«

On 10/1/09 13:25 , notbob wrote:
> On 2009-10-01, D. Peter Maus<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Real knowledge doesn't need to show itself off.
>>
>> Real ability will readily share.
>>
>> Real skill rarely needs PR.
>>
>> Real confidence is generous.
>>
>> Real strength is civil.
>
> Do you always use platitudes?
>
> nb



I used to write them as a a profession. Hazard of the trade in a
sound byte world.

You can't tell me I'm the only one.


But in spite of the language, the point still stands.

On 10/1/09 13:54 , Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
> "D. Peter Maus" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:ha2tbj$mf6$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On 10/1/09 13:25 , notbob wrote:
>>> On 2009-10-01, D. Peter Maus<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Real knowledge doesn't need to show itself off.
>>>>
>>>> Real ability will readily share.
>>>>
>>>> Real skill rarely needs PR.
>>>>
>>>> Real confidence is generous.
>>>>
>>>> Real strength is civil.
>>>
>>> Do you always use platitudes?
>>
>> I used to write them as a a profession. Hazard of the trade in a sound
>> byte world.
>>
>> You can't tell me I'm the only one.
>>
>> But in spite of the language, the point still stands.
>
> They were good points. Well worth noting and reflecting on.
>



Thank you.

On 10/2/09 16:13 , Alan Browne wrote:
> D. Peter Maus wrote:
>> On 9/30/09 17:49 , Alan Browne wrote:
>>> D. Peter Maus wrote:
>>>
>>>> But arguing with it is silly.
>>>
>>> So are your long explanations punctuated with marketing dribble of the
>>> sort: " And that's not an insigificant <sic> sum. But what's your camera
>>> worth? " followed by lame phrases such as " Penny-wise, pound
>>> foolish. ".
>>>
>>
>> I do not apologize for my language. That marketeers use similar is not
>> surprising they are, in fact, all the same words. But I may sound like
>> a marketing piece in some of my writing, because I spent a good number
>> of years writing for the marketing industry.
>
> Years that ended because your verbosity was considered excessive for
> marketing, no doubt?
>

Actually, no, but thanks for playing.


>>
>> I also spent a good number of years writing technical papers,
>> equipment reviews, and comedy material.
>
> Well, 1 out of 3 ain't bad!
>
>>
>> I don't apologize for language that sounds like any of those, either.
>>
>> Nor do I apologize for the 'lame phrase.' Brevity and the point are
>> reason enough.
>>
>> I do apologize for the misspelling. State spelling champ, I should be
>> able to spell insignificant.
>
> That's the one thing you should almost never worry about in newsgroup
> posts. Main rule of usenet: Typos are to be systematically ignored
> unless they seriously alter meaning.
>
>>
>> But that you don't like my explanations, or my advice is your right.
>> As I said, accept nor not. Employ or not. Present your own points, or
>> not.
>>
>> But arguing is silly.
>
> It's called discussion. It's what NG's are all about.


No, you argue. Discussion is something useful.

On 10/2/09 16:14 , Alan Browne wrote:
> D. Peter Maus wrote:
>> On 9/30/09 18:24 , Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
>>> "Alan Browne" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:du-(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> D. Peter Maus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But arguing with it is silly.
>>>>
>>>> So are your long explanations punctuated with marketing dribble of the
>>>> sort: " And that's not an insigificant <sic> sum. But what's your
>>>> camera
>>>> worth? " followed by lame phrases such as " Penny-wise, pound foolish.
>>>> ".
>>>
>>> Oh, shut up you pompous prick. Just because you have an expensive camera
>>> and
>>> your friends don't have the balls to criticise your BORING photographs
>>> doesn't make you special. Grow a brain and some social skills.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Nawww...that would only make him common. Take away being an ass, and
>> he's got no personality at all.
>
> Ironic that you reply to Hardwidge with such. A mutual admiration
> society of two who have little admirable to say!

Again, making my point for me.

Thank you .

On 10/2/09 16:16 , Alan Browne wrote:
> notbob wrote:
>> On 2009-10-01, D. Peter Maus <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> Real knowledge doesn't need to show itself off.
>>>
>>> Real ability will readily share.
>>>
>>> Real skill rarely needs PR.
>>>
>>> Real confidence is generous.
>>>
>>> Real strength is civil.
>>
>> Do you always use platitudes?
>
> <sigh> it does appear so. See his claim to "years of writing marketing
> material. I suppose it's not his fault - it's induced.



