text:
Join the Senate and Don't See the World
posted at 8:30 pm on October 2, 2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh
From the very day (June 28th, 2009) that José Manuel "Mel" Zelaya Rosales was impeached and removed from office by the Honduran supreme court and arrested by the military — the organization tasked with removing presidents under the Honduran constitution — the Barack H. Obama administration cast their lot with the so-called "Bolivarist." Zelaya was impeached, arrested for treason, and exiled to Costa Rica.
Like many who claim the appellation "Bolivarist," Zelaya is actually a Chavezista. Far from being a liberator from foreign domination, like Simón Bolívar, Zelaya is a pure fascist, just like his old pal (and Obama's), Oogo Chavez. (Chavez gave Obama a copy of his own book as a present; I wonder if the One is still poring over it, highlighting relevant passages and adding triple exclamation points?)
The Obamatons, aided and abetted by the congressional Democrats, insist that Zelaya was removed by a coup d'état, which is a military takeover of the civilian government; as such, they have cut off all sorts of financial aid and have leaned heavily on de-facto President Roberto Micheletti to resign and somehow reinstate the would-be dictator-for-life Zelaya. This would allow Z-Mel to continue his quest to become the Oogo of Honduras, regardless of any crybaby objections by the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Honduras government.
(Micheletti is a civilian and happens to be of the same political party of Zelaya himself. Some coup! Perhaps the Honduran "coup-mongers" need to reread Edward Luttwak's operations manual on the subject.)
But this is all prologue for a different point. Anybody who travels to Honduras and honestly investigates the current situation will see that there is no military dictatorship, hence no "coup d'état." Honduras has an elected civilian government, a functioning supreme court, and it's headed for presidential elections next month. One would think that before our own Congress acts to overturn this putative "coup," they would at least send a few people there to check things out.
One would be wrong. I don't know of any congressional delegation that has journeyed to that nation to check on the claims made by Obama or his Number Two, Hillary Clinton. But of course, if a senator is unwilling even to read a bill prior to voting for it, it's ridiculous to expect him actually to look at on-site evidence before making up his mind about events in a foreign country.
But in fact, a very good senator, Jim DeMint (R-SC, 100%), wants to do just that: fly down to Honduras with three Republican representatives — Doug Lamborn (CO, 100%), Peter Roskam (IL, 96%), and Aaron Schock (IL, not yet rated) — on a fact-finding tour.
DeMint is a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, which has oversight over President Obama's foreign policy… including, of course, the president's attempt to withhold funding to Honduras — in the hope, one can only presume, that Honduras will use its military to overturn its entire civilian government. (Say, isn't that just what the One accused Honduras of doing in the first place?) Since the committee might be voting on the issue, it makes some prima facie sense for members of that committee to take a look-see for themselves.
But the chair of the Foreign Relations Committee is none other than our ancient enemy, Sen. JFK (D-MA, 95%); Kerry is angry at DeMint for holding up confirmation hearings on a couple of Obamic appointees; DeMint wants an impartial investigation of the Honduras brouhaha before he'll cooperate on confirmation hearings — a time-honored position most recently employed by, let's see if I can recall, by the Democratic caucus in the U.S. Senate during the Bush administration. I seem to recall quite a lot of blocked appointments; evidently, it's not such an outre maneuver, as far as Democrats should be concerned.
But it seems to have infuriated Sen. Kerry, for he canceled all funding of DeMint's trip and even ordered our armed forces not to fly DeMint to Honduras:
A simmering feud over U.S. policy toward Latin America burst into the open Thursday when Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) tried to prevent a fact-finding trip to Honduras by a Republican senator who is blocking two important diplomatic appointments….
As head of the Foreign Relations Committee, Kerry can withhold committee funds for travel and deny permission for the use of military aircraft. But he had never before used that power to block another senator's travel, his aides said.
Kerry makes no bones that he's abusing his authority in order to extort DeMint into lifting his hold:
"These bullying tactics by the Obama administration and Senator Kerry must stop, and we must be allowed to get to the truth in Honduras," DeMint said in a statement. His spokesman, Wesley Denton, called Kerry's action "unprecedented."
Kerry fired back in a news release: "Senator DeMint's statement wins an A for 'audacity.' Thanks to his intransigence, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee can't even hold hearings on our policy in Central and South America."
The statement, issued by Kerry's spokesman, Frederick Jones, added that when DeMint allows a vote on the appointment of the two diplomats, "the Committee will approve his travel to Honduras."
Kerry did not explain how blocking two executive appointments would prevent his committee from "hold[ing] hearings on our policy in Central and South America." It would seem the senior senator from Massachusetts could hold hearings anytime he chose.
Perhaps what JFK really means is that DeMint's refusal to rubber-stamp the Obamacle's oracular decree (that the legal impeachment of a president is the same thing as a coup d'état) threatens to force the committee actually to examine the issue, when all they really want to do is applaud the president and MoveOn.
This is turning into a huge and unexpectedly rancorous argument:
The administration, along with all other governments in the hemisphere, branded the action a "coup." It also cut off millions of dollars in aid and suspended the U.S. visas of Honduran officials….
DeMint and a handful of other conservative Republicans have said Zelaya's removal was legal because he had violated a constitutional ban by trying to extend his presidential term. They have protested that the Obama administration is supporting a politician with close ties to Venezuela's leftist president, Hugo Chavez.
By "a handful of other conservative Republicans," the Post means to include, without note, a certain fellow named Miguel Estrada. Estrada was nominated by President George W. Bush to the D.C. Circuit Court — his appointment was blocked by Democrats, who didn't want a conservative Hispanic on that court, whence he might rise to become the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court; thus he never got an up-or-down vote — say, there seems to be a lot of that going around!
Prior to his nomination, Miguel Estrada was an Assistant to the Solicitor General during the George H. W. Bush Administration. He is also a Honduran immigrant, born in the capital city of Tegucigalpa.
He published an excellent legal analysis of Zelaya's removal in the Los Angeles Times, of all places; we covered it, of course; see "The Curious Case of Tegucigalpa's Traveling Traitor," linked below. (The "traveling traitor" in question is Zelaya, not Estrada.) Estrada concluded:
As noted, Article 239 states clearly that one who behaves as Zelaya did in attempting to change presidential succession ceases immediately to be president. If there were any doubt on that score, the Congress removed it by convening immediately after Zelaya's arrest, condemning his illegal conduct and overwhelmingly voting (122 to 6) to remove him from office. The Congress is led by Zelaya's own Liberal Party (although it is true that Zelaya and his party have grown apart as he has moved left). Because Zelaya's vice president had earlier quit to run in the November elections, the next person in the line of succession was Micheletti, the Liberal leader of Congress. He was named to complete the remaining months of Zelaya's term.
It cannot be right to call this a "coup." Micheletti was lawfully made president by the country's elected Congress. The president is a civilian. The Honduran Congress and courts continue to function as before. The armed forces are under civilian control. The elections scheduled for November are still scheduled for November. Indeed, after reviewing the Constitution and consulting with the Supreme Court, the Congress and the electoral tribunal, respected Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga recently stated that the only possible conclusion is that Zelaya had lawfully been ousted under Article 239 before he was arrested, and that democracy in Honduras continues fully to operate in accordance with law. All Honduran bishops joined Rodriguez in this pronouncement.
But Miguel Estrada is just part of that rag-tag gaggle of conservative carpers against hopey-changitude.
Finally, Jim DeMint appealed to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY, 80%); McConnell pulled some strings and got DeMint his Air Force plane. Thus was the Kerry gambit thwarted.
But this begs the question: What the heck is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee doing, preventing a member from traveling to a political hot spot on a fact-finding mission, about an issue that is certain to come up before the committee, if it's not there already?
Remember this arrogant attempt by John Kerry well: When minority members of the United States Senate are prevented from traveling to see the world — when seeing the world might turn them against the policy of the majority — that's just part of the "hope and change" and the "new era" of "civility" and "post-partisanship" that President Obama has promised us.
Seeing as it's not unlikely that the Democrats will find themselves in the minority in either 2011 or 2013, it's good to bear in mind the new powers that the GOP may soon enjoy.
Here are the earlier chapters of this continuing soap opera:
- Old Shoes and Barackends
- Piddling Away Greatness
- The Curious Case of Tegucigalpa's Traveling Traitor
- Reuters Still Stuck on "Coup"-pid
- Coup on You!
- Did Zelaya Pull a Bank Heist Before Skedaddling?
- HeistWatch – Day 1
- Meanwhile, Back in the Murmuring Pines and the Hemlocks…
- Meet Manuel Zeloonie-Toons
Cross-posted on Big Lizards…


