    I would imagine that the vast majority of those decrying PC will be white and male. The section of society has been oppressed the least. I don’t think that’s a coincidence

    Have you done any research on this, or are you just guessing? Do you really believe that the BBC’s abandoning of “actress,” “comedienne,” and “girls” so that all participants in a show are “guys,” “actors” and “comedians,” whatever their sex, is anything other than pathetic? It’s this sort of nonsense that is arousing such ire, not the banning of coarse, offensive insults, and to pretend that it is so, is simply making mischief.

    in reply to: General Discussion #248686
    Edgar Brooks
    Participant

    It doesn’t; it means forcing your opinions on others, and not allowing them the courtesy of deciding for themselves.

    in reply to: A new word we can't use… #1847309
    Edgar Brooks
    Participant

    It doesn’t; it means forcing your opinions on others, and not allowing them the courtesy of deciding for themselves.

    in reply to: Merlin "copied" from the Curtiss V-12? #962989
    Edgar Brooks
    Participant

    I recently read that RR sales engineers in wartime visited advanced airbases to purposely provide incorrect maintenance tips to mechanics servicing Napier Sabres, causing a few Tempests to sink in the Channel. .

    And, of course, the author of that little gem failed to explain how, and why, those engineers were not found guilty of treason, and hanged.
    Strange that, about 20 years ago, a former Napier employee never mentioned it, only saying that, once they’d persuaded the RAF groundcrews to stop tinkering, and leave the factory settings intact, the Sabre was fine.

    in reply to: Spitfire Brass label #963225
    Edgar Brooks
    Participant

    436 “To introduce 30 gallon jettison tank (removable parts.)”
    597 “To strengthen the sump of the jettison tank at the bottom of the stack pipe.”
    626 “To redesign the vent pipes for 30 & 90 gall jettison tanks.”
    682 “To provide additional vent on 30 gall jettison tanks.”
    727 “To improve the sealing washer in feed connection on all jettison tanks.”
    799 “To delete rear vent on drop tanks.”
    827 “To introduce a gauze filter in drop tank sumps.”
    959 “To delete stabilisers from 30 gallon drop tanks.”
    The last mod was cleared 4-3-44, so your label post-dates that; interesting to see how “jettison tanks” became “drop tanks.” American influence, perhaps?

    in reply to: Spitfire Brass label #966362
    Edgar Brooks
    Participant

    The drawing exists, in the RAF Museum’s collection of drawings, held in the library. The mod numbers are rather indistinct, so I’m having trouble reading them, but, if you can let me have a list, I can tell you to what each one refers.
    827 was “To introduce a gauze filter in drop tank sumps.”

    in reply to: Spitfire Brass label #966795
    Edgar Brooks
    Participant

    30065 sht 251 covers the 30-gallon slipper tank. The “M” references are, almost certainly Spitfire Modifications; 436 was for the introduction of the “30 gallon jettison tank.”

    in reply to: Cockpit grey/green paint #967976
    Edgar Brooks
    Participant

    According to one reference I’ve seen, the stores no., for Cockpit Grey-Green, was 309 (presumably in the 33B listing,) so, if anyone has access to a wartime paint list, or preferably formulae/samples, maybe it could be found that way?

    in reply to: General Discussion #251138
    Edgar Brooks
    Participant

    Yet another company trying to get me to buy things for “Mother’s Day”; it’s “Mothering Sunday” in this country, sunshine. Ironically, my mother (deceased 20+ years) hated the whole circus, and wouldn’t let me spend out on cards or flowers, especially the latter, since they were always dearer that weekend. Never stopped her accepting the odd box of chocolates, though.:D

    in reply to: What made you (want to) Swear Today IV? #1849417
    Edgar Brooks
    Participant

    Yet another company trying to get me to buy things for “Mother’s Day”; it’s “Mothering Sunday” in this country, sunshine. Ironically, my mother (deceased 20+ years) hated the whole circus, and wouldn’t let me spend out on cards or flowers, especially the latter, since they were always dearer that weekend. Never stopped her accepting the odd box of chocolates, though.:D

    in reply to: General Discussion #251361
    Edgar Brooks
    Participant

    Firstly I didn’t ask you – .

    My very deepest apologies; you should have made it plain that this is a private forum, and the lowly peasantry are not welcome to take part.

Viewing 15 posts - 781 through 795 (of 1,308 total)