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 » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Looking for B-17 video...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 27th 03, 09:14 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #2  
Old December 28th 03, 12:33 AM
Jim Knoyle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


  #3  
Old December 28th 03, 04:33 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jim Knoyle" wrote in message
...

"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.


Jimmy, there is no possibility that you could know what you are writting.

The truely fantastic part, is the notion of a grease monkey aregueing with a
systems engineer, about how an airplane works. You couldn't be more of an
idiot, Knoyle.


  #4  
Old December 29th 03, 07:20 AM
Jim Knoyle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Jim Knoyle" wrote in message
...

"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.


Jimmy, there is no possibility that you could know what you are writting.

The truely fantastic part, is the notion of a grease monkey aregueing with

a
systems engineer, about how an airplane works. You couldn't be more of an
idiot, Knoyle.


I'm sure everybody notices the selective snipping again but I
wonder if they know that by refusing to comment about sta. 520
you yet again shoot yourself in the foot! :-)
My earlier mention of sta. 520 was partly leaning in your favor.
That three phase wiring run that you claim burnt would run between
the P14/15 panels in the E/E compartment up to the upper deck in
the vicinity of sta. 520 *and* sta. 520 is the precise location of
the section 41/42 join. A real engineer would know that and not
let his paranoia get the better of him.

By the way, I was an R&E and not a grease monkey.
(Not that there is anything wrong with being an A&P)

JK




 




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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
turbo video Peter Holm Aerobatics 13 September 29th 04 11:31 PM
Aviation Video: Another F-16 bites the dust Iwan Bogels Instrument Flight Rules 0 September 21st 04 07:02 AM
In-Flight Video Ron Wanttaja Home Built 11 May 16th 04 06:11 AM
B-36 Video Dave Jones Military Aviation 0 November 15th 03 04:05 PM
"Support Our Troops" Video (Link) dave911 Military Aviation 0 July 29th 03 06:59 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Đ2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.