text:
Sin is the closet
The Rev. Dr. Patrick S. Cheng of the Episcopal Divinity School says that we need to turn from a legalistic notion of sin to a Christogical one. He believes that sin is more than just an excess of pride but is also an excess of shame.
I believe that it is time to shift away from a legal model of sin (whether Biblical law or natural law) and towards a christological model of sin. Under this model, sin is defined not by Biblical law or natural law, but rather by our opposition, as Christians, to what God has done for us in Jesus Christ. That is, sin is a mindset; it is a mode of existence that stubbornly refuses to acknowledge the good news of the Word made flesh. In other words, sin is a matter of deliberately turning one's back on what God has done for us in salvation history.
For example, let's begin with the doctrine of revelation. According to Christian theology, God reveals Godself most fully in the person of Jesus Christ. As such, it follows that sin is the closet, or the resistance to revealing ourselves fully to God and to others. Indeed, as feminist theologians have argued for decades, sin is not just a matter of pride and raising ourselves up too high, but it is also a matter of excess shame and hiding our true selves from others.
If sin is defined as the closet, then sinners are those people who use the institution of the church to deflect attention away from — and cover up — their own hidden sexual secrets and crimes, as we have seen repeatedly in the ugly sexual abuse crisis in the Roman Catholic Church. Sinners are also the closeted fundamentalist ministers and preachers who virulently condemn LGBT people on the one hand and yet engage in hidden same-sex activities on the other.
By contrast, grace is defined as what God has done for us in Jesus Christ, which is coming out. For Christians, God reveals Godself most fully in the incarnation. Whenever we come out as LGBT people, we also become the living embodiment of God's revelation of the Word made flesh. We are able to love others fully because we realize that we are first loved by God. And that, for me, is what the good news is all about.
Here is his essay in the Huffington Post.
3 Responses to "Sin is the closet"
Patrick has joined Huffpo as one of its regular bloggers, right?
Dr. Chen writes: "I believe that it is time to shift away from a legal model of sin (whether Biblical law or natural law) and towards a christological model
of sin."
It has been "time to do that" ever since Jesus poured out his Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Much of the apostle Paul's point is that we are no longer "under law" but "under grace". There is much to affirm in what Dr. Cheng writes and it is a helpful correction to many "under law" pseudo-Christianities. I join Dr. Chen in recognizing the false claim to pious righteousness and holiness all the while harboring secret sins. This is the type of hypocrisy that destroys the church. The Roman
Church's child molestation troubles are largely due to a dishonesty and denial about the capacity of the church to be engaged in institutional sin.
Such hypocrisy largely comes from a concern more from what the world might think about you rather than a gracious God who desires truth within our innermost parts that he might restore and redeem.
The point of Peter's foot-washing is much the same point. "Peter unless I wash your feet, you have no part of me." So YES, sin is in this respect a rejection of God's abundant grace and a rebellion against the
Gospel by suggesting that we can somehow take care of things ourselves. One of the critical things in accepting God's grace is a coming-out of the closet so to speak and being honest before God about who we truly are. Unless we do that we will never receive God's grace and we can be forever locked up in shame, fear and pride.
The one thing I am not reading in this excerpt from Dr. Chen (and I confess that I did not read the entire article) is that part of that coming-out is a truthful honesty of our sinful nature and actions before a holy, holy, holy God. In this respect coming out is not merely confessing transgression of some written code (though it includes that) but a recognition of both our finiteness, brokenness, and yes rebellion
against God's will for our lives and the relationship that he has for us with him. The message of the Gospel that Jesus has dealt with all of our sin, disease, brokenness, fallenness in the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection. The gospel enables me to be fully accepted, forgiven and reconciled with God "just as I am" as the revival Hymn goes.
The prodigal son is out-of the closet, no longer putting on airs, he has come clean to the Father and found a Father of grace. The elder brother who tries to define his life under the law is the truly "lost" one
though he does not know it. He is neither honest about his own failings before his father, nor is he willing to extend grace to his prodigal brother who has returned and is humbly seeking grace. In this way, the elder brother justifies himself in legalistic terms and thus excludes himself from the party of the Father's grace.
The part that I wonder about in Dr. Chen's writing is whether he truly is talking about "coming-out" all the way--like the prodigal son. I do not get the impression that what is being asked for by much of the LBGT community is justification by grace but rather justification under the law. In other words what I am hearing is not a plea for inclusion under
the Gospel of forgiveness and grace, but an appeal for inclusion on the basis that we have done nothing wrong under the law.
Is the "coming out" he is talking about merely a honesty lacking humility. Like the rebellious teenager who says to the Parent who is concerned about their drug abuse and the troublesome friends he is hanging around. "I am just being me! And you want to take away my freedoms. Why don't you just accept me for who I am?" The problem is that there is a version of honesty that promises freedom but really is a slavery to sin.
I am convinced that God will accept anyone on this planet "just as they are" but as he finds us and accepts us he also gives us the Holy Spirit to transform us in every way to be the people he truly wants us to be and become. We have the freedom to be brutally honest about our condition, and in that freedom God moves us from within to become a new creation in him.
I am not entirely convinced by this "me and God" model of sin, and that the only variables in the sin equation, if you will, are the "sinner", God, and perhaps a person who was wronged. From what I can tell, sin in the ancient world, which is where we must start from, was a far more complicated matter.
Sure, there are offenses against God and neighbor. But forgiveness of sin to me doesn't look like something that happens just between God and sinner, or just between offender and victim. When Jesus forgave sins, he restored a person's standing and dignity before the community, and I think we miss that essential point when we look at the whole Jesus story. Further, it wasn't just that he *claimed* to forgive sins on behalf of YHWH and community, but that his...Person? was so powerful that the forgiveness given was forgiveness in its own right, and was physically, spiritually and socially restorative for the sinner in question. Because the community KNEW this to be true, even those who weren't his disciples, he simply became too scary, strange, and not of this world to keep alive, in the eyes of the authorities.
So when I hear people quote the classic story about Jesus breathing on the Apostles with the words "whoever's sins you forgive are forgiven, and whoever's sins you retain are retained" as a "proof text" for the power of the Church to decide the fate of an individual soul, I am convinced that is absolutely too narrow a reading. Think of it this way, rather...Jesus may be saying to his church, "You have a lot of power to restore people. If you refuse to restore them here on earth, heaven will know it too, and when you come before God, God will want to know why you refused to do this thing you were charged to do as the Gospel. Why did you refuse to give someone's life back to them, their health, their dignity, their spiritual well-being, when you could have? Yes, that IS how much power you have."

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Benjamin Disraeli: "Nothing can resist the human will that will stake even its existence on its stated purpose." Simply put, I'll do it, or die trying.
Steve Pavlina, a well known blogger in the area of personal development is writing an interesting series of articles related to a 30 day trial he is doing. For 30 days he does something to see if it is worth doing after that. Right now he is immediately acting on any inspiration he gets, even if it means delaying eating when he is hungry. He is also exploring subjective reality – the idea that we are in a 'dream world' and that what happens in our lives is a projection of our consciousness. I have no fear of exploration, so both of these are worthy of my time.
Let's start with the inspiration part. There's no doubt in my mind that I've been making some major shifts in the past few years. In April, 2008, I created Dr. Jerm, a website dedicated to self improvement. I got inspired and created it – all of the content in a few months. It was rigorous, but quite different than what I normally was accustomed to doing. I normally was a get by person who would have never done that. But I had a moment earlier that year where I was disgusted with myself and playing World of Warcraft and not reaching my full potential.
I then created a blog for Dr. Jerm. Blogging regularly was also something I had never done before. And I did so for about a year before I felt inspired to move on to other ideas. One of my favorite things to write about on that blog was the meeting of the imaginary master mind. This was simply a meeting with leaders of the world today, all in my head, as if they were right there with me around a large conference table.
I then completed the P90X extreme fitness program in the beginning of 2009. My wife and I even made a blog about it. This was another shift in my reality. I'd never had six pack abs or looked like I did at the end of it. I look back and can see inspiration playing a major role in that decision. It seems a string of significant events was beginning to come together. All starting with my disgust in playing World of Warcraft and not realizing my potential.
I finished an over 300 page fiction/fantasy novel in the middle of 2009. This was another major milestone for me. I look back and I did more in a year and a half than in the previous 30 years of my life. This is astounding to me. Something is happening within me. There is a force stirring. I'm not sure what it is…
What came next? Some challenges beyond anything I'd ever experienced. September 2009 was my first experience with a kidney stone that eventually required a knock me out surgery to take out due to fever and infection. I can recall vividly my wife and I in our house. I literally was curled up like a crab, shivering, and sobbing. I was far from in control of my emotions, often yelling out swears as I writhed. No drug took the pain away – they only made me nauseous, which amplified the nausea from the kidney stone leading to vomiting. My wife was supportive, but my emotional outbursts due to the trauma of the experience I am sure impacted her in a way I may never realize.
Early 2010 I had lower back surgery that laid me out flat for months and continues to affect me to this day. I recall after the surgery hardly being able to move. When I laid down in bed, I was no longer able to adjust my sleeping position and I had to have my wife move me. She was again very patient with me. I married an extraordinary woman…
Were these challenges my own doing? Probably. But it's interesting that they came at the time they did. They were coming at the time I was becoming inspired. Were they a test to see how I would react? I may never really know.
So where does that leave me today? The creation of my website here. But I am disgusted. I haven't seen the results that I want in my life. I feel like a baseball that was knocked off a course and out of the park. But I also know that in a moment a breakthrough can occur. Change that accelerates what happens in life. This is what I am seeing from Steve Pavlina in his life. And so I am beginning the 30 day trials of inspiration and subjective reality.
How will I do this? Easy – I will keep a notebook with me at all times. When I am inspired with a thought, I will write it down. If it is something I can do in 15 minutes or less, I will go and do it, no matter what seems like a priority at the moment. If it is longer than that, I will keep it in the list and decide at the end of 30 days which I will pursue.
The inspiration part is the one that is clear, cut, and dry to me. The subjective reality is a whole new can of worms. I'm not even sure I completely understand what it means. I think it means that I will share and explore with all my might. I will treat it as a journey to truly understand the reality in which I live and the potential I have to create what I want in that reality.
My day job
I am a web developer right now. I sit in a cubicle and make web pages work. I'm good at it. I can churn out good work like no tomorrow. But I've begun a shift there. I am communicating my intentions to managers and people of note there. I am engaging in discussions I previously would not have. We have a talent review that our executives look at. I wrote a long dissertation on my philosophies of life and personal growth. I shared my desire to extend my reach and increase my value.
This was a very scary thing for me to do. Executives who make millions of dollars are going to read what I said personally. They might talk to me. They might not. Either way, there is no going back on what I said. I entered it into the system and clicked the 'submit' button and off it went for it to be reviewed and read. I have no idea what will come of it. But I knew I needed to do it without regret.
I've also made a shift in increasing my communication with our development team. I'm more focused on understanding each person and how to increase the value they bring. Before it was me, me me. Now it is us, us, us. In a weird sort of way I picture our team like VOLTRON – the old cartoon from the 80's. A large mechanical robot formed by five different parts to create something much stronger than each individual could ever be. I think of us as one like this. It's been working. We're seeing increased results. I hope we continue to see an increase. I think this will help solidify that I am truly creating more value.
But it doesn't stop there. The idea that I am just stuck in a day job has since long gone. My day job is turning more into a story with characters. And I am the master narrator, able to dictate events how I see fit. I think this is at the essence of subjective reality. That I have the ability to project through sheer thought and effort alone what I want to create and see it happen. So here's what I am looking to do:
Become actively engaged in discussions with upper level management. Today it started with sitting down with my current manager and explaining my current philosophies and desire to be stretched as much as possible. In the next 30 days, I am going to walk into our CTO's office and simply have a discussion about his philosophies and make known my intention of seeking to add value. I see this as part of the story where I am the detective who is gathering clues. Eventually I will solve mysteries and this will increase the value I bring and the reach I have, which is my ultimate goal.
Fear and Doubt
I can't ignore that I am afraid and have doubts. I'm afraid of what my wife might think of my strange thoughts and ideas. I wonder what my family members might think. I wonder what consequences I might see at work because of my new way of thinking and getting involved in so many areas. But really I can't accept anything else. I must extend my reach as far as I can. I will create as much as I can for as long as I can. I will do it or die trying.
This is another moment where there really is no turning back. You don't make intentions known like this and run away. It really is like the Matrix. You take the red pill or the blue pill. The red pill leads down a path of no return. I'm willing to accept whatever this new path is leading me to. What is the extent of what one man can do with a little effort, willingness to try, and a stake of my existence that I can create in ways that stagger my imagination.
The Trial
The trial is to simply capture all inspiration. I think of it like capturing fire flies in a jar when I was younger. Every inspirational idea must be written down. This may be hard. It may disrupt my productivity at work. But that's okay. I'm willing to take that risk because there's probably something within me that will surface as a result of doing this that I would have missed otherwise.
As for the subjective reality, I am going to approach life as a story where I am an explorer, a narrator, who dictates events with ease and grace. Like a magician who conjures up the magic he needs in any given situation, this is how I will view my home and work life. This is the scary part. What if I can't do it? What if it gets me fired? There's only one way to find out – to go and do it with all my might and accept whatever outcome happens.
I'm looking forward to sharing this adventure with all of you. Is it possible to accelerate results in reality to a point that in 30 days from now I'm in a new place of profound significance? Will I have an even better relationship with my wife and family? Will I invent something new that helps the many? Will I converse with the executives of the company I work for at my day job?
A Final Thought
I have a twin brother, Jeff. For some of you this may be new news. A couple months ago, I shared with him a website that made some shifts in the way I viewed life and the future. In just two months since then, he has a website that's jumped from a few hundred visitors a day to almost 11,000 a day. That's an important number for those of you who track website statistics for your own website. Most websites achieve the 40 to 50 a day mark. The fact that he has achieved that level of success is a clue to me that I am projecting something right in my own reality and it has affected someone. I may share his website with you, but I am not inspired to do so at this time, so I won't :) If I am along this 30 day journey though, I'll link it.
Similar Posts:
- Increase Experiment
- Inspirational People On The Web
- What Should I Write About In Regards To Relationships?
- What Was Great And The Lessons I Learned In My 20s
- Learning to Accept Reality


