Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #216281 > unrolled thread

DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-01-13 10:57 -0500
    Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent Marco Scholz <tool@disroot.org> - 2021-01-13 17:09 +0000
      Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-01-13 20:11 -0500
        Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-01-14 08:13 +0000
          Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-01-14 15:35 -0500
      Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-01-14 01:49 -0800
        Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2021-01-15 09:45 +0000
          Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-01-15 11:04 -0800
            Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2021-01-15 18:12 -0500
              Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-01-15 22:10 -0500
                Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2021-01-16 10:05 +0000
              Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-01-20 17:15 +0000
                Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent Robert Netzlof <rnetzlof@gmail.com> - 2021-01-20 09:55 -0800
                Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2021-01-20 20:14 +0000
                Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2021-01-20 20:06 -0500
                  Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-01-21 02:30 +0000
                    Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2021-01-21 15:29 -0500
                Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> - 2021-02-23 21:49 +0000
                  Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent Daniel <me@sci.fidan.com> - 2021-02-23 23:38 -0800
                    Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-02-24 09:27 -0700
                      Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-02-24 12:13 -0500
                      Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-02-24 17:13 +0000
                        Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2021-02-24 12:52 -0600
                    Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-02-24 17:33 +0000
                      Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-02-24 19:20 -0500
                        Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-02-25 21:06 -0500
                          Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent Robert Swindells <rjs@fdy2.co.uk> - 2021-02-26 14:06 +0000
                            Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-02-26 17:21 -0500
                              Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-02-26 22:05 -0800
                                Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2021-02-27 06:39 +0000
                                Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-02-26 22:45 -0800
                                Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-02-27 02:24 -0500
                                Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-02-27 10:32 -0500
                            Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-02-26 20:55 -0500
                              Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent Robert Swindells <rjs@fdy2.co.uk> - 2021-02-27 13:57 +0000
                                Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-02-27 09:43 -0500
                                  Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-02-27 10:23 -0500
                              Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2021-02-28 21:11 +0000
                              Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> - 2021-03-14 19:57 +0000
                          Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-02-26 07:17 -0800
                            Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-02-26 15:23 +0000
                        Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-02-26 07:14 -0800
                          Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-02-26 19:42 +0000
                          Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-02-26 19:41 +0000
                            Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent Daniel <me@sci.fidan.com> - 2021-02-27 01:19 -0800
                              Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-02-27 10:21 +0000
                      Re: DEC wash better than you ordinary detergent Daniel <me@sci.fidan.com> - 2021-02-25 03:58 -0800

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#217114

On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 09:27:24 -0700, Peter Flass
<peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Daniel <me@sci.fidan.com> wrote:
>> David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> writes:
>> 
>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Moffett Field was a Naval Air Station, which hosted a couple
>>>> of P-3 subhunter squadrons before being decommissioned twenty
>>>> years ago.
>>> 
>>> And more recently, CANG  129th and 130th Wings
>>> 
>>>> The only time U-2 would have used it would be for emergency
>>>> landings or air shows.  The U-2's fly out of Beale AFB near
>>>> Sacramento.
>> 
>> I was waiting in line at a sandwich shop in Lincoln, CA and saw an air
>> force pilot ahead of me with the U2 badge on his shoulder. I checked his
>> rank and wings.
>> 
>> Asked him if it was him who was doing patter flying at Mather Airport
>> the previous day. Indeed it was. I pulled out my smartphone (back then i
>> had a smartphone) and showed him a video I made of him flying. It didn't
>> phase him, as he's used to that.
>> 
>> Anyway, the U2 is my favorite military aircraft and whenever I fly above
>> Beale AFB, I make a point to look for U2's flying below me.
>> 
>
>I loved watching the U2 fly, it was so graceful. I gather for pilots it was
>only slightly more comfortable than flying a broomstick.

At altitude they had something like 5 knots between the stall and the
Mach.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#217115

Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>Daniel <me@sci.fidan.com> wrote:

>> 
>> Anyway, the U2 is my favorite military aircraft and whenever I fly above
>> Beale AFB, I make a point to look for U2's flying below me.
>> 
>
>I loved watching the U2 fly, it was so graceful. I gather for pilots it was
>only slightly more comfortable than flying a broomstick.

