On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 08:32:10 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 8:14:27 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 11/13/2021 6:28 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 4:25:11 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 15:53:49 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
>> >> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 3:33:13 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>> >>>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 15:09:07 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 12:27:02 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
>> >>>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 10:38:37 AM UTC-8, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 07:36:09 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
>> >>>>>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 7:21:08 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> By the way Jeff - was my 72 mile ride so much more bicycling than you did this year driving you mad and you simply had to make a comment showing what a complete and utter ass you are?
>> >>>>>>> I like the way you framed the question and provided me with your
>> >>>>>>> choice of answer and conclusion, all in one sentence. Yes, I'm
>> >>>>>>> impressed with your ability to complete a 72 mile ride. I'm sure
>> >>>>>>> you're aware that I currently have problems riding more then a mile or
>> >>>>>>> two. Comparing your exemplary performance to my limited abilities is
>> >>>>>>> not really a worthwhile exercise. Please note that my comments were
>> >>>>>>> not about your riding ability, but rather about your inability to
>> >>>>>>> recall the correct names and spelling of two former employers.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> You're also well aware that anyone with an ounce of integrity would not be making ignorant comments about the spelling of someone that hadn't worked there in 25 years. Longer for the Berkeley lab although I did have a call a couple of years ago when an old manager wanted me to complete a project there. Maybe the most important thing in your life is the spelling of things but I really have more important things to do.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Try reading what I wrote, not what you would like to have seen me
>> >>>>> write. I was complaining about your inability to correctly identify
>> >>>>> the names of two of your alleged past employers. Spelling errors and
>> >>>>> common on Usenet and are easily forgiven. Screwing up the company
>> >>>>> names of employers you would certainly have used hundreds of times
>> >>>>> during the duration of your alleged employment is not so easily
>> >>>>> excusable and probably a good indication that you were never employed
>> >>>>> by either company (or research aggregator). If your memory of past
>> >>>>> employers names is failing, you might consider looking for the correct
>> >>>>> names on your online resume:
>> >>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-kunich-22012/>
>> >>>>> Oh, they're not on your resume. Perhaps you should Google for the
>> >>>>> correct names and spelling instead of guessing?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Thanks for disclosing approximately when you allegedly worked for LLNL
>> >>>>> and LBL. That would be in about:
>> >>>>> 2021 - 25 = 1996
>> >>>>> Your resume indicates that you were working for Datum from Nov 1995 to
>> >>>>> Mar 1997 in San Jose. Did you work at 2 (or 3) jobs at the same time?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> If you can't ride more than a mile or two now you will never advance beyond that.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I didn't know that you were a medical practitioner. How did you get
>> >>>>> enough information to offer such a prognosis? Are you clairvoyant?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> [ 12 minutes wasted ]
>> >>>> Well Jeff, he was also bombing Vietnam from Guam while he was
>> >>>> stationed at Lowry AFB so with his military experience it would be
>> >>>> easy to work two jobs at the same time, in the same state.
>> >>>> AND! He probably did it while riding 75 miles a day on his bicycle.
>> >>>
>> >>> Gee, more comments from the guy that doesn't know how long a hitch was for and talks about Vietnam even though he was never there.
>> >> Yup, and I was never in Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Cambodia,
>> >> Laos, Indonesia, or Thailand either.
>> >>
>> >> Tommy, I have to "take back" that poem about Tom, Tom, the Piper's
>> >> son. You aren't even competent to steal pigs.
>> >
>> > Tell me John, what part of that war used B50's?
>> >
>> https://nuke.fas.org/guide/usa/bomber/b-50.htm
>>
>> https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/bomber-you-never-heard-meet-b-50-bomber-111681
>
>There was a video of a B50 on YouTube. One of the striking differences was the movement of the gun nacelles strongly suggested a central electromechanical fire control system. All of the guns moved synchronously. That would mean that only a single central gunner was used and the other four crewmen were ladies in waiting as it were if the fire control system failed. While failures of these sorts of fire control systems were not unusual, neither were they common. B52 D's had the tailgunner situated in the tail of the aircraft but by the H model they were in the central cabin with a real ejection seat instead of pushing out the gun and jumping out manually.
>
Yup, you seen it on youtube and therefore you know all about it.
Right? While I worked on them and thus don't know anything about it?
Your logic is irrefutable.

>I do find it interesting that a lifer that was a so-called crew chief on a B50 didn't know that it was really a B29 redesignated.