text:
BILL RADKE: Let's say good morning to senior U.S. economist Julia Coronado at BNP Paribas. She joins us every Monday from New York. Hello Julia.
JULIA CORONADO: Good morning.
RADKE: So, I mentioned Intel's buying part of the German chip maker, the French takeover offer for Genzyme. Also, 3M is buying a company known for fingerprint identification. Julia, we've all heard about deals that don't work. What makes a good merger or acquisition?
CORONADO: Well, right now, in the environment we're in -- it's an extremely competitive environment with the economy recovering at a pretty lackluster pace. So companies are really focused on gaining market share, maintaining market share, looking for the areas that will be growth areas in the future. Hopefully that bodes well for the wave of mergers and acquisitions we're in. That contrasts with mergers and acquisitions that we see in boom times, where sometimes people just extrapolate those boom times forward and expect much more than is realistic from a merger. So hopefully this much more conservative approach will bode well for these deals.
RADKE: And finally, Julia, the government said this morning both personal income and spending were up a little bit in July. Is that a hopeful sign?
CORONADO: I wouldn't say it's terribly hopeful. I think what the report reinforces is the dynamic we've been in, which is consumers are spending. But they're spending very conservatively. They're still saving at a very high rate. They're allocating their dollars very cautiously. So it sort of confirms what we've been in, which is slow growth. So it's not that hopeful in the sense that we're not seeing spending that's strong enough to give businesses the confidence to run out and hire a whole new wave of workers.
RADKE: OK. Oh well. Senior U.S. economist Julia Coronado at BNP Paribas, thanks a lot.
CORONADO: My pleasure.


text:
Following on from last year's S8000fd, the new Fujifilm FinePix S8100fd features a 10MP sensor and a few new features, as well as the 18x optical zoom seen on the previous model. To counteract camera shake, especially at the telephoto end, the camera has CCD shift image stabilisation, while a high ISO of 6400 is designed to reduce subject-based blur and facilitate low light shooting.
Like its predecessor the most striking thing about the S8100fd is its lens, offering the 35mm equivalent focal length of 27-486mm, allowing both wide angle shooting and extreme telephoto. The maximum aperture is f/2.8-4.5, while the minimum aperture is f/8. The extreme focal length is achieved in part by the small 1/2.3 inch CCD, which is a standard CCD rather than one of Fujifilm's SuperCCD varieties.
As the name suggests, the camera features face detection, with the ability to recognise and focus on up to ten faces within the frame. An automatic red-eye reduction feature can also be deployed to remove red eye during the image processing.
New to the camera is the instant zoom feature, allowing fast 1.4x or 2x digital zoom to be added quickly. Another new addition is the zoom bracketing feature, which is linked to the face detection system, and automatically zooms in on faces that it detects within the frame.
The camera offers a full compliment of exposure options. There's the standard auto mode and 13 scene modes, but also manual, aperture priority AE, shutter priority AE and Program AE. These are all closely linked to the metering system, which features 256 area evaluative metering, alongside centre weighted average metering and spot metering. A histogram can be observed in the viewfinder if you want, and exposure compensation is available over +/- 2EV for more tricky subjects.
Another feature found on the S8000 is the supermacro facility allowing a minimum focus of just 1cm, while normal macro offers focusing down to 10cm at the wide end and 1.2m at the telephoto end.
Like other recent Fujifilm cameras the S8100 has a dual shot mode which takes two pictures in quick succession, one with and one without flash, allowing you to choose the best according to the ambient lighting. It also features Fujifilm's Intelligent flash system, which detects the contrast and lighting levels in a scene and according to Fuji, adjusts the flash output accordingly. The flash is also automatically set to operate at a higher ISO so, the theory goes, less flash power is used and images appear more natural.
Fujifilm FinePix S Series S8100fd 10.0 MP Digital Camera - Black Bundle$100.00 View Item
Gently Used, Fujifilm FinePix S Series S8100fd 10.0 MP Digital Camera - Black$95.00 View Item
FUJI FINEPIX S8100fd 10mp 18x ZOOM Black$65.00 View Item
Fujifilm Digital Camera Finepix (Finepix) S8100Fd Black Fx-S8100Fdnew$505.00 View Item
Fujifilm FinePix S Series S8100fd 10.0 MP Digital Camera - Black$28.00 View Item
I find this review perplexing, to say the least. TR gave an excellent review to the S8000fd and awarded it a 9 out of 10, something that does not happen very often. Yet the S8100fd gets a horrible score of 6 out of 10. Such a disparity must mean that the newer S8100fd is much worse than the S8000fd in many ways. However, your reviewer did not give one example of this. In fact the only reference he makes to the S8000fd is in his introduction. I realize that Cliff did the review of the S8000fd but I'd have hoped that Mr. Harrison would have made an effort to conform his review to Cliff's. As someone who is considering the purchase of a superzoom, I can't give any consideration to this review. Too bad, as I usually give great weight to TR's reviews. Honestly, I think you owe your readers, and Fujifilm, another review of the S8100fd, hopefully by Cliff.
Well, I'd probably agree that the review is a little harsh, but it seems to me the s8100fd doesn't really add that much over the s8000fd save for an extra 2MP and a quick digital zoom feature. Given that the 10MP is achieved on the same sensor as the 8MP S8000 it's only going to have a negative effect on image quality, while digital zoom sucks.
As such, if you're after some advice, I'd go for the s8000fd instead and save yourself 㿨 - it's only 𧵄 on Amazon atm. It's exactly what I've just done. :)
i agree with the review on the s8000 i have had one for 3 months and it is great
build quality,features and pictures.
I currently own a Fuji S7000 and recently thought of upgrading as I have been very pleased with it but want more features. When I read the specification and casual reviews of the S8100FD I was quite excited, however on reading this review it completely changed my mind... until I read all three comments above. Thanks for the advice everybody, I think there is an S8000 somewhere with my name on it :)
I have just recently bought this camera and whilst some of the features were good the colour imaging was very poor.Deep crimson reds came out pink and compared to my other cameras and even phone they did not replicate the true colours. My other cameas are Samsung GS 1X, Nikon S1 and Kodak Z740.I have looked at other cameras of this kind and can say the Nikon P80 and the Lumix DMC FZ28 are more accurate in there colour definition. Needless to say I have returned the Fuji and i am now looking for an alternative.
Eek. I am looking for a camera to use for gig photography as a step up from my compact, but am not ready for a full SLR, so was hoping to find a good superzoom digital. I'm really struggling to decipher which of these is likely to perform well in low light. I too had been drawn in by the features of this model, but now put off by the review. Does anyone know how the S8000 stands up in such conditions?
@clare - for gigs, you probably want a fold-out LCD on the back which allows you to "periscope" over the audience and get up close to the stage with zoom. S8100FD doesn't have this.
is this review recycled from S8000FD? it refers to the older model in the text.
I have a FujiFilm S7000 with which I've taken more than 10,000 images. I was very happy with it apart from the relatively short zoom. So I upgraded to an S8100fd and I hate it.
The image quality is horrible in ALL ISO and quality settings. To anyone who is considering the purchase of one of these, I say FORGET IT. You'll be very disappointed with the results.
The Fuji S7000 is a great camera!
I have recently sold mine,and bought a Fuji s9500 off Ebay,and have been disappointed with the work required to(a)sharpen up the images,and (b) improve the colour in the pictures,whereas the S7000 images were generally sharp and colouful straight from the camera.
Also the long end of the zoom lens wouldn't focus sometimes,which could be annoying,and I thought the flash output was poor.
I am seriously considering selling the S9500,and getting another S7000,and putting up with it's short zoom,as it seems to produce better pictures than any of the more recent Fuji offerings.
I also have a Nikon D40,which is a superb little DSLR,but if I take the body,plus the 18-55mm and 55mm-200mm out on a country ramble,it's becomes quite heavy after a while,with the result that the S7000 tended to be the camera I took with me.
The S9500 seemed to be the perfect solution,9MP,plus a versatile 28-300mm lens,at a weight only a little more than the Nikon with its standard zoom lens.
The picture quality,once you spend a little time on them,is very good,but the occasional hit or miss focussing(only at the telephoto end)I don't think I can live with.
It is a shame because the Fuji S9500 is a such a well made,fully featured "proper camera",and is nice to hold,and I find it better to use than a previous Panasonic FZ18 I had,which never felt like a "proper" camera,although otherwise an excellent little camera in many ways.
The ideal camera must be out there somewhere,and the S9500 does come close!!
I purchased this camera last Sept as I was going back to Nepal and wanted to get some better close up shots and didn't want an SLR. I am pleased with the main shots although night shots are not good. I do enjoy having the eye view as well as the screen because there occasions when the screen shots don't show properly or you can't see what you are taking with the bright light. I miss having panorama which I had on my previous olympus digital camera.I do like the handling and the macro and super macro shots and the hold of the camera, even though it is a little bit more weightier than my previous camera as I wanted a zoom. I do find that the battery replacement area is difficult to handle, not opening or changing but the closing of the compartment. I am quite happy with it and certainly can't afford to change but now wish I had gone for the more expensive Olympus.
Re my previous comment,the Fuji S9600 seems to have rectified the problems I encountered with my S9500,so should be a good buy,(look on Ebay),Trusted Reviews gave it an excellent review,better than the later Fuji's,the S8100 included!)
It is heavier though!
Further to my other comments,I recently bought a Panasonic FZ28,which seemed an improvement on my previous FZ18,but although great in many ways,the viewfinder is half the size of the FZ18,the Fuji S9500,(and my old S7000),and in bright sunshine,when the rear screen was difficult to see,I ended up squinting through the tiny EVF,which I just couldn't live with!
So be warned!
I recently upgraded from my Fuji S5700 to the S8100fd. What a bad mistake, the image quality is poor and after many test shots comparing the two the S5700 wins by a mile.
I shall be putting this camera on Ebay as soon as I can.
Basically the quality of the images are not sharp and those taken indoors with Flash are still too dark. I use images from this camera to put on my web site but not before putting them through some imaging software - what a tedious task.
Dont bother to buy this camera !
Ive been using this camera for exacly one year and i must say,for the price,its an excellent camera to work with.
For examples of what this camera can do,go to Flickr,enter 'steve denny'in people search and make up your own mind,you'll be pleasantly suprised!
I bought this camera in Sept 2008 & have not regretted it, it's an awesome camera!! I was originally after an Olympus but the camera had been recalled or something due to being a faulty camera and was offered the S8100 instead, I have won competitions, received wonderful feedback and have been often asked if my photos were taken by a professional, it may not suit some but for me I give it a 10/10 rating!!
More information -
Trusted Reviews is part of the Time Inc. (UK) Ltd Technology Network
Get TrustedReviews' award-winning reviews and advice delivered to your inbox for free!


