Plane crashes into tree

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Ron Lee" > wrote

> http://tinyurl.com/ymqbj9
>
> Apparently lost power when attempting nightime touch n goes last night
> around 530 PM at Meadow Lake airport (00V). Pilot walked away from
> the aircraft with no apparent serious injuries.

That is one of the strangest crash pictures I have ever seen. One lucky hombre.
--
Jim in NC

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Morgans > posted:

> "Ron Lee" > wrote
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/ymqbj9
>>
>> Apparently lost power when attempting nightime touch n goes last
>> night around 530 PM at Meadow Lake airport (00V). Pilot walked away
>> from the aircraft with no apparent serious injuries.
>
> That is one of the strangest crash pictures I have ever seen. One
> lucky hombre.
>
I particularly liked the "Learn to fly here" sign.

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

I'm beginning to wonder: What happens to most airframes? Do they end
up in a scrap yard after years of faithful service, or are they
destroyed or damaged beyond repair by an accident, or what? And how
many owners does the average GA plane have over its lifetime? And how
long is the average life expectancy for GA planes? This one was
nearly forty years old.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ron Lee" > wrote
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/ymqbj9
>>
>> Apparently lost power when attempting nightime touch n goes last night
>> around 530 PM at Meadow Lake airport (00V). Pilot walked away from
>> the aircraft with no apparent serious injuries.
>
> That is one of the strangest crash pictures I have ever seen. One lucky
> hombre.
> --


Very lucky, I wonder if he thought the road was the runway up until the last
minute? Also, the "Learn to Fly Here" sign in the background is a nice
touch.

[Doug[_1_]]

I guess that guy is still learning :-)

[FLAV8R[_1_]]

> That is one of the strangest crash pictures I have ever seen. One lucky
> hombre.
> --
> Jim in NC
You think that's strange?
Check this one out: http://www.aviatordave.com/flight_school.htm

David - KGSP

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> I'm beginning to wonder: What happens to most airframes?

They end up on "Mythbusters"

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"FLAV8R" > wrote in message
...
>> That is one of the strangest crash pictures I have ever seen. One lucky
>> hombre.
>> --
>> Jim in NC
> You think that's strange?
> Check this one out: http://www.aviatordave.com/flight_school.htm
>
> David - KGSP
>


To bad that one has been altered. It is really at a Florida bar.

Here's the unaltered photo.

http://www1.airliners.net/open.file/0480799/L/

The tag line reads.

N3547R "Too low on finals again Hoskins" !!! - located at a nightclub on the
east side of Hwy 441/92 (Orange Blossom Trail) north of the Florida Mall and
south of I-4.

[[email protected]]

"FLAV8R" > wrote:
> You think that's strange?
> Check this one out: http://www.aviatordave.com/flight_school.htm
>
> David - KGSP

That's a pretty good Photoshop job.
The accident report cites "mismanagement of fuel" and
"COMPLETE*POWER*LOSS*-*COMPLETE*ENGINE*FAILURE/
FLAMEOUT-1*ENGINE EMERGENCY*CIRCUMSTANCES*-*
FORCED*LANDING*OFF*AIRPORT*ON*LAND
REMARKS-*SIGHT-SEEING*FLT. L*WING*HIT*SIGN*ON*GOLF*
DRIVING*RANGE. WND*GSTG*15KTS."

[Jose[_1_]]

> Check this one out: http://www.aviatordave.com/flight_school.htm

That's gotta be a prop, not a real crash at that location.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

> > Check this one out: http://www.aviatordave.com/flight_school.htm
Jose:
> That's gotta be a prop, not a real crash at that location.

It is. Check out the accident report.

[Jose[_1_]]

>>>Check this one out: http://www.aviatordave.com/flight_school.htm
>> That's gotta be a prop, not a real crash at that location.
> It is. Check out the accident report.

I did No accident for 3547R matches the picture.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>>>>Check this one out: http://www.aviatordave.com/flight_school.htm
>>> That's gotta be a prop, not a real crash at that location.
>> It is. Check out the accident report.
>
> I did No accident for 3547R matches the picture.
>
> Jose
> --

Sure there is. http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=28166&key=0

But that still wasn't a photo of the accident site.

[Jose[_1_]]

> But that still wasn't a photo of the accident site.

.... which is exactly what I said.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

> >>>Check this one out: http://www.aviatordave.com/flight_school.htm
> >> That's gotta be a prop, not a real crash at that location.
> > It is. Check out the accident report.

Jose:
> I did No accident for 3547R matches the picture.

That's what I meant... it *is* a prop, not a real crash.

[Nathan Young]

On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 12:09:54 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Ron Lee" > wrote
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/ymqbj9
>>
>> Apparently lost power when attempting nightime touch n goes last night
>> around 530 PM at Meadow Lake airport (00V). Pilot walked away from
>> the aircraft with no apparent serious injuries.
>
>That is one of the strangest crash pictures I have ever seen. One lucky hombre.

Damn. That plane has a dirty belly. Or did the plane have an engine
fire?

[[email protected]]

> >That's a pretty good Photoshop job.

Greg Farris:
> Doesn't look particularly good to me.
> Nothing in the picture looks other than staged or faked.
> Doesn't even look like it was intended to be really believed.

True. I should have omitted the words "pretty good" and just left it at
that! ;-)

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 16:23:39 +0000, in
>, Ron Lee wrote:
<snip>

You might need to check out the date on your machine or your news
server... It's a month ahead of time... Here's a copy of the headers...

