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

V-8 powered Seabee



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 31st 03, 08:26 AM
Barnyard BOb --
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 05:38:20 GMT, "Bruce A. Frank"
wrote:



Barnyard BOb -- wrote:

And my counterpoint is....
If this was an AIRCOOLED powered aircraft,
the failure could not possibly happen.

Keep on spinning away...
with talk of minimal damage, etcetera --
but, far too many times aircraft are totaled
and occupants do not walk away when
forced to land off airport. And sadly, when
it comes to landing on highways, they tend to
take their share of traffic innocents with them.

Barnyard BOb -- KISS - keeping it simple, stoopid


Yep, you are correct, BOb. Lycomings and Continentals never fail and of
the infinitesimal small number that might, no one will ever even get
hurt. This wasn't a point/counter point discussion. I was clarifying a
fact for Corky. I would hate to leave out a piece of information so that
you might say I was "spinning" the facts. A sin(spin?)of omission. Oh,
wait, you say I am spinning the facts now! Obviously you are still
besting me at every turn. How dastardly of you. Maybe one of these days
I'll consider this "fight" worth some indulgence of my time. But for now
I'll leave others the pleasure and just "spin" a few facts once in a
while.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If your remarks are for Corky... send him a private email.
Otherwise, your remarks here are fair game for one and all.

IF you and Corky ever ACTUALLY FLY your conversions.....
maybe your FACTS? will take on a more realistic perspective.
So far, you vocal RAH conversion advocates are ALL TALK
and NO WALK. ALL HAT. NO CATTLE. You guys point to what
you believe are 'successes' defined by some 'shoot from the hip'
criteria. MOSTLY what I see is...BULL****, so the flags go up.
If this is "BESTING" you, so be it. I make no apologies.

Worth YOUR indulgence?
Pardon me all to hell, your majesty.
While you and Corky just talk, talk, talk....
I continue to walk my walk - just like I have for 50 flight years.
Why should I give a rat's ass if you never INDULGE me, again?

When you two scare the **** out of yourselves sufficiently,
AND YOU WILL, I believe you may 'indulge' me...
....IF you survive your follies and your egos.


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight.






  #2  
Old October 31st 03, 01:06 PM
Barnyard BOb --
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bruce A. Frank" of the no spin zone wrote:

wait, you say I am spinning the facts now! Obviously you are still
besting me at every turn. How dastardly of you.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

No smiley?


Merriam-Webster Dictionary

--- DASTARDLY ---

1 : COWARDLY
2 : characterized by underhandedness or treachery


WoW....
You really have lost it, Bruce.



Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight



  #3  
Old October 31st 03, 06:14 PM
Bruce A. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Last time I used a "smiley" with you BOb it still took six subsequent
posts to convince you I was joking. Obviously if you are besting me you
are doing something "dastardly." B^)

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:

"Bruce A. Frank" of the no spin zone wrote:

wait, you say I am spinning the facts now! Obviously you are still
besting me at every turn. How dastardly of you.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

No smiley?

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

--- DASTARDLY ---

1 : COWARDLY
2 : characterized by underhandedness or treachery

WoW....
You really have lost it, Bruce.

Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight


--
Bruce A. Frank
  #4  
Old November 2nd 03, 07:01 AM
Barnyard BOb --
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Bruce A. Frank" wrote:

Last time I used a "smiley" with you BOb it still took six subsequent
posts to convince you I was joking. Obviously if you are besting me you
are doing something "dastardly." B^)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ONLY SIX?

I'm slipping.


Barnyard BOb - not into counting
  #5  
Old October 31st 03, 06:06 PM
Bruce A. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Gotcha!

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 05:38:20 GMT, "Bruce A. Frank"
wrote:



Barnyard BOb -- wrote:

And my counterpoint is....
If this was an AIRCOOLED powered aircraft,
the failure could not possibly happen.

Keep on spinning away...
with talk of minimal damage, etcetera --
but, far too many times aircraft are totaled
and occupants do not walk away when
forced to land off airport. And sadly, when
it comes to landing on highways, they tend to
take their share of traffic innocents with them.