Mythbusters did a show on the U-2 where Adam got to fly in the the
back seat of one of the two-seater U-2's;  most are single seat.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#217119

On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 17:13:28 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
>Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>Daniel <me@sci.fidan.com> wrote:
>
>>> 
>>> Anyway, the U2 is my favorite military aircraft and whenever I fly above
>>> Beale AFB, I make a point to look for U2's flying below me.
>>> 
>>
>>I loved watching the U2 fly, it was so graceful. I gather for pilots it was
>>only slightly more comfortable than flying a broomstick.
>
>Mythbusters did a show on the U-2 where Adam got to fly in the the
>back seat of one of the two-seater U-2's;  most are single seat.

I remeber that being their trainer.

-- 
Jim

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#217116

On 2021-02-24, Daniel <me@sci.fidan.com> wrote:

> Anyway, the U2 is my favorite military aircraft and whenever I fly above
> Beale AFB, I make a point to look for U2's flying below me.

I would think it would be more appropriate to look for them
flying waaaaaay above you.  :-)

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  "Some of you may die,
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  but it's a sacrifice
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  I'm willing to make."
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |    -- Lord Farquaad (Shrek)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#217122

On 24 Feb 2021 17:33:22 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
wrote:

>On 2021-02-24, Daniel <me@sci.fidan.com> wrote:
>
>> Anyway, the U2 is my favorite military aircraft and whenever I fly above
>> Beale AFB, I make a point to look for U2's flying below me.
>
>I would think it would be more appropriate to look for them
>flying waaaaaay above you.  :-)

Yeah, if you're looking down on U-2s I wanna be flying whatever
_you're_ flying.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#217137

On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 19:20:07 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> On 24 Feb 2021 17:33:22 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>On 2021-02-24, Daniel <me@sci.fidan.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Anyway, the U2 is my favorite military aircraft and whenever I fly above
>>> Beale AFB, I make a point to look for U2's flying below me.
>>
>>I would think it would be more appropriate to look for them
>>flying waaaaaay above you.  :-)
>
> Yeah, if you're looking down on U-2s I wanna be flying whatever
> _you're_ flying.

I saw a video about the English Electric Lightning jet from the 1950s
reaching the altitude of a U2 cruising at max. altitude. If they weren't
friendly it could had shot down the U2. Then it was also shadowing a
Concorde.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Lightning#Climb_performance>

| In September 1962, Fighter Command organised interception trials on
| Lockheed U-2As at heights of around 60,000-65,000 ft (18,000-20,000 m),
| which were temporarily based at RAF Upper Heyford to monitor Soviet
| nuclear tests. Climb techniques and flight profiles were developed to
| put the Lightning into a suitable attack position. To avoid risking the
| U-2, the Lightning was not permitted any closer than 5,000 ft (1,500 m)
| and could not fly in front of the U-2.

So an English Electric Lightning is what you want to fly. :-D
-- 
Andreas

https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#217144

On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 21:06:39 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 19:20:07 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> On 24 Feb 2021 17:33:22 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2021-02-24, Daniel <me@sci.fidan.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anyway, the U2 is my favorite military aircraft and whenever I fly
>>>> above Beale AFB, I make a point to look for U2's flying below me.
>>>
>>>I would think it would be more appropriate to look for them flying
>>>waaaaaay above you.  :-)
>>
>> Yeah, if you're looking down on U-2s I wanna be flying whatever
>> _you're_ flying.
> 
> So an English Electric Lightning is what you want to fly. :-D

There were also a time when a U-2 near Cuba was told to change heading
to avoid a Concorde at the same altitude.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#217152

On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 14:06:31 -0000 (UTC), Robert Swindells
<rjs@fdy2.co.uk> wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 21:06:39 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 19:20:07 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>> On 24 Feb 2021 17:33:22 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2021-02-24, Daniel <me@sci.fidan.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, the U2 is my favorite military aircraft and whenever I fly
>>>>> above Beale AFB, I make a point to look for U2's flying below me.
>>>>
>>>>I would think it would be more appropriate to look for them flying
>>>>waaaaaay above you.  :-)
>>>
>>> Yeah, if you're looking down on U-2s I wanna be flying whatever
>>> _you're_ flying.
>> 
>> So an English Electric Lightning is what you want to fly. :-D
>
>There were also a time when a U-2 near Cuba was told to change heading
>to avoid a Concorde at the same altitude.

