Posted by Jon on January 05, 2001 at 14:42:49 from 199.158.80.11:
In Reply to: COOT CLUB - observations part TWO posted by Ed Kiser on January 05, 2001 at 06:42:57:
>P91 Chapter 8
>"Rat!" shrieked a woman in orange pyjamas who had
>come ashore to see what was to be done to Joe.
>
>In that part of the world, is is customary or even merely
>acceptable for people to walk about in public wearing the
>pyjamas? Or perhaps, if this practice is not socially
>acceptable, does this apparent violation of protocol merely serve
>to indicate the crassness of the Hullabaloos? Maybe the author's
>choice of "orange" helped to serve to indicate the nature of
>these "low-lifes" as being a flagrant display of unappropriate
>attire
>
"Beach pyjamas" were loose-fitting casual attire of the period.
>
>P163 Chapter 14
>They spot a bird, a Marsh Harrier, on Horsey Mere just before turning about
>to return the twins home. I noted that name of the bird, and was wondering
>if maybe there is some connection between the "Harrier", the bird, and the
>vertical-take-off-and-landing jet the British have, sometimes called a
>"jump jet", that is also called the "Harrier Jet". Perhaps the agility
>of this jet airplane is associated with the similar ability of this type of
>hawk, and was thusly named after the hawk. This incident of course is not
>intended as any reference to modern technology by Ransome, as this was
>written well before the Jet airplane made its appearance.
>
The Harrier jump-jet was the production development of the Hawker P.1127 Kestrel (also a small hawk). British military aircraft are designated by a name (Harrier, Lightning, Spitfire, Mosquito), unlike US aircraft where the primary official designation is a class letter and sequence number (F-16, C-130, B-52), with a name possibly recognized as the official synonym. There may be some patterns in naming a class of aircraft (Harvard, Yale, and Oxford were all trainers), or the aircraft of a certain manufacturer (Hawker produced the Hurricane, Fury, Typhoon, and Tempest) but they're not absolutes.