<snip>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 16:23:39 GMT
From: (Ron Lee)
Lines: 12
Message-ID: >
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 10:23:39 -0600
NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.53.16.111
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Path: be1.texas.rr.com!cyclone.austin.rr.com!news.rr.com !border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.gi ganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giga news.com!nntp.pcisys.net!news.pcisys.net.POSTED!no t-for-mail
Reply-To: none
Subject: Plane crashes into tree
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Complaints-To:
X-DMCA-Complaints-To:
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
X-Trace: sv3-mUJfwXAPxSTNjrJGwgJ2wlmS77g/7ZnyCdRtU5WAVXItHht+oaYR70Y47Fg1vQdo2m0Z8jRW+dgQ2W a!9xrajM4TAMh81TS+J1RLbFlywdsnvHII6D1i/CrVS6a3bJL6h+x6QbxJIJk9vU7VX6OFuJfd
Xref: be1.texas.rr.com rec.aviation.piloting:508086
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
</snip>

[Doug[_1_]]

His mechanic told him "bring it back if it isn't right".

[FLAV8R[_1_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message ...
> To bad that one has been altered. It is really at a Florida bar.
>
> Here's the unaltered photo.
>
> http://www1.airliners.net/open.file/0480799/L/
>
> The tag line reads.
>
> N3547R "Too low on finals again Hoskins" !!! - located at a nightclub on
> the east side of Hwy 441/92 (Orange Blossom Trail) north of the Florida
> Mall and south of I-4.
>

Yes it is a prop at a bar in Orlando but the bar is no longer in business.
They must have had an aviation theme of some sort because out back they
have a stair truck that was used by the airlines in the old days before
jetways. The images on Airliners.net show the plane in fairly good
condition, but it is currently falling apart and extremely weathered.
I know it wasn't a fantastic job of photoshopping but I didn't want
to spend all day on it for a little gag on this NG.

David

[Mxsmanic]

FLAV8R writes:

> Check this one out: http://www.aviatordave.com/flight_school.htm

This image has been photoshopped.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Roy Smith]

I don't get it. Everybody here rants about the media when they jump to
conclusions and print stupid **** in the papers. Aren't we doing the same
thing here? Everybody's looking at a picture of an airplane in a tree and
assuming it's the airplane's fault. Hasn't it occurred to anybody that
this might have been one of those FAA-standard 50 foot trees that leap up
out of nowhere to catch unsuspecting airplanes (kind of like Charlie
Brown's kite-eating tree)?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> But that still wasn't a photo of the accident site.
>
> ... which is exactly what I said.
>
> Jose

I know... I misread your post. I even sent a cancel message but since no
newsserver accept cancel messages anymore all I can say is mea culpa.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 17:05:20 -0500, in
>, Roy Smith
wrote:
> I don't get it. Everybody here rants about the media when they jump to
> conclusions and print stupid **** in the papers. Aren't we doing the
> same thing here? Everybody's looking at a picture of an airplane in a
> tree and assuming it's the airplane's fault. Hasn't it occurred to
> anybody that this might have been one of those FAA-standard 50 foot
> trees that leap up out of nowhere to catch unsuspecting airplanes (kind
> of like Charlie Brown's kite-eating tree)?

The tree doesn't look to be 50 ft tall, but you definitely do have a
point... As a snow skier, I am well aquainted with the fact that there are
certain trees who take a perverse pleasure in jumping out in front of you
and attacking you... Hell, if you don't believe me, just ask Sonny Bono or
Michael Kennedy... Oh, wait a minute... You *can't* ask them since they
were stalked and eventually murdered by a tree... Of course, some
witnesses swear that there was a second tree at the snow-covered knoll
when Michael Kennedy was murdered

Of course, it wasn't truly Michael Kennedy's fault since he was given
skiing lessons by the same person who gave Teddy driving lessons...

--
"Plant a tree, kill a Kennedy..."

[FLAV8R[_1_]]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message ...
>Hasn't it occurred to anybody that
> this might have been one of those FAA-standard 50 foot trees that leap up
> out of nowhere to catch unsuspecting airplanes (kind of like Charlie
> Brown's kite-eating tree)?

Ever wonder how the military trains their pilots?
Here is clear example of a military style short field takeoff with 50ft
obstacle.
http://www.aviatordave.com/flight_school.htm#takeoff

David

[Ron Lee]

Grumman-581 > wrote:

>On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 16:23:39 +0000, in
>, Ron Lee wrote:
><snip>
>
>You might need to check out the date on your machine or your news
>server... It's a month ahead of time... Here's a copy of the headers...

I fixed that. Thanks

Ron Lee

[Al G[_1_]]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 17:05:20 -0500, in
> >, Roy Smith
> wrote:
>> I don't get it. Everybody here rants about the media when they jump to
>> conclusions and print stupid **** in the papers. Aren't we doing the
>> same thing here? Everybody's looking at a picture of an airplane in a
>> tree and assuming it's the airplane's fault. Hasn't it occurred to
>> anybody that this might have been one of those FAA-standard 50 foot
>> trees that leap up out of nowhere to catch unsuspecting airplanes (kind
>> of like Charlie Brown's kite-eating tree)?
>
> The tree doesn't look to be 50 ft tall, but you definitely do have a
> point... As a snow skier, I am well aquainted with the fact that there are
> certain trees who take a perverse pleasure in jumping out in front of you
> and attacking you... Hell, if you don't believe me, just ask Sonny Bono or
> Michael Kennedy... Oh, wait a minute... You *can't* ask them since they
> were stalked and eventually murdered by a tree...

Slammed, by a tree.

Al G

[Ron Lee]

Roy Smith > wrote:

>I don't get it. Everybody here rants about the media when they jump to
>conclusions and print stupid **** in the papers. Aren't we doing the same
>thing here? Everybody's looking at a picture of an airplane in a tree and
>assuming it's the airplane's fault. Hasn't it occurred to anybody that
>this might have been one of those FAA-standard 50 foot trees that leap up
>out of nowhere to catch unsuspecting airplanes (kind of like Charlie
>Brown's kite-eating tree)?

Nope. Those trees have been there a long time.

Ron Lee

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...

>
>That's a pretty good Photoshop job.