A B29 re designated? And again you exhibit your ignorance. It might
look a bit like a B-29 to the uninitiated (which you certainly are)
but if you actually worked on them you'd know difference.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 2:35:08 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 08:32:10 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 8:14:27 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 11/13/2021 6:28 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> > On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 4:25:11 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 15:53:49 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> >> >> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 3:33:13 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
> >> >>>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 15:09:07 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio..com>
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 12:27:02 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> >> >>>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 10:38:37 AM UTC-8, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 07:36:09 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> >> >>>>>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 7:21:08 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>> By the way Jeff - was my 72 mile ride so much more bicycling than you did this year driving you mad and you simply had to make a comment showing what a complete and utter ass you are?
> >> >>>>>>> I like the way you framed the question and provided me with your
> >> >>>>>>> choice of answer and conclusion, all in one sentence. Yes, I'm
> >> >>>>>>> impressed with your ability to complete a 72 mile ride. I'm sure
> >> >>>>>>> you're aware that I currently have problems riding more then a mile or
> >> >>>>>>> two. Comparing your exemplary performance to my limited abilities is
> >> >>>>>>> not really a worthwhile exercise. Please note that my comments were
> >> >>>>>>> not about your riding ability, but rather about your inability to
> >> >>>>>>> recall the correct names and spelling of two former employers.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> You're also well aware that anyone with an ounce of integrity would not be making ignorant comments about the spelling of someone that hadn't worked there in 25 years. Longer for the Berkeley lab although I did have a call a couple of years ago when an old manager wanted me to complete a project there. Maybe the most important thing in your life is the spelling of things but I really have more important things to do.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Try reading what I wrote, not what you would like to have seen me
> >> >>>>> write. I was complaining about your inability to correctly identify
> >> >>>>> the names of two of your alleged past employers. Spelling errors and
> >> >>>>> common on Usenet and are easily forgiven. Screwing up the company
> >> >>>>> names of employers you would certainly have used hundreds of times
> >> >>>>> during the duration of your alleged employment is not so easily
> >> >>>>> excusable and probably a good indication that you were never employed
> >> >>>>> by either company (or research aggregator). If your memory of past
> >> >>>>> employers names is failing, you might consider looking for the correct
> >> >>>>> names on your online resume:
> >> >>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-kunich-22012/>
> >> >>>>> Oh, they're not on your resume. Perhaps you should Google for the
> >> >>>>> correct names and spelling instead of guessing?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Thanks for disclosing approximately when you allegedly worked for LLNL
> >> >>>>> and LBL. That would be in about:
> >> >>>>> 2021 - 25 = 1996
> >> >>>>> Your resume indicates that you were working for Datum from Nov 1995 to
> >> >>>>> Mar 1997 in San Jose. Did you work at 2 (or 3) jobs at the same time?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> If you can't ride more than a mile or two now you will never advance beyond that.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> I didn't know that you were a medical practitioner. How did you get
> >> >>>>> enough information to offer such a prognosis? Are you clairvoyant?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> [ 12 minutes wasted ]
> >> >>>> Well Jeff, he was also bombing Vietnam from Guam while he was
> >> >>>> stationed at Lowry AFB so with his military experience it would be
> >> >>>> easy to work two jobs at the same time, in the same state.
> >> >>>> AND! He probably did it while riding 75 miles a day on his bicycle.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Gee, more comments from the guy that doesn't know how long a hitch was for and talks about Vietnam even though he was never there.
> >> >> Yup, and I was never in Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Cambodia,
> >> >> Laos, Indonesia, or Thailand either.
> >> >>
> >> >> Tommy, I have to "take back" that poem about Tom, Tom, the Piper's
> >> >> son. You aren't even competent to steal pigs.
> >> >
> >> > Tell me John, what part of that war used B50's?
> >> >
> >> https://nuke.fas.org/guide/usa/bomber/b-50.htm
> >>
> >> https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/bomber-you-never-heard-meet-b-50-bomber-111681
> >
> >There was a video of a B50 on YouTube. One of the striking differences was the movement of the gun nacelles strongly suggested a central electromechanical fire control system. All of the guns moved synchronously. That would mean that only a single central gunner was used and the other four crewmen were ladies in waiting as it were if the fire control system failed. While failures of these sorts of fire control systems were not unusual, neither were they common. B52 D's had the tailgunner situated in the tail of the aircraft but by the H model they were in the central cabin with a real ejection seat instead of pushing out the gun and jumping out manually.
> >
> Yup, you seen it on youtube and therefore you know all about it.
> Right? While I worked on them and thus don't know anything about it?
> Your logic is irrefutable.
> >I do find it interesting that a lifer that was a so-called crew chief on a B50 didn't know that it was really a B29 redesignated.
> A B29 re designated? And again you exhibit your ignorance. It might
> look a bit like a B-29 to the uninitiated (which you certainly are)
> but if you actually worked on them you'd know difference.

