A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

zoom's zooming againZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11  
Old September 12th 05, 08:31 PM
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ric wrote:

Actually your exactly right Bob .Here's what I said right from jaun's
source:

"It's not designed to fly without a fuselage cover," Slusarczyk said,
adding
that he hopes to visit Jackson, see the wreckage and confer with the
National
Transportation Safety Board to help determine the cause of the crash."

It wasn't designed to without a fuselage cover but I never said that's why
it
crashed.
Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret



Just to play devils advocate here, you were talking to a reporter about the
fatal crash of one of you ultralight designs. If you didn't intend to infer
that flying the ultralight without a fuselage may have contributed to the
crash why on earth would you mention it?

Ric


The correct word would be "imply." I wasn't there, but I have seen
enough bad editing to wonder if his response may have partially been to
an earlier question.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.