Doesn't look particularly good to me.
Nothing in the picture looks other than staged or faked.
Doesn't even look like it was intended to be really believed.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 00:25:23 +0000, in >,
Ron Lee wrote:
> I fixed that. Thanks

Damn, I was hoping that yours was set correctly and I could ask you what
the lottery numbers were going to be... <grin>

[Montblack]

("Grumman-581" wrote)
> Damn, I was hoping that yours was set correctly and I could ask you what
> the lottery numbers were going to be... <grin>


The good news:
You'll have the lottery numbers a month early.

The bad news:
The day you go to buy your ticket, you'll be wearing a pair of ..."Slippery
Shoes".

<evil grin>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_You_Need


Montblack-Zone

[Ricky Robbins]

On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 19:06:49 -0500, "FLAV8R"
> wrote:

>Ever wonder how the military trains their pilots?
>Here is clear example of a military style short field takeoff with 50ft
>obstacle.

Photoshopped as well, of course.

Rick

[Ron Natalie]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

>
> To bad that one has been altered. It is really at a Florida bar.
>
> Here's the unaltered photo.
>
> http://www1.airliners.net/open.file/0480799/L/
>
There's a flying club that has a similar decoration in
Australia. I've got a picture of it somewhere I'll put up.

[Mxsmanic]

Ricky Robbins writes:

> Photoshopped as well, of course.

How do you know?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jose[_1_]]

>>Here is clear example of a military style short field takeoff with 50ft
>>>obstacle.
>
>
> Photoshopped as well, of course.

I wouldn't think so. Foreshortened by a long telephoto lens, yes.
That's all it would take.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Blueskies]

"Ricky Robbins" > wrote in message ...
: On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 19:06:49 -0500, "FLAV8R"
: > wrote:
:
: >Ever wonder how the military trains their pilots?
: >Here is clear example of a military style short field takeoff with 50ft
: >obstacle.
:
: Photoshopped as well, of course.
:
: Rick

Nope, just a long telephoto shot...

[Ricky Robbins]

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 15:53:30 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> Photoshopped as well, of course.
>
>I wouldn't think so.

That's my point. Once he's posted a photoshopped picture, it's easy
to assume everything he might post is.

I was just surprised someone would post a photoshopped picture without
attributing it as such; not sure why I was surprised, but I was. Then
again, I'm easily surprised.

Rick

[FLAV8R]

"Ricky Robbins" > wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 15:53:30 GMT, Jose >
> wrote:
>
>>> Photoshopped as well, of course.
>>
>>I wouldn't think so.
>
> That's my point. Once he's posted a photoshopped picture, it's easy
> to assume everything he might post is.
>
> Rick
>
The picture was meant as a joke and if you have to explain it
as such then it's not a joke anymore.
There are many clues to the fact that it is not a real picture and
if there is anyone the believes otherwise than you only need to
study the picture to realize that a real plane impacting a concrete
building with have crumpled up on impact and not smashed through
the bricks as the picture shows.
The only thing modified in the picture is that I quickly erased some
of the support wires that hold the plane up to the building.
The image of the C-17 is not altered at all.
For those that think that it was, it only goes to show you really
don't know do you?
If I really wanted to Photoshop an image I guarantee that most
would not be able to tell.

David

[N2310D]

>>> Photoshopped as well, of course.
>>
>>I wouldn't think so.

I'm pretty sure it was not photoshopped. Here's why:

1. The anti-aliasing on diagonal edges, especially where part of the
aircraft and part of the building form an acute triangle, is consistent. The
pixel areas are the same, and the color blends are uniform.
2. I fiddled with the contrast to look deep into the shadows where the
aircraft and the roof merge and there is a strand of wire or rope that loops
around the left main gear, around the leading edge, back across the flap at
the wing root and crosses under the fuselage. Entirely too much detail for a
photoshopper to do, and the anti-aliasing is again, too consistent for the
aircraft to have been plugged in as an overlay.

I'll bet dinner for two in any restaurant of your choice within ten
miles of L72 that this photo is valid. [Transportation not included.]

[N2310D]

CAVEAT!! This applies to the airplane on the roof, not in the tree.

"N2310D" > wrote in message
news:bJJeh.1604$Ft4.496@trnddc02...
>>>> Photoshopped as well, of course.
>>>
>>>I wouldn't think so.
>
> I'm pretty sure it was not photoshopped. Here's why:
>
> 1. The anti-aliasing on diagonal edges, especially where part of the
> aircraft and part of the building form an acute triangle, is consistent.
> The pixel areas are the same, and the color blends are uniform.
> 2. I fiddled with the contrast to look deep into the shadows where
> the aircraft and the roof merge and there is a strand of wire or rope that
> loops around the left main gear, around the leading edge, back across the
> flap at the wing root and crosses under the fuselage. Entirely too much
> detail for a photoshopper to do, and the anti-aliasing is again, too
> consistent for the aircraft to have been plugged in as an overlay.
>
> I'll bet dinner for two in any restaurant of your choice within ten
> miles of L72 that this photo is valid. [Transportation not included.]
>

[Ron Lee]

"N2310D" > wrote:

CAVEAT!! This applies to the airplane on the roof, not in the tree.


The plane in a tree pic is 100% real.

I took it.

