Actually i’d wager that Google will be the one to dig up any earlier references with their book scanning project.
I bet not. Google has no legal right to scan and post any book that is under copyright without an agreement with the copyright holder. As far as I can tell, it has no plans to make these books - those after 1923 - available as part of the opening of their project. They’ll stick to public domain items, a not inconsiderable number.
Most of these publishing contracts since 1923 lack any electronic rights clauses.
Some recent court rulings interpret rights not explicitly given up by the author as remaining with the author.
in the case of ebook publisher RosettaBooks v. Random House. The case was later settled so that RosettaBooks authors kept all their rights.
Following that case some modern publishers have taken care to put a e-rights clause into their contracts. But for the great majority of work written between 1923 and 1993 the individual writer or heirs will have to be tracked down and negotiated with. This will take somewhere between a very long time and forever.
Well, on a tangentially related note, this process seems promising for a pre 1921 cite for “riding shotgun”. Man, what an exciting thread. Then…
[Coureur de Bois]I wen’ to look for 'ur and dere she was! Gone![/CdB]
Click on the period of my last post. Google is already making many copyrighted books available (although they only show a few results at a time currently).
Those links on Google seem to be the equivalent of Amazon’s “Search Inside the Book” feature, not a listing of the entire book, which is what I understood the Google library project to be.
Amazon has a limited selection of books available and has been forced to remove others because of authors’ objections. I don’t know what Google’s full intentions are.
If all Google intends is a limited search capability then it appears that it can work with publishers to use some copyrighted material. I would think that the selection of books wouldn’t be that much different from the works already available for search from Amazon, though.
It’ll all go to court eventually.
The “fighters” in that war were jets, who used rockets and 20mm cannons, not machineguns. And, very rarely did any of our fighters see any air-to-air combat in the VNW. So, no, the term cannot come from the fighters that were flown in Viet-nam. Their may have been some ground support aircraft that still had .50’s, but even the Skyraider- the only common fixed wing prop driven aircraft used in that role- had 20mm cannons.
Hmm- I’d guess that 20mm cannon belts were much shorter than 27 feet, but that’s just a WAG- anyone know?
It is just possible that the term could come from Korea- a few Mustangs were used in Korea to dogfight enemy MIGs. Korean war vets were sometimes used to train Viet-nam war pilots.
In any case- fighters didn’t pour out all their ammo in one long continuous string- that would lead to your guns overheating and jamming. So- one could NOT “give them the whole nine yards… of .50 machinegun ammo from the wing guns of a Mustang”- if indeed the wing guns of a Mustang held 9 yards, or if the pilots were even aware of it. Both of which are doubtful.
The amount of yarn needed depends on the thickness of the yarn and the size of the needles used, but it’s always more than nine yards.
Cats also have nine lives, and then there’s cloud nine, love potion #9, etc. It’s a number that shows up alot, and I don’t think the fact that two phrases connected to the clothing industry have nine in them is helpful is determining the origin of nine yards.
GIGObuster writes:
> I guess I have to say it: I do give little weight to my memory, you are the one
> constantly ignoring that it was the book by the restorers of the classic fighters
> were I am basing my humble opinion that the origin MIGHT be found with WWII
> figters.
No, you said in your first post that you were basing your opinion on both the documentary you said you saw and the book about restoring the fighter. I was only commenting about the documentary because I was wondering why you didn’t bother to make a note of the title of it. I’m not so sure about the book about restoring the fighter. Yes, its title is The Whole Nine Yards, but nowhere in anything online about the book does it claim that the title came from the length of ammo belts or anything else on the fighters. Perhaps the title merely means that the restorers completely restored the plane (i.e., went the whole nine yards in restoration), using the phrase only because it’s a popular phrase today, not back in World War II. Somebody here should get a copy of the book and find out why they picked that title.