OTOH, nobody who knows how high a U-2 can fly is telling.  That it was
intercepted by Lightnings in exercises and once flew at the same
altitude as a Concorde are interesting but don't mean that it was
pushing its limits on those occasions.

OTGH, they should never have retired Habu.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#217158

On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 3:21:49 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:

> OTOH, nobody who knows how high a U-2 can fly is telling.

No doubt. But it has been declassified that the original RFP for the
U-2 requested the ability to fly at 70,000 feet. So while it may be able
to fly higher than that, I would not expect that it normally flies _much_
higher than that, even when doing reconnaisance.

One can fly almost five times as high - 67 miles high - if one is flying
an X-15. And thenthere's the Space Shuttle. So, indeed, there are things
to fly that would fly higher.

And if they still aren't talking about how high a U-2 can fly, then accurate
information about the altitude of an SR-71 Blackbird would be even harder
to find, but as the pilot is provided with an oxygen mask designed to allow
flight at 80,000 feet, it _seems_ as if it might be just the airplaine you would
want to fly if you want to look down on a U-2.

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#217159

On 27 Feb 2021 at 06:05:04, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 3:21:49 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
> 
>> OTOH, nobody who knows how high a U-2 can fly is telling.
> 
> No doubt. But it has been declassified that the original RFP for the
> U-2 requested the ability to fly at 70,000 feet. So while it may be able
> to fly higher than that, I would not expect that it normally flies _much_
> higher than that, even when doing reconnaisance.
> 
> One can fly almost five times as high - 67 miles high - if one is flying
> an X-15. And thenthere's the Space Shuttle. So, indeed, there are things
> to fly that would fly higher.
> 
> And if they still aren't talking about how high a U-2 can fly, then accurate
> information about the altitude of an SR-71 Blackbird would be even harder
> to find, but as the pilot is provided with an oxygen mask designed to allow
> flight at 80,000 feet, it _seems_ as if it might be just the airplaine you would
> want to fly if you want to look down on a U-2.

An EE Canberra reached 70,310 feet in 1957.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#217160

On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 11:05:05 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:

> One can fly almost five times as high - 67 miles high - if one is flying 
> an X-15.

Speaking of the X-15 reminded me that there was a pioneer company
in space tourism - not one of the ones currently working on less expensive
booster systems - that sought publicity with a contest for a trip into space.

I tried looking it up... apparently the craft involved may have been the
Rocketplane XP. Someone did win their contest, although I don't know if
there was ever a flight... but the images I've seen don't match what I remember,
so I may be thinking of some earlier company.

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#217161

On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 22:05:04 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 3:21:49 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> OTOH, nobody who knows how high a U-2 can fly is telling.
>
>No doubt. But it has been declassified that the original RFP for the
>U-2 requested the ability to fly at 70,000 feet. So while it may be able
>to fly higher than that, I would not expect that it normally flies _much_
>higher than that, even when doing reconnaisance.
>
>One can fly almost five times as high - 67 miles high - if one is flying
>an X-15. And thenthere's the Space Shuttle. So, indeed, there are things
>to fly that would fly higher.
>
>And if they still aren't talking about how high a U-2 can fly, then accurate
>information about the altitude of an SR-71 Blackbird would be even harder
>to find, but as the pilot is provided with an oxygen mask designed to allow
>flight at 80,000 feet, it _seems_ as if it might be just the airplaine you would
>want to fly if you want to look down on a U-2.

In 1976, Habu set a record of 85,069 feet in sustained flight. Whether
they were giving it big sendoff or whether there was still some in
reserve I doubt we'll ever know.

And Habu would be interesting to fly.  So would the Shuttle.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#217172

On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 22:05:04 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc wrote:
>
> And if they still aren't talking about how high a U-2 can fly, then accurate
> information about the altitude of an SR-71 Blackbird would be even harder
> to find, but as the pilot is provided with an oxygen mask designed to allow
> flight at 80,000 feet, it _seems_ as if it might be just the airplaine you would
> want to fly if you want to look down on a U-2.

There are some Youtube videos and pilots describing a dark blue sky
around while flying in daylight.