Ron Lee






>"N2310D" > wrote in message
>news:bJJeh.1604$Ft4.496@trnddc02...
>>>>> Photoshopped as well, of course.
>>>>
>>>>I wouldn't think so.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure it was not photoshopped. Here's why:
>>
>> 1. The anti-aliasing on diagonal edges, especially where part of the
>> aircraft and part of the building form an acute triangle, is consistent.
>> The pixel areas are the same, and the color blends are uniform.
>> 2. I fiddled with the contrast to look deep into the shadows where
>> the aircraft and the roof merge and there is a strand of wire or rope that
>> loops around the left main gear, around the leading edge, back across the
>> flap at the wing root and crosses under the fuselage. Entirely too much
>> detail for a photoshopper to do, and the anti-aliasing is again, too
>> consistent for the aircraft to have been plugged in as an overlay.
>>
>> I'll bet dinner for two in any restaurant of your choice within ten
>> miles of L72 that this photo is valid. [Transportation not included.]
>>
>
>

[N2310D]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> "N2310D" > wrote:
>
> CAVEAT!! This applies to the airplane on the roof, not in the tree.
>
>
> The plane in a tree pic is 100% real.
>
> I took it.
>
> Ron Lee

I've no doubt, Ron and I apologize if it sounded like I was implying
that yours was photoshopped. I just wanted to make sure that my bet was
directed to the one on the roof. I did, however, look at yours with the same
scrutiny but you certainly don't need any confirmation from me about its
authenticity.

Peace??

[Blanche]

I noticed about the only part not severely damaged was the oil access
cover. Since the plane in the tree is the same model as mine, I was
sorely tempted to drive down (about 30 min) and ask about salvaging it.

[Ron Lee]

"N2310D" > wrote:

>
>"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>> "N2310D" > wrote:
>>
>> CAVEAT!! This applies to the airplane on the roof, not in the tree.
>>
>>
>> The plane in a tree pic is 100% real.
>>
>> I took it.
>>
>> Ron Lee
>
> I've no doubt, Ron and I apologize if it sounded like I was implying
>that yours was photoshopped. I just wanted to make sure that my bet was
>directed to the one on the roof. I did, however, look at yours with the same
>scrutiny but you certainly don't need any confirmation from me about its
>authenticity.
>
>Peace??
>

No problem. Another guy did photoshop this to make the "Learn to Fly
Here" sign more prominent. I will accept the limitations of what
conditions existed.

Ron Lee
>

[Ron Lee]

Blanche > wrote:

>I noticed about the only part not severely damaged was the oil access
>cover. Since the plane in the tree is the same model as mine, I was
>sorely tempted to drive down (about 30 min) and ask about salvaging it.
>

I looked for it a few minutes yesterday and could not find it. It was
removed from the tree on Friday.

I could use a longer oil filler tube! Thanks for the suggestion.

Ron Lee

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> FLAV8R writes:
>
> > Check this one out: http://www.aviatordave.com/flight_school.htm
>
> This image has been photoshopped.

No, it hasn't. Look at the shadows.

And while I have not yet had a chance to talk to a 737 pilot, I did have
a chat with a 757 pilot yesterday and asked him how long a 757 would
remain stable with the autopilot off. He looked at me like I was crazy
for asking the question (and rightly so) and said "not very long."

rg

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Garret writes:

> No, it hasn't. Look at the shadows.

I am. The drop shadow behind the sign has been very amateurishly
executed.

> And while I have not yet had a chance to talk to a 737 pilot, I did have
> a chat with a 757 pilot yesterday and asked him how long a 757 would
> remain stable with the autopilot off. He looked at me like I was crazy
> for asking the question (and rightly so) and said "not very long."

How long is "not very long"?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Kev]

Ron Garret wrote:
> In article >,
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > FLAV8R writes:
> >
> > > Check this one out: http://www.aviatordave.com/flight_school.htm
> >
> > This image has been photoshopped.
>
> No, it hasn't. Look at the shadows.

Uh, Ron, Mx is right, it's a infamously Photoshopped picture. As
others have pointed out, the airplane in the side of the building is
really held up by lots of wires, and has no "Learn to Fly Here" sign.

Regards, Kev

[Ron Garret]

In article m>,
"Kev" > wrote:

> Ron Garret wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > > FLAV8R writes:
> > >
> > > > Check this one out: http://www.aviatordave.com/flight_school.htm
> > >
> > > This image has been photoshopped.
> >
> > No, it hasn't. Look at the shadows.
>
> Uh, Ron, Mx is right, it's a infamously Photoshopped picture. As
> others have pointed out, the airplane in the side of the building is
> really held up by lots of wires, and has no "Learn to Fly Here" sign.
>
> Regards, Kev

Well, OK. But he airplane really is on the side of the building. (Of
course, it was placed there. It didn't crash there.)

rg

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Ron Garret writes:
>
> > No, it hasn't. Look at the shadows.
>
> I am. The drop shadow behind the sign has been very amateurishly
> executed.
>
> > And while I have not yet had a chance to talk to a 737 pilot, I did have
> > a chat with a 757 pilot yesterday and asked him how long a 757 would
> > remain stable with the autopilot off. He looked at me like I was crazy
> > for asking the question (and rightly so) and said "not very long."
>
> How long is "not very long"?

I actually pressed him for details because I knew you would ask this.
He said several things. First, he said he didn't really know because
he'd never actually tried it. Company policy forbids disconnection of
the autopilot in cruise. The airplane is unstable enough that doing so
is actually potentially dangerous. To keep the plane flying safely
without the autopilot at cruise requires constant attention. An
autopilot failure in cruise (unlikely because there are redundant
autopilots) is an emergency which requires immediate diversion to the
nearest airport.

Bottom line is that a 757 handles not much differently from any other
heavy, clean plane. In perfectly smooth air if you have it perfectly
trimmed you might have a minute or two at the outside. Under realistic
conditions (a little turbulence, less than perfect trim) you have a few
tens of seconds before you are in an unrecoverable roll. In bad weather
you could be unrecoverable in only a few seconds, but that would be
unusual. It's not like a helicopter where if you take your hands off
the stick for a few seconds you're pretty much guaranteed to die.

He also said you'd get altitude excursions sooner than roll excursions.
This is consistent with my personal experience which is that as planes
get faster (and my personal experience covers a range of 90-180 KTAS
cruise speed) they get harder and harder to trim for pitch.

rg

[N2310D]

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
> In article m>,
> "Kev" > wrote:
>
>> Ron Garret wrote:
>> > In article >,


>> > > This image has been photoshopped.
>> >
>> > No, it hasn't. Look at the shadows.

