What is "Air Force 7"?

[Scott]

A coworker is taking lessons at the local airport and he mentioned
having the get out of the way of Air Force 7 which was a 757 hanging
around the area for a few days.

Off at a distance a few days ago I noticed a 757 flying around the
airport and wondered what it was.

757's are not normally seen in this area to say nothing of 767's,
747's and 777's.

thnx

[Joey Bishop]

"Scott" > wrote
>
> A coworker is taking lessons at the local airport and he mentioned
> having the get out of the way of Air Force 7 which was a 757 hanging
> around the area for a few days.
>
> Off at a distance a few days ago I noticed a 757 flying around the
> airport and wondered what it was.
>
> 757's are not normally seen in this area to say nothing of 767's,
> 747's and 777's.

Probably the Secretary of Defense, or some other Cabinet post. It
would be the seventh executive mission of the day I suspect.

[Joey Bishop]

"robert arndt" > wrote
>
> Are you sure it wasn't a C-32A?

Are they different than a 757?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott" > wrote in message
m...
> A coworker is taking lessons at the local airport and he mentioned
> having the get out of the way of Air Force 7 which was a 757 hanging
> around the area for a few days.
>
> Off at a distance a few days ago I noticed a 757 flying around the
> airport and wondered what it was.

The VC-137s (707) are being replaced by 757s.

[tscottme]

Scott > wrote in message
m...
> A coworker is taking lessons at the local airport and he mentioned
> having the get out of the way of Air Force 7 which was a 757 hanging
> around the area for a few days.
>
> Off at a distance a few days ago I noticed a 757 flying around the
> airport and wondered what it was.
>
> 757's are not normally seen in this area to say nothing of 767's,
> 747's and 777's.
>
> thnx

The US has one or more 767 painted in "Air Force One" colors. I don't
think there are any 757 painted as such.

Working my way through college I used to refuel airliners. It was very
difficult for me to tell a 757 from 767, at any distance, except by
looking at the pointy end of the aft fuselage where the APU exhausted.
In one aircraft the fuselage was painted almost to the tip of the APU
exhaust, while the other aircraft had a few feet of stainless steel or
unpainted surface on the aft end. I can't remember which had which. Of
course the 757 is a narrow-body and the 767 is a wide-body, but that's
not as easy to determine at a distance as one might imagine.

--

Scott
--------
Saudi Arabia is the enemy, let's stop pretending otherwise.
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=1399

[Tarver Engineering]

"tscottme" > wrote in message
...
>
> Scott > wrote in message
> m...
> > A coworker is taking lessons at the local airport and he mentioned
> > having the get out of the way of Air Force 7 which was a 757 hanging
> > around the area for a few days.
> >
> > Off at a distance a few days ago I noticed a 757 flying around the
> > airport and wondered what it was.
> >
> > 757's are not normally seen in this area to say nothing of 767's,
> > 747's and 777's.
> >
> > thnx
>
> The US has one or more 767 painted in "Air Force One" colors. I don't
> think there are any 757 painted as such.

The 757 is replacing the VC-137. I don't know where you gat a 767 painted
in presidential colors from.

[Jim Atkins]

No, there are currently no 767s in the inventory. There are some 757-200s
used as C-32A VIP transports and they have the Air Force 1 type color
schemes.

--
Jim Atkins
Twentynine Palms CA USA

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
- Groucho Marx

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jim Atkins" > wrote in message
et...
> No, there are currently no 767s in the inventory. There are some 757-200s
> used as C-32A VIP transports and they have the Air Force 1 type color
> schemes.

