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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#171
|
|||
|
|||
(Mini-500)I want to build the most EVIL plane EVER !!!
Flyingmonk wrote:
Matt wrote: Well, I'm not questioning is hacking ability, but saying that because one person can't do this implies that it can't be done is just ridiculous. I can't perform open heart surgery either, so I guess that means to you that it can't be done, right? No, not at all. My question is WHY would someone named Planeman, posting from a DIFFERENT email address, would spoof Denise's NNTP and post with a diferent name to support Denise's arguments? If Planeman wanted to support Denise, he can just go right ahead and support him. Why would he need to spoof denise's NNTP? Why would Planeman go through the trouble of spoofing and yet posted under a different name? So that someone could claim that Denise is impersonating someone else to support his cause. That was just too easy. :-) I'm beginning to appreciate Dennis' frustration now. Sorry that I frustate you Matt, but I never meant to frustrate YOU in particular. Normally I'm very docile, He is probably one of very VERY few people that gets me worked up. And I wasn't suggesting that you were. I just like to see logical arguments and your argument in this case (I'm not saying this is true in general) simply wasn't logical. Matt |
#172
|
|||
|
|||
(Mini-500)I want to build the most EVIL plane EVER !!!
Matt wrote:
I just like to see logical arguments and your argument in this case (I'm not saying this is true in general) simply wasn't logical. I'm just not good at arguing. Anywho, so what you are saying now is that the one and only person that supported Denise is actually not supporting him, but instead set him up? The one and only friend he had in RAH was his enemy? LOL |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
(Mini-500)I want to build the most EVIL plane EVER !!!
Matt Whiting wrote:
Flyingmonk wrote: Matt wrote: Well, I'm not questioning is hacking ability, but saying that because one person can't do this implies that it can't be done is just ridiculous. I can't perform open heart surgery either, so I guess that means to you that it can't be done, right? No, not at all. My question is WHY would someone named Planeman, posting from a DIFFERENT email address, would spoof Denise's NNTP and post with a diferent name to support Denise's arguments? If Planeman wanted to support Denise, he can just go right ahead and support him. Why would he need to spoof denise's NNTP? Why would Planeman go through the trouble of spoofing and yet posted under a different name? So that someone could claim that Denise is impersonating someone else to support his cause. That was just too easy. :-) Except that "planeman" was lashing out at everyone, for no reason, until Dennis made his timed entrance. Planned and executed by Dennis, a spoofer couldn't have set it up that way. I'm beginning to appreciate Dennis' frustration now. Oh, I don't think you really are. You're rejecting the simple and obvious, and instead coming up with ridiculously convoluted scenarios. Sorry that I frustate you Matt, but I never meant to frustrate YOU in particular. Normally I'm very docile, He is probably one of very VERY few people that gets me worked up. And I wasn't suggesting that you were. I just like to see logical arguments and your argument in this case (I'm not saying this is true in general) simply wasn't logical. It's simply the only argument that *is* logical. The spoofing argument is absurd. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Occam's%20razor |
#174
|
|||
|
|||
(Mini-500)I want to build the most EVIL plane EVER !!!
