B-52 Re-engining?

[MLenoch]

Is the program to re-engine B-52 aircraft running?
Thx,
VL

[Gene Storey]

Yes. It's called the F-35

"MLenoch" > wrote
> Is the program to re-engine B-52 aircraft running?
> Thx,
> VL

[Thomas Schoene]

"MLenoch" > wrote in message

> Is the program to re-engine B-52 aircraft running?

Not AFAIK. They tried to get it in under some sort of fuel economy program
that would have made it easier to lease the engines, but I don't think
anyone bought it.

--�
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Matt]

It's kinda-on, but I believe they're currently arguing about 4 vs 8 engines.
The proposed 4-engine conversion uses the same engine fitted to the 767, so
it looks kind of ... dorky, I guess is the word.

"MLenoch" > wrote in message
...
> Is the program to re-engine B-52 aircraft running?
> Thx,
> VL

[Jim Atkins]

If the AF plans to keep the big bad BUFF around much longer, seems like
reengining is a must- where do you get those ancient TF-33 parts? Aside from
the obvious fuel economy issues, seems like maintenance costs (rational for
the new tankers) have to be sky-high.

--
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

[Tex Houston]

"Jim Atkins" > wrote in message
t...
> If the AF plans to keep the big bad BUFF around much longer, seems like
> reengining is a must- where do you get those ancient TF-33 parts? Aside
from
> the obvious fuel economy issues, seems like maintenance costs (rational
for
> the new tankers) have to be sky-high.
>
> --
> Jim Atkins


Should there not be a lot of TF-33 engines in the stockpile from retired
C-141B aircraft?

Tex Houston

[Larry]

>Tex suggested: Should there not be a lot of TF-33 engines in
>the stockpile from retired C-141B aircraft?
Robbing engines from other birds is not a solution. High-time motors are
still required to be reworked with new internal components at specific
intervals.

As the demand goes down, the service is forced to contract out for small
quantities of replacement parts at "sky high" prices.

There is also the economy issue: the old motors also burn a lot of fuel and
there will be a definite savings "per flight hour" that helps to offset the
cost of new motors.


(¯`·._.· £ãrrÿ ·._.·´¯)








"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Atkins" > wrote in message
> t...
> > If the AF plans to keep the big bad BUFF around much longer, seems like
> > reengining is a must- where do you get those ancient TF-33 parts? Aside
> from
> > the obvious fuel economy issues, seems like maintenance costs (rational
> for
> > the new tankers) have to be sky-high.
> >
> > --
> > Jim Atkins
>
>
> Should there not be a lot of TF-33 engines in the stockpile from retired
> C-141B aircraft?
>
> Tex Houston
>
>

[Tex Houston]

"Larry" > wrote in message
...
> >Tex suggested: Should there not be a lot of TF-33 engines in
> >the stockpile from retired C-141B aircraft?
> Robbing engines from other birds is not a solution. High-time motors are
> still required to be reworked with new internal components at specific
> intervals.
>
> As the demand goes down, the service is forced to contract out for small
> quantities of replacement parts at "sky high" prices.
>
> There is also the economy issue: the old motors also burn a lot of fuel
and
> there will be a definite savings "per flight hour" that helps to offset
the
> cost of new motors.


I know about engines being reworked. You talk as if the C-141B engines were
not changed regularly. In the case of "pay me not or pay me later the
services will almost always elect to "pay me later. Robbing would not be
the work I would use. It would only be appropriate if the C-141 airframes
were still being used. Salvaged seems to describe the situation best.

Tex

[Gene Storey]

Most of the parts are still manufactured at Tinker, down in Oklahoma.
The ALC there is capable of building new engines if they want,
although lots of stuff is contracted out. My trip there a couple years ago
I got to see the TF-33 outside storage, and they had 5 acres of these
engines in sealed containers stacked two high! TF-33 variants are used
in E-3 and C-141, as well. I think the 141 is the only one that has a
thrust-reverser.

The nice thing about a 33, is when they shut down on take-off, you don't
get a massive yaw. The big fans everyone wants to replace the 33 with
are so dangerous, that the pilot isn't even in the loop. The engine quits,
and the computer takes over and kicks the rudder and the other engines
are adjusted to keep the ship from rolling into a big hole.

"Jim Atkins" > wrote
>
> If the AF plans to keep the big bad BUFF around much longer, seems like
> reengining is a must- where do you get those ancient TF-33 parts? Aside from
> the obvious fuel economy issues, seems like maintenance costs (rational for
> the new tankers) have to be sky-high.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
...
> Most of the parts are still manufactured at Tinker, down in Oklahoma.
> The ALC there is capable of building new engines if they want,
> although lots of stuff is contracted out. My trip there a couple years
ago
> I got to see the TF-33 outside storage, and they had 5 acres of these
> engines in sealed containers stacked two high! TF-33 variants are used
> in E-3 and C-141, as well. I think the 141 is the only one that has a
> thrust-reverser.
>
> The nice thing about a 33, is when they shut down on take-off, you don't
> get a massive yaw. The big fans everyone wants to replace the 33 with
> are so dangerous, that the pilot isn't even in the loop. The engine
quits,
> and the computer takes over and kicks the rudder and the other engines
> are adjusted to keep the ship from rolling into a big hole.

Like a 777? :)

>
> "Jim Atkins" > wrote
> >
> > If the AF plans to keep the big bad BUFF around much longer, seems like
> > reengining is a must- where do you get those ancient TF-33 parts? Aside
from
> > the obvious fuel economy issues, seems like maintenance costs (rational
for
> > the new tankers) have to be sky-high.
>
>

[Larry]

>You talk as if the C-141B engines were not changed regularly.
I'm sure they were changed regularly. And that was my point- when "changed",
fresh motors are installed and new parts are required to rework those motors
(at some point). As time goes by, spare parts become VERY expensive.


>Robbing would not be the work I would use.
My aviation experience comes from "shooting them off the pointy end" and
"robbing" is just a nickname for cannibalization (which is what you call
pulling from one bird to install in another). Nothing was meant by it- it's
a very common aviation term. Robbing quickly triples the man-hours and is
always my last resort.


Larry
AECS (AW/SW/MTS)
Disabled Combat Veteran
USN Retired

20 years of Navy in my rear view mirror
and getting further away every day ;-)







"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Larry" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >Tex suggested: Should there not be a lot of TF-33 engines in
> > >the stockpile from retired C-141B aircraft?
> > Robbing engines from other birds is not a solution. High-time motors are
> > still required to be reworked with new internal components at specific
> > intervals.
> >
> > As the demand goes down, the service is forced to contract out for small
> > quantities of replacement parts at "sky high" prices.
> >
> > There is also the economy issue: the old motors also burn a lot of fuel
> and
> > there will be a definite savings "per flight hour" that helps to offset
> the
> > cost of new motors.
>
>
> I know about engines being reworked. You talk as if the C-141B engines
were
> not changed regularly. In the case of "pay me not or pay me later the
> services will almost always elect to "pay me later. Robbing would not be
> the work I would use. It would only be appropriate if the C-141 airframes
> were still being used. Salvaged seems to describe the situation best.
>
> Tex
>
>

[John Keeney]

"Jim Atkins" > wrote in message
t...
> If the AF plans to keep the big bad BUFF around much longer, seems like
> reengining is a must- where do you get those ancient TF-33 parts? Aside
from
> the obvious fuel economy issues, seems like maintenance costs (rational
for
> the new tankers) have to be sky-high.

There's a small hill out in the desert made of TF-33s in storage/transport
cans.

[R Haskin]

I believe what Vlado is referring to is a recent re-opening of the B-52
reengining project. A recent Jane's Defense Weekly article said that the
earlier decision about reengining back in the '95 timeframe (ergo, the
maintenance cost savings based on the big TF-33 stockpile outweighed fuel
consumption savings) was flawed.

The article contained a *new* photoshopped picture of a 4-engine BUFF.


"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> "MLenoch" > wrote in message
>
> > Is the program to re-engine B-52 aircraft running?
>
> Not AFAIK. They tried to get it in under some sort of fuel economy
program
> that would have made it easier to lease the engines, but I don't think
> anyone bought it.
>
> --�
> Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
> "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
> special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)
>
>
>
>

[The Raven]

"Jim Atkins" > wrote in message
t...
> If the AF plans to keep the big bad BUFF around much longer, seems like
> reengining is a must- where do you get those ancient TF-33 parts?

There must be plenty of TF-33 parts around. You have almost 100 BUFFs with 8
engines, now consider how many spares need to be in the supply
pipeline...............

Australia is managing with the 35 x F-111's and they make what can't be
obtained.

>Aside from
> the obvious fuel economy issues, seems like maintenance costs (rational
for
> the new tankers) have to be sky-high.

The cost of changing from one engine type to another, including spares
pipeline, spares, overhaul facilities etc etc are enormous for most aircraft
and take a long time to pay back (Caribou turbine conversions excepted).

--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

[Mike Marron]

>"The Raven" > wrote:
>>"Jim Atkins" > wrote:

>>If the AF plans to keep the big bad BUFF around much longer, seems like
>>reengining is a must- where do you get those ancient TF-33 parts?

>There must be plenty of TF-33 parts around. You have almost 100 BUFFs with 8
>engines, now consider how many spares need to be in the supply
>pipeline...............

Down in Miami, for example, there are countless engine shops and
repair stations specializing in JT-3D/TF-33 maintenance (I labored
in these sweatshops myself as an A&P). Many of the engines weren't
even going back on airplanes and were rebuilt with the fans removed
for industrial use (powerplants for pipelines etc.) JT-3D/TF-33 parts
galore. And should they run out of parts, the most sensible engine
change would be the even more ubiquitous JT-8D engines used on
727, 737, DC-9 and MD-80 A/C.

-Mike Marron

[Thomas Schoene]

"The Raven" > wrote in message


> There must be plenty of TF-33 parts around. You have almost 100 BUFFs
> with 8 engines, now consider how many spares need to be in the supply
> pipeline...............
>
> Australia is managing with the 35 x F-111's and they make what can't
> be obtained.

The F-111s use TF30s. Different engine altogether.

> The cost of changing from one engine type to another, including spares
> pipeline, spares, overhaul facilities etc etc are enormous for most
> aircraft and take a long time to pay back (Caribou turbine
> conversions excepted).

Last I knew, the idea was to lease the engines and pay by the hour for
actual run time. Overhauls would be on the owner, probably piggy-backed on
their commerical lines. The theory (no comment on practice) is that the Air
Force can thus spread the costs across the remaining 30-year life of the
planes.

--�
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[David McArthur]

"Matt" > wrote in message >...
> It's kinda-on, but I believe they're currently arguing about 4 vs 8 engines.
> The proposed 4-engine conversion uses the same engine fitted to the 767, so
> it looks kind of ... dorky, I guess is the word.
>
> "MLenoch" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Is the program to re-engine B-52 aircraft running?