text:
Johnson & Johnson Baby Oil, with Aloe Vera & Vitamin E, 14 oz
Mildness clinically proven. The way your skin looks and feels depends in part on how much moisture it contains. Discover an effective way to help protect your skin from dryness and the itching, flaking and ashiness that come with it. Johnson's Baby Oil with Aloe Vera & Vitamin E helps seal in vital moisture to keep your skin feeling soft, smooth and silky all day long. Pure aloe vera is an herbal extract long known for soothing your skin. Vitamin E is a natural skin conditioner. Johnson's Baby Oil with Aloe Vera & Vitamin E is an effective way to moisturize and nourish your skin. Johnson's is dermatologist and allergy tested. Just smooth Johnson's on in your shower or bath. Or right after, before you towel off.
We Also Recommend


text:
Chance Vought F4U Corsair
In February 1938, the US Navy Bureau of Aeronautics published a requests for proposals (RFP) for both a twin-engine and a single-engine fighter. For the single-engine fighter the Navy requested the maximum obtainable speed, and a stalling speed not higher than 113km/h (70mph). A range of 1610km (1000 miles) was specified. The fighter had to carry four guns, or three with increased ammunition. Provision had to be made for anti-aircraft bombs to be carried in the wing. These small bombs would, according to thinking in the 1930s, be dropped on enemy aircraft formations.
An unusual element of the RFP was that the Navy vowed to consider designs with liquid-cooled engines, in contradiction with a policy settled in 1927 that required air-cooled engines for shipboard aircraft. From the viewpoint of naval aviators, liquid cooling systems had serious disadvantages: They were heavier, more vulnerable, and more difficult to maintain. But in the late 1930s, there was a growing conviction in international aviation circles, that radial engines presented a too high drag penalty. Liquid-cooled engines with their smaller frontal area could be installed in a more streamlined fuselage. Hence the option to accept a fighter built for such an engine, in practice the Allison V-1710.
This engine was indeed chosen by Bell for their entry in the competition: The Bell Model 5 Airabonita, virtually a P-39 Airacobra with tailwheel landing gear, a slightly larger wing, and a stronger structure. As in the P-39, the engine was placed amidships, over the wing. The pilot sat in front of the engine, with a long extension shaft passing between his legs to drive the propeller up front. A 23mm Madsen cannon (or a .50 gun) and two .30 guns were installed in the nose, the cannon firing through the hollow propeller hub.
There was more choice in radial engines: The older Pratt & Whitney R-1830, and the new the Wright R-2600 and Pratt & Whitney R-2800. These air-cooled radial engines had a larger frontal area than the V-1710, and thus generated more drag. For the R-2600 and R-2800 this was compensated for by their power: While the V-1710 was hoped to deliver about 1150hp, the R-2800 was expected to generate 2000hp and more, and the R-2600 1500hp. Radial engines were chosen by Brewster, Grumman, Vought and Curtiss. Grumman proposed a development of the F4F Wildcat, that would be powered by the R-2600 engine. Brewster, manufacturer of the F2A Buffalo that had been the US Navy's first monoplane fighter, offered designs with the R-2600 or R-2800. Curtiss proposed developments of the P-36 Mohawk, powered by either the R-2600 or the older R-1830 engine.
In April 1938, Vought proposed its two designs to the US Navy. One, called V-166A by Vought and "Vought A" by the USN, was powered by the R-1830. The other, the V-166B or "Vought B", was designed around the new Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp radial engine. This was an 18-cylinder, two-row air-cooled radial. This engine would later also be installed in the competing Grumman F6F Hellcat and in the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt for the USAAF, but the new Vought fighter was the first to use this engine. The R-2800 later acquired a reputation as a powerful and very reliable engine. But it was also very bulky, and aircraft powered by it tended to be big.
In May 1938, the Bureau of Aeronautics evaluated the proposals. The "Vought B" was deemed to be the best one, with a merit figure of 86.4 on a scale from 0 to 100. Hence on 11 June, a contract was given for development of the Vought V-166B, the fighter that would become famous as the F4U Corsair.
The evaluation committee also recommended that the "Brewster A" proposal, rated third best, should be developed because of its alternative R-2600 engine. Because of the management difficulties of Brewster, this never happened. Grumman received a contract to develop to F4F-3 version of the Wildcat, and won the simultaneous competition for a twin-engine fighter with F5F Skyrocket. Their R-2600 engine fighter was rejected, but in June 1941 the Navy would nevertheless order two prototypes of the F6F Hellcat --- which switched to the R-2800 during development. The Navy was also sufficiently intrigued by the Bell proposal to order a prototype, named the XFL-1. But the Bell fighter, ranked sixth of the competitors, was obviously not destined to enter production, and Bell was very reluctant to invest time and money in its development. The history of the Airabonita would be an unhappy one.
The engineers of Grumman and Republic both selected to install the R-2800 in a fuselage with an egg-shaped cross-section, deeper than was strictly required by the R-2800. This created room for a bath with ducts under the engine. For the P-47, the determining factor was the installation of the turbo supercharger in the aft fuselage, which required air and exhaust ducts in the lower fuselage. The considerations of Grumman may have been similar, because a version of the F6F with a turbo supercharged R-2600 engine was offered to the US Navy.
Vought's Chief designer Rex B. Beisel instead opted for a fuselage of circular cross-section, of a diameter matching that of the R-2800. The oil cooler and supercharger air intakes would be installed in the wing leading edges. He also avoided the hump-backed upper fuselage of the Grumman F4F and F6F, that was designed to give the pilot a better forward visibility over the engine. Hence, the forward fuselage was of cylindrical shape. Construction was all-metal, and streamlining was improved further by using a new spot-welding technique that gave a very smooth finish.
A very large propeller was required to convert the power of the R-2800 into forward thrust. A three-bladed propeller with a diameter of 4.04m was chosen. Sufficient propeller clearance could have been achieved by designing a long and stalky landing gear, or by making the fuselage deeper again, thus moving the wing downwards relative to the engine. Instead, the Vought team adopted an inverted gull wing: the wing started with strong anhedral, i.e. a downwards slope toward the wingtips, and then curved upwards to strong dihedral. The landing gear was installed at the lowest point of the bend. Such a construction was not uncommon, though usually associated with fixed landing gear, such as on the German Junkers Ju 87 "Stuka" dive bomber. Inevitably, the weight of such a construction is higher than that of a straight wing. But apart from keeping the landing gear short and simple, it offered the advantage that the joint between wing and fuselage was made at the ideal angle. In that way a wing root fairing could be avoided. The entire construction contributed to the purposeful ugliness of the design, but it was efficient.
The wing had integral leading edge fuel tanks, which were unprotected. For storage aboard carriers, the wing folded upward outboard of the main landing gear legs. The wheels folded backwards, turning through 90 degrees while retracting, so that they were stored flat within the wing. The entire trailing edge inboard of the ailerons was provided with flaps. The outer wing panels were covered with fabric aft of the wing spar.
The pilot sat in a large cockpit over the wing trailing edge. The view straight forward over the engine cowling was poor, even more so than common in single-seat fighters of the day. View too the sides was reasonable, although the cockpit canopy was heavily framed. No concessions were made to rearward view, the aft of the cockpit being faired into a gently sloping fuselage decking. The tailplanes and fins had rounded tips, and the control surfaces were fabric covered.
Armament consisted of one .50 gun in each wing, and a .50 and a .30 in the engine cowl decking. There was also room for 20 small anti-aircraft bombs, stored in the wings.
In June 1938 the USN signed a contract for a prototype, the XF4U-1, BuNo 1443. After mock-up inspection in February 1939 construction of the XF4U-1 went ahead quickly.
First flight of the XF4U-1 was made on 29 May 1940, by Lyman A. Bullard Jr. The XF4U-1 was powered by a XR-2800-4 engine, rated at 1805hp. The first flight was not uneventful. A hurried landing was made when the elevator trim tabs failed because of flutter.
Early testing encountered a serious setback when project pilot Boone T. Guyton ran out of fuel during the fifth test flight and made an emergency landing on a golf course. The XF4U-1 was badly damaged, but not beyond repair, and Chance Vought rebuilt it.
On 1 October the XF4U-1 made a flight for Stratford to Hartford with an average ground speed of 650km/h (404mph). It was then the first US fighter to fly faster than 400mph. The XF4U-1 also had an excellent rate of climb. On the other hand, the testing of the XF4U-1 revealed that some of the requirements of the US Navy would have to be rewritten. In full-power dive tests speeds of up to 885km/h were achieved, but not without damage to the control surfaces and access panels, and in one case, an engine failure. The spin recovery standards also had to be relaxed, as recovery from the required ten-turn spin proved impossible without recourse to an anti-spin chute.
Much time was spent trying to improve the handling of the XF4U-1. Numerous changes were made to the ailerons, with success, as these were later known to be very effective. However, the low-speed handling characteristics left much to be desired. The F4U had a troubling tendency to drop a wing when it stalled. And this was a critical factor for a shipboard fighter, which would have to make dangerous deck landings.
At the end of June 1941 the US Navy ordered 584 F4U-1 fighters. The first of these would appear a year later, in June 1942. At that time Brewster and Goodyear were already tooling up to join the Corsair production program.
For the production F4U, the US Navy required some changes, which were logical in itself but had unfortunate side effects. More amour was carried for the pilot and oil tank, which added 68kg to the weight. The armament was changed to six .50 machine guns, three in each wing. The wing bomb bays were deleted. This increase in firepower was needed, but the wing guns displaced the leading edge fuel tanks. To restore an adequate fuel capacity, an additional fuel tank had to be installed in the fuselage. Because it had to be near the center of gravity, there was no other option than moving the cockpit to the rear. The 897 liter self-sealing fuel tank pushed to cockpit 0.91 meter closer to the tail. Forward view over the engine cowling, already poor in the prototype, was now decidedly bad. This was especially a problem during take-off and landing, because the F4U, like most fighters of its generation, was a tail-dragger. On the other hand, rearward vision was improved a bit by making cutouts in the rear fuselage decking. Vision to the sides and downwards was excellent.