In article .com,
"Flyingmonk" wrote: The CH-7's blades were better, they didn't bow like a banana. The were bowing forward as you go farther from the root of the blades. This changed the pivot point for the baldes, imagine taking a straight bladed sword and rotating it, the tip and the rest of the sword stays at the pivot point. Now imagine taking a curved sword and rotating it the same way, you'll notice that the tip stays at the pivot point, but the remainder of the sword will rise or fall due to the curve. The CH-7's blades were fabricated better, they were more uniform or should I say more consistent than what Denise was able to produce. Being more uniform, and of the shape that they were designed, they were easier to track and balance. This resulted in a smoother flying ship. Denise couldn't get the blades to come out as designed. They were not consistent they bowed where they shouldn't have and all this resulted in problems when trying to track and balance the blades. I remember that Gill had a hard time getting the baldes to fly smoothly. I think this fact alone(bad blades) resulted in inefficient rotor system, Unlike propellers, the blades of a helicopter changes pitch continously, this resulted in "shaking" or unsmooth helicopter. The shaking caused the frames to crack! Again, instead of addressing the problem (bad blades), Denise added more metal to the frame in an attempt to beef up the area prone to cracking. Since the blades were not as efficient as the CH-7's blades, the engine had to work much harder to get the same lift. That's where Denise came up with the bandaid fix again, the PEP kit. Instead of tackling the blade problem, he overworked the engine by PEPing it up. CH-7s didn't need to be PEPed up. That's my two cents worth. Sir, I hope you will not feel singled out by me, but how does abusing the man's name lend credibility to what appears to be a reasonably scholarly hypothesis? This is only one example of what I mean when I say I don't give much credence to either Mr. Fetters or his detractors. Sarcasm, rudeness, disrespect, arrogance, snottiness, and all the other exhibits of hostility that permeate both sides of this discussion - and so many others here - may bring self-righteous snickers to the like-minded, but do *nothing* to persuade your opponents or the neutral lurkers. |
#175
|
|||
|
|||
(Mini-500)I want to build the most EVIL plane EVER !!!
Smitty Two wrote:
Sir, I hope you will not feel singled out by me, but how does abusing the man's name lend credibility to what appears to be a reasonably scholarly hypothesis? This is only one example of what I mean when I say I don't give much credence to either Mr. Fetters or his detractors. Sarcasm, rudeness, disrespect, arrogance, snottiness, and all the other exhibits of hostility that permeate both sides of this discussion - and so many others here - may bring self-righteous snickers to the like-minded, but do *nothing* to persuade your opponents or the neutral lurkers. Fetters is one of very very few people that makes my blood boil. Normally I'm a very docile person. I lost a friend, Gil Armbruster, An FAA executive with 10s of thousands of hours of flight time, in the mini500. Gil was a metoculous builder. Fetters is blamed his accident on pilot error. Which is correct, Gil's accident was due to pilot error, his error was choosing the mini500. |
#176
|
|||
|
|||
(Mini-500)I want to build the most EVIL plane EVER !!!
The CH-7's blades were better, they didn't bow like a banana. The
Mini500's blades were bowing forward as you go from the root to tip. This changed the pivot point for the baldes, imagine taking a straight bladed sword and rotating it, the tip and the rest of the sword pivots at the pivot point. Now imagine taking a curved sword and rotating it the same way, you'll notice that the tip stays at the pivot point as well as the root, but the remainder of the sword will rise or fall due to the curve. The CH-7's blades were fabricated better, they were more uniform or should I say more consistent than what Fetters was able to produce. Being more uniform, and of the shape that they were designed, they were easier to track and balance. This resulted in a smoother flying ship. Fetters couldn't get the blades to come out as designed. They were not consistent, they bowed where they shouldn't have and this resulted in problems when trying to track and balance the blades. I remember that Gill had a hard time getting the baldes to fly smoothly. I think this fact alone (bad blades) resulted in inefficient rotor system, Unlike propellers, the blades of a helicopter changes pitch continously, with bad blades, this resulted in "shaking" or unsmooth helicopter. The shaking caused the frames to crack! Again, instead of addressing the problem (bad blades), Fetters added more metal to the frame in an attempt to beef up the area prone to cracking. Since the blades were not as efficient as the CH-7's blades, the engine had to work much harder to get the same lift. That's where Fetters came up with the bandaid fix, the PEP kit. Instead of tackling the blade problem, he overworked the engine by PEPing it up. CH-7s didn't need to be PEPed up. That's my two cents worth. |
#177
|
|||
|
|||
(Mini-500)I want to build the most EVIL plane EVER !!!