I think the proposal was to lease Rolls Royce RB211-535E4s. They're used on the 757.
Only ever seen one pic of the proposal - does look kind of ...odd!

David

[The Raven]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> "The Raven" > wrote in message
>
>
> > There must be plenty of TF-33 parts around. You have almost 100 BUFFs
> > with 8 engines, now consider how many spares need to be in the supply
> > pipeline...............
> >
> > Australia is managing with the 35 x F-111's and they make what can't
> > be obtained.
>
> The F-111s use TF30s. Different engine altogether.

Agreed the engines are different but the point was that a small country can
maintain 35 "obsolete" aircraft and produce all the necessessary engine
parts. The US B-52 fleet by comparison is massive so, one would assume that
would be a more economically viable solution.

>
> > The cost of changing from one engine type to another, including spares
> > pipeline, spares, overhaul facilities etc etc are enormous for most
> > aircraft and take a long time to pay back (Caribou turbine
> > conversions excepted).
>
> Last I knew, the idea was to lease the engines and pay by the hour for
> actual run time. Overhauls would be on the owner, probably piggy-backed
on
> their commerical lines.

That's a valid way to do it. Some airforces already use commercial lines for
engine repairs and overhauls.

> The theory (no comment on practice) is that the Air
> Force can thus spread the costs across the remaining 30-year life of the
> planes.

True, but the cost of such changes often represents a huge spike in the
overall life cycle cost with comparitively little time to recover the costs
through lower operating expenses etc.........


--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

[Tex Houston]

"The Raven" > wrote in message
...

> Agreed the engines are different but the point was that a small country
can
> maintain 35 "obsolete" aircraft and produce all the necessessary engine
> parts. The US B-52 fleet by comparison is massive so, one would assume
that
> would be a more economically viable solution.
> The Raven

I'd hardly call the 93 plane B-52 fleet vs 35 F-111s as 'massive'.

Tex Houston

[The Raven]

"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
>
> "The Raven" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Agreed the engines are different but the point was that a small country
> can
> > maintain 35 "obsolete" aircraft and produce all the necessessary engine
> > parts. The US B-52 fleet by comparison is massive so, one would assume
> that
> > would be a more economically viable solution.
> > The Raven
>
> I'd hardly call the 93 plane B-52 fleet vs 35 F-111s as 'massive'.

35x2 engines versus 93x8............plus whatevers in the pipeline.


--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

[Anonymous]

Tex Houston wrote in message ...
>
>"The Raven" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Agreed the engines are different but the point was that a small country
>can
>> maintain 35 "obsolete" aircraft and produce all the necessessary engine
>> parts. The US B-52 fleet by comparison is massive so, one would assume
>that
>> would be a more economically viable solution.
>> The Raven
>
>I'd hardly call the 93 plane B-52 fleet vs 35 F-111s as 'massive'.

I'd hardly call Australia "a small country" !!

Cheers
Graeme

[The Raven]

"Anonymous" > wrote in message
...
>
> Tex Houston wrote in message ...
> >
> >"The Raven" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >> Agreed the engines are different but the point was that a small country
> >can
> >> maintain 35 "obsolete" aircraft and produce all the necessessary engine
> >> parts. The US B-52 fleet by comparison is massive so, one would assume
> >that
> >> would be a more economically viable solution.
> >> The Raven
> >
> >I'd hardly call the 93 plane B-52 fleet vs 35 F-111s as 'massive'.
>
> I'd hardly call Australia "a small country" !!

And the population is what compared to the US?


--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

[Anonymous]

The Raven wrote in message ...
>> I'd hardly call Australia "a small country" !!
>
>And the population is what compared to the US?

That's my point - Australia is a big country. It just doesn't have as many
people living in it as the US does.

<nitpick mode off>

Cheers
Graeme

[The Raven]

"Anonymous" > wrote in message
...
>
> The Raven wrote in message ...
> >> I'd hardly call Australia "a small country" !!
> >
> >And the population is what compared to the US?
>
> That's my point - Australia is a big country. It just doesn't have as
many
> people living in it as the US does.
>
> <nitpick mode off>

Fair enough, perhaps I should have clarified.......................but it's
not like a nation is going to have heaps of aircraft without a decent
population.


--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

[Anonymous]

The Raven wrote in message ...
>Fair enough, perhaps I should have clarified.......................but it's
>not like a nation is going to have heaps of aircraft without a decent
>population.

Britain's got a fair size airforce, hasn't it ?

I'd have thought that Australia would have had more aircraft due to the size
of the territory they have to defend.

The fact that Australia is entirely surrounded by oceans means that it needs
to be able to guard its coastline.

Most of the population is coastal, and is concentrated in and around the
major cities, so I suppose that's where the airforce will be concentrated.

But they will still need to prevent any potential threats making a landing
on the coast in a secluded area and then setting up base on Australian soil.

Cheers
Graeme

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"The Raven" > wrote:

> "Anonymous" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The Raven wrote in message ...
> > >> I'd hardly call Australia "a small country" !!
> > >
> > >And the population is what compared to the US?
> >
> > That's my point - Australia is a big country. It just doesn't have as
> many
> > people living in it as the US does.
> >
> > <nitpick mode off>
>
> Fair enough, perhaps I should have clarified.......................but it's
> not like a nation is going to have heaps of aircraft without a decent
> population.

Could they have more with an indecent population?

[Anonymous]

Steve Hix wrote in message ...
>In article >,
> "The Raven" > wrote:
>>
>> Fair enough, perhaps I should have clarified.......................but it's
>> not like a nation is going to have heaps of aircraft without a decent
>> population.
>
>Could they have more with an indecent population?

They wouldn't need any if they were all indecent. No bugger would try and
invade !

NUDE AUSTRALIANS - the ultimate deterrant against invasion...

Cheers
Graeme

[Tarver Engineering]

"Anonymous" > wrote in message
...
>
> The Raven wrote in message ...
> >> I'd hardly call Australia "a small country" !!
> >
> >And the population is what compared to the US?
>
> That's my point - Australia is a big country. It just doesn't have as
many
> people living in it as the US does.

Or even half as many people as California does.

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, "Anonymous" > wrote:

> Steve Hix wrote in message ...
> >In article >,
> > "The Raven" > wrote:
> >>
> >> Fair enough, perhaps I should have clarified.......................but it's
> >> not like a nation is going to have heaps of aircraft without a decent
> >> population.
> >
> >Could they have more with an indecent population?
>
> They wouldn't need any if they were all indecent. No bugger would try and
> invade !
>
> NUDE AUSTRALIANS - the ultimate deterrant against invasion...

Hmmm. Thinking of Elle MacPherson just now. There's at least one good
reason to invade. What about Nicole Kidman? Reason two...

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[BUFDRVR]

>Agreed the engines are different but the point was that a small country can
>maintain 35 "obsolete" aircraft and produce all the necessessary engine
>parts. The US B-52 fleet by comparison is massive so, one would assume that
>would be a more economically viable solution.

Actually, that's why they're looking at putting new engines on the BUFF,
machining new parts is becoming increasingly more expensive every year. A few
years ago an "emergency contract" had to be awarded to a company to produce
constant speed drive shafts for our generators. We had used up the ones in the
boneyard and the B-52 CSD on the TF-33 differs slightly from the C-141 and E-3
TF-33. The company that had produced the CSD for the BUFF TF-33 was out of
buisness years earlier. The results were that a *very* expensive contract was
awarded to produce the new CSD shafts.

Every year the B-52 runs into similiar problems and every year the contracts
get greater in number and more expensive.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

>I think the proposal was to lease Rolls Royce RB211-535E4s. They're used on
>the 757.
>Only ever seen one pic of the proposal - does look kind of ...odd!

There's also a second proposal being looked at that would replace 8 with 8.
Sorry, I don't remember what type of engines would replace the TF-33. Latest
word is the 8 engine proposal is a little cheaper and prefered by Boeing. By
replacing 2 engines with 1 (with greater total thrust I might add) presents
some assymetric thrust problems should an engine be lost during a heavy weight
takeoff. Initially the RB-211 proposal included the "auto-rudder" which is
currently installed on 757s. This system automatically displaces the required
rudder amount for an engine loss. The problem in the BUFF, as anyone who's
ever done a 6-engine approach (done with 2 outboard engines on one side in
idle) or a 2-engine loss takeoff in the simulator knows, sometimes full rudder
isn't enough. The BUFF rudder is just too small. To solve the problem,
another automated system was going to be installed to automatically reduce the
thrust on the opposite outboard engine *and* increase thrust on the inboard
engines. By the time the automated systems were factored in, the cost had gone
up by a fair amount. Its still possible we may get 4-for-8, but right now
there's more attention on 8-for-8.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[L'acrobat]

"Anonymous" > wrote in message
...
>
> The Raven wrote in message ...
> >Fair enough, perhaps I should have clarified.......................but
it's
> >not like a nation is going to have heaps of aircraft without a decent
> >population.
>
> Britain's got a fair size airforce, hasn't it ?

and their population V Austs?

>
> I'd have thought that Australia would have had more aircraft due to the
size
> of the territory they have to defend.

But you need to factor in that Australia needs to provide services and
infrastructure to a country the size of the USA with a population of 20
million, it means that a lot of tax money is already spent.

>
> The fact that Australia is entirely surrounded by oceans means that it
needs
> to be able to guard its coastline.
>
> Most of the population is coastal, and is concentrated in and around the
> major cities, so I suppose that's where the airforce will be concentrated.
>
> But they will still need to prevent any potential threats making a landing
> on the coast in a secluded area and then setting up base on Australian
soil.
>

No credible attacker has that capability.

[Greg Hennessy]

On 25 Sep 2003 23:53:55 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

>Its still possible we may get 4-for-8, but right now
>there's more attention on 8-for-8.

And I bet you cant wait.... :-).


greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Who lives in a pineapple under the sea? Absorbent and yellow and pourous is he!
If nautical nonsense be something you wish! Then drop on the deck and flop like a fish!

[Nick Pedley]

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Anonymous" >
wrote:
>
> > Steve Hix wrote in message ...
> > >In article >,
> > > "The Raven" > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Fair enough, perhaps I should have
clarified.......................but it's
> > >> not like a nation is going to have heaps of aircraft without a decent
> > >> population.
> > >
> > >Could they have more with an indecent population?
> >
> > They wouldn't need any if they were all indecent. No bugger would try
and
> > invade !
> >
> > NUDE AUSTRALIANS - the ultimate deterrant against invasion...
>
> Hmmm. Thinking of Elle MacPherson just now. There's at least one good
> reason to invade. What about Nicole Kidman? Reason two...
>
Holly Valance, Kylie, Dannii... the list goes on and on!