It paid for the helicopter. I'm not about to complain.

On 10/3/09 14:10 , Alan Browne wrote:
> D. Peter Maus wrote:
>> On 10/2/09 16:16 , Alan Browne wrote:
>>> notbob wrote:
>>>> On 2009-10-01, D. Peter Maus <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Real knowledge doesn't need to show itself off.
>>>>>
>>>>> Real ability will readily share.
>>>>>
>>>>> Real skill rarely needs PR.
>>>>>
>>>>> Real confidence is generous.
>>>>>
>>>>> Real strength is civil.
>>>>
>>>> Do you always use platitudes?
>>>
>>> <sigh> it does appear so. See his claim to "years of writing marketing
>>> material. I suppose it's not his fault - it's induced.
>>
>>
>>
>> It paid for the helicopter. I'm not about to complain.
>
> What type of helicopter?



4 seat, single.

> On 10/2/09 16:13 , Alan Browne wrote:
>> D. Peter Maus wrote:
>>> On 9/30/09 17:49 , Alan Browne wrote:

>>>> So are your long explanations punctuated with marketing dribble of the
>>>> sort: " And that's not an insigificant <sic> sum. But what's your
>>>> camera
>>>> worth? " followed by lame phrases such as " Penny-wise, pound
>>>> foolish. ".
>>>>
>>>

>>> I do apologize for the misspelling. State spelling champ, I should be
>>> able to spell insignificant.
>>
>> That's the one thing you should almost never worry about in newsgroup
>> posts. Main rule of usenet: Typos are to be systematically ignored
>> unless they seriously alter meaning.
>>


You may wish to take your own counsel, Alan.

On 10/3/09 16:41 , Alan Browne wrote:
> D. Peter Maus wrote:
>> On 10/3/09 14:10 , Alan Browne wrote:
>>> D. Peter Maus wrote:
>>>> On 10/2/09 16:16 , Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>> notbob wrote:
>>>>>> On 2009-10-01, D. Peter Maus <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Real knowledge doesn't need to show itself off.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Real ability will readily share.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Real skill rarely needs PR.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Real confidence is generous.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Real strength is civil.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you always use platitudes?
>>>>>
>>>>> <sigh> it does appear so. See his claim to "years of writing marketing
>>>>> material. I suppose it's not his fault - it's induced.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It paid for the helicopter. I'm not about to complain.
>>>
>>> What type of helicopter?
>>
>>
>>
>> 4 seat, single.
>>
>>
>
> What manufacturer / model? (though I'm beginning to suspect which).


R-44. It was a lease.

"If it floats, ****s or flies, rent it."

On 10/4/09 07:02 , Alan Browne wrote:
> D. Peter Maus wrote:
>> On 10/3/09 16:41 , Alan Browne wrote:
> n
>>>>
>>>
>>> What manufacturer / model? (though I'm beginning to suspect which).
>>
>>
>> R-44. It was a lease.
>
> Thought so. I have vowed never to get into a piston powered helicopter.
> Good luck and keep up the SFAR-73 training.
>


I didn't fly it. I had a pilot. Business insurance didn't permit
me to fly my own aircraft. When I changed directions, the aircraft
was less necessary. So, I let the lease go. Also ending the
insurance restrictions.

When I took my training, it was in an R-22. Later in R-44.
SFAR-73 training is a non-issue. If you're going to be safe in the
aircraft, you do what it takes to learn that aircraft and its
idiosyncracies. Learning R-22/44 emergency procedures is a process
that's unique to the aircraft, but not unique to helicopter
aviation. Learn the aircraft, SFAR-73 takes care of itself.

I do a semi-annual flight review, anyway, as a matter of choice.
SFAR-73 requirements are met.


> BTW: does the R-44 have a governor or do you have to maintain
> torque/rotor RPM manually?


All the Robbies have governors. So will the upcoming R-66. Light
rotor systems increase pilot work load to maintain rpms, especially
in gusty winds, so governors are necessary. And they're required on
Robbies in order to launch legally. Part of training, though, is
maintaining rotor rpms manually, as well. So, you can maintain
manually, if you choose. But that's not a good idea as a safety matter.

But even the Bells have governors. So did late 47's.