Smitty Two wrote:
Sir, I hope you will not feel singled out by me, but how does abusing the man's name lend credibility to what appears to be a reasonably scholarly hypothesis? This is only one example of what I mean when I say I don't give much credence to either Mr. Fetters or his detractors. Sarcasm, rudeness, disrespect, arrogance, snottiness, and all the other exhibits of hostility that permeate both sides of this discussion - and so many others here - may bring self-righteous snickers to the like-minded, but do *nothing* to persuade your opponents or the neutral lurkers. First of all, I want to thank you for pointing that out. You are correct, I have rewritten it: Cicarre's CH-7's blades were better, they didn't bow like a banana. The Mini500's blades were bowing forward as you go from the root to tip. This changed the pivot point for the baldes, imagine taking a straight bladed sword and rotating it, the tip and the rest of the sword pivots at the pivot point. Now imagine taking a curved sword and rotating it the same way, you'll notice that the tip stays at the pivot point as well as the root, but the remainder of the sword will rise or fall due to the curve. The CH-7's blades were fabricated better, they were more uniform or should I say more consistent than what Fetters was able to produce. Being more uniform, and of the shape that they were designed, they were easier to track and balance. This resulted in a smoother flying ship. Fetters couldn't get the blades to come out as designed. They were not consistent, they bowed where they shouldn't have and this resulted in problems when trying to track and balance the blades. I remember that Gill had a hard time getting the baldes to fly smoothly. I think this fact alone (bad blades) resulted in inefficient rotor system, unlike propellers, the blades of a helicopter changes pitch continously as it goes around the vertical shaft, with bad blades, this resulted in "shaking" or unsmooth helicopter. The shaking caused the frames to crack! Again, instead of addressing the problem (bad blades), Fetters added more metal to the frame in an attempt to beef up the area prone to cracking. Since the blades were not as efficient as the CH-7's blades, the engine had to work much harder to get the same lift. That's where Fetters came up with the bandaid fix, the PEP kit. Instead of tackling the blade problem, he overworked the engine by PEPing it up. CH-7s didn't need to be PEPed up. That's my two cents worth. |
#178
|
|||
|
|||
(Mini-500)I want to build the most EVIL plane EVER !!!
Flyingmonk wrote:
Matt wrote: I just like to see logical arguments and your argument in this case (I'm not saying this is true in general) simply wasn't logical. I'm just not good at arguing. Anywho, so what you are saying now is that the one and only person that supported Denise is actually not supporting him, but instead set him up? The one and only friend he had in RAH was his enemy? LOL No, I didn't say that at all and putting words in people's mouths isn't a great way to make friends and influence people. It really takes away from your credibility. I don't know Dennis or the history of his helicopter to comment on whether he had one supporter, 1000, or none, and I don't have any reason to find out. I'm going to exit this discussion now as I've confirmed to my satisfaction what I suspected all along. Cheers, Matt |
#179
|
|||
|
|||
(Mini-500)I want to build the most EVIL plane EVER !!!
Flyingmonk wrote:
Fetters is one of very very few people that makes my blood boil. Normally I'm a very docile person. I lost a friend, Gil Armbruster, An FAA executive with 10s of thousands of hours of flight time, in the mini500. Gil was a metoculous builder. Fetters is blamed his accident on pilot error. Which is correct, Gil's accident was due to pilot error, his error was choosing the mini500. Gil had around 200 hours in the Mini, which seems to be its life limit for airframe and pilot... |
#180
|
|||
|
|||
(Mini-500)I want to build the most EVIL plane EVER !!!
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:33:06 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote: I don't know Dennis or the history of his helicopter to comment on whether he had one supporter, 1000, or none, and I don't have any reason to find out. I'm going to exit this discussion now as I've confirmed to my satisfaction what I suspected all along. Any chance you're available for jury duty about a year from now? Karl |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
American nazi pond scum, version two | bushite kills bushite | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 21st 04 10:46 PM |
Hey! What fun!! Let's let them kill ourselves!!! | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 2 | December 17th 04 09:45 PM |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | November 1st 03 06:27 AM |
Conspiracy Theorists (amusing) | Grantland | Military Aviation | 1 | October 2nd 03 12:17 AM |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | October 1st 03 07:27 AM |