You're so good at using Google it surprises me that you didn't bother to read Andrew's reference: "The end of World War II saw the cancellation of B-29 orders. To rescue the program, the military redesignated the B-29D as the B-50 to imply the aircraft incorporated more original design features than was actually the case—hardly the first nor the last time misleading aircraft designations have been adopted for political purposes."

So, Johnny, what were these "differences" that you think that anyone would be able to see.

On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 14:49:05 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 2:35:08 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 08:32:10 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 8:14:27 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> >> On 11/13/2021 6:28 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> >> > On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 4:25:11 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>> >> >> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 15:53:49 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
>> >> >> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 3:33:13 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>> >> >>>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 15:09:07 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>> >> >>>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 12:27:02 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
>> >> >>>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 10:38:37 AM UTC-8, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 07:36:09 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
>> >> >>>>>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 7:21:08 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>> By the way Jeff - was my 72 mile ride so much more bicycling than you did this year driving you mad and you simply had to make a comment showing what a complete and utter ass you are?
>> >> >>>>>>> I like the way you framed the question and provided me with your
>> >> >>>>>>> choice of answer and conclusion, all in one sentence. Yes, I'm
>> >> >>>>>>> impressed with your ability to complete a 72 mile ride. I'm sure
>> >> >>>>>>> you're aware that I currently have problems riding more then a mile or
>> >> >>>>>>> two. Comparing your exemplary performance to my limited abilities is
>> >> >>>>>>> not really a worthwhile exercise. Please note that my comments were
>> >> >>>>>>> not about your riding ability, but rather about your inability to
>> >> >>>>>>> recall the correct names and spelling of two former employers.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> You're also well aware that anyone with an ounce of integrity would not be making ignorant comments about the spelling of someone that hadn't worked there in 25 years. Longer for the Berkeley lab although I did have a call a couple of years ago when an old manager wanted me to complete a project there. Maybe the most important thing in your life is the spelling of things but I really have more important things to do.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Try reading what I wrote, not what you would like to have seen me
>> >> >>>>> write. I was complaining about your inability to correctly identify
>> >> >>>>> the names of two of your alleged past employers. Spelling errors and
>> >> >>>>> common on Usenet and are easily forgiven. Screwing up the company
>> >> >>>>> names of employers you would certainly have used hundreds of times
>> >> >>>>> during the duration of your alleged employment is not so easily
>> >> >>>>> excusable and probably a good indication that you were never employed
>> >> >>>>> by either company (or research aggregator). If your memory of past
>> >> >>>>> employers names is failing, you might consider looking for the correct
>> >> >>>>> names on your online resume:
>> >> >>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-kunich-22012/>
>> >> >>>>> Oh, they're not on your resume. Perhaps you should Google for the
>> >> >>>>> correct names and spelling instead of guessing?
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Thanks for disclosing approximately when you allegedly worked for LLNL
>> >> >>>>> and LBL. That would be in about:
>> >> >>>>> 2021 - 25 = 1996
>> >> >>>>> Your resume indicates that you were working for Datum from Nov 1995 to
>> >> >>>>> Mar 1997 in San Jose. Did you work at 2 (or 3) jobs at the same time?
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> If you can't ride more than a mile or two now you will never advance beyond that.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> I didn't know that you were a medical practitioner. How did you get
>> >> >>>>> enough information to offer such a prognosis? Are you clairvoyant?
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> [ 12 minutes wasted ]
>> >> >>>> Well Jeff, he was also bombing Vietnam from Guam while he was
>> >> >>>> stationed at Lowry AFB so with his military experience it would be
>> >> >>>> easy to work two jobs at the same time, in the same state.
>> >> >>>> AND! He probably did it while riding 75 miles a day on his bicycle.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Gee, more comments from the guy that doesn't know how long a hitch was for and talks about Vietnam even though he was never there.
>> >> >> Yup, and I was never in Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Cambodia,
>> >> >> Laos, Indonesia, or Thailand either.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Tommy, I have to "take back" that poem about Tom, Tom, the Piper's
>> >> >> son. You aren't even competent to steal pigs.
>> >> >
>> >> > Tell me John, what part of that war used B50's?
>> >> >
>> >> https://nuke.fas.org/guide/usa/bomber/b-50.htm
>> >>
>> >> https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/bomber-you-never-heard-meet-b-50-bomber-111681
>> >
>> >There was a video of a B50 on YouTube. One of the striking differences was the movement of the gun nacelles strongly suggested a central electromechanical fire control system. All of the guns moved synchronously. That would mean that only a single central gunner was used and the other four crewmen were ladies in waiting as it were if the fire control system failed. While failures of these sorts of fire control systems were not unusual, neither were they common. B52 D's had the tailgunner situated in the tail of the aircraft but by the H model they were in the central cabin with a real ejection seat instead of pushing out the gun and jumping out manually.
>> >
>> Yup, you seen it on youtube and therefore you know all about it.
>> Right? While I worked on them and thus don't know anything about it?
>> Your logic is irrefutable.
>> >I do find it interesting that a lifer that was a so-called crew chief on a B50 didn't know that it was really a B29 redesignated.
>> A B29 re designated? And again you exhibit your ignorance. It might
>> look a bit like a B-29 to the uninitiated (which you certainly are)
>> but if you actually worked on them you'd know difference.
>
>You're so good at using Google it surprises me that you didn't bother to read Andrew's reference: "The end of World War II saw the cancellation of B-29 orders. To rescue the program, the military redesignated the B-29D as the B-50 to imply the aircraft incorporated more original design features than was actually the case—hardly the first nor the last time misleading aircraft designations have been adopted for political purposes."
>
>So, Johnny, what were these "differences" that you think that anyone would be able to see.