Nick

[Anonymous]

Nick Pedley wrote in message ...
>
>"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, "Anonymous" >
>wrote:
>> > NUDE AUSTRALIANS - the ultimate deterrant against invasion...
>>
>> Hmmm. Thinking of Elle MacPherson just now. There's at least one good
>> reason to invade. What about Nicole Kidman? Reason two...
>>
>Holly Valance, Kylie, Dannii... the list goes on and on!

OK.

But that's just their entrapment plan.

After the invaders have landed, they wheel out Paul Hogan and Steve Irwin.

"G'day mate!" they chorus in, taking their cork hats away to reveal their
'bits'...

"RUN AWAY!" scream the former invading party...

Cheers
Graeme

[Yeff]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 12:47:37 +0000 (UTC), Anonymous wrote:

> OK.
>
> But that's just their entrapment plan.
>
> After the invaders have landed, they wheel out Paul Hogan and Steve Irwin.
>
> "G'day mate!" they chorus in, taking their cork hats away to reveal their
> 'bits'...
>
> "RUN AWAY!" scream the former invading party...

And if that doesn't work there's always Yahoo Serious being held back in
strategic reserve...

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

[Anonymous]

Yeff wrote in message >...
>And if that doesn't work there's always Yahoo Serious being held back in
>strategic reserve...

<shudder>

Cheers
Graeme

[Ron Parsons]

In article >,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

>Initially the RB-211 proposal included the "auto-rudder" which is
>currently installed on 757s. This system automatically displaces the required
>rudder amount for an engine loss.

What's this auto-rudder bit. In my years on the 757 with the RB-211's
there was no such thing.

--
Ron

[BUFDRVR]

>And I bet you cant wait.... :-).
>

It'll be like Christmas in (insert month of first operational re-engined BUFF
arriving here). The proposal will also give us an upgraded avionics, which will
be worth as much to the average crewdog as the engines themselves.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

>What's this auto-rudder bit. In my years on the 757 with the RB-211's
>there was no such thing.
>

Hmm, according to Boeing's literature it's installed on 757s???


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Tarver Engineering]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >And I bet you cant wait.... :-).
> >
>
> It'll be like Christmas in (insert month of first operational re-engined
BUFF
> arriving here). The proposal will also give us an upgraded avionics, which
will
> be worth as much to the average crewdog as the engines themselves.

Consider it a ten year life extension, in 2030.

[Chad Irby]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> "BUFDRVR" > wrote:
> >
> > It'll be like Christmas in (insert month of first operational
> > re-engined BUFF arriving here). The proposal will also give us an
> > upgraded avionics, which will be worth as much to the average
> > crewdog as the engines themselves.
>
> Consider it a ten year life extension, in 2030.

At the rate they're going, you could be frozen for a thousand years,
wake up, and the only thing that you'll recognize will be made by
Boeing...

"Yeah, we kept upgrading them. The 2045 AD mods made them sentient, and
we had to keep them up to spec or they'd get cranky..."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 23:19:54 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
>> "BUFDRVR" > wrote:
>> >
>> > It'll be like Christmas in (insert month of first operational
>> > re-engined BUFF arriving here). The proposal will also give us an
>> > upgraded avionics, which will be worth as much to the average
>> > crewdog as the engines themselves.
>>
>> Consider it a ten year life extension, in 2030.
>
>At the rate they're going, you could be frozen for a thousand years,
>wake up, and the only thing that you'll recognize will be made by
>Boeing...
>
>"Yeah, we kept upgrading them. The 2045 AD mods made them sentient, and
>we had to keep them up to spec or they'd get cranky..."


The thing that amzes me is a couple guys designed it in a hotel room
over a weekend. (Obviously they didn't do all the detail work but
still)

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 23:19:54 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >
> >> "BUFDRVR" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > It'll be like Christmas in (insert month of first operational
> >> > re-engined BUFF arriving here). The proposal will also give us an
> >> > upgraded avionics, which will be worth as much to the average
> >> > crewdog as the engines themselves.
> >>
> >> Consider it a ten year life extension, in 2030.
> >
> >At the rate they're going, you could be frozen for a thousand years,
> >wake up, and the only thing that you'll recognize will be made by
> >Boeing...
> >
> >"Yeah, we kept upgrading them. The 2045 AD mods made them sentient, and
> >we had to keep them up to spec or they'd get cranky..."
>
>
> The thing that amzes me is a couple guys designed it in a hotel room
> over a weekend. (Obviously they didn't do all the detail work but
> still)

All aircraft and aircraft systems begin as napkin drawings.

[L'acrobat]

"Yeff" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 12:47:37 +0000 (UTC), Anonymous wrote:
>
> > OK.
> >
> > But that's just their entrapment plan.
> >
> > After the invaders have landed, they wheel out Paul Hogan and Steve
Irwin.
> >
> > "G'day mate!" they chorus in, taking their cork hats away to reveal
their
> > 'bits'...
> >
> > "RUN AWAY!" scream the former invading party...
>
> And if that doesn't work there's always Yahoo Serious being held back in
> strategic reserve...

There are some weapons too horrible to ever deploy.

[B2431]

>From: "Tarver Engineering"
aol.com> wrote:
<snip>

>All aircraft and aircraft systems begin as napkin drawings.
>

Another pronouncement from the deep.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Ian Burnley]

"Anonymous" > wrote in :

>
> Steve Hix wrote in message ...
>>In article >,
>> "The Raven" > wrote:
>>>
>>> Fair enough, perhaps I should have
>>> clarified.......................but it's not like a nation is going
>>> to have heaps of aircraft without a decent population.
>>
>>Could they have more with an indecent population?
>
> They wouldn't need any if they were all indecent. No bugger would try
> and invade !
>
> NUDE AUSTRALIANS - the ultimate deterrant against invasion...
>
> Cheers
> Graeme
>
>
>

God Almighty! Bronwyn Bishop nude! Just the thought of it has me reaching
for the scotch. Christ, I'm going to have nightmares for months now! Then
again, how about Nicole Kidman nude. mmmmmmmmm.

Ian

[Dave Kearton]

<Ian> wrote in message
0.254...
> "Anonymous" > wrote in :
>
>
> God Almighty! Bronwyn Bishop nude! Just the thought of it has me reaching
> for the scotch. Christ, I'm going to have nightmares for months now! Then
> again, how about Nicole Kidman nude. mmmmmmmmm.
>
> Ian







I have just such a picture.


Considering how off topic it is, and that Nicole isn't really Australian, I
can't post it on any of the aviation groups.



Cheers

Dave Kearton (oh damn)

[Ron Parsons]

In article >,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

>>What's this auto-rudder bit. In my years on the 757 with the RB-211's
>>there was no such thing.
>>
>
>Hmm, according to Boeing's literature it's installed on 757s???

Not unless it was since I retired.

--
Ron

[Frank May]

So anybody find out what the new 8 are? My bet is they're F-404s.

[bsp]

Frank May wrote:

> So anybody find out what the new 8 are? My bet is they're F-404s.
>

Maybe JT8Ds. JSTARS will be re-engined with P&W JT8D-219s.

[Rolf T. Kappe]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 17:21:12 +0300, bsp > wrote:

>
>
>Frank May wrote:
>
>> So anybody find out what the new 8 are? My bet is they're F-404s.
>>
>
>Maybe JT8Ds. JSTARS will be re-engined with P&W JT8D-219s.

I think one proposal was BMW/Rolls Royce BR700 series.
(Boeing 717, Gulfstream V)
--Rolf

[Gene Storey]

I'd like to see 4 of those Bear Bomber counter-rotating turbo-props
on the B-52. Hell, it would probably cruise at Mach .92 with those!

[James Hart]

Gene Storey wrote:
> I'd like to see 4 of those Bear Bomber counter-rotating turbo-props
> on the B-52. Hell, it would probably cruise at Mach .92 with those!

Now that'd be a sight worth seeing.

--
James...
http://www.jameshart.co.uk/

[Darrell]

Hey BUFDRVR, you must have worn out those great engines.

I flew the B-52H at Minot when they were brand new. Still had the new car
smell. (1961-1966)

--

B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
-

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >And I bet you cant wait.... :-).
> >
>
> It'll be like Christmas in (insert month of first operational re-engined
BUFF
> arriving here). The proposal will also give us an upgraded avionics, which
will
> be worth as much to the average crewdog as the engines themselves.
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[Darrell]

No auto-rudder on the 757 when I retired from AA in 1993.

--

B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
-

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >What's this auto-rudder bit. In my years on the 757 with the RB-211's
> >there was no such thing.
> >
>
> Hmm, according to Boeing's literature it's installed on 757s???
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[Gene Storey]

2 engine jets don't need an auto-rudder. 4 engines is another story.


"Darrell" > wrote
>
> No auto-rudder on the 757 when I retired from AA in 1993.
>
> "BUFDRVR" > wrote
> > >
> > >What's this auto-rudder bit. In my years on the 757 with the RB-211's
> > >there was no such thing.
> > >
> >
> > Hmm, according to Boeing's literature it's installed on 757s???

[BUFDRVR]

>I'd like to see 4 of those Bear Bomber counter-rotating turbo-props
>on the B-52. Hell, it would probably cruise at Mach .92 with those!
>

The current TF-33's will push you very close to mach if you let them. Our
airspeed limit is set by the EVS pods under the chin, before that it was the
rear empanage. Interestingly enough, the tall tails (B-D) were limited to .96
mach while the G's and Hs (pre-EVS) were .94. Anyone know why having a taller
verticle stabilizer would allow you to fly faster before you exceeded the
elastic limit? By the way, the mach limit on the BUFF is .82 *indicated*. The
EVS pods not only slowed us down physically, but they disturbed the airflow to
the pitot static system affecting indicated mach. You can actually fly an H to
..90 mach with complete indifference to the mach gauge if you correctly compute
it. The only person I know who's ever computed it and flew it (you fly off the
true airspeed gauge), found when he looked at the mach gauge, it was a knats
ass over .84 mach. That was good enough to convince me that .84 indicated mach
was close enough to .90 true mach.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

>Hey BUFDRVR, you must have worn out those great engines.

Since 9/11/01 we've really flown the hell out of these jets. I've had a lot of
help wearing out the TF-33s.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

>No auto-rudder on the 757 when I retired from AA in 1993.

I have no reason to doubt you, just wondering what the hell Boeings putting out
in their literature. Does anyone with RB-211s have an auto rudder system?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Tarver Engineering]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >No auto-rudder on the 757 when I retired from AA in 1993.
>
> I have no reason to doubt you, just wondering what the hell Boeings
putting out
> in their literature. Does anyone with RB-211s have an auto rudder system?

The 757 has an automatic YAW damper, as does the F-4, but the flight control
changes you are describing are a 777 feature. You really need an integrated
flight control computer to justify taking that much authority away from the
operator. A FBW B-52 is cool with me, but it sounds a tad pricey.