The ailerons were enlarged, the cockpit canopy was made jettisonable, an IFF transponder was fitted, and the tailwheel design changed. The engine of production aircraft was the R-2800-8, rated for 2000hp at an rpm of 2700 for take-off. It had a mechanical two-stage, two-speed supercharger. When all changes were incorporated, the gross weight had increased considerably. The XF4U-1 had weighed 4244kg, but the F4U-1 5758kg.
The performance of the F4U was impressive. Below is a comparison with the two other fighters which were powered by the R-2800. The F4U was considerably faster than the competing F6F Hellcat. It was slower than the P-47 Thunderbolt, but the latter achieved it highest speed at 9150m, with the help of a turbocharger. The F4U had a mechanically supercharged engine.
|Pratt & Whitney
|Pratt & Whitney
|Pratt & Whitney
|Wing Span
|Wing Area
|631km/h at 7315m
515km/h at S/L
|605km/h at 6950m
521km/h at S/L
|676km/h at 9150m
|3050m in 5.1min
6100m in 10.7min
|4575m in 6.0min
7620m in 11.3min
|4575m in 7.2min
6100m in 11min
9150m in 20min
|Four .50 M2 with 400 rpg
Two .50 M2 with 375 rpg
Two 454kg bombs
|Six .50 M2 with 400 rpg
|Eight .50 M2 with 300 rpg
The Ensign Eliminator
The first production F4U-1 made its first flight on 25 June 1942. The USN received its first aircraft on 31 July.
Overall handling of the F4U-1 was acceptable, but not very good. In level flight the Corsair was stable enough to be flown hands-off. The ailerons were light and effective, and the high roll rate was used with good effect in combat with the A6M, which suffered from bad aileron response at high speeds. The elevators were heavy, but effective. Only the rudder really stiffened with increasing speed. For combat maneuvering, the flaps could be deployed 20 degrees.
After the first delivery of an F4U-1 on 31 July 1942, more than two years passed before the US Navy cleared the type for shipboard operations. The Corsair was found to be much too difficult to land on a carrier deck. First of all, the pilot could hardly see the deck, because he sat so far aft of the bulky engine. The F4U tended to stall without warning, and was then certain to drop the starboard wing. Quick action had to be taken to prevent a spin. Spin recovery was difficult. In landing configuration, the F4U-1 would stall at 141km/h. A warning light would light at 148km/h. On touchdown, the F4U-1 had sluggish controls and insufficient directional stability. It also was prone to "bounce" because of overly stiff landing gear oleo legs.
These characteristics had already been there on the XF4U-1, and if anything they were worse on the production type. Carrier qualification trials on the escort carrier USS Sangamon Bay, on 25 September 1942, caused the US Navy to release the type to the US Marine Corps. After all, the US Navy still had the Grumman F6F Hellcat, which did not have the performance of the F4U but was a far better deck landing aircraft. The Marines needed a better fighter than the F4F Wildcat. For them it was important that the F4U could be put on a carrier, but they usually flew from land bases.
During the Pacific war, the strategy of "island hopping" turned islands into forward operating bases for the aircraft of the US Marine Corps, the US Navy and the Army Air Force. Essential to this strategy was that no attempt was made to conquer all Japanese strongholds in the Pacific. Instead, they were neutralized by attacks, cut off from the main Japanese forces, and left behind.
The islands from which the advanced units operated were often very small. If they were larger, they were often covered with a dense jungle, and only a small part of the island was used by the combatants. The climate was often unhealthy, both for people and aircraft, and standards of living were primitive. Missions often involved long over water flights. The island group of the Eastern Solomons, for example, extends over more than 1000km.
The first USMC unit to equip with the F4U was VMF-124, which was declared operational on 28 December 1942. VMF-124 was quickly deployed to Guadalcanal, where it flew its first combat mission, also the first of the F4U, on 11 February 1943. Fighting over Guadalcanal was intense. The first air-to-air combat took place on the 14th, when a mixed force of P-38s, P-40s, PB4Ys and F4Us lost ten aircraft to the Japanese, and claimed four A6M "Zero" fighters.
As on this first mission, the aircraft involved in an operation were often of different types, belonged to different services, and belonged to different bases. The coordination between them was not always what it should have been.
Within six months, all USMC units in the Pacific were equipped with the F4U. The production was extremely rapid, and by August 1934 a thousand aircraft had been delivered. Final production of the F4U-1 was 5559, including the 2010 FG-1s built by Goodyear and 735 F3A-1s built by Brewster.
Commonwealth Corsairs
The Royal Navy received 95 Corsair Mk.Is and 510 Mk.IIs, these being equivalent to the F4U-1 and F4U-1A or D. Goodyear-built aircraft were known as Mk.IIIs, and Brewster-built aircraft as Mk.IVs. British Corsairs had their wing tips clipped, 20cm being removed at the tips, to allow storage of the F4U on the lower decks of British carriers. The Royal Navy was the first to clear the F4U for carrier operations. It proved that the Corsair Mk.II could be operated with reasonable success even from small escort carriers. It was not without problems, one being excessive wear of the arrester wires due to the weight of the Corsair and the understandable tendency of the pilots to stay well above the stalling speed.
Fleet Air Arm units where created and equipped in the US, at Quonset Point or Brunswick, and then shipped to war theatres on board of escort carriers. The first Corsair unit of the FAA was No 1830 Sqdn, created on the first of June 1943, and soon operating from HMS Illustrious. At the end of the war, 19 FAA squadrons operated with the F4U. British Corsairs operated both in Europe and in the Pacific. The first, and also most important European operations were the series of attacks in April, July and August 1944 on the German battleship Tirpitz, for which Corsairs provided top cover. In the Pacific the FAA Corsair also began to operate in April 1944, participating in an attack on Sabang, and later in the attack on oil refineries at Pelambang.
In July and August 1945, the Corsair squadrons No 1834 , No 1836 and No 1842 took part in a series of strikes on the Japanese mainland, near Tokyo. They operated from the carriers MHS Victorious and HMS Formidable.
The other major user of the Corsair was New Zealand. It received over 425 F4U-1A and F4U-1D models. In late 1944 the F4U equipped all twelve Pacific-based fighter units of the RNZAF. The first squadrons to use the Corsair were Nos 20 and 21, on Esperitu Santo island, operational in May 1944. In the RNZAF Corsair units, only the pilots and a small staff belonged to the squadron; aircraft and maintenance crew were grouped in a pool.
The RNZAF Corsair mainly flew close-support missions, and as a consequence did not claim a single enemy aircraft shot down. At the end of 1945, all Corsair squadrons but one (No 14) were disbanded. That last squadron was based in Japan, until the Corsair was retired from service in 1947.
Soon after production began, wing leading edge tanks of 235 liter were again installed outside of the gun bays. Later provisions were made for the carriage of external fuel tanks, first on the centerline, then on the starboard wing and finally on both wings. At that stage, the wing leading edge tanks, which were not self-sealing, were eliminated again.
The cowling gills on top of the fuselage were soon fixed in the closed position, to avoid the deposition of oil on the windscreen. For similar reasons, the joints of the fuselage fuel tank in front of the cockpit were often covered with sealing tape.
To cure the tendency to drop a wing, a small spoiler was installed on the starboard wing.
From the 759th aircraft onwards, the framed canopy of the F4U-1 was quickly replaced by a much neater plexiglass "bulb" with small frames. The raising of the seat by 18cm slightly improved the view over the nose, and the new type also offered some rearward vision. Later this modification was associated with a change of designation to F4U-1A, which was not used at the time.
An important change, from the 1550th aircraft, was the installation of the -8W engine with water injection, which allowed higher emergency power to be used at low altitude.
The F4U-1B designation seems to have been used for the F4U-1As delivered to Britain.
The F4U-1C had four 20mm cannon instead of the six .50s. These guns were the British Hispano Mk.II cannon, known in the USA as the Hispano M2. These weapons protruded far from the leading edge. Production of this version remained limited to 200. They entered combat in April 1945.
In early 1944, bomb racks for the F4U-1 were developed by personnel of VMF-222 and VF-17. The modification was rapidly applied by other squadrons. The F4U-1D was a factory-built fighter-bomber model, powered by a R-2800-8W engine with water injection. The F4U-1D had three pylons, one on the centerline and two on the wings. Later small stubs on the outer wing panels, to carry rockets, were added.
Also in early 1944, longer oleos were installed in the main landing gear legs. They cured much of the tendency of the Corsair to "bounce". A longer tailwheel leg raised the fin, and reduced the directional stability problem.
These improvements were essential in making the Corsair suitable for carrier operations, and in April 1944 the Corsair was finally qualified for carrier operations.
An F4U-1 with a special mount in the rear fuselage for a K-21 camera was known as F4U-1P. The F4U-1P was used mainly to assess the results of air strikes. No F4U-1Ps were produced by the factories, they were all modified in the field by USMC or USN units.
US Navy
Despite the decision to issue the F4U to Marine Corps units, VF-12 (October 1942) and later VF-17 (April 1943) were equipped with the F4U. By April 1943 VF-12 had successfully completed deck landing qualification. However, VF-12 soon abandoned its aircraft to the USMC, while VF-17 operated as a shore-based unit in New Georgia.
In November 1943 the land-based VF-17 ran out of fuel while giving top cover to the carriers USS Essex and USS Bunker Hill. The aircraft then landed on the carriers, without incidents.
The US Navy finally accepted the F4U for shipboard operations in April 1944, after the longer oleo leg was fitted, which finally eliminated the tendency to bounce. The first Corsair unit to be based effectively on a carrier was the pioneer USMC squadron, VMF-124, which joined the USS Essex. They were accompanied by VMF-213. The increasing need for fighters, as a protection against Kamikaze attacks, resulted in more Corsair units being moved to the carriers.
The Navy squadrons VF-12, VF-17 and VF-301 also soon operated from carriers.
The F4U-2 was a nightfighter development of the F4U-1. Standard nightfighter radars of WWII were too large, heavy and complicated to be installed in single-engine, single-seat fighters. But the availability of a small radar with a limited capacity made it possible to develop a nightfighter which would provide a degree of air cover during night operations. Because Vought was already overloaded with work, the development of the F4U-2 was undertaken by the Naval Aircraft Factory. In the end, only 34 were converted. Two of these were made by VMF(N)-532, and these were the only ones converted from F4U-1As.
The original radar was the AIA installation, developed from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology under Project Roger. It had a range of 6km against aircraft. For single-seat fighters a easy-to-use scope had to be developed. This took the form of a small circular scope on the instrument panel that showed two blips for the target. The first blip indicated the direction and distance of the target, and the position of the second blip relative to the first one was an indication of the relative height of the target.
