On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 21:56:02 -0800, "Bob (not my real pseudonym)"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 13:58:17 +0000, Charles Lindbergh
><spirit@stlouis.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 21:51:33 -0800, "Bob (not my real pseudonym)"
>><invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Now, that's putting lipstick on a pig!
>>
>>I am curious, why do you think the Apache is a "pig"?
>
>Not intending to be derogatory, but the Apache will never win a beauty
>contest. It does, however, look like it means business and nothing
>but.
>
>It was just that (those) fancy Dutch paintjob(s) after seeing all the
>"boring" US Army olive drab that surprised me.
>
I figured that out after I posted the question.
The Apache is ugly, but it is so beautiful in it's utility, somewhat like the
A-10.
Although, I don't find the A-10 as unattractive as do so many others. In fact,
I feel it is so perfect in it's design I would love to see it brought back into
manufacture in an updated version. The F-35 will never replace the A-10 as so
many like to claim.
|
|
')){kind=link}