Looking for B-17 video...

"Idiot" wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote:
Jim Knoyle wrote:

Uh ?

Knoyle doesn't remember anything Graham, he just spews.

Pot, kettle, black.

Which proves once and for all, you can point an idiot to an Airworthyness
Directive, but you can't expect him to be able to read it.

Pot, kettle, black.

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 08:55:57 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:

Propane and hydrogen was the mix used by Cal Tech and they are now
humiliated for the stunt nation wide.

Really? According to the US News and World Report's rankings, Cal Tech
is tied for 5th with Duke, Stanford and the University of Pennsylvania
among the 248 universities in the country (162 public and 86 private)
that offer a wide range of undergraduate majors as well as master's
and doctoral degrees:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/col...udoc_brief.php

It must be so humiliating to trail only Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and
MIT! (I fully realize that such rankings are highly subjective, but if
Cal Tech had really been humiliated nationwide, one might expect it to
affect such rankings.) Perhaps Cal Tech fired the guy responsible for
their humiliation? Oops, Joseph Shepherd was promoted to full
Professor of Aeronautics in 1999. Perhaps students have noticed this
humiliation and are going elsewhere? Oops, they get roughly 3,000
applications for about 215 places in the freshman class.

Is there any objective evidence that they have been humiliated, or is
this just Mr. Tarver's impression?

Curious readers might also note that the Cal Tech research group
conducted several hundred combustion experiments with Jet A besides
the propane/hydrogen/air experiments. They might also note that back
on Thu, 24 May 2001 11:45:45 -0700, Mr. Tarver acknowledged that he
had not read any of the reports published by Cal Tech's Explosion
Dynamics Laboratory, because "any credibility Cal Tech ever had with
me left when their potato gun was on National News." How his
preference for sound bite science affects his credibility is left as
an exercise to the reader.

No longer will America's Universities
even consider lending their credibility to NTSB and they can no longer get a
University to do work for them.

Can Mr. Tarver cite an instance where a NTSB tried to get a University
to work for them and failed to do so? Details such as which University
and which request for proposal might be helpful.

Regards,

George
************************************************** ********************
Dr. George O. Bizzigotti Telephone: (703) 610-2115
Mitretek Systems, Inc. Fax: (703) 610-1558
3150 Fairview Park Drive South E-Mail:
Falls Church, Virginia, 22042-4519
************************************************** ********************

"Dr. George O. Bizzigotti" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 08:55:57 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:

Propane and hydrogen was the mix used by Cal Tech and they are now
humiliated for the stunt nation wide.

Really? According to the US News and World Report's rankings, Cal Tech
is tied for 5th with Duke, Stanford and the University of Pennsylvania
among the 248 universities in the country (162 public and 86 private)
that offer a wide range of undergraduate majors as well as master's
and doctoral degrees:

Yes, Cal Tech has an excellent reputation in the sciences; which made the
NTSB's misrepresentation of the "potato gun" all the more embarrassing. I
believe California has the best Universities in the World.

"Jim Knoyle" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

I could put forward the outright refusal of the University system
refusing
to do any more work for NTSB, due to their misuse of the material.

Then you have a link, or a reference which mentions this, right?

As usual though, I will expect you to do your own research.

As usual, it doesn't exist, and you were hoping nobody would notice.

More likely, it doesn't really matter what you imagine, Chad.

And you're not even going to mention the two other Boeing-made planes
(737s in Manila 1991, and Bangkok 2001) which have exploded on the
ground from exactly the sort of fuel-tank problem that got TWA 800,
right?

No, in fact that detail has already been covered; in this thread. There
is
an AD covering the 737 -300 and earlier wire bundle problem. The idea
that
their is a "design philosophy" that causes 747 CWT's to be bombs is
nutty.
The 747 not only lacks the "too short" wire bundle of some 737s, but
that
bundle is not even routed through the CWT in 747s, like the 737.

Wrong again, Tarver! There is a single connector with shielded wiring
running from said connector to each of the probes in the tank. The
setup is identical for both the 737 and 747 (and all other Boeing
transports, for that matter) with the only difference being in the number
of probes per tank. That is the only wiring inside the tank i.e. passive
fuel quantity probes (capacitors). As I've said before, the fuel pump
motors and valve actuators are outside of the tank.
Yes, John, I've assisted in the replacement of dozens of fuel qty.
harnesses, though most were 737s.

snip

JK

Thanks for verifying/validating a "Consistent Boeing CWT Design Philosophy"
used on all Boeing Models with CWT's.