Most models of the P-51 Mustang had 6 50-cal machine guns - 3 in each wing. The two innermost in each wing had a normal load of 400 rounds (the outermost gun had less due to more limited space). Based on my actual measurement of a short length of linked 50-cal ammo belt, 400 rounds would be almost exactly 27 feet, or 9 yards long.
Was this known to anyone other than the armourers who loaded the guns before flight? I doubt it - why would anyone else care? The important info was the number of rounds, and, occasionaly, the weight. Also, the P-51 was only one of a number of different aircraft used by the USAAF in WW2, each with different ammo loads (the P-47 had 8 50-cal machine guns with 425 rounds per gun, the P-38 had 500 RPG, the B-17 up to 13 guns with varying RPG).
Is it the origin of the phrase? I doubt it. I think this is a case where someone has noted a coincidental match between the phrase and a fairly common ammo belt length and created an origin based on this very flimsy foundation.
I hadn’t really thought about how common the number nine is in cliches and legends. There does seem to be something particular about the number. Maybe it is because it seems like a big number without being hard to visualize. (I can envision nine distinct stitches in my head, but 33 just looks like a jumble)
That’s probably why the phrase caught on, even for folks who didn’t know the origin.
The origin could be as mundane as “9 yards was the distance from the barracks to the latrine at that air base in Vietnam”, but once a few people started using it, the easy flow of it made it spread.
(When my divine omnipotence as an illegitimate son of Zeus kicks in, I’ll log on and let you know.)
Just a guess here but whats the capacity of the container 50 cal shells are stored in?
The Quote I’ve heard was “I gave them the whole 9 yards Skipper.” Probably meaning the gunner was talking to the pilot.
Hmmm, I’m dubious, but that is a quote that’s more likely to be reported than the “I’m outta fuckin’ ammo! I’m outta fuckin’ ammo! Oh God, I’m outta fuckin’ ammo!!!” that I would have said under those circumstances.
Thank you for the information, and the well-written post! 
Note to justwannano- **Xgemina ** posted “A standard ammo can of .50 cal holds 100 rounds and is no where near 27 feet long.”
Thus- it ain’t a “gunner”.
SoK
What were the extra belts stored in?It would probably be of a size and weight that the gunner could easily handle while reloading.
Gee, and all this time I thought “the whole 9 yards” referred to the amount of cement mix in a standard cement mixer used to fill in the grave of a man wearing a custom-made suit and a woman with her bridal veil who were killed by strafing from a WW2-era fighter plane and buried in the middle of a football field.
Cite?
Like Xgemina said- in ammo cans. Which Xgemina said hold around 100 rounds.
Since these are so handy, you have likely seen a few in your lifetime. They are green, about the size of a large phone book, and have a folding metal handle on top.
The standard one are upright- the smallest dimesion is width, they are about as tall as deet- like 18" or so. They are somewhat watertight. Maybe someone can give the exact dimensions or a link.
Just a note for references which claim an origin from a statement by a gunner on a WW2 US bomber. IIRC all the planes which actually saw much frontline service had the defensive MG ammo stored in large bins and fed through special flexible guide chutes. These would have held a lot more than 400 rounds/9 yards. Actual cans of the type the ammo was stored in for use by ground troops may not even have been normal inventory on most USAAF bases.
Serious question here, but not a cite to work with.
Suppose “the whole nine yards” does have a military meaning, but it doesn’t have anything to do with ammo belts.
Can anyone discuss any of these possibilities?
How deep can a depth charge drop before exploding?
What’s the maximum running depth for a torpedo?
How far does a soldier in basic training have to crawl on an obstacle course?
What was the distance between the beach and a German pillbox on Omaha or Utah beach?
How many naval yards could refit a ship?
What was the recommended altitude for strafing from an attack plane?
If you were to hang someone “from the highest yard-arm” how many yard-arms would you choose from?
Just idle thoughts.
-
WAY more than 9.
-
WAY more than 9.
-
About 100 yards or more.
-
More like 90 yards than 9. The only time you deliberatly get within 27 feet of the ground is when you’re landing.