Thanls for verifying that information.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Phillip Treweek" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "tscottme"
> > wrote:
>
> > Scott > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > A coworker is taking lessons at the local airport and he mentioned
> > > having the get out of the way of Air Force 7 which was a 757 hanging
> > > around the area for a few days.
> > >
> > > Off at a distance a few days ago I noticed a 757 flying around the
> > > airport and wondered what it was.
> > >
> > > 757's are not normally seen in this area to say nothing of 767's,
> > > 747's and 777's.
> > >
> > > thnx
> >
> > The US has one or more 767 painted in "Air Force One" colors. I don't
> > think there are any 757 painted as such.
> >
> > Working my way through college I used to refuel airliners. It was very
> > difficult for me to tell a 757 from 767, at any distance, except by
> > looking at the pointy end of the aft fuselage where the APU exhausted.
> > In one aircraft the fuselage was painted almost to the tip of the APU
> > exhaust, while the other aircraft had a few feet of stainless steel or
> > unpainted surface on the aft end. I can't remember which had which. Of
> > course the 757 is a narrow-body and the 767 is a wide-body, but that's
> > not as easy to determine at a distance as one might imagine.
>
> I find the 757 looks very 'long legged' compared to the 767. I don't know
> of any 767's in USAF service, but there are certainly some 757's,
> designated C-32. I had the pleasure of taking a ccloser look at one
> (externeally at least, this time last year. Take a look at:
> http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/757.html

The 767 being a wide body looks odd with narrow body sections 40 and 41 of
the 757 grafted onto it.

[Frank Hitlaw]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...

> > >
> > > The US has one or more 767 painted in "Air Force One" colors. I don't
> > > think there are any 757 painted as such.
> > >
> > > Working my way through college I used to refuel airliners. It was very
> > > difficult for me to tell a 757 from 767, at any distance, except by
> > > looking at the pointy end of the aft fuselage where the APU exhausted.
> > > In one aircraft the fuselage was painted almost to the tip of the APU
> > > exhaust, while the other aircraft had a few feet of stainless steel or
> > > unpainted surface on the aft end. I can't remember which had which. Of
> > > course the 757 is a narrow-body and the 767 is a wide-body, but that's
> > > not as easy to determine at a distance as one might imagine.
> >
> > I find the 757 looks very 'long legged' compared to the 767. I don't know
> > of any 767's in USAF service, but there are certainly some 757's,
> > designated C-32. I had the pleasure of taking a ccloser look at one
> > (externeally at least, this time last year. Take a look at:
> > http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/757.html
>
> The 767 being a wide body looks odd with narrow body sections 40 and 41 of
> the 757 grafted onto it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Say what!!! I'll say it would look funny,Tarver. Sections 40 and 41
are on the front end of a Boeing it includes the cockpit and back to
the E&E compartment. Worked on alot of Boeings never saw that one
maybe in your dreams.
Frank Hitlaw

[Tarver Engineering]

"Frank Hitlaw" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>...
>
> > > >
> > > > The US has one or more 767 painted in "Air Force One" colors. I
don't
> > > > think there are any 757 painted as such.
> > > >
> > > > Working my way through college I used to refuel airliners. It was
very
> > > > difficult for me to tell a 757 from 767, at any distance, except by
> > > > looking at the pointy end of the aft fuselage where the APU
exhausted.
> > > > In one aircraft the fuselage was painted almost to the tip of the
APU
> > > > exhaust, while the other aircraft had a few feet of stainless steel
or
> > > > unpainted surface on the aft end. I can't remember which had which.
Of
> > > > course the 757 is a narrow-body and the 767 is a wide-body, but
that's
> > > > not as easy to determine at a distance as one might imagine.
> > >
> > > I find the 757 looks very 'long legged' compared to the 767. I don't
know
> > > of any 767's in USAF service, but there are certainly some 757's,
> > > designated C-32. I had the pleasure of taking a ccloser look at one
> > > (externeally at least, this time last year. Take a look at:
> > > http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/757.html
> >
> > The 767 being a wide body looks odd with narrow body sections 40 and 41
of
> > the 757 grafted onto it.
>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++
> Say what!!! I'll say it would look funny,Tarver. Sections 40 and 41
> are on the front end of a Boeing it includes the cockpit and back to
> the E&E compartment. Worked on alot of Boeings never saw that one
> maybe in your dreams.