The small radar radome was added on the starboard wing, on the wing leading edge close to the wing tip. To compensate for the weight one of the wing guns was removed, and ammunition reduced. As the F4U-2 was intended for night operations, flame dampers were fitted to the exhaust stacks. A radio altimeter and an autopilot were also installed.
The F4U-2 equipped VMF(N)-532, VF(N)-75 and VF(N)-101. Early operations of VF(N)-75 in New Georgia revealed considerable problems with the operating procedures, but on the night of 1 November Lt. O'Neill shot down a G4M bomber. The tactics finally developed let the F4U-2 climb towards its target from astern. This also helped to decelerate the fighter enough, to prevent it from overshooting its target.
VF(N)-101 was created by splitting of part of VF(N)-75. It was the first carrier-based nightfighter unit of the USN. This was in January 1944, and made the unit the first carrier-based Corsair squadron. A limited number of night operations was flown, because of reluctance to take the risk. Nevertheless, no accidents occurred, which helped to clear the Corsair for carrier operations.
Nevertheless, the Navy preferred to develop a nightfighter version of the F6F Hellcat, which was easier to fly and to deck-land. For night operations those were important advantages, and the Hellcat became the standard single-seat nightfighter.
The F4U-3 was a proposed version of the Corsair with a turbosupercharged XR-2800-16 engine. The 1009A turbosupercharger was expected to maintain the full engine power of 2000hp up to 12200m (40000ft). A large duct under the fuselage housed the turbosupercharger. The first XF4U-3 flew on 22 April 1944.
After the three XF4U-3s, only a single Goodyear-built FG-1A was converted to FG-3, before the programmed was cancelled. Twelve more FG-3s were completed, but were used only for development work.
Goodyear did undertake part of the production of the F4U, under the designation FG. Hence it developed, late in the war, a version of the Corsair powered by the Pratt & Whitney R-4360 Wasp Major. It was based on the F4U-1D, and intended as a low-altitude interceptor. Such aircraft were required to defend the fleet against Kamikaze attacks.
The early R-4360-4 engine was rated at 3000hp. Because of the greater length of the four-row R-4360 radial, the engine cowling of the F2G was elongated. Together with the air intakes behind the engine cowling, on top of the fuselage, this was an easy recognition feature. The tail surfaces were enlarged, and more fuel capacity was installed. Goodyear also fitted an all-round vision bubble cockpit on the F2G. This had first been tried on a FG-1A. It was a significant improvement, that for some reason was not adapted by later models of the Corsair.
The first models were land-based F2G-1s, but they were later followed by F2G-2 carrier fighters with hydraulic wing folding.
Production of the F2G ended after eight prototypes, five F2G-1s and five F2G-2s were completed. The original order for 418 F2G-1s was cancelled, because the end of the war removed any need for the F2G. Climb was excellent, 9150m could be reached in 4 minutes. Maximum speed on the other hand was rather disappointing, 32km/h (20mph) down from the expected 724km/h (450mph). The F4U-5, with its uprated R-2800 engine, was faster than the F2G. The F2G also suffered from lateral control problems.
The first F4U-4 was delivered to the US Navy on 31 October 1944. The F4U-4 was powered by C-series Double Wasp engine. The installed model was the R-2800-18W, later replaced by the R-2800-42W. It had a war emergency power of 2760hp. A four-bladed propeller replaced the three-bladed one of the F4U-1. A chin scoop was added to the underside of the engine cowling. The F4U-4 could reach a speed of 726km/h.
During the F4U-4 production, the cockpit was redesigned again. It now incorporated a flat, bullet-proof windscreen, a revised canopy, an armored seat, and an improved instrument panel.
Production included 2050 F4U-4s with six .50 guns, 297 F4U-4Bs or F4U-4Cs with four 20mm cannon, a single F4U-4N nightfighter conversion and nine F4U- 4P reconnaissance modifications. The last one was delivered in August 1947. Plans to produce the F4U-4 by Goodyear as the FG-4 were abandoned.
The F4U-4 arrived late in WWII, and served only during the last four months of the conflict. The war of the F4U-4 was the Korean war. Here the type served mainly as a fighter-bomber, but nevertheless one pilot, Capt. J. Folmar of VMA-312, was credited with shooting down a MiG-15.
The first post-war model, the F4U-5, was basically similar to the F4U-4. The air scoop under the engine cowling was removed, and replaced by two small scoops incorporated in the lower side of the cowling. Also, the outer wing panels were now fully covered with metal. The armament consisted of four 20mm cannon, as in the F4U-4B. The engine was the 2675hp R-2800-32W, with a variable-speed two-stage supercharger. The engine installation introduced a lowering of the thrustline by 2.75 degrees, which improved stability and forward view.
The first XF4U-5 flew on 4 April 1946.
There was also a nightfighter version, the F4U-5N. The radar was again, as in the F4U-2, installed on the outer starboard wing. The radome was different in shape, however, betraying the presence of the improved AN/APS-6 and later AN/APS-19A radar set. The AN/APS-6 radar had a range of 8km against aircraft, and 37km against ships.
Production included 223 F4U-5s, 214 F4U-5Ns, and 30 F4U-5P reconnaissance models. In addition 101 winterized F4U-5NLs were built, with de-icing booths for service in the bitter winters of Korea. Production continued until October 1951.
In the late 1950s the US delivered a small number of F4U-5s and F4U-5Ns to the Argentine Navy.
The AU-1 was a dedicated low-level attack version of the F4U. The XAU-1 was created by converting a F4U-5NL, and initially the contracts called it the F4U-6. It was powered by a R-2800-83WA with a single-stage supercharger and water injection, that delivered 2800hp at sea level. The air scoops were again removed from the engine cowling.
The AU-1 was given more amour for the pilot and the engine. Four 20mm cannon with 231 rounds each were installed in the wings. The number of outer wing racks was increased from eight to ten.
Performance had, of course, decreased. The handling had suffered even more, and the AU-1 was unpleasant to fly. Only 111 were built between February and October 1952.
The F4U-7 was developed for France. It was based on the F4U-4B. The cockpit was again slightly redesigned, with a small upward extension of the rear fuselage decking. Thus the pilot could be seated even higher. The engine was the R-2800-18W. The French received 94 F4U-7s. The last one completed, on 31 January 1953, was also the last Corsair built.
In addition, the French acquired a few AU-1s used previously by the USMC.
French Corsairs fought in Indochina, Algeria, and the Suez conflict. The last were retired in 1964.
How can the Corsair be evaluated? Its standing as a major combat aircraft of World War II can not be denied. But its merits, or lack thereof, have always been controversial. The Corsair was fast, sturdy, powerful, well-armed, and versatile. Its handling qualities were widely criticized, but an experience pilot who knew the strong points of the aircraft could outmaneuver fighters that were praised for their handling and maneuverability. The most unfortunate feature of the design was the cockpit, which in early versions presented a very poor view for fighting as well as normal operations. Continuous modifications moved the pilot upwards, removed canopy frames and created an acceptable forward view. One wonders why Vought never adopted the Goodyear-designed bubble cockpit, even if it would have had a drag penalty.
The F4U is often said to have been the most successful fighter of WWII. This is based on a claimed 11 to 1 kill ratio: 2140 enemy aircraft shot down for a loss of 189. But as a measure of effectiveness, this is not very reliable. Kill claims are almost invariably too high: Repeated firing on the same aircraft, the confusion of a fast-moving battle, overestimation of damage done to the enemy, and over-confidence of the pilots usually produce estimates which are at least a factor two too high. Also, the opponents encountered by the Corsair squadrons in the Pacific were of greatly varying quality. Most of them indeed flew aircraft to the F4U, but the A6M "Zeke" was inferior to all US fighters of the end of WWII. Finally, to these 189 lost in air-to-air combat one should add the 349 shot down by anti-aircraft fire, the 164 that crashed on landing, and the 992 that were lost for other reasons, including training accidents. The large number of aircraft lost to anti-aircraft fire reflects the use of the Corsair as a fighter-bomber. In this role it excelled, and its use continued into the Korean war.
In one respect the F4U must be considered a partial failure: More than two years passed before the Corsair became an acceptable deck-landing aircraft. Of the 64051 combat missions flown by the type in World War II, 54470 were flown from land bases. If Grumman had not hastily produced the F6F Hellcat, the US Navy could have been in serious trouble. Clearly the Hellcat and Corsair represented different design philosophies: The Hellcat sacrificed performance to simplify production and to make it a better deck-landing aircraft, but the Corsair did not. The Grumman team also produced a fighter that was almost right from the start, apart from the engine change in the early stages of development. Far more time and effort were required to realize the potential of the Vought fighter, and by the time it was fully developed the war was almost over.
Production of the Corsair ended after 12571 had been built, which 4017 by Goodyear and 735 by Brewster. For comparison: Grumman built 12275 Hellcats, and Republic completed 15683 Thunderbolts. One must take into account that production of the F4U continued after the war, and that of the F6F and P-47 did not. The actual production rate of Vought was lower than that of its competitors, but it was still impressive.
|Pratt & Whitney
|Pratt & Whitney
|Pratt & Whitney
|Wing Span
|Wing Area
|631km/h at 7315m
515km/h at S/L
|756km/h at 8170m
649km/h at S/L
|694km/h at 5000m
642km/h at S/L
|3050m in 5.1min
6100m in 10.7min
|9150m in 4min
|Four .50 M2 with 400 rpg
Two .50 M2 with 375rpg
Two 454kg bombs
|Four 20mm cannon
- Wings of the Navy
Captain Eric M. Brown, edited by William Green and Gordon Swanbrough
Pilot Press / Jane's, 1980
- F4U Corsair in Action
Jim Sullivan
Squadron/Signal Publications (Aircraft No.29), 1977.
- The Complete Book of Fighters
William Green and Gordon Swanborough
Salamander Books, 1994
- Thunderbolt -- A documentary history of the Republic P-47
Roger A. Freeman
Arms And Armour Press, 1978, 1992
- Nightfighter -- A Concise History of Nightfighting Since 1914
Anthony Robinson
Ian Allan Ltd., 1988
- The Illustrated Direcory of Fighting Aircraft of World War II
Bill Gunston
Salamander Books, 1988
- Sea, Sky and Stars -- An Illustrated History of Grumman Aircraft
Michael J. Hardy
Arms And Armour Press, 1987
- The Ironworks -- Grumman's Fighting Aeroplanes
Terry Treadwell
Airlife, 1990
- "Bernard Vurpillot et le Corsair"
Bernard Lestrade
Le Fana de l'Aviation, Mai 1994
Editions Lariviere
- Gregory "Pappy" Boyington -- Legende et Realite
Bernard Baeza
Le Fana de l'Aviation, Avril/Mai/Juin 1995
Editions Lariviere
- Victory in the Air
Aeroplane Monthly, VE-day 50th Anniversary edition
IPC Magazines Ltd, 1995.
- Airplane Nr.162
DeAgostini (Netherlands), 1996.
- US Navy and Marine Corps Fighters (WW2 Aircraft Fact Files)
Willand Green and Gordon Swanborough
Macdonald and Jane's, 1976.
- Les Avions de Combat de l'US Navy de la deuxieme geurre mondiale.
Le Fana de L'Aviation, Hors Serie.
Editions Lariviere, 1997.
Emmanuel Gustin