It is my understanding Boeing has changed it's "CWT Design Philosophy" to
minimize/eliminate the "Inherent Danger" of the older "Design Philosophy.

In the future I will refer to the new CWT design Philosophy as "NEW" & the
older 1 as "Heritage".
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

"Dr. George O. Bizzigotti" wrote in message
...

snip
Regards,

George
************************************************** ********************
Best wishes for the "Holidays" to you/yours.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in message
...
"Idiot" wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote:
Jim Knoyle wrote:

Uh ?

Knoyle doesn't remember anything Graham, he just spews.

Pot, kettle, black.

Not the case, Kozel, the fuel tank differences between the 737 and 747 are
well known and the AD to the 737 fuel tank is also well known and public.

Which proves once and for all, you can point an idiot to an
Airworthyness
Directive, but you can't expect him to be able to read it.

Pot, kettle, black.

For Jimmy troll to claim to be ex-United, is especially a hoot, as United
didn't bother "inspecting and replacing the bundle as necessary", but
replaced every single suspect bundle in every suspect 737 they flew.

That is, of course, the reason the pre and some -300 737s have a higher
incidence of CWT problems and also completely different from a 747 CWT.

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
...

"Jim Knoyle" wrote in message
...

Thanks for verifying/validating a "Consistent Boeing CWT Design
Philosophy"
used on all Boeing Models with CWT's.

It is my understanding Boeing has changed it's "CWT Design Philosophy" to
minimize/eliminate the "Inherent Danger" of the older "Design Philosophy.

Why would Knoyle have any knowledge of any "design philosophy", for any
airplane, anywhere in this universe?

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
...

"Jim Knoyle" wrote in message
...

Thanks for verifying/validating a "Consistent Boeing CWT Design
Philosophy"
used on all Boeing Models with CWT's.

It is my understanding Boeing has changed it's "CWT Design Philosophy"
to
minimize/eliminate the "Inherent Danger" of the older "Design
Philosophy.

Why would Knoyle have any knowledge of any "design philosophy", for any
airplane, anywhere in this universe?

People who work with/around numerous things in whatever capacity have
numerous reasons to have a "broad basic understanding of the "Design
Philosophy" of what ever they are working with.

Identifying/Having a Basic Understanding of differing Architectural
Philosophies is necessary for FD Personnel to do their job properly. The
same applies to CFR/ARFF Personnel.

His description of CWT's across the "Boeing Commercial Pax Product Line",
you conveniently "Creatively Sniped" in your response above, speaks for
itself. To work on/repair anything, especially something as sophisticated as
a modern commercial pax A/C, requires some familiarity with the design
philosophies involved.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
...

"Jim Knoyle" wrote in message
...

Thanks for verifying/validating a "Consistent Boeing CWT Design
Philosophy"
used on all Boeing Models with CWT's.

It is my understanding Boeing has changed it's "CWT Design Philosophy"
to
minimize/eliminate the "Inherent Danger" of the older "Design
Philosophy.

Why would Knoyle have any knowledge of any "design philosophy", for any
airplane, anywhere in this universe?

People who work with/around numerous things in whatever capacity have
numerous reasons to have a "broad basic understanding of the "Design
Philosophy" of what ever they are working with.

Knoyle has created an entire archive of his own misunderstandings of how an
airplane works. Therefore your attempt to draw credibility for your
statements that the 747 CWT is a "bomb", can not come from Jimmy.

Once again, Ralph, Boeing made some boost pump wire bundles for early 737s
that run throuh the CWT too short, that error created a "source of
ignition"; but it has absolutely nothing to do with the 747 CWT. The bundle
is not only lacking a "too short" error for the 747 boost pumps, but the
bundle is also routed differently.

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

Once again, Ralph, Boeing made some boost pump wire bundles for early 737s
that run throuh the CWT too short, that error created a "source of
ignition"; but it has absolutely nothing to do with the 747 CWT.

But the rest of the flawed electrical equipment in the 747 could, as
shown by the various TWA 800 investigations.

Funny how you keep harping on the one thing you *think* you know, but
keep "forgetting" the rest...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.