Fly Boy ?????

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
"Mike Marron" wrote:

Glad to see you finally coming around Steven. There's no substitute
for experience but when I asked you how many hours you have in
a certain type your non sequitur response was "irrelevant."

Your message makes no sense whatsoever.

You must have a short memory:

I said:

"Please post your number of hours logged in experimental trikes
right here --____________"

You responded:

"Zero, and irrelevant."

In any event, now that you've acknowledged the priceless value of
experience, when it comes to ditching an Avenger I would agree with
you and give the nod to those whom have actual experience successfully
ditching the airplane in real world situations over what the book
says.

Of course, like many things in aviation it's not quite as cut and
dried as that and perhaps a combination of the book technique
and my fellow squadron mate's technique would be best. But having
ditched an aircraft myself, I still can't say for sure if I'd use the
same technique again in the event I find myself in the same situation
once again.

"OXMORON1" wrote in message
...

Of course the Navy did, but they used the information and design work of
Grumman.


So what? Until aircraft are actually ditched any information provided by
the builder on ditching is just theory. If aircraft always behaved as
predicted there'd be no reason for testing at all.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:
"Mike Marron" wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

I would think the operator would have better information on the ditching
behavior than would the manufacturer.

Glad to see you finally coming around Steven. There's no substitute
for experience but when I asked you how many hours you have in
a certain type your non sequitur response was "irrelevant."

Lune.

All great men are dying, and I am rather sick myself.

(BTW, you misspelled "loon")

"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
"Mike Marron" wrote:

Glad to see you finally coming around Steven. There's no substitute
for experience but when I asked you how many hours you have in
a certain type your non sequitur response was "irrelevant."

Your message makes no sense whatsoever.

You must have a short memory:

Non-sequitur.

"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...

You must have a short memory:


I have an excellent memory.



I said:

"Please post your number of hours logged in experimental trikes
right here --____________"

You responded:

"Zero, and irrelevant."

In any event, now that you've acknowledged the priceless value of
experience, when it comes to ditching an Avenger I would agree with
you and give the nod to those whom have actual experience successfully
ditching the airplane in real world situations over what the book
says.

Of course, like many things in aviation it's not quite as cut and
dried as that and perhaps a combination of the book technique
and my fellow squadron mate's technique would be best. But having
ditched an aircraft myself, I still can't say for sure if I'd use the
same technique again in the event I find myself in the same situation
once again.


Different issue. Experience ditching an Avenger obviously provides one with
knowledge of the ditching characteristics of an Avenger. But logging hours
in experimental trikes does not provide one with knowledge of the FARs, as
you so ably demonstrated with your messages last month.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

Different issue.

But same principle relating to the importance of experience.

Experience ditching an Avenger obviously provides one with
knowledge of the ditching characteristics of an Avenger.

Er um, exactly what I said.

But logging hours in experimental trikes does not provide one
with knowledge of the FARs, as you so ably demonstrated with
your messages last month.

Like I said Stevie, you're living in the land of Oz and are more full
of **** than a brontasaurus with no ass if you think that you, with
your basic VFR-only private pilot's license (?) and paltry amount of
experience is in the same ball park with ANY CFII or A&P mechanic
(not just me). Reality check!

What, do you think my ultralight trike came out of its shipping crate
with an N-number magically stuck on it just for me? Somebody had to
educate the feds about these newfangled, tailless flying machines
because like you, they didn't have the first clue even what a "trike"
is...much less how to go about N-numbering one!

And then somebody had to know how to properly fill out FAA Forms
8130-6, and -12, have them notorized and send them off to Oklahoma
City. Same goes for AC Form 8050-3, -1 which had to be signed and
dated as evidence that I have complied with the registration
requirements per FAR Part 47.

And who do you suppose had to enclose 3-view drawings complete
w/photos of the A/C as required by FAR section 21.193? The Great Oz?

And who do you think weighed the A/C to make sure it was within CG
limits and sent a copy of that information to the feds in Oklahoma
City as well? Santa Claus?

What about the all the required placards and markings, who do you
s'pose plastered them all over the A/C? Mrs. Claus? Santa's reindeer?
Perhaps one of Santa's elves?

Only AFTER all these items were done could I even begin to think about
logging hours in my experimental trike as you said above. Hell, you
didn't even know that experimental trikes EXISTED....much less that I
happened to be one of the handful of pilots whose not only
knowledgable enough with the FAR's, but motivated enough to take
a common ultralight and register it as an experimental so as allow me
to operate it just like I would operate a Cessna 210.

Perhaps it's time that you grow up and give credit where credit's due
Steve. Just because you've wasted all these years arguing on Usenet
about whether or not the Wrights were the first to achieve powered
flight or Yeager was the first through the mythical "sound barrier,"
some of us have actually been busy building and flying and
accomplishing things. You're a talker, not a doer.

BTW, how many experimental A/C have YOU built and N-numbered
Steve? Anyone, even my 9-year old nephew, can simply copy and paste
the FAR's off the web like you did while attempting to show how
knowledgable you *think* you are.

Subject: Fly Boy ?????
From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
Date: 10/23/03 12:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: et


"Autocollimator" wrote in message
...

Less chance of that as experience has shown us.


What is your experience in ditching the TBM?


.. Exactly the same as you.