Yes Frank, the nose of the 757 is grafted onto the 767 fuse. That is how an
educated person can tell a 767 from a 757, even at a distance.

I guess Frank hasn't been on an airport in 20 years.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE

[Phillip Treweek]

In article >, "Tarver Engineering" >
wrote:

> Yes Frank, the nose of the 757 is grafted onto the 767 fuse. That is how an
> educated person can tell a 767 from a 757, even at a distance.
>
> I guess Frank hasn't been on an airport in 20 years.
>
> John P. Tarver, MS/PE

They have a cockpit layout in common - pilots are rated in common for the
two types. But I'd have to say I haven't seen anything about the
structures being in common - elements perhaps, but one is a wide body and
one is not.

Phil.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Treweek
Department of Computer Science ph ++64 7 838 4410
The University of Waikato fax ++64 7 838 4155
Private Bag 3105
Hamilton, New Zealand

'Kiwi Aircraft Images':
http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/aviation.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------

[Tarver Engineering]

"Phillip Treweek" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Tarver Engineering" >
> wrote:
>
> > Yes Frank, the nose of the 757 is grafted onto the 767 fuse. That is
how an
> > educated person can tell a 767 from a 757, even at a distance.
> >
> > I guess Frank hasn't been on an airport in 20 years.

> They have a cockpit layout in common - pilots are rated in common for the
> two types. But I'd have to say I haven't seen anything about the
> structures being in common - elements perhaps, but one is a wide body and
> one is not.

All I am pointing out is how tscotme can avoid misidentifying 767s again. I
am not really interested in debating the facts of the matter and I don't
really care how you like to think about it in Nz.

[Phillip Treweek]

In article >, "Tarver Engineering" >
wrote:

> "Phillip Treweek" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Tarver Engineering" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Yes Frank, the nose of the 757 is grafted onto the 767 fuse. That is
> how an
> > > educated person can tell a 767 from a 757, even at a distance.
> > >
> > > I guess Frank hasn't been on an airport in 20 years.
>
> > They have a cockpit layout in common - pilots are rated in common for the
> > two types. But I'd have to say I haven't seen anything about the
> > structures being in common - elements perhaps, but one is a wide body and
> > one is not.
>
> All I am pointing out is how tscotme can avoid misidentifying 767s again. I
> am not really interested in debating the facts of the matter and I don't
> really care how you like to think about it in Nz.

Having seen a number of messages by you on other topics I guess you don't
really care what anyone else thinks of anything - including basic
politeness. So as I don't recall being asked or asking your opinion
either, I'm more than happy to end this correspondence ... 'plonk!'

Phil.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Treweek
Department of Computer Science ph ++64 7 838 4410
The University of Waikato fax ++64 7 838 4155
Private Bag 3105
Hamilton, New Zealand

'Kiwi Aircraft Images':
http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/aviation.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------

[Tarver Engineering]

"Phillip Treweek" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Tarver Engineering" >
> wrote:
>
> > "Phillip Treweek" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >, "Tarver Engineering"
>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yes Frank, the nose of the 757 is grafted onto the 767 fuse. That
is
> > how an
> > > > educated person can tell a 767 from a 757, even at a distance.
> > > >
> > > > I guess Frank hasn't been on an airport in 20 years.
> >
> > > They have a cockpit layout in common - pilots are rated in common for
the
> > > two types. But I'd have to say I haven't seen anything about the
> > > structures being in common - elements perhaps, but one is a wide body
and
> > > one is not.
> >
> > All I am pointing out is how tscotme can avoid misidentifying 767s
again. I
> > am not really interested in debating the facts of the matter and I don't
> > really care how you like to think about it in Nz.
>
> Having seen a number of messages by you on other topics I guess you don't
> really care what anyone else thinks of anything - including basic
> politeness.

Do you find your completely unqualified quaesioning of what I wrote to be
polite? I personally find your original post insulting and begging for
severe correction.