Well, lets see:

Revisions to the B-50 (from its predecessor B-29) would boost top
speed to just under 400 miles per hour (640 km/h). Changes included:

More powerful engines
Redesigned engine nacelles and engine mounts
Enlarged vertical tail and rudder (to maintain adequate yaw
control during engine-out conditions)
Reinforced wing structure (required due to increased engine mass,
larger gyroscopic forces from larger propellers, greater fuel load,
and revised landing gear loading)
Revised routing for engine gases (cooling, intake, exhaust and
intercooler ducts; also oil lines)
Upgraded remote turret fire-control equipment
Landing gear strengthened and takeoff weight increased from
133,500 pounds (60,600 kg) to 173,000 pounds (78,000 kg)
Increased fuel capacity with underwing fuel tanks being added.[13]
Improvements to flight control systems (the B-29 was difficult to
fly; with increased weights the B-50 would have been more so).
Nose wheel steering rather than a castering nose wheel as on the
B-29

On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 4:16:22 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 14:49:05 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 2:35:08 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
> >> On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 08:32:10 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> >> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 8:14:27 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> >> >> On 11/13/2021 6:28 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> >> > On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 4:25:11 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
> >> >> >> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 15:53:49 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> >> >> >> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 3:33:13 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
> >> >> >>>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 15:09:07 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
> >> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 12:27:02 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> >> >> >>>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 10:38:37 AM UTC-8, jeff.li....@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 07:36:09 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> >> >> >>>>>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 7:21:08 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>>>> By the way Jeff - was my 72 mile ride so much more bicycling than you did this year driving you mad and you simply had to make a comment showing what a complete and utter ass you are?
> >> >> >>>>>>> I like the way you framed the question and provided me with your
> >> >> >>>>>>> choice of answer and conclusion, all in one sentence. Yes, I'm
> >> >> >>>>>>> impressed with your ability to complete a 72 mile ride. I'm sure
> >> >> >>>>>>> you're aware that I currently have problems riding more then a mile or
> >> >> >>>>>>> two. Comparing your exemplary performance to my limited abilities is
> >> >> >>>>>>> not really a worthwhile exercise. Please note that my comments were
> >> >> >>>>>>> not about your riding ability, but rather about your inability to
> >> >> >>>>>>> recall the correct names and spelling of two former employers.
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>> You're also well aware that anyone with an ounce of integrity would not be making ignorant comments about the spelling of someone that hadn't worked there in 25 years. Longer for the Berkeley lab although I did have a call a couple of years ago when an old manager wanted me to complete a project there. Maybe the most important thing in your life is the spelling of things but I really have more important things to do.
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> Try reading what I wrote, not what you would like to have seen me
> >> >> >>>>> write. I was complaining about your inability to correctly identify
> >> >> >>>>> the names of two of your alleged past employers. Spelling errors and
> >> >> >>>>> common on Usenet and are easily forgiven. Screwing up the company
> >> >> >>>>> names of employers you would certainly have used hundreds of times
> >> >> >>>>> during the duration of your alleged employment is not so easily
> >> >> >>>>> excusable and probably a good indication that you were never employed
> >> >> >>>>> by either company (or research aggregator). If your memory of past
> >> >> >>>>> employers names is failing, you might consider looking for the correct
> >> >> >>>>> names on your online resume:
> >> >> >>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-kunich-22012/>
> >> >> >>>>> Oh, they're not on your resume. Perhaps you should Google for the
> >> >> >>>>> correct names and spelling instead of guessing?
