Looking for B-17 video...

"Jim Knoyle" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
y.com...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
y.com...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
.. .

"Duster" wrote in message
. ..
Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is
almost
better
though..

Duster

Tarver cannot get it through his head that having the air
handling
units
operating under the CWT when the A/C is stationary is like
putting
a
pressure cooker with a small amount of fuel in it, on a stove
at
low
heat.

Nesbitt can't get it through his head that a 747 is not a bomb
and
there
is
no design philosophy to make airliners that are bombs at Boeing.

Hopefully your skull is thick enough to deflect the flying "Bits &
Pieces"
when an FAE occurs.

You mean aluminium dust?

Sorry, Nesbitt, no aluminium dust bombs, no hydrogen and propane
potato
gun,
just an empty fuel tank. What you write demonstrates just how
deeply
Hall's
NTSB implanted their fantasy in your mind.

Splappy you are beginning to get so far out in the "Briar Patch"
beyond
the
"Facility's Left Field Fence" you can barely be "Heard".

I am completely mainstream. It is your insistance on lying about the
reliability of the 747 that is out in the ozone, Ralph. There is
nothing
wrong with the airplane, as it comes from the factory.

Your "burning electricity caused section 40 to fall off" theory
sure finds fault with the electrical fault isolation design and
you accuse Boeing of installing an undocumented section
to boot! Suggest you brush up on chapters 6 and 24.

Undocumented in what way, Jimmy loon?

If you mean the unaproved data you mechanics are fed, yes, what you are told
about the equipment you work on is often wrong; that is the nature of every
MM ever produced.

If you mean to say that my posts about the section 41/42 join failing, your
monkey ignorance about inches still has people lauging.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Jim Knoyle" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
y.com...

Splappy you are beginning to get so far out in the "Briar Patch"
beyond
the
"Facility's Left Field Fence" you can barely be "Heard".

I am completely mainstream. It is your insistance on lying about the
reliability of the 747 that is out in the ozone, Ralph. There is
nothing
wrong with the airplane, as it comes from the factory.

Your "burning electricity caused section 40 to fall off" theory
sure finds fault with the electrical fault isolation design and
you accuse Boeing of installing an undocumented section
to boot! Suggest you brush up on chapters 6 and 24.

Undocumented in what way, Jimmy loon?

Undocumented as in nonexistant.

If you mean the unaproved data you mechanics are fed, yes, what you are
told
about the equipment you work on is often wrong; that is the nature of
every
MM ever produced.

There you go again, bad-mouthing Boeing.

If you mean to say that my posts about the section 41/42 join failing,
your
monkey ignorance about inches still has people lauging.


The only time I've come close to mentioning inches is when I
mentioned station 520. Where is station 520 on a 747, Splaps?
Looks like the laugh is on you again!
Remember why I mentioned sta. 520, Splaps?

JK
http://home.att.net/~j.knoyle/section.html

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
y.com...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
y.com...
Please note "Splaps Boy" is the one screaming "Bomb" not be.

You write "bomb" WRT the 747 on a regular basis, Ralph. If I were an
archive troll, I'd wager there are over 100 instances where Ralph
posted
"bomb" in 747 threads WRT the 747 CWT. (all references to "wager"
exclude
the no-pay mazor sock)

Is that per your interpretation, or mine?

It is your own posted words, Nesbitt. You are a nut, out trashing the
747,
but somehow hurling insults at me will make you right; only on usenet.

Google is the official historian of ADA. Show me where I have mentioned the
word "Bomb" regarding this issue, other than in response to your hard
headed, contentious stupidity.

"Get Your Head Out of Where Ever, Clear Anything Which May Blur/Cloud Your
Vision, Then Clear Your Head, as in Get Some Fresh Air," so you may look at
the "Demonstrated Inherently Dangerous Issues" associated with "The Boeing
CWT Design Issue".

That "Inherently Dangerous Conditions" during specified flight
segments/operations exist continuously has been demonstrated by incidents in
the fleet, verified scientifically, & validated in/under real world
operating condition.

To eliminate/limit the "Inherently Dangerous Conditions" common to all
Boeing A/C CWT's, Boeing along/in co-operation with "Regulators & Safety
Oversight Groups" world wide came up with a set of operating protocols
designed to "Limit the Inherent Danger" built into the "Basic Boeing CWT
Design".

Above is a reiteration of my position on the Boeing CWT Design Issue".

The above is a "Fact of Life". Accept it & move on.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

Tarver Engineering wrote:

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
y.com...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
y.com...

-Gord.
Merry Christmas to you/yours Gord. Glad to see the "Sensible Old
Hands" are
still around/lurking ADA.

Look here, Nesbitt, as long as you are calling 747s "bombs", you are a
nut.

Why does my wishing some 1 Merry Christmas cause you such "Heart Burn".

No, Ralph, it is you attempting to include yourself in some "sensible old
hands" group, that gives me alarm; as you are a nut calling 747s "bombs".
Do you have any clue how humiliated Cal Tech is for that little stunt?

Are you referring to the 'explosive mix' experiment that was conducted using
propane ? IIRC as a substitute for Jet A fumes ?

Graham

Duster wrote:

Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost better
though..

Duster

Glad to be of service ;-)

About time a.d.a talked about real a/c probs instead of crank dip****
conspiracy theories.


Graham

Ralph Nesbitt wrote:

"Duster" wrote in message
. ..
Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost better
though..

Duster

Tarver cannot get it through his head that having the air handling units
operating under the CWT when the A/C is stationary is like putting a
pressure cooker with a small amount of fuel in it, on a stove at low heat.