[Gene Storey]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote
> "BUFDRVR" > wrote
> > >
> > >No auto-rudder on the 757 when I retired from AA in 1993.
> >
> > I have no reason to doubt you, just wondering what the hell Boeings
> > putting out in their literature. Does anyone with RB-211s have an auto
> > rudder system?
>
> The 757 has an automatic YAW damper, as does the F-4, but the flight control
> changes you are describing are a 777 feature. You really need an integrated
> flight control computer to justify taking that much authority away from the
> operator. A FBW B-52 is cool with me, but it sounds a tad pricey.

I'm pretty sure the KC-135R has an auto-rudder, and it's a FBC (fly-by-cable).

Although I've only been a passenger in one out of Altus, and that was in 89 :-)

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote
> > "BUFDRVR" > wrote
> > > >
> > > >No auto-rudder on the 757 when I retired from AA in 1993.
> > >
> > > I have no reason to doubt you, just wondering what the hell Boeings
> > > putting out in their literature. Does anyone with RB-211s have an auto
> > > rudder system?
> >
> > The 757 has an automatic YAW damper, as does the F-4, but the flight
control
> > changes you are describing are a 777 feature. You really need an
integrated
> > flight control computer to justify taking that much authority away from
the
> > operator. A FBW B-52 is cool with me, but it sounds a tad pricey.
>
> I'm pretty sure the KC-135R has an auto-rudder, and it's a FBC
(fly-by-cable).

That would be expected, but in newer airliners, the operator is not really
supposed to even operate the rudder. That idea is of course only filtering
down to pilots after the
A-300 event at Rockaway. In the 135 the automatic YAW damper was much less
agressive than for the 757.

> Although I've only been a passenger in one out of Altus, and that was in
89 :-)

The 757 is also fly by cable.

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> That would be expected, but in newer airliners, the operator is not really
> supposed to even operate the rudder.

Hmmm... Not what Boeing and the FAA say when an engine quits...

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> That would be expected, but in newer airliners, the operator is not
> really supposed to even operate the rudder. That idea is of course
> only filtering down to pilots after the A-300 event at Rockaway.

Quite a few of them found out about it from the Discovery Channel
(really!).

I think they need better mailing lists.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:PKsdb.603847$Ho3.118129@sccrnsc03...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> > That would be expected, but in newer airliners, the operator is not
really
> > supposed to even operate the rudder.
>
> Hmmm... Not what Boeing and the FAA say when an engine quits...

Engine failure would be about the only condition where the operators feet
should be pushing those pedals.

[Gene Storey]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote
>
> Engine failure would be about the only condition where the operators feet
> should be pushing those pedals.

The only time you shouldn't use the rudder, is when the autopilot is on.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote
> >
> > Engine failure would be about the only condition where the operators
feet
> > should be pushing those pedals.
>
> The only time you shouldn't use the rudder, is when the autopilot is on.

Negatory.

Modern airliner rudders are for the automatic YAW damper to operate. Human
inputs are redundant and often dangerous.

[Darrell]

B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
-

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>> That would be expected, but in newer airliners, the operator is not
really
> supposed to even operate the rudder. That idea is of course only
filtering
> down to pilots after the A-300 event at Rockaway.

Not so. The rudder is used to coordinate flight in modern airliners as in
any airplane. It just doesn't take nearly as much with a properly
functioning yaw damper. The pilot flying keeps his feet on the rudder
pedals when hand-flying the aircraft. Rudder is used to deliberately
un-coordinate the aircraft when taking off and landing with a crosswind. I
know some airliners are landed in a crab with a crosswind but most call for
wing low into the wind with opposite rudder for alignment. Even autoland
uses opposite rudder to convert from a crab to a slip, usually at 150' AGL.

The only change after the A-300 event is a re-evaluation of what is meant by
being at or below max maneuvering speed. The old idea that being at or
below that speed allows full control deflection with no restrictions is what
is being questioned.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Darrell" > wrote in message
news:VXGdb.3195$La.2924@fed1read02...
> B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
> -
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> That would be expected, but in newer airliners, the operator is not
really
> > supposed to even operate the rudder. That idea is of course only
filtering
> > down to pilots after the A-300 event at Rockaway.
>
> Not so. The rudder is used to coordinate flight in modern airliners as in
> any airplane.

Sorry Darrel, but you are outdated.

> It just doesn't take nearly as much with a properly
> functioning yaw damper.

Or any at all.

> The pilot flying keeps his feet on the rudder
> pedals when hand-flying the aircraft.

An unsafe practice, for modern airliners.

> Rudder is used to deliberately
> un-coordinate the aircraft when taking off and landing with a crosswind.

No, use of the rudder is explicity unsafe.

> I
> know some airliners are landed in a crab with a crosswind but most call
for
> wing low into the wind with opposite rudder for alignment. Even autoland
> uses opposite rudder to convert from a crab to a slip, usually at 150'
AGL.

Nice for a DC-9.

> The only change after the A-300 event is a re-evaluation of what is meant
by
> being at or below max maneuvering speed. The old idea that being at or
> below that speed allows full control deflection with no restrictions is
what
> is being questioned.

No, there is no question whatsover that the AA pilots were in violation of
that flight rule. What came out of the A-300 acident was both large
transport manufacturers saying pilots should not use the rudder under normal
operations.

[B2431]

>What came out of the A-300 acident was both large
>transport manufacturers saying pilots should not use the rudder under normal
>operations.
>

So one doesn't use rudder when doing a manual turn as one does on every other
aircraft made? If AFCS isn't engaged one has to use rudder to control slip in a
turn. Ever heard of the expression "step on the ball?"

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Gene Storey]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote
>
> > The pilot flying keeps his feet on the rudder
> > pedals when hand-flying the aircraft.
>
> An unsafe practice, for modern airliners.

Do you have a source for this? Seems far fetched, but I don't fly airlines,

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >What came out of the A-300 acident was both large
> >transport manufacturers saying pilots should not use the rudder under
normal
> >operations.
> >
>
> So one doesn't use rudder when doing a manual turn as one does on every
other
> aircraft made?

The YAW damper moves the rudder for the airplane, no human workload is
involved.

> If AFCS isn't engaged one has to use rudder to control slip in a
> turn. Ever heard of the expression "step on the ball?"

The only way to disable the automatic YAW damper is to pull the circuit
breaker.

Ever heard of a fugoid? This is an F-4 related question, so don't blow it.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote
> >
> > > The pilot flying keeps his feet on the rudder
> > > pedals when hand-flying the aircraft.
> >
> > An unsafe practice, for modern airliners.
>
> Do you have a source for this? Seems far fetched, but I don't fly
airlines,

In 1972 FAA instituted an automation of airliners requirment. Enterpolating
the number of passengers killed in that hand flying age to the number of
revenue flights today, hand flying predicts killing aproximately 5,000
passengers a year. Instead, man in the loop automated systems have turned
in two years of zero killed; for US common carriers since 1997.

Consider, you are more in hazard of dying of natural causes during an
Airliner ride, than you are to die in a crash. The statistics are such
today that a two man cockpit has become a statistical life saver, as a small
number of Captains expire each year enroute.

[B2431]

>The only way to disable the automatic YAW damper is to pull the circuit
>breaker.
>
>Ever heard of a fugoid? This is an F-4 related question, so don't blow it.

What does a tendency to manually over control in pitch have tp do with yaw?

Dan, U. S. Air Forve, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >The only way to disable the automatic YAW damper is to pull the circuit
> >breaker.
> >
> >Ever heard of a fugoid? This is an F-4 related question, so don't blow
it.
>
> What does a tendency to manually over control in pitch have tp do with
yaw?

Nope, go look it up.

[Jim Knoyle]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gene Storey" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote
> > >
> > > > The pilot flying keeps his feet on the rudder
> > > > pedals when hand-flying the aircraft.
> > >
> > > An unsafe practice, for modern airliners.
> >
> > Do you have a source for this? Seems far fetched, but I don't fly
> airlines,
>
> In 1972 FAA instituted an automation of airliners requirment.
Enterpolating
> the number of passengers killed in that hand flying age to the number of
> revenue flights today, hand flying predicts killing aproximately 5,000
> passengers a year. Instead, man in the loop automated systems have turned
> in two years of zero killed; for US common carriers since 1997.
>
> Consider, you are more in hazard of dying of natural causes during an
> Airliner ride, than you are to die in a crash. The statistics are such
> today that a two man cockpit has become a statistical life saver, as a
small
> number of Captains expire each year enroute.
>
>
And the logical conclusion from that would be,
since the befofementioned pitot system tendency to
become clogged with mudbees is such that the elevator
load feel system is an absolute guarantee for being locked into
a condition wheras the pitch attitude is somewhat determined by
the ratio of the lift vectors as seen from the perspective of the
outflow valves. And that is a very serious condition, indeed.
JK

[Gene Storey]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote
> "Gene Storey" > wrote
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote
> > >
> > > > The pilot flying keeps his feet on the rudder
> > > > pedals when hand-flying the aircraft.
> > >
> > > An unsafe practice, for modern airliners.
> >
> > Do you have a source for this? Seems far fetched, but I don't fly
> airlines,
>
> In 1972 FAA instituted an automation of airliners requirment. Enterpolating
> the number of passengers killed in that hand flying age to the number of
> revenue flights today, hand flying predicts killing aproximately 5,000
> passengers a year. Instead, man in the loop automated systems have turned
> in two years of zero killed; for US common carriers since 1997.
>
> Consider, you are more in hazard of dying of natural causes during an
> Airliner ride, than you are to die in a crash. The statistics are such
> today that a two man cockpit has become a statistical life saver, as a small
> number of Captains expire each year enroute.

So the answer is no, you don't have any source?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote
> > "Gene Storey" > wrote
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote
> > > >
> > > > > The pilot flying keeps his feet on the rudder
> > > > > pedals when hand-flying the aircraft.
> > > >
> > > > An unsafe practice, for modern airliners.
> > >
> > > Do you have a source for this? Seems far fetched, but I don't fly
> > airlines,
> >
> > In 1972 FAA instituted an automation of airliners requirment.
Enterpolating
> > the number of passengers killed in that hand flying age to the number of
> > revenue flights today, hand flying predicts killing aproximately 5,000
> > passengers a year. Instead, man in the loop automated systems have
turned
> > in two years of zero killed; for US common carriers since 1997.
> >
> > Consider, you are more in hazard of dying of natural causes during an
> > Airliner ride, than you are to die in a crash. The statistics are such
> > today that a two man cockpit has become a statistical life saver, as a
small
> > number of Captains expire each year enroute.
>
> So the answer is no, you don't have any source?

If you want a URL, do a google search.

[Gene Storey]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote
>
> If you want a URL, do a google search.

I did. It said effective rudder use is required for a cross-wind take-off, and to
not use the tiller over about 30 knots accelerating to keep the aircraft centered.