Pistons are ok. Kind of fun, actually. R-44 is rather quiet,
comparatively...most of the time, a headset isn't necessary...and it
kind of sounds like a Porsche inside...and it's designed
aerodynamically such that I can sit in the back with the door off
for aerial shooting, and not have to worry about being blown around
the cabin. Shooting from the back of a 206 isn't quite as calm.
Shooting boat races from a 206 is flat out WORK.

I don't mind turbines. They're smooth, potent. And the Bells can
be cushy flying. With the best safety record in single engine
aviation. But I enjoy the retro sounds, and sensations of a piston
aircraft. I did an aerial from Sault Ste. Marie last year in a J-3
that was a blast. A chilly blast, but a blast, nonethess.

Although, when I'm shooting, it's just me and the lens.
Everything else is grey background.

On 10/4/09 11:31 , Alan Browne wrote:
> D. Peter Maus wrote:
>> On 10/4/09 07:02 , Alan Browne wrote:
>>> D. Peter Maus wrote:
>>>> On 10/3/09 16:41 , Alan Browne wrote:
>>> n
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What manufacturer / model? (though I'm beginning to suspect which).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> R-44. It was a lease.
>>>
>>> Thought so. I have vowed never to get into a piston powered helicopter.
>>> Good luck and keep up the SFAR-73 training.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I didn't fly it. I had a pilot. Business insurance didn't permit me to
>> fly my own aircraft. When I changed directions, the aircraft was less
>> necessary. So, I let the lease go. Also ending the insurance
>> restrictions.
>>
>> When I took my training, it was in an R-22. Later in R-44. SFAR-73
>> training is a non-issue. If you're going to be safe in the aircraft,
>> you do what it takes to learn that aircraft and its idiosyncracies.
>
> It is an issue. Not many a/c have SFAR's.



While that's true, if you train to learn the a/c's
idiosyncracies, you cover the material necessary to meet the SFAR.
Without the SFAR, you lear to treat a/c interchangeably. With the
SFAR, you learn the specifics of the a/c you have your ass in.

If you focus your training on the a/c at hand, instead of your
experience with other a/c, the SFAR is covered.


>
>> Learning R-22/44 emergency procedures is a process that's unique to
>> the aircraft, but not unique to helicopter aviation. Learn the
>> aircraft, SFAR-73 takes care of itself.
>>
>> I do a semi-annual flight review, anyway, as a matter of choice.
>> SFAR-73 requirements are met.
>>
>>
>>> BTW: does the R-44 have a governor or do you have to maintain
>>> torque/rotor RPM manually?
>>
>>
>> All the Robbies have governors. So will the upcoming R-66. Light rotor
>> systems increase pilot work load to maintain rpms, especially in gusty
>> winds, so governors are necessary. And they're required on Robbies in
>> order to launch legally. Part of training, though, is maintaining
>> rotor rpms manually, as well. So, you can maintain manually, if you
>> choose. But that's not a good idea as a safety matter.
>>
>> But even the Bells have governors. So did late 47's.
>
> I've never heard of a turbine helo that didn't, but I know many piston
> helos did not.


At one time, yes. Not so much anymore.

>
>>
>> Pistons are ok. Kind of fun, actually. R-44 is rather quiet,
>> comparatively...most of the time, a headset isn't necessary...and it
>> kind of sounds like a Porsche inside...and it's designed
>> aerodynamically such that I can sit in the back with the door off for
>> aerial shooting, and not have to worry about being blown around the
>> cabin. Shooting from the back of a 206 isn't quite as calm. Shooting
>> boat races from a 206 is flat out WORK.
>>
>> I don't mind turbines. They're smooth, potent. And the Bells can be
>> cushy flying. With the best safety record in single engine aviation.
>> But I enjoy the retro sounds, and sensations of a piston aircraft. I
>> did an aerial from Sault Ste. Marie last year in a J-3 that was a
>> blast. A chilly blast, but a blast, nonethess.
>
> If I transition to rotary, I'll do it in an old 206B or perhaps a S-333
> with a turbine. Helos were never meant to have piston engines.


There's some history to support your thinking, on that. Factory
experiments with turbines go back to the 47-G. Compact power, less
vibration. Eliminates a lot of sins on the airframe. Even Arthur
Young commented on the inate benefits of turbines in rotorcraft.

But there is nothing like stick time in a 47.