There have been several incidents world wide where Boeing A/C of various
models have exploded sitting at gates, on ramps, taxing out, or shortly
after take off after sitting with the air handling units running under ~
empty CWT's.

There are now "Air Safety Directives" stipulating/requiring certain
operating protocols to minimize this hazard associated with the "Boeing CWT
Design Philosophy".

All very true.

I was nevertheless disappointed as a pyromaniac kid, that placing a closed
paint can 1/4 full of petrol / gasoline over a camp stove *didn't* result in
the conflagration I was hoping for !


Graham ;-)

John Mazor wrote:

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
.. .

"Duster" wrote in message
. ..
Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost better
though..

Duster

Tarver cannot get it through his head that having the air handling units
operating under the CWT when the A/C is stationary is like putting a
pressure cooker with a small amount of fuel in it, on a stove at low heat.

That, and Tarver being an engineer, reminds me of the old joke: an engineer
is someone who thinks that, if your left leg is in a bucket of hot water and
your right leg is in a bucket of ice, then on average, you're comfortable.

Maybe your balls are ?

Graham

Ralph Nesbitt wrote:

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in message
...
"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote:

"Duster" wrote

Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost better
though..

Tarver cannot get it through his head that having the air handling units
operating under the CWT when the A/C is stationary is like putting a
pressure cooker with a small amount of fuel in it, on a stove at low
heat.

There have been several incidents world wide where Boeing A/C of various
models have exploded sitting at gates, on ramps, taxing out, or shortly
after take off after sitting with the air handling units running under ~
empty CWT's.

There are now "Air Safety Directives" stipulating/requiring certain
operating protocols to minimize this hazard associated with the "Boeing
CWT
Design Philosophy".

Splaps Boy is correct in that the A/C is not a "bomb" in the
conventional sense of large object full of high explosive that is
gravity-dropped on a target, but a Boeing 7x7 aircraft's CWT with the
right fuel-air mixture if detonated can equal several sticks of dynamite
in explosive power.

Please note "Splaps Boy" is the one screaming "Bomb" not be. I am simply
pointing out "The Boeing CWT Design Philosophy" results in conditions in the
CWT of Boeing A/C conducive to "Self Initiating FAE's (Fuel Air Explosion)".

Self - initiating ? I've never known a fuel air mixture explode of its own
accord outside a diesel engine. Especially with quite low temps.

An ignition source is also required.


Certain specified operating protocols have become minimum SOP to limit the
"Inherent Danger" associated with"The Boeing CWT Design Philosophy".

As in turning off the fuel pumps with the dodgy wiring when the tank is low ?


Graham

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in message
...
"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote:

"Tarver Engineering" wrote
"Rich Ahrens" wrote in message
Duster wrote:

Could you point me to the thread? This sounds intersting...

A good starting point:

http://home.att.net/~j.knoyle/the_ta...hronicles.html

Although you would have to be an idiot to buy Knoyle's archive troll,
it is
humorous and an excellent idiot detector.

"ROFL/KEYBOARD".

That is an interesting combination... does that involve laughing so hard
that you knock the keyboard onto the floor, and then ruin the keyboard
as you roll over it on the floor while laughing?

More like grabbing the keyboard due falling out of my chair laughing,
getting tangled in the keyboard cord, pulling it loose, while nearly pulling
the computer off bacause of laughing so hard

I can't believe Tarver/Splappy/Splaps Boy stated "Jim Knoyl's Site" is
an
"Excellent Idiot Detector". No doubt IMHO, it has detected an idiot. I
hope
Jim see's this.

Keybooard!

Hopefully Jim does not destroy his computer, as I nearly did when he see's
this.

Hopefully Phil picks this up for his section on "Tarver/Splaps Boy/Splappy.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
y.com...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
y.com...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
.. .

"Duster" wrote in message
. ..
Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost
better
though..

Duster

Tarver cannot get it through his head that having the air
handling
units
operating under the CWT when the A/C is stationary is like
putting
a
pressure cooker with a small amount of fuel in it, on a stove at
low
heat.

Nesbitt can't get it through his head that a 747 is not a bomb and
there
is
no design philosophy to make airliners that are bombs at Boeing.

Hopefully your skull is thick enough to deflect the flying "Bits &
Pieces"
when an FAE occurs.

You mean aluminium dust?

Sorry, Nesbitt, no aluminium dust bombs, no hydrogen and propane
potato
gun,
just an empty fuel tank. What you write demonstrates just how deeply
Hall's
NTSB implanted their fantasy in your mind.

Splappy you are beginning to get so far out in the "Briar Patch" beyond
the
"Facility's Left Field Fence" you can barely be "Heard".

I am completely mainstream. It is your insistance on lying about the
reliability of the 747 that is out in the ozone, Ralph. There is nothing
wrong with the airplane, as it comes from the factory.

Get your story straight. I have not made any comment regarding the
reliability of 747's or any other Boeing A/C.

I have stated that

A=: "The Boeing CWT Design Philosophy" results in an "Inherently Dangerous
Situation" across a broad spectrum of a Boeing A/C/s flight profile.

B=: This has been determined to be a "Safety of Flight".

C=: To minimize/eliminate to the extent possible the "Inherently Dangerous
Situation" due "The Boeing CWT Design Philosophy" across the majority of the
flight spectrum of any given A/C, "Implementation of Specified Operating
Protocols" have been mandated by Air Safety Regulation/Safety Oversight
Organizations" world wide.

To my knowledge nothing "Design Philosophy" wise has changed that would
eliminate "The Inherently Dangerous Situation CWT" issue on Boeing A/C
across the models with CWT's irrespective of whether a given A/C was #1 from
the line or the latest 1 off the line.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type