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> Thanks for disclosing approximately when you allegedly worked for LLNL
> >> >> >>>>> and LBL. That would be in about:
> >> >> >>>>> 2021 - 25 = 1996
> >> >> >>>>> Your resume indicates that you were working for Datum from Nov 1995 to
> >> >> >>>>> Mar 1997 in San Jose. Did you work at 2 (or 3) jobs at the same time?
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>> If you can't ride more than a mile or two now you will never advance beyond that.
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> I didn't know that you were a medical practitioner. How did you get
> >> >> >>>>> enough information to offer such a prognosis? Are you clairvoyant?
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> [ 12 minutes wasted ]
> >> >> >>>> Well Jeff, he was also bombing Vietnam from Guam while he was
> >> >> >>>> stationed at Lowry AFB so with his military experience it would be
> >> >> >>>> easy to work two jobs at the same time, in the same state.
> >> >> >>>> AND! He probably did it while riding 75 miles a day on his bicycle.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Gee, more comments from the guy that doesn't know how long a hitch was for and talks about Vietnam even though he was never there.
> >> >> >> Yup, and I was never in Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Cambodia,
> >> >> >> Laos, Indonesia, or Thailand either.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Tommy, I have to "take back" that poem about Tom, Tom, the Piper's
> >> >> >> son. You aren't even competent to steal pigs.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Tell me John, what part of that war used B50's?
> >> >> >
> >> >> https://nuke.fas.org/guide/usa/bomber/b-50.htm
> >> >>
> >> >> https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/bomber-you-never-heard-meet-b-50-bomber-111681
> >> >
> >> >There was a video of a B50 on YouTube. One of the striking differences was the movement of the gun nacelles strongly suggested a central electromechanical fire control system. All of the guns moved synchronously. That would mean that only a single central gunner was used and the other four crewmen were ladies in waiting as it were if the fire control system failed. While failures of these sorts of fire control systems were not unusual, neither were they common. B52 D's had the tailgunner situated in the tail of the aircraft but by the H model they were in the central cabin with a real ejection seat instead of pushing out the gun and jumping out manually.
> >> >
> >> Yup, you seen it on youtube and therefore you know all about it.
> >> Right? While I worked on them and thus don't know anything about it?
> >> Your logic is irrefutable.
> >> >I do find it interesting that a lifer that was a so-called crew chief on a B50 didn't know that it was really a B29 redesignated.
> >> A B29 re designated? And again you exhibit your ignorance. It might
> >> look a bit like a B-29 to the uninitiated (which you certainly are)
> >> but if you actually worked on them you'd know difference.
> >
> >You're so good at using Google it surprises me that you didn't bother to read Andrew's reference: "The end of World War II saw the cancellation of B-29 orders. To rescue the program, the military redesignated the B-29D as the B-50 to imply the aircraft incorporated more original design features than was actually the case—hardly the first nor the last time misleading aircraft designations have been adopted for political purposes."
> >
> >So, Johnny, what were these "differences" that you think that anyone would be able to see.
> Well, lets see:
>
> Revisions to the B-50 (from its predecessor B-29) would boost top
> speed to just under 400 miles per hour (640 km/h). Changes included:
>
> More powerful engines
> Redesigned engine nacelles and engine mounts
> Enlarged vertical tail and rudder (to maintain adequate yaw
> control during engine-out conditions)
> Reinforced wing structure (required due to increased engine mass,
> larger gyroscopic forces from larger propellers, greater fuel load,
> and revised landing gear loading)
> Revised routing for engine gases (cooling, intake, exhaust and
> intercooler ducts; also oil lines)
> Upgraded remote turret fire-control equipment
> Landing gear strengthened and takeoff weight increased from
> 133,500 pounds (60,600 kg) to 173,000 pounds (78,000 kg)
> Increased fuel capacity with underwing fuel tanks being added.[13]
> Improvements to flight control systems (the B-29 was difficult to
> fly; with increased weights the B-50 would have been more so).
> Nose wheel steering rather than a castering nose wheel as on the
> B-29
>
> I might mention that there was sufficient difference for the A.F. to
> organize a training course for the maintenance people who would be
> assigned to the "new" system.