What's wrong with this picture?

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:28 am

RyanShort1 wrote:

mustangdriver wrote:

No Nthan here is why it is not Welch that did it first. I will go over this one more time. The Bell X-1 was ready for months to have a run at the sound barrier (something no one on here seems to want to recognize). The rules stated that NACA had the only equipment that could be officially used to measure an aircraft breaking the sound barrier, and if any attempts were made it would not count. So the X-1 team made several flights preparing for the sound barrier flight but never broke it until the NACA equipment would be there. They had to wait for NACA to stop stalling. Once again stated by NACA if we aren't there it doesn't count.

I don't want to get into this argument again, but if a tree falls in a forest and no-one is around, it still makes a noise. NACA or not!

Ryan

Then don't. The official record is that Yeager broke it first. There is really no arguement. Oh by the way I got a hole in one golfing. There was no one there but I did it.

Nathan · **Posted:** Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:39 am

I love a good game of golf! :lol:

gary1954 · **Posted:** Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:40 am

This is through my blackberry, so I didn't read every thing as my eyes are tired. But I do know great art work when I see it, and this is great art work. I would change the caption to."Flatspin Ejection" As far as rights...that starfighter abd all other starfighters, as well as ALL other aircraft in past ans present invetory are the sole property of the Citizen, represented by the US Government which tends to confuse who owns what from to timem
*steps from the soapbox*

gale_dono · **Joined:** Mon Sep 08, 2008 2:32 pm **Posts:** 328

gary1954 wrote:

This is through my blackberry, so I didn't read every thing as my eyes are tired. But I do know great art work when I see it, and this is great art work. I would change the caption to."Flatspin Ejection" As far as rights...that starfighter abd all other starfighters, as well as ALL other aircraft in past ans present invetory are the sole property of the Citizen, represented by the US Government which tends to confuse who owns what from to timem
*steps from the soapbox*

D'you have precedent for this? I understand where you're coming from, but at the same time I'm not sure I've ever heard this to be the case.

bipe215 · **Posted:** Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:58 am

Mustangdriver,

Your statement that NACA says "if they don't see it, it doesn't count"
says it all. All anyone has said was Welch did it 'unofficially'. He knew what he was doing, he tried to do it, the guys that heard it knew what it was. Just because NACA wasn't there doesn't mean it didn't happen.
You also talk about 'bashing' Yeager on a public forum. Go watch the youtube video of CY's West Virginia PBS interview where he publicly bashes Gabreski.

Steve G

gary1954 · **Posted:** Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:03 pm

Taxes..." We the People". This is merely the way I feel about the subject of the corporations that built/build hardware for "our" defense. Must I pay Boeing for every picture I have of an aircraft they built or company they bought out..they can pack sand. Glad you ubderstand where I'm coming from. It is my tax money that is paying for the hardware built since WWII. We the people hold claim and owe nothing to aircraft corporations, except a word of thanks for building the best weapons platforms in the world. Today or tomorrow, I hope to make it to the airport and take a few pictures of Warbirds. See if I write a check to any of the manufacuters who bild them on my behalf through my representative known as the US Government

k5083 · **Posted:** Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:32 pm

Guys, I hear this argument about "it's a government airplane, we paid for its design and bought it, the company should have no IP rights in it" all the time. I understand where you're coming from morally, sort of, although on close examination it leads to some absurd conclusions (e.g., would we Americans not be infringing if we depicted an F-104 built for the USAF, but infringing if it were in JASDF markings?). But there's no basis in law for it. It's okay to repeat about it amongst ourselves, but if you argue it to any trademark holder, they will know immediately that you know no law and are ready to be taken advantage of.

August

gary1954 · **Posted:** Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:51 pm

Yep.. We're screwed

Bill Greenwood · **Posted:** Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:56 pm

August, there is a current legal action between McCain and the musician Jackson Browne. Seems the campaign used one of Brown's song themes without permission . Browne sued and McCain countered.

