John Kulp wrote:
>
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 14:09:31 +1200, Greg Procter
ihug.co.nz>
> wrote:
> >>John Kulp wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 07:04:06 +1200, Greg Procter
ihug.co.nz>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>John Kulp wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 14:55:43 +1200, Greg Procter
ihug.co.nz>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> You've done it again. You know jack shit about airplanes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The DC-3 was and still is the most successful airplane the world has ever
>>>>>>> seen. There are still around 400 in service. Vickers Viscounts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sure it's up there amongst the most successful aircraft - but have you
>>>>>>flown in one? Would you want to do a trans-Atlantic flight in one? They
>>>>>>are like (I imagine) rattling around in an in-use snare-drum at a heavy
>>>>>>metal convention.
>>>>>>It's like riding a badly worn loaner Harley home while the BMW is in for
>>>>>>service.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are 3 Viscounts still in service according to Wikipedia. Speaks
>>>>> for itself doesn't it? Only Proctologist would come up with some
>>>>> nonsense like this in the jet age.
>>>>
>>>>My book said four - I guess either one has gone in the meantime or
>>>>Wikipaedia is wrong. What-ever, that's near enough.
>>>>Proportionately the remainder is close.
>>>
>>> 3 are in service and 1 is sitting around somewhere.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Douglas built the right plane for 1934 after 2 abortive tries (DC1 and
>>>>DC2) and it was well out of date by 1939. It just happened to still be
>>>>in the design book when the US urgently needed a transport plane from
>>>>1941.
>>>
>>> Sure, that's why 13,000 were built and 400+ are still in service.
>>> Because it was out of date by 1939. Don't have a clue do you?
>>
>>
>>Actually, yes I do - which leaves you in the totally clueless category.
>>Technology moved on - Douglas moved on to the DC4 etc.
>
> Sure genius. The world moved on and the DC3s are still flying moron.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>Vickers built the right plane for 1954 without any abortive tries but it
>>>>was out of date by 1959 when air transport was snowballing. Fortunately
>>>>there wasn't a World War in 1961 so tens of thousands weren't built as
>>>>military transport planes.
>>>
>>> Then why are over 400 still in service 47 years after 1961 then? DC3s
>>> that is.
>>
>>Because (and I very much doubt that 400 are still in service today after
>>the total got down to 250 fifteen years ago) the design was put back
>>into production for WWII transport, being the most appropriate design
>>the US had for those requirements.
>
> Who cares what you doubt. You still haven't posted one source for
> your babbling and no one's interested in your stupid fantasies.
Hey Fuckwit, neither Seth, nor you have posted one source for your
babblings. You started it so _you_ post a believable source - then I
refute it if I can. See how that works?
Wikipedia isn't a source, it's a collection of generally uninformed
postings.
Learn to live with it.
Do
> you really think that just repeateding the same old crap with no proof
> gives you any credibility? Idiot.
You posted unsourced crap - I said it was wrong - your call.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Just everyone would really like to
>>>>> lumber along up and down across the Atlantic in either one of these
>>>>> crates. And just when you thought he couldn't get any dumber.
>>>
>>> You did. I never heard of anyone crossing the Atlantic in a DC3 since
>>> WWII, but that passes you right by doesn't it genius?
>>
>>
>>Hmmm, so people have flown the Atlantic in DC3s - a fact that flew right
>>past you.
>
> We're talking about now moron. You're the only one living in the
> 1940s.
You're saying a DC3 couldn't fly the Atlantic?
That a DC3 not flying the Atlantic is superior to a Vickers Viscount not
flying the Atlantic?
Do you have any idea at all what you imagine you're arguing?
I merely made the point that flying in a Vickers Viscount is preferable
to flying in a Douglas DC3 - what are you, a masochist???