Ed Rasimus wrote:
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Once you give someone the benefit of the doubt, you admit that there is doubt.
Always lingering, disturbing unsettling doubt.

I've followed all this thread, biting my tongue in the process. What
amazes me is that the resident "if you ain't been, you ain't ****..."
curmudgeon is so eager to condemn someone who has been there.

Anyone who has been, knows that you all sign on--pilots, navs,
bomb-aimers, gunners, EWO's et. al. You go to war. You go with the
folks you are assigned to go with.

War happens in a heartbeat. It sometime works for you and sometime
against. Some folks die and some folks live. The live ones aren't
better or worse than the dead ones, simply luckier.

To second guess circumstances sixty years later, particularly based on
an author's creative account is to demean the whole warrior ethic.

I'm sorry. I survived. I didn't spend years in a POW camp. I wasn't
wounded in action. I didn't lose any crew members. I didn't lose any
aircraft. I saw a lot of losses.

The fact that is incontrovertible is that Bush (41) was a combat
pilot. He was younger than most. He was blooded. He lost an aircraft
in honorable combat. He survived. What is wrong with that?

Additionally, as I've previously noted in this forum, Bush (43) was a
graduate of UPT, a qualifier in a Century Series aircraft, and a
commissioned officer. Those are fine qualifications in my book.

Well said and I agree wholeheartedly. Perhaps Teddy Roosevelt
summed it up best:


"It's not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the
strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done
better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the
arena......"

Subject: Fly Boy ?????
From: Mike Marron
Date: 10/23/03 2:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

I would think the operator would have better information on the ditching
behavior than would the manufacturer.

Glad to see you finally coming around Steven. There's no substitute
for experience but when I asked you how many hours you have in
a certain type your non sequitur response was "irrelevant."



We had 30 seconds to escape from a B-26 in training in Lake Charles.And some of
us didn't make it all the time. Navy guysawho have been through ditching drill
will understand. .The B-26 barely paused at the surface before flooding and
diving under. Bush's plane was a "floater" and often floated for hours. He
should have ditched. Sorry to insert personal ditching experience in this
thread.
Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Art Kramer wrote:
Mike Marron wroteL
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

I would think the operator would have better information on the ditching
behavior than would the manufacturer.

Glad to see you finally coming around Steven. There's no substitute
for experience but when I asked you how many hours you have in
a certain type your non sequitur response was "irrelevant."

We had 30 seconds to escape from a B-26 in training in Lake Charles.And some of
us didn't make it all the time. Navy guysawho have been through ditching drill
will understand. .The B-26 barely paused at the surface before flooding and
diving under.

I haven't been thru the Navy's ditching drills but I have ditched an
A/C before (for real) and I certainly understand. You're sitting there
fat, dumb and happy and the next thing ya know you're hanging
from the straps upside down. Here's a ditching story from one of
my UK bud's who went thru a similiar experience:

***

Well I had personal experience and I can tell you that when the trike
hits the water it is all over in a second and the wing wrapped around
the trike which tipped sideways and sank immediately. I would not
suggest undoing your seat belt if you intend to stay with the craft.

I panicked for a second underwater thinking I was trapped, I forgot
about my seat belt, then common sense took over and I relaxed, undid
it and felt my way out. In a rushing river or sea things will be even
worse. My river was slow moving and shallow enough to see a wing tip
sticking above the surface. One wing stayed in tact, the other
wrapped around the trike.

You won't be able to stall like a hang glider and just drop down to
the water unless you do a BIG stall which will take you up quite high.
The resulting drop will not be good. When they fly the English
channel, people fill their wings with air matresses to help keep the
wing afloat if they ditch.

I would not want to go through it again and I think I may take my
chances and jump next time before hitting the water, especially in
rough water or fast flowing rivers.

***

Bush's plane was a "floater" and often floated for hours. He should
have ditched.

Even if you're right, I'm afraid that ain't the point, Art. Have you
read Ed Rasimus' astute comments (and my followup) in this
thread? In case you missed it, here they are once again:

Ed said:

***

I've followed all this thread, biting my tongue in the process. What
amazes me is that the resident "if you ain't been, you ain't ****..."
curmudgeon is so eager to condemn someone who has been there.

Anyone who has been, knows that you all sign on--pilots, navs,
bomb-aimers, gunners, EWO's et. al. You go to war. You go with the
folks you are assigned to go with.

War happens in a heartbeat. It sometime works for you and sometime
against. Some folks die and some folks live. The live ones aren't
better or worse than the dead ones, simply luckier.

To second guess circumstances sixty years later, particularly based on
an author's creative account is to demean the whole warrior ethic.

I'm sorry. I survived. I didn't spend years in a POW camp. I wasn't
wounded in action. I didn't lose any crew members. I didn't lose any
aircraft. I saw a lot of losses.

The fact that is incontrovertible is that Bush (41) was a combat
pilot. He was younger than most. He was blooded. He lost an aircraft
in honorable combat. He survived. What is wrong with that?

Additionally, as I've previously noted in this forum, Bush (43) was a
graduate of UPT, a qualifier in a Century Series aircraft, and a
commissioned officer. Those are fine qualifications in my book.

***


My followup:

Well said and I agree wholeheartedly. Perhaps Teddy Roosevelt
summed it up best:


"It's not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the
strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done
better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the
arena......"