> So as I don't recall being asked or asking your opinion
> either, I'm more than happy to end this correspondence ..

Hmm, a dumbass that posts to me and then claims not to have sought my
opinion.

[BackToNormal]

Phillip Treweek > wrote:

> In article >, "Tarver Engineering" >
> wrote:
>
> > "Phillip Treweek" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >, "Tarver Engineering" >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yes Frank, the nose of the 757 is grafted onto the 767 fuse. That is
> > how an
> > > > educated person can tell a 767 from a 757, even at a distance.
> > > >
> > > > I guess Frank hasn't been on an airport in 20 years.
> >
> > > They have a cockpit layout in common - pilots are rated in common for the
> > > two types. But I'd have to say I haven't seen anything about the
> > > structures being in common - elements perhaps, but one is a wide body and
> > > one is not.
> >
> > All I am pointing out is how tscotme can avoid misidentifying 767s again. I
> > am not really interested in debating the facts of the matter and I don't
> > really care how you like to think about it in Nz.
>
> Having seen a number of messages by you on other topics I guess you don't
> really care what anyone else thinks of anything - including basic
> politeness. So as I don't recall being asked or asking your opinion
> either, I'm more than happy to end this correspondence ... 'plonk!'
>
>
Hey Phil, have you seen the site with all the "interesting" Tarverisms
on it? A real scream. Especially the pito bit.

ronh
--
"People do not make decisions on facts, rather,
how they feel about the facts" Robert Consedine

[Tarver Engineering]

"BackToNormal" > wrote in message
...
> Phillip Treweek > wrote:
>
> > In article >, "Tarver Engineering"
>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > "Phillip Treweek" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article >, "Tarver Engineering"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Yes Frank, the nose of the 757 is grafted onto the 767 fuse. That
is
> > > how an
> > > > > educated person can tell a 767 from a 757, even at a distance.
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess Frank hasn't been on an airport in 20 years.
> > >
> > > > They have a cockpit layout in common - pilots are rated in common
for the
> > > > two types. But I'd have to say I haven't seen anything about the
> > > > structures being in common - elements perhaps, but one is a wide
body and
> > > > one is not.
> > >
> > > All I am pointing out is how tscotme can avoid misidentifying 767s
again. I
> > > am not really interested in debating the facts of the matter and I
don't
> > > really care how you like to think about it in Nz.
> >
> > Having seen a number of messages by you on other topics I guess you
don't
> > really care what anyone else thinks of anything - including basic
> > politeness. So as I don't recall being asked or asking your opinion
> > either, I'm more than happy to end this correspondence ... 'plonk!'
> >
> >
> Hey Phil, have you seen the site with all the "interesting" Tarverisms
> on it? A real scream. Especially the pito bit.

You'll find Miller's archive troll more entertaining, the more clueless you
are about aircraft; Phil should have a blast.

[Phil Miller]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 19:22:22 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"BackToNormal" > wrote in message
...
>> Phillip Treweek > wrote:
>>
>> > In article >, "Tarver Engineering"
>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > "Phillip Treweek" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> > > > In article >, "Tarver Engineering"
>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Yes Frank, the nose of the 757 is grafted onto the 767 fuse. That
>is
>> > > how an
>> > > > > educated person can tell a 767 from a 757, even at a distance.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I guess Frank hasn't been on an airport in 20 years.
>> > >
>> > > > They have a cockpit layout in common - pilots are rated in common
>for the
>> > > > two types. But I'd have to say I haven't seen anything about the
>> > > > structures being in common - elements perhaps, but one is a wide
>body and
>> > > > one is not.
>> > >
>> > > All I am pointing out is how tscotme can avoid misidentifying 767s
>again. I
>> > > am not really interested in debating the facts of the matter and I
>don't
>> > > really care how you like to think about it in Nz.
>> >
>> > Having seen a number of messages by you on other topics I guess you
>don't
>> > really care what anyone else thinks of anything - including basic
>> > politeness. So as I don't recall being asked or asking your opinion
>> > either, I'm more than happy to end this correspondence ... 'plonk!'
>> >
>> >
>> Hey Phil, have you seen the site with all the "interesting" Tarverisms
>> on it? A real scream. Especially the pito bit.
>
>You'll find Miller's archive troll more entertaining, the more clueless you
>are about aircraft; Phil should have a blast.
>
Since you bring it up, Splappy;
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~philmil/ADA_FAQ/ADA_FAQ_tarver.htm


