mnealtx 0 #26 March 23, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote (There's a parable somewhere about reaping what you sow). Yes, there is - that's why I don't believe ANYTHING you say anymore, since you've lied so MANY times in other threads. From the guy who states: "I got it where you did" in response to reqs for data. The guy who rarely posts citations, just images and then refuses to post the source. I don't post cites in reply to you because you fucking WHINE so much about it - deal with it. Refusal to post cite to a whiner != lying. Thus endeth today's dictionary lesson. You don't post a citation as you are deceptive. You try to slide in nominal GDP for Real GDP. Since you mention deception, let's talk about how about YOU changed your post from "GDP" to "real GDP" while I was responding, shall we? Quote Any time any person flat out refuses to cite a sourcce, their credibility has been shot, regardless of party affiliation. I think that is pretty universal. So, where's that source for your "Hoover killed 12 million" claim, again?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #27 March 23, 2010 Quote Quote Quote (There's a parable somewhere about reaping what you sow). Yes, there is - that's why I don't believe ANYTHING you say anymore, since you've lied so MANY times in other threads. Irony score 10/10 You said irony score. You win. (what is this, 3rd grade? I know you are but what am I? ) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #28 March 23, 2010 Quote (what is this, 3rd grade? I know you are but what am I? ) Well, two people are disrupting class and need to sit in opposite corners of the room. Lucky... mnealtx... do either of you feel like you're doing anything in this thread besides mindless bickering? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #29 March 23, 2010 stop crapping on a nice thread, please. (and no, I don't care who started it first) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BikerBabe 0 #30 March 23, 2010 QuoteQuoteMy favorite aircraft in the inventory. My first AF job was involved with the sensor and comms systems for the U2...i could have told you this was coming 10 years ago, when they first started talking about retiring the plane. It isn't just the flexibility of the missions the U2 can perform. it's the fact that it would literally take 2 or 3 global hawks to do what one U2 can do, sensor-wise. Not to mention the way the GH is flown doesn't really lend itself to flexibility in the mission design. I loved my trips out to Beale. I even got to ride along in one of the sports cars they use to support the U2s when they land. did you know the plane only has 2 landing gear? one front, one rear. On wing rests on a skid for takeoff, until the plane picks up enough speed to lift that wing off the ground. then on landing, the pilot literally has to balance the plane on two wheels (like a bike) until the ground speed is slow enough to allow one wing to drop gently to the ground. It is an amazing aircraft. Also, did you know the U2s in production today are essentially an entirely different aircraft than the original ones developed in the 1950s. the U2 was designed by Kelly Johnson as basically an F-104 Starfighter with really long wings. it had one engine, and was much smaller than it is now. Modern U2-R/TR-1s have 2 engines and are probably about 30% larger than the original ones. The aircraft flying today aren't 60 years old, like many articles lead you to believe. the modern ones came off a production line that started in the mid 1980s. I'll be very sad when they retire them, but I predict it won't be in 2013. Not a real balancing act, gliders operate under the same premise. The US is basically a powered glider. dude, you just have to be contrary to everything, don't you? You're a U2 pilot now, too? tell me, how many times have you seen them land? How about this: what is the wing loading of the U2? How about typical mission altitude? Payloads? datalinks? ground systems? Come on, prove it. *I* know the answers to all those questions. And yet you feel the need to say something, ANYTHING, to contradict someone who probably knows more about the U2 than you ever will. You're starting to sound like the neocons on here, for fuck's sake.Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #31 March 23, 2010 >Not a real balancing act, gliders operate under the same premise. The US is >basically a powered glider. So's the Space Shuttle Orbiter. Heck, that's not even a powered glider; it's no better than those Schweizer 2-33's I flew when I was learning to fly gliders. And all those Orbiter pilots think they're so great . . . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #32 March 23, 2010 QuoteSkunk Works sure is a cool book. I have seen some U2s flying out of beale from the air at fairly close range, they sure are neat aircraft. I heard that at cruise altitude, they are literally only a couple mph away from stalling because the air is so thin. There is a lecture by Steve Blank regarding the history of silicon valley and the role it played in the development of the U2 that's interesting as well. Although definitely not "U2-centric" it's interesting to see the timelines cross. /edited because I've been doing so much writing today that I apparently can't keep articles straight on my first try. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
