• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Are the Harrier and Jaguar "beautiful"?

Rifleman62

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
70
Points
530
The only flying Spitfire Mk. 11 is the email caption but a website reports it is a Mk XI

DexOlesa: I typed it incorrectly. S/B MK II vice Mk 11, meaning a Mark Two. Thanks for picked that error up. I believe it is a Mark XI, meaning a Mark Eleven.

Regardless. nice picture/sound for those who can appreciate beauty from long ago.
 

SeanNewman

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Mark IX Spitfire is from what I have seen is generally regarded the "best".

Had the big cannons and 4-bladed prop for the bigger engine, but it didn't yet have the stretched body that ruined the aesthetic proportions.

On a different note, I have always wondered why if 4 = IV, why do you always see it as IIII on clocks?
 

Rifleman62

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
70
Points
530
Johnnie Johnson flew the Mk IX Markings: JE  J

Commanding Canadians as did Douglas Bader (242 Sqn Hurricanes)
 

vonGarvin

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
20
Points
430
Petamocto said:
On a different note, I have always wondered why if 4 = IV, why do you always see it as IIII on clocks?
From Wikipedia, several possibilities:
Clock faces that are labeled using Roman numerals conventionally show IIII for four o'clock and IX for nine o'clock, using the subtractive principle in one case and not the other. There are many suggested explanations for this, several of which may be true:

Louis XIV, king of France, who preferred IIII over IV, ordered his clockmakers to produce clocks with IIII and not IV, and thus it has remained.
Using the standard numerals, two sets of figures would be similar and therefore confusable by children and others unused to reading clockfaces: IV and the VI; and IX and XI. Since the first pair are additionally upside down on the face, an added level of confusion would be introduced. It is used to make greater character distinction between them by using IIII and VI
The four-character form IIII creates a visual symmetry with the VIII on the other side, which the two-character IV would not.
With IIII, the number of symbols on the clock totals twenty Is, four Vs, and four Xs, so clock makers need only a single mold with a V, five Is, and an X in order to make the correct number of numerals for their clocks: VIIIIIX. This is cast four times for each clock and the twelve required numerals are separated:
V IIII IX
VI II IIX
VII III X
VIII I IX
The IIX and one of the IXs are rotated 180° to form XI and XII. The alternative with IV uses seventeen Is, five Vs, and four Xs, requiring the clock maker to have several different molds.
Only the I symbol would be seen in the first four hours of the clock, the V symbol would only appear in the next four hours, and the X symbol only in the last four hours. This would add to the clock's radial symmetry.

Many clocks use IIII because that was the tradition established by the earliest surviving clock, the Wells Cathedral clock built between 1386 and 1392. It used IIII because that was the typical method used to denote 4 in contemporary manuscripts (as iiij or iiii). That clock had an asymmetrical 24-hour dial and used Arabic numerals for a minute dial and a moon dial, so theories depending on a symmetrical 12-hour clock face do not apply.
And
The notation of Roman numerals has varied through the centuries. Originally, it was common to use IIII to represent four, because IV represented the Roman god Jupiter, whose Latin name, IVPPITER, begins with IV. The subtractive notation (which uses IV instead of IIII) has become the standard notation only in modern times. For example, Forme of Cury, a manuscript from 1390, uses IX for nine, but IIII for four. Another document in the same manuscript, from 1381, uses IX and IV. A third document in the same manuscript uses IX and a mix of IIII and IV. Constructions such as IIIII for five, IIX for eight or VV for 10 have also been discovered. Subtractive notation arose from regular Latin usage: the number 18 was duodeviginti or “two from twenty”; the number 19 was undeviginti or "one from twenty". The use of subtractive notation increased the complexity of performing Roman arithmetic, without conveying the benefits of a full positional notation system.
 

time expired

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Must have been really tough when the Centurion screamed PLATOON ,FROM THE RIGHT NUMBER.

                                                                          Regards
 

time expired

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
RECCEGUY,sorry I missed your post,kinda steals my thunder.

                                                                      Regards
 
Top