text:
Please enter your search criteria below to find a healthcare provider.
MaineGeneral Medical Center offers advanced surgical care, right here in the Kennebec Valley.
Our team of highly trained surgeons brings a wealth of reassuring experience to patients with a wide range of surgical needs.
Our goal is to advance care at all levels to make sure you received the highest quality compaassionate care from a family of caregivers you can trust.
We offer a full range of surgical services at the Alfond Center for Health in Augusta, and day surgery at the Thayer Center for Health in Waterville.
MaineGeneral is one of only three medical centers in Maine offering the advanced da Vinci robotic system and the only one offering thoracic robotic surgery.
Robotic surgery is a form of minimally invasive surgery that offers improved visualization of the tissues and better dexterity of the instruments.
These are some helpful websites suggested by our medical staff
(Same day surgery only)149 North StreetWaterville, ME 04901Phone: (207) 872-1000


text:
ADPH Home | Download Adobe Reader
Return to On Demand Menu
Broadcast Date: June 22, 2011(2 hours)Register for this Program
Handouts (19 pages)
Choose Player
RealPlayer Windows Media Player
Post-Conference Materials
Sign-in Sheet (1 page)Evaluation (1 page)Social Work/Case Manager Sign-in Sheet (1 page)Social Work/Case Manager Evaluation (1 page)
Program faculty will discuss therapeutic diets used to treat and prevent a variety of health-related conditions that could have dramatic, negative effects on your home-bound patient.
For more information, view the conference flyer.
Home health aides, home attendants and other professionals and family workers who administer and care for patients in the home setting, waiver case management staff
None for this programThis training is a required in-service for 2011 for E/D and HIV/AIDS Waiver case management staff employed by the Alabama Department of Public Health to include Case Managers, Area Social Work Managers, and Area Social Work Directors who have direct client contact.
Call (334) 206-5618 or email ALPHTN.
En Español | Notice of Privacy Practices | Statements & Policies | Alabama.gov | Alabama Directory | Alabama MediaAlabama Department of Public Health | Montgomery, AL | 1-800-252-1818 | County Health Department Contacts


text:
Oct 16 , 2012
The Daily Fetch
Together we're putting adoptable pets in the spotlight
There's nothing better than being able to combine your personal passions with your day job. I am reminded of this constantly through my work with the Petfinder team. The past few weeks have been filled with lots of planning and outreach in celebration of Adopt-A-Shelter-Dog Month — from writing press …


text:
You Can Has A Custom Title!!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Seattle, Washington
Posts: 5,253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
|3-Series (E36) Chat relating to the BMW 3-Series from 1992-1999. Autodoodad Specific models include: BMW 316i, BMW 318i, BMW 318iS/ti, BMW 320, BMW 323, BMW 320, BMW 324, BMW 325, BMW 328.
|Thread Tools
|Display Modes
| Originally posted by Furious@Aug 27 2003, 06:48 AM
you got a better picture than that?
| Originally posted by MrM3@Aug 27 2003, 01:03 PM
i'd say mtech all the way. that oem diffuser is pretty nice
| Originally posted by fatty@Aug 27 2003, 03:40 PM
ive been in that car...... sounds nice. not to keen on the front bumper as there is nothing behind it....
| Originally posted by e30_325_s52+Aug 27 2003, 08:19 PM-->

QUOTE (e30_325_s52 @ Aug 27 2003, 08:19 PM)

QUOTE (morph @ Aug 27 2003, 08:06 PM)

wha u think of the rear part tho?
| Originally posted by El Presidente@Aug 27 2003, 10:05 PM
i say leave quad exhaust for cars that really have it.
| Originally posted by bimmer328isss@Aug 28 2003, 05:46 AM
just curious, how expensive would it be to put a quad exhaust on a 3?
|Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
|Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode
Hybrid Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode
Threaded Mode Switch to Threaded Mode
|Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