> Well, OK. But he airplane really is on the side of the building. (Of
> course, it was placed there. It didn't crash there.)
>
> rg

The only thing photoshopped about this picture is the paste in of the sign.
The image of the airplane is part of the original photo. If you use Adobe
Photoshop for close views you can see the anti-aliasing blends well between
the aircraft hulk and the wall -- as opposed to the sign and its post.

I agree with Ron, someone hung it there. Like a dozen other attention
getting gags about the country -- several of them at restaurants on or near
airports. Galveston, Texas, (GLS) used to have one on 61st Street called the
Fly Inn. The locals all knew that the gag was really the six-legged insects
that challenged you for your 'burger.

[Kev]

Ron Garret wrote:
> Well, OK. But he airplane really is on the side of the building. (Of
> course, it was placed there. It didn't crash there.)

Ah, okay easy confusion. Yeah, that particular picture comes up about
once a year, and the discussion is always about the lack of wires, not
over whether it's a real airplane on a building.

Regards, Kev

[Kev]

N2310D wrote:
> The only thing photoshopped about this picture is the paste in of the sign.

The sign's not the important Photoshopped part. The big deal is the
apparent removal of the half-dozen wires that hold up the airplane, in
order to make it look more like a crash. Gig 601XL Builder already
posted a url to the real photo:

http://www1.airliners.net/open.file/0480799/L/

Compare it to the 'Shopped version, and you'll see what we're talking
about:

http://www.aviatordave.com/flight_school.htm

Cheers, Kev

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Garret writes:

> First, he said he didn't really know because he'd never actually
> tried it.

Ah ... well, that pretty much invalidates the rest, doesn't it?

> Company policy forbids disconnection of the autopilot in cruise.

I thought it might.

> The airplane is unstable enough that doing so is actually
> potentially dangerous.

No, it's not unstable or dangerous. The purpose of the autopilot rule
is to ensure maximum fuel economy. Even the best pilot will consume
more fuel flying the aircraft by hand than will a flight management
system (which is designed in part to ensure economy).

> To keep the plane flying safely without the autopilot at cruise
> requires constant attention.

How frequent is "constant"?

> An autopilot failure in cruise (unlikely because there are redundant
> autopilots) is an emergency which requires immediate diversion to the
> nearest airport.

It sounds like he's repeating what he was told. He's already admitted
to you that he hasn't tried it.

> Bottom line is that a 757 handles not much differently from any other
> heavy, clean plane. In perfectly smooth air if you have it perfectly
> trimmed you might have a minute or two at the outside. Under realistic
> conditions (a little turbulence, less than perfect trim) you have a few
> tens of seconds before you are in an unrecoverable roll. In bad weather
> you could be unrecoverable in only a few seconds, but that would be
> unusual. It's not like a helicopter where if you take your hands off
> the stick for a few seconds you're pretty much guaranteed to die.

Have you tried it? Your pilot friend hasn't. Neither have I.
Commercial airliners are not aerobatic planes or fighters, though, and
I rather doubt that they'd be designed for anything less than very
high stability. They'll never be making any drastic movements, after
all.

> He also said you'd get altitude excursions sooner than roll excursions.

But of course he didn't really know.

> This is consistent with my personal experience which is that as planes
> get faster (and my personal experience covers a range of 90-180 KTAS
> cruise speed) they get harder and harder to trim for pitch.

That's the first 180 knots. Only 1400 or so to go.

In summary, your friend and you don't know any better than I do. Do
you see why I feel compelled to question the assertions I read?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[N2310D]

"Kev" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> N2310D wrote:
>> The only thing photoshopped about this picture is the paste in of the
>> sign.
>
> The sign's not the important Photoshopped part. The big deal is the
> apparent removal of the half-dozen wires that hold up the airplane, in
> order to make it look more like a crash. Gig 601XL Builder already
> posted a url to the real photo:
>
> http://www1.airliners.net/open.file/0480799/L/
>
> Compare it to the 'Shopped version, and you'll see what we're talking
> about:
>
> http://www.aviatordave.com/flight_school.htm
>
> Cheers, Kev

PHBBBBBTT! My Bad!

Never looked at the N#s, didn't notice the windows on the wall, nor the
absence of other antennae....

Sheesh, am I ever the dope....

[Peter Dohm]

> > > And while I have not yet had a chance to talk to a 737 pilot, I did
have
> > > a chat with a 757 pilot yesterday and asked him how long a 757 would
> > > remain stable with the autopilot off. He looked at me like I was
crazy
> > > for asking the question (and rightly so) and said "not very long."
> >
> > How long is "not very long"?
>
> I actually pressed him for details because I knew you would ask this.
> He said several things. First, he said he didn't really know because
> he'd never actually tried it. Company policy forbids disconnection of
> the autopilot in cruise. The airplane is unstable enough that doing so
> is actually potentially dangerous. To keep the plane flying safely
> without the autopilot at cruise requires constant attention. An
> autopilot failure in cruise (unlikely because there are redundant
> autopilots) is an emergency which requires immediate diversion to the
> nearest airport.
>
> Bottom line is that a 757 handles not much differently from any other
> heavy, clean plane. In perfectly smooth air if you have it perfectly
> trimmed you might have a minute or two at the outside. Under realistic
> conditions (a little turbulence, less than perfect trim) you have a few
> tens of seconds before you are in an unrecoverable roll. In bad weather
> you could be unrecoverable in only a few seconds, but that would be
> unusual. It's not like a helicopter where if you take your hands off
> the stick for a few seconds you're pretty much guaranteed to die.
>
> He also said you'd get altitude excursions sooner than roll excursions.
> This is consistent with my personal experience which is that as planes
> get faster (and my personal experience covers a range of 90-180 KTAS
> cruise speed) they get harder and harder to trim for pitch.
>
I really hate being on the (apparently) same side as our favorite troll, but
policy requirement to cruise only on autopilot is more likely related to the
tight altitude tolerance under RVSM. After you scale the weights involved,
the greater distances, and the air density at typical cruising altitudes, I
suspect that the flight attendants pushing the beverage cart up the isle
would be more than enough to bust the airspace...