Barnyard BOb -- KISS - keeping it simple, stoopid


Yep, you are correct, BOb. Lycomings and Continentals never fail and of
the infinitesimal small number that might, no one will ever even get
hurt. This wasn't a point/counter point discussion. I was clarifying a
fact for Corky. I would hate to leave out a piece of information so that
you might say I was "spinning" the facts. A sin(spin?)of omission. Oh,
wait, you say I am spinning the facts now! Obviously you are still
besting me at every turn. How dastardly of you. Maybe one of these days
I'll consider this "fight" worth some indulgence of my time. But for now
I'll leave others the pleasure and just "spin" a few facts once in a
while.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If your remarks are for Corky... send him a private email.
Otherwise, your remarks here are fair game for one and all.

IF you and Corky ever ACTUALLY FLY your conversions.....
maybe your FACTS? will take on a more realistic perspective.
So far, you vocal RAH conversion advocates are ALL TALK
and NO WALK. ALL HAT. NO CATTLE. You guys point to what
you believe are 'successes' defined by some 'shoot from the hip'
criteria. MOSTLY what I see is...BULL****, so the flags go up.
If this is "BESTING" you, so be it. I make no apologies.

Worth YOUR indulgence?
Pardon me all to hell, your majesty.
While you and Corky just talk, talk, talk....
I continue to walk my walk - just like I have for 50 flight years.
Why should I give a rat's ass if you never INDULGE me, again?

When you two scare the **** out of yourselves sufficiently,
AND YOU WILL, I believe you may 'indulge' me...
...IF you survive your follies and your egos.

Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight.


--
Bruce A. Frank
  #6  
Old November 3rd 03, 12:50 PM
Corky Scott
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 02:26:44 -0600, Barnyard BOb --
wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 05:38:20 GMT, "Bruce A. Frank"
wrote:



Barnyard BOb -- wrote:

And my counterpoint is....
If this was an AIRCOOLED powered aircraft,
the failure could not possibly happen.

Keep on spinning away...
with talk of minimal damage, etcetera --
but, far too many times aircraft are totaled
and occupants do not walk away when
forced to land off airport. And sadly, when
it comes to landing on highways, they tend to
take their share of traffic innocents with them.

Barnyard BOb -- KISS - keeping it simple, stoopid


Yep, you are correct, BOb. Lycomings and Continentals never fail and of
the infinitesimal small number that might, no one will ever even get
hurt. This wasn't a point/counter point discussion. I was clarifying a
fact for Corky. I would hate to leave out a piece of information so that
you might say I was "spinning" the facts. A sin(spin?)of omission. Oh,
wait, you say I am spinning the facts now! Obviously you are still
besting me at every turn. How dastardly of you. Maybe one of these days
I'll consider this "fight" worth some indulgence of my time. But for now
I'll leave others the pleasure and just "spin" a few facts once in a
while.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If your remarks are for Corky... send him a private email.
Otherwise, your remarks here are fair game for one and all.

IF you and Corky ever ACTUALLY FLY your conversions.....
maybe your FACTS? will take on a more realistic perspective.
So far, you vocal RAH conversion advocates are ALL TALK
and NO WALK. ALL HAT. NO CATTLE. You guys point to what
you believe are 'successes' defined by some 'shoot from the hip'
criteria. MOSTLY what I see is...BULL****, so the flags go up.
If this is "BESTING" you, so be it. I make no apologies.

Worth YOUR indulgence?
Pardon me all to hell, your majesty.
While you and Corky just talk, talk, talk....
I continue to walk my walk - just like I have for 50 flight years.
Why should I give a rat's ass if you never INDULGE me, again?

When you two scare the **** out of yourselves sufficiently,
AND YOU WILL, I believe you may 'indulge' me...
...IF you survive your follies and your egos.


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight.


BOb, you continually amaze me. What's the problem with citing those
who have flown prior to Bruce and me? Aren't you continually
demanding that we prove the viability of the auto conversion by
listing how many have flown and for how many hours?

Does the fate of the auto conversion rest soley on the shoulders of
Bruce and me? You cannot look at the success of others as
confirmation that if one does the job correctly, one can successfully
fly behind an auto conversion?

I'm afraid if you wait for me, it will be several years yet. I have a
long way to go before I'm ready to fly and will not be bullied into
rushing.

Corky Scott
 




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
human powered flight patrick timony Home Built 10 September 16th 03 03:38 AM
Illusive elastic powered Ornithopter Mike Hindle Home Built 6 September 15th 03 03:32 PM
Pre-Rotator Powered by Compressed Air? nuke Home Built 8 July 30th 03 12:36 PM
Powered Parachute Plans MJC Home Built 4 July 15th 03 07:29 PM
Powered Parachute Plans- correction Cy Galley Home Built 0 July 11th 03 03:43 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:42 PM.


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