Another page talks about slip techniques.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote
> >
> > If you want a URL, do a google search.
>
> I did. It said effective rudder use is required for a cross-wind
take-off, and to
> not use the tiller over about 30 knots accelerating to keep the aircraft
centered.

What aircraft?

> Another page talks about slip techniques.

I am responding to a buffarilla pilot and a 747-400F pilot, do you suppose
they are posting to me because there is a URL source for the information? I
am not sure what you expect here Mr. Storey, but your presentation has been
quite unprofessional.

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> > The pilot flying keeps his feet on the rudder
> > pedals when hand-flying the aircraft.
>
> An unsafe practice, for modern airliners.

Why does Boeing and the FAA advocate such an "unsafe practice," then?


> > Rudder is used to deliberately
> > un-coordinate the aircraft when taking off and landing with a crosswind.
>
> No, use of the rudder is explicity unsafe.

It's Ex-Lax time! You're so full of crap, it's taken over your brain! Use of
rudder is absolutely required for crosswind takeoffs and landings, else the
airplane will run off the side of the runway. Seldom will an airplane track
absolutely straight down the centerline even with no wind or a direct
headwind -- on crowned runways especially!

> > Even autoland
> > uses opposite rudder to convert from a crab to a slip, usually at 150'
> AGL.
>
> Nice for a DC-9.

Just as nice for a 747!


> No, there is no question whatsover that the AA pilots were in violation of
> that flight rule. What came out of the A-300 acident was both large
> transport manufacturers saying pilots should not use the rudder under normal
> operations.

Yet another total BS Tarverism for the archives...

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> > So one doesn't use rudder when doing a manual turn as one does on every
> > other aircraft made?
>
> The YAW damper moves the rudder for the airplane, no human workload is
> involved.

The yaw damper does move the rudder, but its function is not to keep the ball
centered. Its function is to reduce yaw oscillations around the [normally 0]
slip angle induced by the current airplane trim. Only if there is an active
3-axis autopilot will the rudder be trimmed automatically. There is NO
automatic rudder trim in the 747-400 except during autoland operations below
1500' AGL.

[Gene Storey]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote
> "Gene Storey" > wrote
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote
> > >
> > > If you want a URL, do a google search.
> >
> > I did. It said effective rudder use is required for a cross-wind
> take-off, and to
> > not use the tiller over about 30 knots accelerating to keep the aircraft
> centered.
>
> What aircraft?

757, I forget the model number.

> > Another page talks about slip techniques.
>
> I am responding to a buffarilla pilot and a 747-400F pilot, do you suppose
> they are posting to me because there is a URL source for the information? I
> am not sure what you expect here Mr. Storey, but your presentation has been
> quite unprofessional.

The hi-jacking of this B-52 thread, for your monolith about dead rudder pedals
in airliners seems to be about par for your game.

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> > > So one doesn't use rudder when doing a manual turn as one does on
every
> > > other aircraft made?
> >
> > The YAW damper moves the rudder for the airplane, no human workload is
> > involved.
>
> The yaw damper does move the rudder, but its function is not to keep the
ball
> centered. Its function is to reduce yaw oscillations around the [normally
0]
> slip angle induced by the current airplane trim.

The YAW damper also co-ordinates turns and cancels fugoids. It is not an
optional thing, except where much vomiting is considered desirable. :)

> Only if there is an active
> 3-axis autopilot will the rudder be trimmed automatically.

You are as usual, attepting to change the subject, Weiss.

> There is NO
> automatic rudder trim in the 747-400 except during autoland operations
below
> 1500' AGL.

The automatic YAW damper is always there on the 747-400.

Please expalin what automatic rudder trim has to do with this discussion.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote
> > "Gene Storey" > wrote
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote
> > > >
> > > > If you want a URL, do a google search.
> > >
> > > I did. It said effective rudder use is required for a cross-wind
take-off, and to
> > > not use the tiller over about 30 knots accelerating to keep the
aircraft centered.
> >
> > What aircraft?
>
> 757, I forget the model number.

And a URL like that has what value?

> > > Another page talks about slip techniques.
> >
> > I am responding to a buffarilla pilot and a 747-400F pilot, do you
suppose
> > they are posting to me because there is a URL source for the
information? I
> > am not sure what you expect here Mr. Storey, but your presentation has
been
> > quite unprofessional.
>
> The hi-jacking of this B-52 thread, for your monolith about dead rudder
pedals
> in airliners seems to be about par for your game.

The B-52 pilot made a specific statement about automatic control systems in
757s compensating for an engine out condition, in a manner to be installed
on his machine. Then he asked a specific question electric automatic
systems and I am answering it. If you feel that you are somehow a peer in
this discussion, then I am afraid you have joined those on the usenet that
have taken leave of their senses.

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> > > The pilot flying keeps his feet on the rudder
> > > pedals when hand-flying the aircraft.
> >
> > An unsafe practice, for modern airliners.
>
> Why does Boeing and the FAA advocate such an "unsafe practice," then?

You need to know how to fly the airplane when it is broke. I think
simulator time would be a much better place to play "hand fly the airplane"
than during revenue.

> > > Rudder is used to deliberately
> > > un-coordinate the aircraft when taking off and landing with a
crosswind.
> >
> > No, use of the rudder is explicity unsafe.
>
> It's Ex-Lax time! You're so full of crap, it's taken over your brain!
Use of
> rudder is absolutely required for crosswind takeoffs and landings, else
the
> airplane will run off the side of the runway. Seldom will an airplane
track
> absolutely straight down the centerline even with no wind or a direct
> headwind -- on crowned runways especially!

Sure, but then you need to leave the rudder alone. There are exceptions to
using the rudder, but in the general case, a modern airliner breaks when the
operator panics while using the rudder. (ie A-300 USAir 427) The worst part
about the A-300 crash was that AA had been teaching heavy rudder use in the
simulator, thereby increasing the probability that the event would occur.

It is much the same as the small GA pilot who gets in a wrestling match with
his yoke, intead of pushing the AP disconnect switch.

> > > Even autoland
> > > uses opposite rudder to convert from a crab to a slip, usually at 150'
AGL.

> > Nice for a DC-9.
>
> Just as nice for a 747!

Sure, an '68 design.

> > No, there is no question whatsover that the AA pilots were in violation
of
> > that flight rule. What came out of the A-300 acident was both large
> > transport manufacturers saying pilots should not use the rudder under
normal
> > operations.
>
> Yet another total BS Tarverism for the archives...

You might want to back off from being an archive troll, Weiss.

[B2431]

>From: "Tarver Engineering"
>Date: 9/28/2003 6:22 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >The only way to disable the automatic YAW damper is to pull the circuit
>> >breaker.
>> >
>> >Ever heard of a fugoid? This is an F-4 related question, so don't blow
>it.
>>
>> What does a tendency to manually over control in pitch have tp do with
>yaw?
>
>Nope, go look it up.
>
>
No, YOU go look it up. Use F-4 as you suggested. You will find that fugoid
refers to a pilot's unintenional over control in pitch. You will also find that
this can lead to PIO.

Back to the subject at hand the yaw damper is used on big airplanes like the
KC-135 to reduce dutch rolls. It has nothing to do with coordinated turns.
Those har handled either manually or with AFCS.

Have a nice day.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Gene Storey]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote
> If you feel that you are somehow a peer in this discussion, then I am afraid
> you have joined those on the usenet that have taken leave of their senses.

You are a pretender.

[B2431]

>From: "Gene Storey"
>Date: 9/28/2003 8:14 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote
>> "Gene Storey" > wrote
>> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote
>> > >
>> > > > The pilot flying keeps his feet on the rudder
>> > > > pedals when hand-flying the aircraft.
>> > >
>> > > An unsafe practice, for modern airliners.
>> >
>> > Do you have a source for this? Seems far fetched, but I don't fly
>> airlines,
>>
>> In 1972 FAA instituted an automation of airliners requirment.
>Enterpolating
>> the number of passengers killed in that hand flying age to the number of
>> revenue flights today, hand flying predicts killing aproximately 5,000
>> passengers a year. Instead, man in the loop automated systems have turned
>> in two years of zero killed; for US common carriers since 1997.
>>
>> Consider, you are more in hazard of dying of natural causes during an
>> Airliner ride, than you are to die in a crash. The statistics are such
>> today that a two man cockpit has become a statistical life saver, as a
>small
>> number of Captains expire each year enroute.
>
>So the answer is no, you don't have any source?
>
You have GOT to be kidding. Tarver has never, IIRC, provided sources or proof
of anything he has ever said.

As an example think of his invented term "pitot port." it took a couple of
years for him to admit he thought a pitot tube without integral static ports is
a "pitot port." All during that time he was asked repeatedly by several people
to provide at least one example of a "pitot port" and he only responded with
insults and vulgarities.
When he was proved wrong by most of us he either turned things around saying
that that was what he had said in the first place or accuses us of being one
of the "archive trolls."

Do a google search on him and he will tell you it is a conspiracy of those
"archive trolls." Better yet do searches using his name in various newsgroups
and you will find he is an expert on cars, government and many other things
too.

His latest pronouncement was that all aircraft were disgned on napkins. When
someone speaks in such absolutes he probably is clueless about the subject.

The question I have is: has anyone in this NG ever dealt with him personally or
ever actually used any of his products?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> >Date: 9/28/2003 6:22 PM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >The only way to disable the automatic YAW damper is to pull the
circuit
> >> >breaker.
> >> >
> >> >Ever heard of a fugoid? This is an F-4 related question, so don't
blow
> >it.
> >>
> >> What does a tendency to manually over control in pitch have tp do with
yaw?
> >
> >Nope, go look it up.
> >
> >
> No, YOU go look it up. Use F-4 as you suggested.

No Dan, I am not going to teach you basic electric flight controls.

I have been more than patient with your childishness.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote
> > If you feel that you are somehow a peer in this discussion, then I am
afraid
> > you have joined those on the usenet that have taken leave of their
senses.
>
> You are a pretender.

Not me.

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...

>
> As an example think of his invented term "pitot port." it took a couple of
> years for him to admit he thought a pitot tube without integral static
ports is
> a "pitot port."

I never admitted anything. The fact that Dan is a little turd running an
archive troll is not my issue.

[B2431]

>From: "Tarver Engineering"
>Date: 9/28/2003 10:14 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>> >Date: 9/28/2003 6:22 PM Central Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >
>> >"B2431" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> >The only way to disable the automatic YAW damper is to pull the
>circuit
>> >> >breaker.
>> >> >
>> >> >Ever heard of a fugoid? This is an F-4 related question, so don't
>blow
>> >it.
>> >>
>> >> What does a tendency to manually over control in pitch have tp do with
>yaw?
>> >
>> >Nope, go look it up.
>> >
>> >
>> No, YOU go look it up. Use F-4 as you suggested.
>
>No Dan, I am not going to teach you basic electric flight controls.
>
>I have been more than patient with your childishness.
>
I rest my case. Have a nice day.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[David Lesher]

"John R Weiss" > writes:


>Yet another total BS Tarverism for the archives...