text:
The Optimist
Just think: 40 years ago today – down in Columbus, Ohio – a tiny, itsy-bitsy baby Mike Brown came into this world, with a wooden little head filled with defensive principles that he, himself, couldn't even understand yet.
Who could have known that that little pamper-pooping rascal would go on to be the most successful coach in the history of a franchise born that very same year?
Happy XLth, Coach Brown! You are Extra-Large.
All that Mike Brown does is win. The Big Enchilada awaits.
If Mike Brown is my favorite head coach in the NBA, than Coach John Kuester of the Pistons is a close second. "Coach Q" is simply the World's Nicest Man in the World. And I wish there was a way I could predict the Wine and Gold winning this game by ½ a point. I wish.
In his first year at the Pistons' helm, Detroit is 21-40 and out of the playoff picture. Our Cavaliers, on the other hand, lead the league at 48-14. The Birthday Boy is looking for six straight and win No. 260.
But I can tell you that neither man cares a lick about "numbers." Nor does the Cavaliers' undisputed leader, TheBron – (and he owns, or is about to own, every record in franchise history). If piling up big numbers happens in the context of his game, so be it, as long as Cleveland comes out on top in the end.
In fact, the only Cavaliers player that I can think of who's focused hard on records, it's reserve forward Anderson Varejao.
What Anderson cares about is the Guinness Book of World's Records®, and specifically, the monumental Snuggie™-wearing mark that 20,562 Cavalier fans are about to set on Friday night at The Q.
Guinness Adjudicator Danny Girton will be on hand to certify the new record, so please be patient (and polite) while he does a head-count.
Any loser can break individual records like Cy Young's 749 complete games, Johnny Unitas' 47-game touchdown streak and, of course, several marks Wilt Chamberlain set, both on the court and in the community.
But it takes real teamwork to get in the World Record Books as a unit. I just hope you fans have more esprit de corps than our pencil-necked friend from Parma …
Am I to understand that when I get to my seat for Friday's game against the Pistons, I'm expected to don some sort of fleece pancho in an attempt to set a World Record?
Here's my question: Will Joe Tait be wearing one? If Joe Tait wears his Snuggie™, I'll wear mine. If he eats a DiGiorno's pizza, I'll eat a DiGiorno's pizza. You dig?
If Joe Tait doesn't wear the Snuggie™, I hope 20,521 breaks the record.
Bort Stein, Sr. Esq.
Parma, OH
Bort, you've been a hard-liner in 2010. I actually kinda like it.
But here's the thing: Joe Tait can't wear the fleece because he's more or less "media" – like Brian Windhorst or to a much, much, much lesser extent, cavs.com's Joe Gabriele. He really can't wear the Snuggie™ during the game.
But I'll bet dollars-to-donuts that on this very night, the Taiter is swathed in fleece splendor on the sofa – with his lovely wife Jean popping grapes in his mouth like he's some sort of Roman plutocrat.
So you wear that Snuggie™, Bort. And you'll watch the Wine and Gold demolish their third straight opponent in toasty comfort.
Remember how bad the Knicks stunk on Monday night? Well they beat the Pistons by 24 two nights later. That ain't good for Detroit, and when TheBron scores 27 first-half points on his former nemeses, it just gets worse.
This awakes a sleeping giant and the Cavaliers pour it on down the stretch. By the time Coach Brown pulls his starters, Cleveland is up 22 and TheBron is busting several moves.
The Wine and Gold coast to their sixth straight win 112-91 – sending the Pistons to their sixth straight loss.
After the victory, the Good Guys board the Team Bus headed for the Good Land, Mil-ee-wah-que for a Saturday night battle with the surging Bucks. There's still an empty seat where the Large Lithuanian used to sit. Only one man can fill it.
As for you bucketheads, a little celebration after the ballgame is in order, but don't go all John Daly on me. Keep some of that powder dry for tomorrow night.
That's all for today. You know what you have to do.
Choose faith, Parma
One love,
The Optimist


text:
Click on a thumbnail to go to Google Books.
The Spanish Cockpit: An Eyewitness Account of the Spanish Civil War
by Franz Borkenau
No current Talk conversations about this book.
An interesting rendering of the internecine struggle for dominance which took place on the republican side (or the left) in the Spanish Civil War-(1936-1939). Borkenau an ex-communist and ex-comintern agent apparently made an effort also to get a ground level view of the other Nationalist (or the right) but was refused. In any case the book is heavy on analysis of the motivations of the various parties--their aims and goals not only just to supplant or destroy each other but what they intended to bring into the social and economic life of the country. Of course there are mistakes (some of them colossal) to be examined. I find Borkenau to be even-handed in his examination of all the different parties and often enlightened in his conclusions. I liked the book but is probably best to start with Antony Beevor's or Hugh Thomas's histories of the conflict before getting to something like this because with more time and distance from the event those writers could be more accurate in the finer detail. Even so Borkenau's book is written with a high degree of objectivity despite being based mostly on direct experience and his writing is very fluid and stays away from partisanship. Very good.
Reputed to be an honest rendering of a confused political situation involving anarchism, trotskyism, stalinism, socialism and communism vying for power in Republican Spain.
References to this work on external resources.
Wikipedia in English (2)
No descriptions found.
No library descriptions found.
Amazon Kindle (0 editions)
Audible (0 editions)
CD Audiobook (0 editions)
Project Gutenberg (0 editions)
Google Books — Loading...
Popular covers
Is this you?
Become a LibraryThing Author.


text:
You can try this link and then use their search engine to find what you want. Good luck. http://smith-wessonforum.com/eve
Is there a good writeup anywhere for the Sigma SW9VE?
Last edited by Uno99; 11-21-2006 at 09:01 AM.
You can try this link and then use their search engine to find what you want. Good luck. http://smith-wessonforum.com/eve
Thx Baldy I am waiting for them to activate my membership.
If you haven't got your membership yet I can email you the articles, there seems to be quite the heated debate about the lighter springs in the sigmas.
I tried to send you a pm with my email but could not.
Last edited by Uno99; 11-22-2006 at 01:33 PM.
Hey Uno99. It only takes about 24 hours to get OKed at the S&W site. Maybe you need to get ahold of the forum administrator. Good luck.
Good to go over on S&W Forum but I have searched all over and cannot find a nice writeup.
The Sigma is pretty much a copy of a Glock. You should be able to find a plenty of info on the Glock and then see if it will work with your Sigma.
Thanks VOM...I will try some searches on Glocks.. I never thought of that. I'm starting to think I should just leaveit the way it is. Any reputable gun smith shoud be able to do this job right??????
I guess there was a bit of confusion on my part. The articles I was referring to were about leaving it stock. I would like for the trigger pull to be lighter on my Sigma, but on every forum that I've read about it seems to go half and half either way. But it seems it's not recommended for anything but a range/plinking gun.
Mine is only used at the range and messing around at camp.
What kind of holster do you use for your Sigma?
I have a fobus holster for glock m29 30 fits good comfotable


text:
Click on a thumbnail to go to Google Books.
Miss Julia Speaks Her Mind: A Novel (original 1999; edition 2000)
by Ann B. Ross
Work details
Miss Julia Speaks Her Mind by Ann B. Ross (1999)
No current Talk conversations about this book.
Synopsis: Miss Julia is newly widowed and is finding that she rather likes being responsible for herself rather than always doing/thinking what her husband has told her. She sees the rest of her life as a comfortable progression of spending money as she likes while maintaining her lofty role in the community. This vision is upset by the arrival of a nine year-old boy on her doorstep who is her husband's son. Although completely crushed, Miss Julia decides that she will' hold up her head and do what's right'. Her community, particularly her preacher, thinks that she should let the church administer her money, as well as tell her how to live. What follows is a kidnapping, the beating of an innocent woman, and finding who her friends really are.
Review: I have trouble liking the main character of this book, although I do understand her attitudes and lifestyle. The awaking of intellect, independence, and humanity this book details makes this a series I want to continue to read.
Another random pick from my library - a fun, easy read. Miss Julia is a classic Steel Magnolia Southern lady!!
I'm working through the series now .. so far consistent and enjoyable
Miss Julia Speaks Her Mind - Anne B. Ross
3 stars
Recently widowed the proper Miss Julia is confronted with the living evidence of her husband's infidelity.
Little Lloyd, a waif-like replica of the dear departed, is left on her doorstep by the child's distracted and desperate mother. Ross creates numerous caricatures of the inhabitants of a small southern town in a way that reminds me of Fannie Flag. The story advances to a predictable ending with mildly amusing mishaps and adventures.
Speaks Her Mind is the first book in the Miss Julia series and the second one that I've read. I started this series somewhere in the middle for a reading challenge a few months ago. It didn't seem to matter that I missed earlier books. Reading this first book did not really give me any new insights into the characters.
This is light, easy reading that provides an occasional chuckle.
Timing and expectations were everything when it came to me and my love for this book. After trying it once before after expecting more of a cozy mystery, I was disappointed and didn't end up finishing the book. This go around, I went in expecting a story that was more about Miss Julia and her adjustment period after her husbands death and was pleased with her character to no end. She was sheltered by her husband and was quick to learn how to live with independence and was filled with spunk all the while. She endures a number of trials and tribulations, including a mystery. There is no doubt that as I age myself, I have a new found appreciation for characters such as Miss Julia.
Miss Julia's husband recently passed away and left her a rich woman. She's now enjoying getting to do things for herself and speak her own mind. The Hazel Marie Puckett shows up with her son Little Lloyd whose father happens to be Julia's husband. Hazel Marie takes off for beauty school leaving Julia to deal with Little Lloyd and the sudden knowledge that her husband cheated on her. Meanwhile Pastor Ledbetter is trying to get Miss Julia to finance a family center at the church and isn't above using unusual means to get the task accomplished. When a strange preacher shows up and takes Little Llloyd things become more complicated. I enjoy Miss Julia and liked this first novel in the series.
Is contained in
Is abridged in
Reader's Digest Select Editions 1999 v05 #245 by Reader's Digest
Droga nad urwiskiem. Skandal. Sasiadka by Reader's Digest
RDSELP v108 Miss Julia Speaks her Mind | A Song for Mary by Reader's Digest
Kirjavaliot - Aavikon hiekkaa, Elämä yllättää Julia-rouva, Karu totuus, Jotta toiset saisivat elää by Valitut Palat
References to this work on external resources.
Wikipedia in English
Amazon.com Product Description (ISBN 0688177751, Paperback)
Miss Julia, a recently bereaved and newly wealthy widow, is only slightly bemused when one Hazel Marie Puckett appears at her door with a youngster in tow and unceremoniously announces that the child is the bastard son of Miss Julia's late husband. Suddenly, this longtime church member and pillar of her small Southern community finds herself in the center of an unseemly scandal-and the guardian of a wan nine-year-old whose mere presence turns her life upside down.
With razor-sharp wit and perfect "Steel Magnolia" poise, Miss Julia speaks her mind indeed-about a robbery, a kidnapping, and the other disgraceful events precipitated by her husband's death. Fast-paced and charming, with a sure sense of comic drama, a cast of crazy characters, and a strong Southern cadence, Miss Julia Speaks Her Mind will delight readers from first page to last.
(retrieved from Amazon Thu, 12 Mar 2015 18:20:05 -0400)
Shortly after the death of her husband, a wealthy Southern widow is visited by an impoverished young woman with a small boy. A mistress? A son? Julia Springer can't believe it, only to discover that the whole town has known for years. But she will rise to the occasion when the boy is kidnaped.… (more)
(summary from another edition)
Amazon Kindle (0 editions)
Audible (0 editions)
CD Audiobook (0 editions)
Project Gutenberg (0 editions)
Google Books — Loading...
Popular covers
Is this you?
Become a LibraryThing Author.