Phil
--
Great Tarverisms #1

> The Air Speed Indicator (ASI) shows

You made that up, didn't you?

The IAS indicator says IAS, not ASI.

Why do you come here pretending to know something
when you don't even know the words?

John

[B2431]

>> Having seen a number of messages by you on other topics I guess you don't
>> really care what anyone else thinks of anything - including basic
>> politeness.
>
>Do you find your completely unqualified quaesioning of what I wrote to be
>polite? I personally find your original post insulting and begging for
>severe correction.
>

Phil, Tarver considers questioning or disagreeing with his theories and
pronouncements eqal to a personal attack no matter how polite you are. This
means he feels it is perfectly OK to make personal and vulgar attacks in
return.

You may also note he will never admit when he's made a mistake.

Most of us ignore his rants. The rest find him amusing.

One indication he is losing his temper is when his spelling goes bad. See
above.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Frank Hitlaw]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Frank Hitlaw" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@sti.


> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Snip +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

> > Say what!!! I'll say it would look funny,Tarver. Sections 40 and 41
> > are on the front end of a Boeing it includes the cockpit and back to
> > the E&E compartment. Worked on alot of Boeings never saw that one
> > maybe in your dreams.
>
> Yes Frank, the nose of the 757 is grafted onto the 767 fuse. That is how an
> educated person can tell a 767 from a 757, even at a distance.
>
> I guess Frank hasn't been on an airport in 20 years.
>
> John P. Tarver, MS/PE
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tarver,I am a Maintenance Manager for a large aircraft leasing
company.I really work at an airport,go to one every day. I also work
on and around Boeing aircraft every day. I Have never seen a 757 nose
section grafted to a 767 fuselage. The type rating is common so the
internal layout of the cockpit is very similar. The structure is not
even close,if you grafted a 757 forward structure onto a 767 it would
look like an unfired 30-06 round. If you have a photo of a narrow body
757 section 40&41 grafted onto a wide body please post it. If not....
Frank M.Hitlaw,A&P Mechanic

[Jim Knoyle]

"Frank Hitlaw" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Frank Hitlaw" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@sti.
>
>
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Snip
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> > > Say what!!! I'll say it would look funny,Tarver. Sections 40 and 41
> > > are on the front end of a Boeing it includes the cockpit and back to
> > > the E&E compartment. Worked on alot of Boeings never saw that one
> > > maybe in your dreams.
> >
> > Yes Frank, the nose of the 757 is grafted onto the 767 fuse. That is
how an
> > educated person can tell a 767 from a 757, even at a distance.
> >
> > I guess Frank hasn't been on an airport in 20 years.
> >
> > John P. Tarver, MS/PE
>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++
> Tarver,I am a Maintenance Manager for a large aircraft leasing
> company.I really work at an airport,go to one every day. I also work
> on and around Boeing aircraft every day. I Have never seen a 757 nose
> section grafted to a 767 fuselage. The type rating is common so the
> internal layout of the cockpit is very similar. The structure is not
> even close,if you grafted a 757 forward structure onto a 767 it would
> look like an unfired 30-06 round. If you have a photo of a narrow body
> 757 section 40&41 grafted onto a wide body please post it. If not....
> Frank M.Hitlaw,A&P Mechanic

Too bad tarver won't believe me when I tell him that
section 41 is the front. Guess he'll have to learn the hard way.
JK

[Scott]

I seem to remember it being all white or possibly light grey. It was
from a distance though.