Peter

[gatt]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
. net...

>> That is one of the strangest crash pictures I have ever seen. One
>> lucky hombre.
>>
> I particularly liked the "Learn to fly here" sign.

It must have been a hairy crash, 'cause my ribs hurt!!

-c

[[email protected]]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> > I particularly liked the "Learn to fly here" sign.

"gatt" > wrote:
> It must have been a hairy crash, 'cause my ribs hurt!!

Having watched the salvage people haul my airplane away (they are NOT
careful in any way whatsoever), I would have liked to see how they
handled this one in the tree ... wonder how much is left of the tree.

[Ron Lee]

wrote:

>"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>> > I particularly liked the "Learn to fly here" sign.
>
>"gatt" > wrote:
>> It must have been a hairy crash, 'cause my ribs hurt!!
>
>Having watched the salvage people haul my airplane away (they are NOT
>careful in any way whatsoever), I would have liked to see how they
>handled this one in the tree ... wonder how much is left of the tree.

I was doing a runup while it was partially removed. Today I noticed
that they cut off what may have been the trunk that held up the left
wing. Since I was going flying I did not stop to watch the process.
Since the plane was totaled anyway any additional damage was moot.
However, the engine may have been ok.

Ron Lee

[Peter Dohm]

> >> It must have been a hairy crash, 'cause my ribs hurt!!
> >
> >Having watched the salvage people haul my airplane away (they are NOT
> >careful in any way whatsoever), I would have liked to see how they
> >handled this one in the tree ... wonder how much is left of the tree.
>
> I was doing a runup while it was partially removed. Today I noticed
> that they cut off what may have been the trunk that held up the left
> wing. Since I was going flying I did not stop to watch the process.
> Since the plane was totaled anyway any additional damage was moot.
> However, the engine may have been ok.
>
In some jurisdictions, depending partially upon the species of tree, the
tree may be legally protected--especially if it is on the site plan plot.
Thus unessary damage to the tree could cause liability to whoever did it
and/or whoever authorized it.

I suppose that on some level, all of that is hilarious, however I find the
'trees over people' concept quite annoying!

Peter

[Jose[_1_]]

> however I find the
> 'trees over people' concept quite annoying!

I don't think it's trees over people, it's trees over convenience. If
people were in danger, I doubt that the tree would win if there were no
other ways of mitigating the danger.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

This does not apply in California, If you were hung up in a Redwood
you are more likely to get injured during the rescue process then the
tree is to losing a single leaf. <GG>..

>I don't think it's trees over people, it's trees over convenience. If
>people were in danger, I doubt that the tree would win if there were no
>other ways of mitigating the danger.

>Jose


Jose wrote:
> > however I find the
> > 'trees over people' concept quite annoying!
>
> I don't think it's trees over people, it's trees over convenience. If
> people were in danger, I doubt that the tree would win if there were no
> other ways of mitigating the danger.
>
> Jose
> --
> "There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
> what they are." - (mike).
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[gman]

There is a link to a short interview with the pilot on the right side
of this page near the bottom of "Featured Videos". Sorry I can't link
directly to the clip itself.

http://www.kktv.com/




On Dec 8, 10:09 am, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Ron Lee" > wrote
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/ymqbj9
>
> > Apparently lost power when attempting nightime touch n goes last night
> > around 530 PM at Meadow Lake airport (00V). Pilot walked away from
> > the aircraft with no apparent serious injuries.That is one of the strangest crash pictures I have ever seen. One lucky hombre.
> --
> Jim in NC

[Peter Dohm]

It's not quite that bad in Florida ... yet.

However, it seems to be trending that direction and my best guess is that
Texas and North Caroline may not be far behind.

Peter

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> This does not apply in California, If you were hung up in a Redwood
> you are more likely to get injured during the rescue process then the
> tree is to losing a single leaf. <GG>..
>
> >I don't think it's trees over people, it's trees over convenience. If
> >people were in danger, I doubt that the tree would win if there were no
> >other ways of mitigating the danger.
>
> >Jose
>
>
> Jose wrote:
> > > however I find the
> > > 'trees over people' concept quite annoying!
> >
> > I don't think it's trees over people, it's trees over convenience. If
> > people were in danger, I doubt that the tree would win if there were no
> > other ways of mitigating the danger.
> >
> > Jose
> > --
> > "There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
> > what they are." - (mike).
> > for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
>

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
news:6JBfh.16$Iz.13@bigfe9...
> It's not quite that bad in Florida ... yet.
>
> However, it seems to be trending that direction and my best guess is that
> Texas and North Caroline may not be far behind.

You have to be kidding. Clear-cutting is still a regular practice in NC.
People still cut trees back to the trunk, except a few branches 4 or 5 feet
long, to keep them from getting so big. They call it topping, but it is far
more than a regular pruning. Surprisingly, they usually don't die from that
abuse.

No, in most parts of NC, trees are abused at will. In some historic sections of
some cities, in some cases, the big old trees are protected, though.
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Dohm]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
> news:6JBfh.16$Iz.13@bigfe9...
> > It's not quite that bad in Florida ... yet.
> >
> > However, it seems to be trending that direction and my best guess is
that
> > Texas and North Caroline may not be far behind.
>
> You have to be kidding. Clear-cutting is still a regular practice in NC.
> People still cut trees back to the trunk, except a few branches 4 or 5
feet
> long, to keep them from getting so big. They call it topping, but it is
far
> more than a regular pruning. Surprisingly, they usually don't die from
that
> abuse.
>
> No, in most parts of NC, trees are abused at will. In some historic
sections of
> some cities, in some cases, the big old trees are protected, though.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
Stay tuned, the same voting block has been moving in. However, you may get
a repreive for a few years due to the end of the current real estate boom.

