Hmmm a BD5J with zero hours FS

wrote:
Juan Jimenez wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Juan Jimenez wrote:
...
Sorry, ChuckSteak, but it has to carry a human being. You don't rate the
privilege.

But it doesn't have to ever leave the ground while carrying a
human being right?
Ask Marco. He'll set you straight.


How about if instead of asking Marco myself, I trust you and accept
what you wrote he

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...d2bfabf?hl=en&
"Marco knows it had not flown when the record application was
submitted "?

Now, keeping in mind that opinion is like flatulence,
in that everyone has it and everyone thinks everyone
else's stinks worse than their own, IMHO, it takes more
than a bit of chutzpah to submit a claim for the world's
smallest/lightest/shortest/whatever human piloted
jet aircraft, when the aircraft in question has never flown.

But to accept, such a claim, as Guiness has, is just plain
stupid. And that is their problem, not yours.

The way I look at it, if the plane doesn't have to fly to hold the
record that guy with the jet-powered Cri-Cri could just lop
off a little from each (or only one!) wing and the nose and
take the record away from your BD5. Then you could do
the same and take it back. The two of you could keep that
up until all that is left of each of your planes is a seat
duct taped onto an engine. At that point I think the
Cri-Cri would win, having the smaller engine.

During that process, it would never be clear exactly
when either plane ceased to qualify as a human-piloted
jet aircraft, so I would think that it would only be reasonable
to include, as a condition for the record, a stipulation that
the plane leave the ground under it's own power, while
carrying a human pilot.

Then we could argue over whether or not it left ground effect.

Gee, now yawn will have to put you in your place with a childish
remark. Brace yourself.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan wrote:
wrote:
...

Then we could argue over whether or not it left ground effect.

Gee, now yawn will have to put you in your place with a childish
remark. Brace yourself.


Blimey! I soiled me flight suit!

--

FF

"Dan" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Juan Jimenez wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Juan Jimenez wrote:
...
Sorry, ChuckSteak, but it has to carry a human being. You don't rate
the
privilege.

But it doesn't have to ever leave the ground while carrying a
human being right?
Ask Marco. He'll set you straight.


How about if instead of asking Marco myself, I trust you and accept
what you wrote he

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...d2bfabf?hl=en&
"Marco knows it had not flown when the record application was
submitted "?

Now, keeping in mind that opinion is like flatulence,
in that everyone has it and everyone thinks everyone
else's stinks worse than their own, IMHO, it takes more
than a bit of chutzpah to submit a claim for the world's
smallest/lightest/shortest/whatever human piloted
jet aircraft, when the aircraft in question has never flown.

But to accept, such a claim, as Guiness has, is just plain
stupid. And that is their problem, not yours.

The way I look at it, if the plane doesn't have to fly to hold the
record that guy with the jet-powered Cri-Cri could just lop
off a little from each (or only one!) wing and the nose and
take the record away from your BD5. Then you could do
the same and take it back. The two of you could keep that
up until all that is left of each of your planes is a seat
duct taped onto an engine. At that point I think the
Cri-Cri would win, having the smaller engine.

During that process, it would never be clear exactly
when either plane ceased to qualify as a human-piloted
jet aircraft, so I would think that it would only be reasonable
to include, as a condition for the record, a stipulation that
the plane leave the ground under it's own power, while
carrying a human pilot.

Then we could argue over whether or not it left ground effect.

Gee, now yawn will have to put you in your place with a childish
remark. Brace yourself.

Geez, got me a volunteer secretary now. And a free one, too. Thanks for
taking care of that for me.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Juan Jimenez" wrote in message
.. .

"Dan" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Juan Jimenez wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Juan Jimenez wrote:
...
Sorry, ChuckSteak, but it has to carry a human being. You don't rate
the
privilege.

But it doesn't have to ever leave the ground while carrying a
human being right?
Ask Marco. He'll set you straight.


How about if instead of asking Marco myself, I trust you and accept
what you wrote he

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...d2bfabf?hl=en&
"Marco knows it had not flown when the record application was
submitted "?