As for who broke supersonic flight first, I think it was Welch. Supersonic flight is flight faster than the speed of sound. It is a fact, not dependent on NACA or anybody's narrow defintion. Now, did it happen, what is the proof of if happeniing? In Yeager's case there are the official instruments, and subsequent flights to badk it up. But there is also evidence for Welch, not "some guys in a bar". but numerous oobservers who heard the sonic boom, twice on different days; and also proof later that the 86 could exceed Mach I. Wikipedia states it well, Welch was first in a DIVE, Yeager offically first in LEVEL flight.

Django · **Posted:** Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:58 pm

August, I think your future endeaver would be great. I hope you can figure out a way to make it happen.

Why is this subject to digital artists? What are guys like Wade, Stan Stokes and Keith Ferris doing about this type of thing?

Can the ASAA help?

k5083 · **Posted:** Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:34 pm

Bill Greenwood wrote:

August, there is a current legal action between McCain and the musician Jackson Browne. Seems the campaign used one of Brown's song themes without permission . Browne sued and McCain countered.

Bill, I have heard about the lawsuit but have not read the pleadings. McCain countered in the sense that he has moved to dismiss Browne's claims, but he does not have claims of his own that I know of.

The McCain campaign also had IP issues over its use of pieces of news broadcasts in youtube campaign ads. Although there is a decent argument that the use of the broadcasts was fair use, youtube obeyed network takedown requests under the DMCA, a law that gives web sites certain protections if they remove allegedly infringing content immediately upon notice, and then only later figure out whether they really had to. McCain supported DMCA -- but when his own campaign became a victim of it, he argued that there should be an exemption just for presidential campaigns. :roll:

Django wrote:

Why is this subject to digital artists? What are guys like Wade, Stan Stokes and Keith Ferris doing about this type of thing?

Can the ASAA help?

Hmm, let's see, Alaska School Actitivites Association, American Sleep Apnea Association, American Society for Amateur Archaeology (oh god not that again) -- ahh, here it is, American Society of Aviation Artists. Seriously, I would think the answer to that would be yes, and it must be a hot topic at their meetings. I am not a member so I can't check their site to find out. There's no difference between paint and pixels for this purpose. For that matter, photography is implicated as well, so you should also be asking about Makanna, Bowen, etc. -- and quite a few of us Wixers! I know that ISAP is interested in this topic. If anybody wants a good speaker on the topic, I'm available and quite entertaining. :oops:

August

Nathan · **Posted:** Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:35 pm

Bill Greenwood wrote:

August, there is a current legal action between McCain and the musician Jackson Browne. Seems the campaign used one of Brown's song themes without permission . Browne sued and McCain countered.

As for who broke supersonic flight first, I think it was Welch. Supersonic flight is flight faster than the speed of sound. It is a fact, not dependent on NACA or anybody's narrow defintion. Now, did it happen, what is the proof of if happeniing? In Yeager's case there are the official instruments, and subsequent flights to badk it up. But there is also evidence for Welch, not "some guys in a bar". but numerous oobservers who heard the sonic boom, twice on different days; and also proof later that the 86 could exceed Mach I. Wikipedia states it well, Welch was first in a DIVE, Yeager offically first in LEVEL flight.

We are also forgetting to mention the possibilty that the Germans might have broke the barrier in the Me 262. But would a Me 262 stand up to the load of going super sonic in a dive? I guess it would be possible but would the pilot survive after the plane broke apart?

This is an interesting thread.

Holedigger · **Posted:** Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:41 pm

Holedigger · **Posted:** Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:43 pm

McCain used "Runnin on empty"and has been sued? I thought there was a suit of using Barracuda, guess that is a different one?!? :twisted:

Too many lawyers not enough ammo!!
now ducking and hiding!!!

Nathan · **Posted:** Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:47 pm

Please guys keep the politics down.

Warbird Information Exchange

What's wrong with this picture?

Who is online