Peter

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> It sounds like he's repeating what he was told. He's already admitted
> to you that he hasn't tried it.

Good lord you are a moron. No, he admitted no such thing. He admitted
he had never disconnected the autopilot DURING CRUISE. Pilots -- even
jetliner pilots -- hand-fly approaches all the time. That would provide
ample opportunities to get firsthand experience in how stable (or not)
the plane is.

rg

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Garret writes:

> He admitted
> he had never disconnected the autopilot DURING CRUISE. Pilots -- even
> jetliner pilots -- hand-fly approaches all the time. That would provide
> ample opportunities to get firsthand experience in how stable (or not)
> the plane is.

Approach is not cruise.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Ron Garret writes:
>
> > He admitted
> > he had never disconnected the autopilot DURING CRUISE. Pilots -- even
> > jetliner pilots -- hand-fly approaches all the time. That would provide
> > ample opportunities to get firsthand experience in how stable (or not)
> > the plane is.
>
> Approach is not cruise.

Your argument is analogous to claiming that if you, Anthony, jump off
the top of the Eiffel tower when the moon is full you will float. I
can't actually prove that you're wrong (tempting though that prospect
may be). All I can do is point you to all of the evidence that gravity
is universal and appeal to Occam's razor to argue that in the absence of
compelling reasons to believe otherwise, neither you nor the Boeing 757
are not exempt from the laws of physics, even while cruising under a
full moon.

rg

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Garret writes:

> Your argument is analogous to claiming that if you, Anthony, jump off
> the top of the Eiffel tower when the moon is full you will float.

No, it's analogous to saying that parking a car in a garage isn't the
same as cruising down the highway.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote

> Stay tuned, the same voting block has been moving in. However, you may get
> a repreive for a few years due to the end of the current real estate boom.

True, I had not considered the Flor-idiots that have been moving to NC in record
numbers.

As far as the current real estate boom ending, it sure has not ended around my
area, yet. Builders have a hard time finding enough skilled tradesmen.
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Dohm]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote
>
> > Stay tuned, the same voting block has been moving in. However, you may
get
> > a repreive for a few years due to the end of the current real estate
boom.
>
> True, I had not considered the Flor-idiots that have been moving to NC in
record
> numbers.
>
> As far as the current real estate boom ending, it sure has not ended
around my
> area, yet. Builders have a hard time finding enough skilled tradesmen.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
The building boom is still continuing here as well--even though we already
have more than is needed. Land is now so expensive that single family home
construction is mostly limited to high end construction. Also a lot of
people are leaving for greener pastures, due to high purchase costs and the
related high taxes and insurance costs.

I don't know, but presume, that the shortage of skilled tradesmen is at
least as bad here--due to the high cost of lodging.

I met a developer (at an antique car show) who told me that it takes about
seven years, from the completion of planning to the completion of
construction and occupancy. I am not positive, but presume that is for a
medium sized project--so you can see that the housing market must (almost by
definition) fluctuate between under supply and over supply.

Peter

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Ron Garret writes:
>
> > Your argument is analogous to claiming that if you, Anthony, jump off
> > the top of the Eiffel tower when the moon is full you will float.
>
> No, it's analogous to saying that parking a car in a garage isn't the
> same as cruising down the highway.

The difference between cruise and approach (and departure, which is also
often hand-flown) is much less than the difference between cruising (in
a car) and parking. The cruise/approach difference is more analogous to
driving on a straight multi-lane superhighway versus a narrow country
road with curves. This analogy is actually quite good. If the highway
is very, very straight and there is no wind and you get it lined up just
so you can probably take your hands off the wheel for a few tens of
seconds. But you think that the mechanics of driving or flight somehow
magically change during cruise (or in a bigger airplane) in such a way
that you can safely crawl into the back seat and take a nap you are
badly mistaken, notwithstanding that there exist video games whose
behavior supports (indeed is the basis of) your opinion.

rg

[Roger[_4_]]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 23:18:05 -0500, "Peter Dohm"
> wrote:

>
>"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Peter Dohm" > wrote
>>
>> > Stay tuned, the same voting block has been moving in. However, you may
>get
>> > a repreive for a few years due to the end of the current real estate
>boom.
>>
>> True, I had not considered the Flor-idiots that have been moving to NC in
>record
>> numbers.
>>
>> As far as the current real estate boom ending, it sure has not ended
>around my
>> area, yet. Builders have a hard time finding enough skilled tradesmen.
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>>
>The building boom is still continuing here as well--even though we already
>have more than is needed. Land is now so expensive that single family home
>construction is mostly limited to high end construction. Also a lot of
>people are leaving for greener pastures, due to high purchase costs and the
>related high taxes and insurance costs.
>
>I don't know, but presume, that the shortage of skilled tradesmen is at
>least as bad here--due to the high cost of lodging.
>
>I met a developer (at an antique car show) who told me that it takes about
>seven years, from the completion of planning to the completion of
>construction and occupancy. I am not positive, but presume that is for a
>medium sized project--so you can see that the housing market must (almost by
>definition) fluctuate between under supply and over supply.

That'd be for a custom designed and relatively elaborate home. Most
are of the cookie cutter variety. There are thousands of ready made
plans that can easily have minor mods done. We had a custom home
built quite some years back and it took less than a year from the
beginning talks to being moved in.

Most of our larger subdivisions are like that even with home running
near a million dollars. They really move through those inexpensive
300 to 500 thousand dollar ones. <:-))

I'm retired. Even the cheap ones are out of my bracket.

Now to develop a subdivision with the required studies would, or could
easily take years and if some one on the planning board, EPA, or local
DNR has it in for you then figure on a few court dates as well.