Now, keeping in mind that opinion is like flatulence,
in that everyone has it and everyone thinks everyone
else's stinks worse than their own, IMHO, it takes more
than a bit of chutzpah to submit a claim for the world's
smallest/lightest/shortest/whatever human piloted
jet aircraft, when the aircraft in question has never flown.

But to accept, such a claim, as Guiness has, is just plain
stupid. And that is their problem, not yours.

The way I look at it, if the plane doesn't have to fly to hold the
record that guy with the jet-powered Cri-Cri could just lop
off a little from each (or only one!) wing and the nose and
take the record away from your BD5. Then you could do
the same and take it back. The two of you could keep that
up until all that is left of each of your planes is a seat
duct taped onto an engine. At that point I think the
Cri-Cri would win, having the smaller engine.

During that process, it would never be clear exactly
when either plane ceased to qualify as a human-piloted
jet aircraft, so I would think that it would only be reasonable
to include, as a condition for the record, a stipulation that
the plane leave the ground under it's own power, while
carrying a human pilot.

Then we could argue over whether or not it left ground effect.

Gee, now yawn will have to put you in your place with a childish
remark. Brace yourself.

Geez, got me a volunteer secretary now. And a free one, too. Thanks for
taking care of that for me.

What repartee scooter, You come up with this stuff all by yourself?

Al G

"Al G" wrote in message
...

"Juan Jimenez" wrote in message
.. .

"Dan" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Juan Jimenez wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Juan Jimenez wrote:
...
Sorry, ChuckSteak, but it has to carry a human being. You don't rate
the
privilege.

But it doesn't have to ever leave the ground while carrying a
human being right?
Ask Marco. He'll set you straight.


How about if instead of asking Marco myself, I trust you and accept
what you wrote he

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...d2bfabf?hl=en&
"Marco knows it had not flown when the record application was
submitted "?

Now, keeping in mind that opinion is like flatulence,
in that everyone has it and everyone thinks everyone
else's stinks worse than their own, IMHO, it takes more
than a bit of chutzpah to submit a claim for the world's
smallest/lightest/shortest/whatever human piloted
jet aircraft, when the aircraft in question has never flown.

But to accept, such a claim, as Guiness has, is just plain
stupid. And that is their problem, not yours.

The way I look at it, if the plane doesn't have to fly to hold the
record that guy with the jet-powered Cri-Cri could just lop
off a little from each (or only one!) wing and the nose and
take the record away from your BD5. Then you could do
the same and take it back. The two of you could keep that
up until all that is left of each of your planes is a seat
duct taped onto an engine. At that point I think the
Cri-Cri would win, having the smaller engine.

During that process, it would never be clear exactly
when either plane ceased to qualify as a human-piloted
jet aircraft, so I would think that it would only be reasonable
to include, as a condition for the record, a stipulation that
the plane leave the ground under it's own power, while
carrying a human pilot.

Then we could argue over whether or not it left ground effect.

Gee, now yawn will have to put you in your place with a childish
remark. Brace yourself.

Geez, got me a volunteer secretary now. And a free one, too. Thanks for
taking care of that for me.

What repartee scooter, You come up with this stuff all by yourself?

Nah, for this I use a grade-school comeback generator on the web. You don't
rate the good stuff.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Juan Jimenez wrote:

Nah, for this I use a grade-school comeback generator on the web.



[SET SHUN JUAN MODE = OFF]

Juan, the evidence is overwhelming that you ARE a grade-school comeback
generator on the web.

[SET SHUN JUAN MODE = ON]

- John Ousterhout -

"John Ousterhout" wrote in message
news:u_Rlh.198115$aJ.22359@attbi_s21...
Juan Jimenez wrote:

Nah, for this I use a grade-school comeback generator on the web.


[SET SHUN JUAN MODE = OFF]

Juan, the evidence is overwhelming that you ARE a grade-school comeback
generator on the web.

[SET SHUN JUAN MODE = ON]

As opposed to what, the master of the Lawn Dart Patrol Squadron? Remember
this?

The engine had about four hours running on the test stand and on the
aircraft with the tail chained down. Cooling concerns kept the full
power runups to a short time. We'll wait for the teardown to determine
what actually cause the problem.

It's a very bad idea for a fool like you to throw stones from inside a glass
house.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com