You expected otherwise??

The other difference between Tarbrain's posts and the dozens of swen
virus mails I am getting is, they make more sense.

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> >Date: 9/28/2003 10:14 PM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> >> >Date: 9/28/2003 6:22 PM Central Daylight Time
> >> >Message-id: >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> >The only way to disable the automatic YAW damper is to pull the
> >circuit
> >> >> >breaker.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Ever heard of a fugoid? This is an F-4 related question, so don't
> >blow
> >> >it.
> >> >>
> >> >> What does a tendency to manually over control in pitch have tp do
with
> >yaw?
> >> >
> >> >Nope, go look it up.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> No, YOU go look it up. Use F-4 as you suggested.
> >
> >No Dan, I am not going to teach you basic electric flight controls.
> >
> >I have been more than patient with your childishness.
> >
> I rest my case. Have a nice day.

You rest your case what, little turd?

Even if I explained the system to you, you wouldn't understand it, Dan.

[Tarver Engineering]

"David Lesher" > wrote in message
...
> "John R Weiss" > writes:

> >Yet another total BS Tarverism for the archives...
>
> You expected otherwise??
>
> The other difference between Tarbrain's posts and the dozens of swen
> virus mails I am getting is, they make more sense.

You know, it is almost too funny to have Lesher, aka Mr. Sam, the all time
usenet KoTM come by to insult me.

At least Weiss is among peers.

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> > > > The pilot flying keeps his feet on the rudder
> > > > pedals when hand-flying the aircraft.
> > >
> > > An unsafe practice, for modern airliners.
> >
> > Why does Boeing and the FAA advocate such an "unsafe practice," then?
>
> You need to know how to fly the airplane when it is broke. I think
> simulator time would be a much better place to play "hand fly the airplane"
> than during revenue.

Well, as usual, your thinking is misguided, at best. Hand flying an airplane is
a skill that cannot be learned and kept current via a simulator session every 6
or 12 months.


> > > No, use of the rudder is explicity unsafe.
> >
> > It's Ex-Lax time! You're so full of crap, it's taken over your brain! Use
of rudder is absolutely required for crosswind takeoffs and landings, else the
airplane will run off the side of the runway. Seldom will an airplane track
absolutely straight down the centerline even with no wind or a direct
headwind -- on crowned runways especially!
>
> Sure, but then you need to leave the rudder alone. There are exceptions to
> using the rudder, but in the general case, a modern airliner breaks when the
> operator panics while using the rudder. (ie A-300 USAir 427)

In the general case, the operator does not panic while using the rudder. Your
citation is an exception to the general case even if your assessment of panic
were accurate in the situation.


BTW, I have checked the 747-400 FHB, and turn coordination is indeed a function
of the yaw damper. I had overlooked that detail, since the spoilers tend to
assist in that same function.

OTOH, the rest of your generalizations regarding [non]use of the rudders are
still BS.

[[email protected]]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>
>"David Lesher" > wrote in message
...
>> "John R Weiss" > writes:
>
>> >Yet another total BS Tarverism for the archives...
>>
>> You expected otherwise??
>>
>> The other difference between Tarbrain's posts and the dozens of swen
>> virus mails I am getting is, they make more sense.
>
>You know, it is almost too funny to have Lesher, aka Mr. Sam, the all time
>usenet KoTM come by to insult me.
>
>At least Weiss is among peers.
>
John's just having his fun with you guys you know...an aside
here, WRT John W's post. He's just risen 'another' notch in my
view when he corrected himself wrt the yaw damper providing
assistance in turns. One can't help but admire the integrity it
requires to admit even that slight error when arguing with JT.
--

-Gord.

[MLenoch]

>"Tarver Engineering"

wrote:>The YAW damper also co-ordinates turns and cancels fugoids.

What??? It coordinates turns? Not in my Boeing shop. In lab testing and
flight testing, both analog and digital yaw dampers, we never found it to
"coordinate turns". My Boeing documentation shows this not to be true.

"Fugoids"??? What, another Traverism? Me thinks its spelled
Phugoid.......with a "PH". Go ahead....look it up. My 5th graders' dictionary
has it. Yours might.

VL

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...


> John's just having his fun with you guys you know...an aside
> here, WRT John W's post. He's just risen 'another' notch in my
> view when he corrected himself wrt the yaw damper providing
> assistance in turns. One can't help but admire the integrity it
> requires to admit even that slight error when arguing with JT.

Weiss only comes here to be an unsufferable prick. The whole idea is one
cooked up at ALPA and posted on their website. It is a way to blow off
steam from a job, that includes much ass kissing. It is a good thing that
Weiss was able to think and then retract his rediculess assertion.

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> > > > > The pilot flying keeps his feet on the rudder
> > > > > pedals when hand-flying the aircraft.
> > > >
> > > > An unsafe practice, for modern airliners.
> > >
> > > Why does Boeing and the FAA advocate such an "unsafe practice," then?
> >
> > You need to know how to fly the airplane when it is broke. I think
> > simulator time would be a much better place to play "hand fly the
airplane"
> > than during revenue.
>
> Well, as usual, your thinking is misguided, at best. Hand flying an
airplane is
> a skill that cannot be learned and kept current via a simulator session
every 6
> or 12 months.



> > > > No, use of the rudder is explicity unsafe.
> > >
> > > It's Ex-Lax time! You're so full of crap, it's taken over your brain!
Use
> of rudder is absolutely required for crosswind takeoffs and landings, else
the
> airplane will run off the side of the runway. Seldom will an airplane
track
> absolutely straight down the centerline even with no wind or a direct
> headwind -- on crowned runways especially!
> >
> > Sure, but then you need to leave the rudder alone. There are exceptions
to
> > using the rudder, but in the general case, a modern airliner breaks when
the
> > operator panics while using the rudder. (ie A-300 USAir 427)
>
> In the general case, the operator does not panic while using the rudder.
Your
> citation is an exception to the general case even if your assessment of
panic
> were accurate in the situation.

The point being that a rudder has some tendancy to reverse in turbulance and
I have provided you with two cases of operators panicing, when operating
under those conditions. (as determined by the administrator) It is my
opinion that the rudder outght not to fall off, but the manufacturer's have
countered that the operator ought not to be using the rudder in those
conditions at all.

> BTW, I have checked the 747-400 FHB, and turn coordination is indeed a
function
> of the yaw damper. I had overlooked that detail, since the spoilers tend
to
> assist in that same function.

Impressive Weiss, but a little late after you have been such a prick. The
707 is a much better study in spoiler deployment for YAW cancellation and
probably coser to the B-52H configurtion.

[Tarver Engineering]

"MLenoch" > wrote in message
...
> >"Tarver Engineering"
>
> wrote:>The YAW damper also co-ordinates turns and cancels fugoids.
>
> What??? It coordinates turns? Not in my Boeing shop.

Where is your shop Lenoch?

Weiss found what I wrote to be correct, perhaps you could explain the
difference between your running your mouth and his actually looking up the
facts.

[MLenoch]

>Tarver Engineering"

wrote:>Where is your shop Lenoch?

Boeing -Renton, of course.......1977 to 1984.(one of them, at least).
Were you there?
What psuedo facts do you know?
If you would get your little prick out of your mouth sometime, you would know
some facts, you little prevert.
You are the one that jams this board with you mouth and your other end running
off all time. I hope you read each word here, because you know its is true.
Why don't you and Weiss hold hands together and just PLONK anyone that doesn't
worship you. You've Plonk'd me before, so do now again.......make it easier on
both of us. After all, what I say doesn't matter to you.......isn't that
right?
VL
PS: Weiss has the wrong facts also. Just check anyone of the avionics
manufacturing shops......start at Cedar Rapids, if that's a clue that will
help.

[Tarver Engineering]

"MLenoch" > wrote in message
...
> >Tarver Engineering"
>
> wrote:>Where is your shop Lenoch?
>
> Boeing -Renton, of course.......1977 to 1984.(one of them, at least).
> Were you there?

I am in California, but spent '97 in the Everett shop.

> What psuedo facts do you know?

Come on now Lenoch, you are the one posting ignorance.

What did you do in Renton?

> If you would get your little prick out of your mouth sometime, you would
know
> some facts, you little prevert.

My goodness, are you a latent homosexual as well Lenoch?

> You are the one that jams this board with you mouth and your other end
running
> off all time. I hope you read each word here, because you know its is
true.

Right now we are discussing an issue for which I am correct and it is you
that has taken leave of his senses, Lenoch.

> Why don't you and Weiss hold hands together and just PLONK anyone that
doesn't
> worship you.

I don't know about Weiss for sure, but I like the beaver. Like a sweet
sweet oyster .

You've Plonk'd me before, so do now again.......make it easier on
> both of us. After all, what I say doesn't matter to you.......isn't that
> right?

That is quite a tantrum Lenoch, do you have trouble retaining employment?

> VL
> PS: Weiss has the wrong facts also. Just check anyone of the avionics
> manufacturing shops......start at Cedar Rapids, if that's a clue that will
> help.

I am in responsibe charge of engineering for an avionics manufacturer. We
supply aircraft interface to Collins, Honeywell, BAE Systems et al., as well
as every western comercial airframe manufacturer. Now we are begginning an
MI rotary wing project for some of the new NATO members, so we will be in
the East as well. Oops, I forgot, we already have repeaters going on the
new Chinese passenger airplane as well soon.

[Darrell]

B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
-

"> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> That would be expected, but in newer airliners, the operator is not
> really
> > > supposed to even operate the rudder. That idea is of course only
> filtering
> > > down to pilots after the A-300 event at Rockaway.
> >
> > Not so. The rudder is used to coordinate flight in modern airliners as
in
> > any airplane.
>
> Sorry Darrel, but you are outdated.

Perhaps. But I am currently teaching flight simulator for the Boeing
Company which has produced some airliners. The use of rudders when
handflying aircraft is still taught. Not a lot of rudder. Just what is
necessary.
>
> > It just doesn't take nearly as much with a properly
> > functioning yaw damper.
>
> > Rudder is used to deliberately
> > un-coordinate the aircraft when taking off and landing with a crosswind.
>
> No, use of the rudder is explicity unsafe.

Only if you have "Splaps" extended. Whoops. Using a Tarver term again. (or
was that Splats?)

[Tarver Engineering]

"Darrell" > wrote in message
news:zC0eb.5045$La.3520@fed1read02...
> B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
> -
>
> "> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >> That would be expected, but in newer airliners, the operator is not
really
> > > > supposed to even operate the rudder. That idea is of course only
filtering
> > > > down to pilots after the A-300 event at Rockaway.
> > >
> > > Not so. The rudder is used to coordinate flight in modern airliners
as in
> > > any airplane.
> >
> > Sorry Darrel, but you are outdated.
>
> Perhaps. But I am currently teaching flight simulator for the Boeing
> Company which has produced some airliners. The use of rudders when
> handflying aircraft is still taught. Not a lot of rudder. Just what is
> necessary.