It had the nose of a 757 or at least it looked like it. Kinda like a
beak rather than a nose.

If it is for VIP's why would they be here? The guy taking the lessons
said that he thought it had been doing touch and goes for several
days.

Also with Barksdale a short distance from here, I wonder why they
would be here.

I just figured it was a privately owned airplane until hearing the
AirForce 7 name.

[Robert Briggs]

Mary Shafer wrote:
> B2431 wrote:
>
> > The church defines a canon as a law, rule or set of books depending
> > on how it is used.
>
> In the Anglican (Episcopalian) church, a canon is a priest assigned
> to a choir school, cathedral, or other establishment. They show up
> in Golden Age mysteries a lot.

Mary, that is an *additional* meaning in the Anglican church.

Canons are variously the rules or folk who are supposed to take some
part in upholding the rules. :-)

[Tom Mosher]

"Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message >...
> "Frank Hitlaw" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Frank Hitlaw" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@sti.
> >
> >
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Snip
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> > > > Say what!!! I'll say it would look funny,Tarver. Sections 40 and 41
> > > > are on the front end of a Boeing it includes the cockpit and back to
> > > > the E&E compartment. Worked on alot of Boeings never saw that one
> > > > maybe in your dreams.
> > >
> > > Yes Frank, the nose of the 757 is grafted onto the 767 fuse. That is
> how an
> > > educated person can tell a 767 from a 757, even at a distance.
> > >
> > > I guess Frank hasn't been on an airport in 20 years.
> > >
> > > John P. Tarver, MS/PE
> >
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> ++++
> > Tarver,I am a Maintenance Manager for a large aircraft leasing
> > company.I really work at an airport,go to one every day. I also work
> > on and around Boeing aircraft every day. I Have never seen a 757 nose
> > section grafted to a 767 fuselage. The type rating is common so the
> > internal layout of the cockpit is very similar. The structure is not
> > even close,if you grafted a 757 forward structure onto a 767 it would
> > look like an unfired 30-06 round. If you have a photo of a narrow body
> > 757 section 40&41 grafted onto a wide body please post it. If not....
> > Frank M.Hitlaw,A&P Mechanic
>
> Too bad tarver won't believe me when I tell him that
> section 41 is the front. Guess he'll have to learn the hard way.
> JK

Jim:

Is he still stuck on that section 40 thing? 747's have no section 40,
767's have no section 40, 737's have no section 40. It's section 41 on
all three.

BTW, section 41 on a 767 ends at FS 436 (between the third and fourth
pax window ).

Where does he dig this information up from?

Tom

[Jim Knoyle]

"Tom Mosher" > wrote in message
om...
> "Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Frank Hitlaw" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > "Frank Hitlaw" > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> > > > > "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@sti.
> > >
> > >
> > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Snip
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > > > > Say what!!! I'll say it would look funny,Tarver. Sections 40 and
41
> > > > > are on the front end of a Boeing it includes the cockpit and back
to
> > > > > the E&E compartment. Worked on alot of Boeings never saw that one
> > > > > maybe in your dreams.
> > > >
> > > > Yes Frank, the nose of the 757 is grafted onto the 767 fuse. That
is
> > how an
> > > > educated person can tell a 767 from a 757, even at a distance.
> > > >
> > > > I guess Frank hasn't been on an airport in 20 years.
> > > >
> > > > John P. Tarver, MS/PE
> > >
> >
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > ++++
> > > Tarver,I am a Maintenance Manager for a large aircraft leasing
> > > company.I really work at an airport,go to one every day. I also work
> > > on and around Boeing aircraft every day. I Have never seen a 757 nose
> > > section grafted to a 767 fuselage. The type rating is common so the
> > > internal layout of the cockpit is very similar. The structure is not
> > > even close,if you grafted a 757 forward structure onto a 767 it would
> > > look like an unfired 30-06 round. If you have a photo of a narrow body
> > > 757 section 40&41 grafted onto a wide body please post it. If not....
> > > Frank M.Hitlaw,A&P Mechanic
> >
> > Too bad tarver won't believe me when I tell him that
> > section 41 is the front. Guess he'll have to learn the hard way.
> > JK
>
> Jim:
>
> Is he still stuck on that section 40 thing? 747's have no section 40,
> 767's have no section 40, 737's have no section 40. It's section 41 on
> all three.
>
Same with a DC-10.