>
>Peter
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Peter Dohm]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 23:18:05 -0500, "Peter Dohm"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> "Peter Dohm" > wrote
> >>
> >> > Stay tuned, the same voting block has been moving in. However, you
may
> >get
> >> > a repreive for a few years due to the end of the current real estate
> >boom.
> >>
> >> True, I had not considered the Flor-idiots that have been moving to NC
in
> >record
> >> numbers.
> >>
> >> As far as the current real estate boom ending, it sure has not ended
> >around my
> >> area, yet. Builders have a hard time finding enough skilled tradesmen.
> >> --
> >> Jim in NC
> >>
> >The building boom is still continuing here as well--even though we
already
> >have more than is needed. Land is now so expensive that single family
home
> >construction is mostly limited to high end construction. Also a lot of
> >people are leaving for greener pastures, due to high purchase costs and
the
> >related high taxes and insurance costs.
> >
> >I don't know, but presume, that the shortage of skilled tradesmen is at
> >least as bad here--due to the high cost of lodging.
> >
> >I met a developer (at an antique car show) who told me that it takes
about
> >seven years, from the completion of planning to the completion of
> >construction and occupancy. I am not positive, but presume that is for a
> >medium sized project--so you can see that the housing market must (almost
by
> >definition) fluctuate between under supply and over supply.
>
> That'd be for a custom designed and relatively elaborate home. Most
> are of the cookie cutter variety. There are thousands of ready made
> plans that can easily have minor mods done. We had a custom home
> built quite some years back and it took less than a year from the
> beginning talks to being moved in.
>
> Most of our larger subdivisions are like that even with home running
> near a million dollars. They really move through those inexpensive
> 300 to 500 thousand dollar ones. <:-))
>
> I'm retired. Even the cheap ones are out of my bracket.
>
> Now to develop a subdivision with the required studies would, or could
> easily take years and if some one on the planning board, EPA, or local
> DNR has it in for you then figure on a few court dates as well.
>
His remarks refered to the development of subdivisions. A small one might
be all one type, meaning apartments, townhouses, or single family
homes--although even some of the smaller developments are currently a mix of
commercial (on the first floor(s)) and apartments above. Increasingly,
medium and larger developments include shopping, professional offices, and
one or two of the housing types. Basically, even medium sized developments
have taken on characteristics of planned communities--which I personally
dislike because of the restrictions, and added costs, placed on the
individual unit owners.

He was definitely not talking about the construction of a few individual
units--whether on spec or to order.

Peter

[Roger[_4_]]

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 13:20:36 -0700, wrote:

>"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>> > I particularly liked the "Learn to fly here" sign.
>
>"gatt" > wrote:
>> It must have been a hairy crash, 'cause my ribs hurt!!
>
>Having watched the salvage people haul my airplane away (they are NOT
>careful in any way whatsoever), I would have liked to see how they
>handled this one in the tree ... wonder how much is left of the tree.

Speaking of handeling:

Some years back I had the Deb into Battle Creek for a dynamic prop
balancing. A flat bed pulled in with a 421 on the back. It had
suffered a hard landing which folded the gear back, but not much
damage to the plane itself although I can't speak for the spars
internally. As I recall the engines had a slight nose down tilt
compared to the wings. That must have been one hard landing.

The wings had been removed, then the fuselage was set on the bed of
the truck. The wings were held on edge in cradles. I noted the wings
had been picked up by straps that had cut deeply into the trailing
edges and the fuselage was chained down with "Farmer bolts" screwed
into all four of the clevis wing attach points on the fuselage. Those
"Farmer bolts" were slightly over size so they cut threads into each
clevis.

For those who don't know "Farmer Bolts", they are coarse threaded,
square headed bolts.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[john smith]

Might they also be more properly called "stove bolts"?

>For those who don't know "Farmer Bolts", they are coarse threaded,
>square headed bolts.
>

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 10:30:11 -0500, Ron Natalie >
wrote:

>Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>>
>> To bad that one has been altered. It is really at a Florida bar.
>>
>> Here's the unaltered photo.
>>
>> http://www1.airliners.net/open.file/0480799/L/
>>
>There's a flying club that has a similar decoration in
>Australia. I've got a picture of it somewhere I'll put up.

In Harrison MI, right across the road from the restaurant on the
airport is the "Crash landing Bar". They have a 150 stuck in the
roof. I'll try to find a photo of that one. Yes, it looks fake as they
just simply used external angle iron braces to hold it in place.
Still, it gets drivers attention particularly being right across the
road from the airport.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Peter Dohm]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> Might they also be more properly called "stove bolts"?
>
> >For those who don't know "Farmer Bolts", they are coarse threaded,
> >square headed bolts.
> >
>
Traditionally, a stove bolt is a bolt with a round head and straight
slot--of the same type as a round-head wood screw.

Peter

[Quilljar]

Maybe Jay should buy it for his aviation themed hotel!
--
A Merry Christmas!
Cheers
Quilly

[Ron Lee]

http://tinyurl.com/ymqbj9

Apparently lost power when attempting nightime touch n goes last night
around 530 PM at Meadow Lake airport (00V). Pilot walked away from
the aircraft with no apparent serious injuries.

Note the "Learn to fly" sign at the nearby FBO (no relationship to
aircraft)

Keep those patterns tight.

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee]

Nathan Young > wrote:

>On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 12:09:54 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ron Lee" > wrote
>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/ymqbj9
>>>
>>> Apparently lost power when attempting nightime touch n goes last night
>>> around 530 PM at Meadow Lake airport (00V). Pilot walked away from
>>> the aircraft with no apparent serious injuries.
>>
>>That is one of the strangest crash pictures I have ever seen. One lucky hombre.
>
>Damn. That plane has a dirty belly. Or did the plane have an engine
>fire?

No fire was mentioned.

Ron Lee