I say the simulator is where handflying should occur. As you are "teaching
flight simulator" (?) for Boeing, you should be aware of how AA's simulation
sylibus for the A-300 may have contributed to the Rockaway accident.

> > > It just doesn't take nearly as much with a properly
> > > functioning yaw damper.
> >
> > > Rudder is used to deliberately
> > > un-coordinate the aircraft when taking off and landing with a
crosswind.
> >
> > No, use of the rudder is explicity unsafe.
>
> Only if you have "Splaps" extended. Whoops. Using a Tarver term again.
(or
> was that Splats?)

In fact, using spoiler flaps, as opposed to spoilers as speed brakes only,
is the means through which the rudder is reduced in size for both the KC-135
and the B-52H. Current models of civilian two engine aircraft have been
designed away from that notion, due to engine out requirements. Keep in
mind that this is a military group, not bound by CFR14 legalese, Schmidt.

[MLenoch]

>"Tarver Engineering"

wrote:>That is quite a tantrum Lenoch, do you have trouble retaining
employment?
>

Only retaining you.
(I am amazed you replied.)
VL

[Tarver Engineering]

"MLenoch" > wrote in message
...
> >"Tarver Engineering"
>
> wrote:>That is quite a tantrum Lenoch, do you have trouble retaining
> employment?
> >
>
> Only retaining you.

So, what did you do in the tire shop at Renton, Lenoch?

> (I am amazed you replied.)

I reply to most any kook, for a while anyway.

[MLenoch]

>"Tarver Engineering"

wrote:
>So, what did you do in the tire shop at Renton, Lenoch?


Why don't you find out, Mr. Omnipotent.
Or will you answer in the standard "Bwaaa"?
VL

[Tarver Engineering]

"MLenoch" > wrote in message
...
> >"Tarver Engineering"
>
> wrote:
> >So, what did you do in the tire shop at Renton, Lenoch?
>
>
> Why don't you find out, Mr. Omnipotent.

Knowing how an airplane works has begun to mean that sort of power.

[MLenoch]

> "Tarver Engineering"

wrote:>Knowing how an airplane works has begun to mean that sort of power.
>

Ooooooooh!
Please don't reply anymore.
My frail ego can't handle the stress - "riser".(rimshot)
VL

[Tarver Engineering]

"MLenoch" > wrote in message
...

- "riser".(rimshot)

You misspelled loser.

Thanks for playing.

[B2431]

>Weiss only comes here to be an unsufferable prick. The whole idea is one
>cooked up at ALPA and posted on their website. It is a way to blow off
>steam from a job, that includes much ass kissing. It is a good thing that
>Weiss was able to think and then retract his rediculess assertion.
>

Congratulations, you have just described yourself.

Oops, now you will call me names again.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: (MLenoch)
>Date: 9/29/2003 9:59 AM Central D
<snip>
>
>"Fugoids"??? What, another Traverism? Me thinks its spelled
>Phugoid.......with a "PH". Go ahead....look it up. My 5th graders'
>dictionary
>has it. Yours might.
>
>VL

From : http://www.mit.edu/afs/athena/org/a/aa-math/www/catalogue/node2.html

"T he phugoid mode is the simplest oscillatory mode in aircraft dynamics. The
only governing force is gravity, and energy is conserved, as there are no
dissipative mechanisms. The airplane can only trade kinetic energy for
potential and vice-versa. For a stationary observer the aircraft trajectory
looks like a sine wave, while for an observer moving with the 'average' speed
of the aircraft it looks like an ellipse. These are shown by the following
applet: "

Then they show graphics. I bet Tarver will say he doesn't have to look there
since he is smarter, that I am "trolling" and he will now call me names.

For the rest of you it is a rather nice visualization.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[John R Weiss]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote...

> WRT John W's post. He's just risen 'another' notch in my
> view when he corrected himself wrt the yaw damper providing
> assistance in turns.

BTW, I watched from the jumpseat this morning on the approach into ICN (Incheon,
Korea). The yaw damper didn't do too good a job of coordinating turns -- saw a
consistent half-ball slip in the turns after established in the angle of bank.
Ball went back to center when wings were level.

BTW, I use the term "ball" here because virtually every pilot understands the
term in context. The 744 has an electronic slip indicator that we often refer
to the "sailboat" since it is a white oblong slip indicator under a white bank
angle pointer triangle on the Primary Flight Display.

[MLenoch]

>From: "John R Weiss"

>> WRT John W's post. He's just risen 'another' notch in my
>> view when he corrected himself wrt the yaw damper providing
>> assistance in turns.
>

> The yaw damper didn't do too good a job of coordinating turns -- saw a
>consistent half-ball slip in the turns after established in the angle of
>bank.

Agreed & very much appreciated.
Thank you,
VL

[Darrell]

B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
-

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Darrell" > wrote in message
> news:zC0eb.5045$La.3520@fed1read02...
> > B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/

> > > No, use of the rudder is explicity unsafe.
> >
> > Only if you have "Splaps" extended. Whoops. Using a Tarver term again.
> (or
> > was that Splats?)
>
> In fact, using spoiler flaps, as opposed to spoilers as speed brakes only,
> is the means through which the rudder is reduced in size for both the
KC-135
> and the B-52H. Current models of civilian two engine aircraft have been
> designed away from that notion, due to engine out requirements. Keep in
> mind that this is a military group, not bound by CFR14 legalese, Schmidt.

Beside being a Boeing instructor I was also an AA airline captain and as for
military, I spent 20 years in the Air Force and flew the B-52H you refer to
at Minot for 5 years. I was an instructor and in Stan Eval in B-52Hs. (we
didn't call them "splaps" or "Splats")

[B2431]

> I was an instructor and in Stan Eval in B-52Hs. (we
>didn't call them "splaps" or "Splats")
>

I believe the correct technical term is "them big floppy thingies on the
wings."

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[[email protected]]

"John R Weiss" > wrote:

>"Gord Beaman" > wrote...
>
>> WRT John W's post. He's just risen 'another' notch in my
>> view when he corrected himself wrt the yaw damper providing
>> assistance in turns.
>
>BTW, I watched from the jumpseat this morning on the approach into ICN (Incheon,
>Korea). The yaw damper didn't do too good a job of coordinating turns -- saw a
>consistent half-ball slip in the turns after established in the angle of bank.
>Ball went back to center when wings were level.
>

But the slip may have been larger had the yaw damper been turned
off?...(IOW maybe it 'helped'?)
--

-Gord.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(B2431) wrote:

> > I was an instructor and in Stan Eval in B-52Hs. (we
> >didn't call them "splaps" or "Splats")
> >
>
> I believe the correct technical term is "them big floppy thingies on the
> wings."

Well, when working on F-4s, you quickly learn that those things that
hang down aren't "speed brakes," they're "dammits."

<whonk> "DAMMIT!"

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[KenG]

On SRs we had a few <poke> "SON OF A B*&%$, call an ambulance"
KenG

Chad Irby wrote:

> In article >,
> (B2431) wrote:
>
>
>>> I was an instructor and in Stan Eval in B-52Hs. (we
>>>didn't call them "splaps" or "Splats")
>>>
>>
>>I believe the correct technical term is "them big floppy thingies on the
>>wings."
>
>
> Well, when working on F-4s, you quickly learn that those things that
> hang down aren't "speed brakes," they're "dammits."
>
> <whonk> "DAMMIT!"
>

[B2431]

>Well, when working on F-4s, you quickly learn that those things that
>hang down aren't "speed brakes," they're "dammits."
>
><whonk> "DAMMIT!"
>
>--
>cirby at cfl.rr.com
>
I know, I have a ding in my left side from a speed brake on an F-4E.

Those little nylon drain tubes cut at a 45º angle along the underside were
called MFers for a reason.

Another goodie is to have the aux air doors cycle while buttoning up the
starter and starter exhaust panels when the centerline tank is installed. Catch
that across the knuckles once and you will cuss.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
KenG > wrote:

> Chad Irby wrote:
>
> > Well, when working on F-4s, you quickly learn that those things that
> > hang down aren't "speed brakes," they're "dammits."
> >
> > <whonk> "DAMMIT!"

> On SRs we had a few <poke> "SON OF A B*&%$, call an ambulance"

The first thing we taught the new guys was that most of the really sharp
nasty bits on the Phantom were at head height, and would turn invisible.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Keith Kissane]

In article >,
(B2431) wrote:

> Another goodie is to have the aux air doors cycle while buttoning up the
> starter and starter exhaust panels when the centerline tank is installed.
> Catch
> that across the knuckles once and you will cuss.


I've got a dent in my forehead from an aux air door, and stiches in my
head from an electrical access panel.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 16:41:04 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 23:19:54 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>>
>> >"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "BUFDRVR" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > It'll be like Christmas in (insert month of first operational
>> >> > re-engined BUFF arriving here). The proposal will also give us an
>> >> > upgraded avionics, which will be worth as much to the average
>> >> > crewdog as the engines themselves.
>> >>
>> >> Consider it a ten year life extension, in 2030.
>> >
>> >At the rate they're going, you could be frozen for a thousand years,
>> >wake up, and the only thing that you'll recognize will be made by
>> >Boeing...
>> >
>> >"Yeah, we kept upgrading them. The 2045 AD mods made them sentient, and
>> >we had to keep them up to spec or they'd get cranky..."
>>
>>
>> The thing that amzes me is a couple guys designed it in a hotel room
>> over a weekend. (Obviously they didn't do all the detail work but
>> still)
>
>All aircraft and aircraft systems begin as napkin drawings.
>


They built a model to go with it that weekend too. Hardly a napkin
and I doubt many (any actually) manufactures use napkin drawings for
their presentation to the brass.

[B2431]

>From: Keith Kissane
>Date: 10/1/2003 6:35 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
> (B2431) wrote:
>
>> Another goodie is to have the aux air doors cycle while buttoning up the
>> starter and starter exhaust panels when the centerline tank is installed.
>> Catch
>> that across the knuckles once and you will cuss.
>
>
>I've got a dent in my forehead from an aux air door, and stiches in my
>head from an electrical access panel.
>

It sort of makes one wonder if the guys who designed the F-4 might have hated
maintenance types.

The F-4E was the only aircraft I ever worked on that one had to disassemble a
circuit breaker panel and dismount a rudder peddle just to change the battery.
Derigging the ailerons to remove engines was another smooth design.

What disturbs me most is I actually miss those pigs.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(B2431) wrote:

> It sort of makes one wonder if the guys who designed the F-4 might have hated
> maintenance types.
>
> The F-4E was the only aircraft I ever worked on that one had to disassemble a
> circuit breaker panel and dismount a rudder peddle just to change the battery.