> BTW, section 41 on a 767 ends at FS 436 (between the third and fourth
> pax window ).
>
> Where does he dig this information up from?
>

I'm not sure I even want to ask. When he gives us Tarverisms like:
Yes Frank, the nose of the 757 is grafted onto the 767 fuse. That is
how an educated person can tell a 767 from a 757, even at a distance.
I guess Frank hasn't been on an airport in 20 years.

He doesn't realize that he's virtually handing victory to us in another
thread where he is proving to us that he does not know that 757s and 767s
have different types of instrument plumbing. (pitot tube vs. pitot/static
tube)

I just wish someone could get him to re-open his "autoland is illegal"
argument.
That was about the time I came in and it's been constant grins ever since.
JK

[Frank Hitlaw]

(Tom Mosher) wrote in message >...
> "Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message >...
> > "Frank Hitlaw" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > "Frank Hitlaw" > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> > > > > "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@sti.
> > >
> > >
> > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Snip
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > > > > Say what!!! I'll say it would look funny,Tarver. Sections 40 and 41
> > > > > are on the front end of a Boeing it includes the cockpit and back to
> > > > > the E&E compartment. Worked on alot of Boeings never saw that one
> > > > > maybe in your dreams.
> > > >
> > > > Yes Frank, the nose of the 757 is grafted onto the 767 fuse. That is
> how an
> > > > educated person can tell a 767 from a 757, even at a distance.
> > > >
> > > > I guess Frank hasn't been on an airport in 20 years.
> > > >
> > > > John P. Tarver, MS/PE
> > >
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > ++++
> > > Tarver,I am a Maintenance Manager for a large aircraft leasing
> > > company.I really work at an airport,go to one every day. I also work
> > > on and around Boeing aircraft every day. I Have never seen a 757 nose
> > > section grafted to a 767 fuselage. The type rating is common so the
> > > internal layout of the cockpit is very similar. The structure is not
> > > even close,if you grafted a 757 forward structure onto a 767 it would
> > > look like an unfired 30-06 round. If you have a photo of a narrow body
> > > 757 section 40&41 grafted onto a wide body please post it. If not....
> > > Frank M.Hitlaw,A&P Mechanic
> >
> > Too bad tarver won't believe me when I tell him that
> > section 41 is the front. Guess he'll have to learn the hard way.
> > JK
>
> Jim:
>
> Is he still stuck on that section 40 thing? 747's have no section 40,
> 767's have no section 40, 737's have no section 40. It's section 41 on
> all three.
>
> BTW, section 41 on a 767 ends at FS 436 (between the third and fourth
> pax window ).
>
> Where does he dig this information up from?
>
> Tom
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tom; I thought after I posted the follow up there is no section 40 on
any Boeing that I know about. Section 40 only exist in Tarvers fantasy
world so let's not confuse him with facts.
Frank;

[Mary Shafer]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 19:32:19 +0100, Robert Briggs
> wrote:

> Mary Shafer wrote:
> > B2431 wrote:
> >
> > > The church defines a canon as a law, rule or set of books depending
> > > on how it is used.
> >
> > In the Anglican (Episcopalian) church, a canon is a priest assigned
> > to a choir school, cathedral, or other establishment. They show up
> > in Golden Age mysteries a lot.
>
> Mary, that is an *additional* meaning in the Anglican church.
>
> Canons are variously the rules or folk who are supposed to take some
> part in upholding the rules. :-)

That's why mathematicians and engineers write things in canonical
form, too.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer