Looking for B-17 video...

"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

"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.

"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