<https://www.thesr71blackbird.com/Aircraft/Stories/mach-35-over-libya-in-an-sr-71-blackbird>
was flying Mach 3.5 over Libya, accessing the damage an air raid did on
Qaddafi's camps in retaliation for the bombing of a discotheque in
West-Berlin visited by American army personal in 1986. The Blackbird
outran some SAMs fired at it. Just like that.
-- 
Andreas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#217157

On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 14:06:31 -0000 (UTC), Robert Swindells wrote:
>
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 21:06:39 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>
> There were also a time when a U-2 near Cuba was told to change heading
> to avoid a Concorde at the same altitude.

Concordes were flying London (or Paris)-New York, not Havanna.
-- 
Andreas

PGP fingerprint 952B0A9F12C2FD6C9F7E68DAA9C2EA89D1A370E0

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#217167

On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 20:55:58 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 14:06:31 -0000 (UTC), Robert Swindells wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 21:06:39 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>
>> There were also a time when a U-2 near Cuba was told to change heading
>> to avoid a Concorde at the same altitude.
> 
> Concordes were flying London (or Paris)-New York, not Havanna.

They also flew from New York or Washington to Mexico City for a while.

There is a book "Remembering the Dragon Lady" of stories from U-2 pilots, 
it is described in that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#217168

On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 13:57:51 -0000 (UTC), Robert Swindells
<rjs@fdy2.co.uk> wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 20:55:58 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 14:06:31 -0000 (UTC), Robert Swindells wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 21:06:39 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>>
>>> There were also a time when a U-2 near Cuba was told to change heading
>>> to avoid a Concorde at the same altitude.
>> 
>> Concordes were flying London (or Paris)-New York, not Havanna.
>
>They also flew from New York or Washington to Mexico City for a while.

Those were the regular scheduled routes.  There were also charters and
tours.  And according to Air France the Concorde most assuredly did
fly into Havana.

<https://corporate.airfrance.com/en/news/first-flight-concorde-fifty-years-ago#:~:text=%2D%20January%2021%2C%201976%20%2D%20first,Rio%20de%20Janeiro%20via%20Dakar.&text=But%20Concorde%20also%20flew%20to,Greece%20and%20France%2C%20by%20Concorde!>

>There is a book "Remembering the Dragon Lady" of stories from U-2 pilots, 
>it is described in that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#217171

On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 09:43:13 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 13:57:51 -0000 (UTC), Robert Swindells
> <rjs@fdy2.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 20:55:58 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 14:06:31 -0000 (UTC), Robert Swindells wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 21:06:39 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There were also a time when a U-2 near Cuba was told to change heading
>>>> to avoid a Concorde at the same altitude.
>>> 
>>> Concordes were flying London (or Paris)-New York, not Havanna.
>>
>>They also flew from New York or Washington to Mexico City for a while.
>
> Those were the regular scheduled routes.  There were also charters and
> tours.  And according to Air France the Concorde most assuredly did
> fly into Havana.
>
> <https://corporate.airfrance.com/en/news/first-flight-concorde-fifty-years-ago#:~:text=%2D%20January%2021%2C%201976%20%2D%20first,Rio%20de%20Janeiro%20via%20Dakar.&text=But%20Concorde%20also%20flew%20to,Greece%20and%20France%2C%20by%20Concorde!>

Thanks.
-- 
Andreas

PGP fingerprint 952B0A9F12C2FD6C9F7E68DAA9C2EA89D1A370E0

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#217177

On 27/02/2021 01:55, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> Concordes were flying London (or Paris)-New York, not Havanna.

The one I flew in (just once) is parked in Barbados, which was a fairly 
regular route.

It so happens I'll be over there (COVID permitting) this autumn for a 
holiday. I'll go and shed a tear, as I would at the grave of any much 
loved friend.

Andy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#217248

Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> writes:

>On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 14:06:31 -0000 (UTC), Robert Swindells wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 21:06:39 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>
>> There were also a time when a U-2 near Cuba was told to change heading
>> to avoid a Concorde at the same altitude.

>Concordes were flying London (or Paris)-New York, not Havanna.

I saw one departing MIA; as I recall that was a route it then
flew 1<n<7 days a week at the time.

-- 
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#217146

On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 7:06:41 PM UTC-7, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:

> So an English Electric Lightning is what you want to fly. :-D 

Not being an adventurous type, I'll settle for "flying" an English
Electric Leo Marconi... Kay Dee Eff Nine!

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web