There were all sorts of fun little things like that. The ALR-46 system
was an afterthought, as far as anyone could tell, and we had crap all
*over* those planes.

And yes, a couple of our control panels had to come out when they
changed that &$#%! battery...

> Derigging the ailerons to remove engines was another smooth design.

There was one splice area for ECM that you could only get to by pulling
the left engine. *Nobody* would authorize removing the engine just to
get to it, so it became a "whenever" job.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[B2431]

(B2431) wrote:
>
>> It sort of makes one wonder if the guys who designed the F-4 might have
>hated
>> maintenance types.
>>
>> The F-4E was the only aircraft I ever worked on that one had to disassemble
>a
>> circuit breaker panel and dismount a rudder peddle just to change the
>battery.
>
>There were all sorts of fun little things like that. The ALR-46 system
>was an afterthought, as far as anyone could tell, and we had crap all
>*over* those planes.
>
>And yes, a couple of our control panels had to come out when they
>changed that &$#%! battery...
>
>> Derigging the ailerons to remove engines was another smooth design.
>
>There was one splice area for ECM that you could only get to by pulling
>the left engine. *Nobody* would authorize removing the engine just to
>get to it, so it became a "whenever" job.
>
>--
>cirby at cfl.rr.com
>
>Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
>Slam on brakes accordingly.
>
My theory about the design crew for the F-4E was they hung 4 ropes from the
ceiling, put an engine on 2 of them, the CADC on another and the battery on the
fourth. THEN they built the airplane around that stuff.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> The point being that a rudder has some tendancy to reverse in turbulance and
> I have provided you with two cases of operators panicing, when operating
> under those conditions. (as determined by the administrator)

Two cases in decades and millions of flight hours hardly presents a "general
case"!

Further, you have not shown any indication of panic on the part of any pilot.
You noted earlier that some pilots have been TAUGHT to use a significant amount
of rudder in circumstances such as those encountered by US 427. Such use of
rudder would have been reaction based on training, not on panic.


> > BTW, I have checked the 747-400 FHB, and turn coordination is indeed a
function of the yaw damper. I had overlooked that detail, since the spoilers
tend to assist in that same function.
>
> Impressive Weiss, but a little late after you have been such a prick. The
> 707 is a much better study in spoiler deployment for YAW cancellation and
> probably coser to the B-52H configurtion.

Late for what? Perhaps the only thing that's late is your period...

Hmmm... It appears the only thing subject to a prick is that thin-skinned,
inflated balloon that is your ego.

Maybe the A-6 comes even closer to current B-52 configuration for roll
control -- use of spoilers only, with no ailerons. In the case of the A-6,
coordinated turns could be accomplished with little or no use of rudder.
However, faster roll rates -- often tactically/operationally advantageous --
were available with rudder use.

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> I say the simulator is where handflying should occur.

Typical baseless drabble from someone who can't fly an airplane, much less teach
flying!

[Anonymous]

B2431 wrote in message >...
>What disturbs me most is I actually miss those pigs.

Don't let it disturb you - the Phantom was (and still is) an incredible machine
and I'd have given my right arm to fly one (well, flying it would be difficult
with one arm, right enough, but you know what I mean).

Closest I ever got was sitting in an RAF Phantom FG.1 at an airshow at RAF
Chivenor (in Devon, England) when I was 10.

The jet was from 111 Squadron, and was painted jet black (nicknamed "Black
Mike"; it was the only RAF Phantom to be painted that way).

Beautiful birds.

Cheers
Graeme

[Mary Shafer]

On 27 Sep 2003 05:20:41 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

>>From: "Tarver Engineering"
>aol.com> wrote:
><snip>

>>All aircraft and aircraft systems begin as napkin drawings.

>Another pronouncement from the deep.

I thought it was true. How else would you do it?

I'm willing to posit that the napkin may be present only symbolically,
but every airplane starts with a quick sketch on something.

Mary
--
Mary Shafer
"There are only two types of aircraft--fighters and targets"
Major Doyle "Wahoo" Nicholson, USMC

[Mary Shafer]

On 29 Sep 2003 02:54:37 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

>No, YOU go look it up. Use F-4 as you suggested. You will find that fugoid
>refers to a pilot's unintenional over control in pitch. You will also find that
>this can lead to PIO.

The phugoid is pilot out of the loop only. PIO is pilot in the loop
only. It's absolutely certain that the phugoid and PIO are totally
unrelated.

>Back to the subject at hand the yaw damper is used on big airplanes like the
>KC-135 to reduce dutch rolls. It has nothing to do with coordinated turns.
>Those har handled either manually or with AFCS.

Dutch roll is a mode, not a maneuver. There's only one per airplane.
And the yaw damper is involved with adverse/proverse yaw and the
spiral mode, too.

Mary
--
Mary Shafer
"There are only two types of aircraft--fighters and targets"
Major Doyle "Wahoo" Nicholson, USMC

[Mary Shafer]

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 10:25:07 -0700, "Darrell" > wrote:


>Beside being a Boeing instructor I was also an AA airline captain and as for
>military, I spent 20 years in the Air Force and flew the B-52H you refer to
>at Minot for 5 years. I was an instructor and in Stan Eval in B-52Hs. (we
>didn't call them "splaps" or "Splats")

Did you know a BUF pilot named "Tom" Turley?

Mary
--
Mary Shafer
"There are only two types of aircraft--fighters and targets"
Major Doyle "Wahoo" Nicholson, USMC

[[email protected]]

Scott Ferrin > wrote:

>
>They built a model to go with it that weekend too. Hardly a napkin
>and I doubt many (any actually) manufactures use napkin drawings for
>their presentation to the brass.

That's really quite a silly suggestion Scott...of course they
don't, doesn't preclude the initial idea being roughed out by a
hand drawn sketch does it?
--

-Gord.

[Paul Austin]

"Gord Beaman" wrote
> Scott Ferrin wrote:
>
> >
> >They built a model to go with it that weekend too. Hardly a napkin
> >and I doubt many (any actually) manufactures use napkin drawings
for
> >their presentation to the brass.
>
> That's really quite a silly suggestion Scott...of course they
> don't, doesn't preclude the initial idea being roughed out by a
> hand drawn sketch does it?

Scott's refering to the original pitch that sold the B-52 to the Air
Force. According to Gunston, a team of Boeing engineers initially
pitched a turboprop B-52. When it became plain that the Air Force
thought a developed B-36 was preferable, the USAF types handed Boeing
a draft set of requirements for a jet bomber, the Boeing guys retired
to a hotel in Dayton and over a long weekend, developed the concept of
the BUFF from scratch, generated enough drawings and description,
including a wooden model to sell the concept. They had a great deal of
supporting data with them that was developed in a study that resulted
in the B-47 but it's still an amazing feat.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> On 27 Sep 2003 05:20:41 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
>
> >>From: "Tarver Engineering"
> >aol.com> wrote:
> ><snip>
>
> >>All aircraft and aircraft systems begin as napkin drawings.
>
> >Another pronouncement from the deep.
>
> I thought it was true. How else would you do it?
>
> I'm willing to posit that the napkin may be present only symbolically,
> but every airplane starts with a quick sketch on something.

The napkin drawings are great fun to do.

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:NPLeb.657797$uu5.107736@sccrnsc04...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> > I say the simulator is where handflying should occur.
>
> Typical baseless drabble from someone who can't fly an airplane, much less
teach
> flying!

It is all statistics.

Now, I will give you that an operator should have landed the airplane they
are rated in; as a contributing factor in KAL-801 was the Captain having
never landed a real 747.

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:NPLeb.649602$YN5.499281@sccrnsc01...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> > The point being that a rudder has some tendancy to reverse in turbulance
and
> > I have provided you with two cases of operators panicing, when operating
> > under those conditions. (as determined by the administrator)
>
> Two cases in decades and millions of flight hours hardly presents a
"general
> case"!
>
> Further, you have not shown any indication of panic on the part of any
pilot.
> You noted earlier that some pilots have been TAUGHT to use a significant
amount
> of rudder in circumstances such as those encountered by US 427. Such use
of
> rudder would have been reaction based on training, not on panic.
>
>
> > > BTW, I have checked the 747-400 FHB, and turn coordination is indeed a
> function of the yaw damper. I had overlooked that detail, since the
spoilers
> tend to assist in that same function.
> >
> > Impressive Weiss, but a little late after you have been such a prick.
The
> > 707 is a much better study in spoiler deployment for YAW cancellation
and
> > probably coser to the B-52H configurtion.
>
> Late for what? Perhaps the only thing that's late is your period...

My goodness, that is a really lame lame, Weiss.

> Hmmm... It appears the only thing subject to a prick is that
thin-skinned,
> inflated balloon that is your ego.

In that you are clearly projecting, Weiss.

> Maybe the A-6 comes even closer to current B-52 configuration for roll
> control -- use of spoilers only, with no ailerons. In the case of the
A-6,
> coordinated turns could be accomplished with little or no use of rudder.
> However, faster roll rates -- often tactically/operationally
advantageous --
> were available with rudder use.

Thank you for finally contributing some information to this thread, John.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> Scott Ferrin > wrote:
>
> >
> >They built a model to go with it that weekend too. Hardly a napkin
> >and I doubt many (any actually) manufactures use napkin drawings for
> >their presentation to the brass.
>
> That's really quite a silly suggestion Scott...of course they
> don't, doesn't preclude the initial idea being roughed out by a
> hand drawn sketch does it?

Actually, such brainstorming sessions often occur while eating, or during
after work drinks.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Paul Austin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gord Beaman" wrote
> > Scott Ferrin wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >They built a model to go with it that weekend too. Hardly a napkin
> > >and I doubt many (any actually) manufactures use napkin drawings
> for
> > >their presentation to the brass.
> >
> > That's really quite a silly suggestion Scott...of course they
> > don't, doesn't preclude the initial idea being roughed out by a
> > hand drawn sketch does it?
>
> Scott's refering to the original pitch that sold the B-52 to the Air
> Force. According to Gunston, a team of Boeing engineers initially
> pitched a turboprop B-52. When it became plain that the Air Force
> thought a developed B-36 was preferable, the USAF types handed Boeing
> a draft set of requirements for a jet bomber, the Boeing guys retired
> to a hotel in Dayton and over a long weekend, developed the concept of
> the BUFF from scratch,

Where else do you suppose new airplanes come from besides "from scratch"?

There is nothing different about the B-52.

[Paul Austin]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul Austin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Gord Beaman" wrote
> > > Scott Ferrin wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >They built a model to go with it that weekend too. Hardly a
napkin
> > > >and I doubt many (any actually) manufactures use napkin
drawings
> > for
> > > >their presentation to the brass.
> > >
> > > That's really quite a silly suggestion Scott...of course they
> > > don't, doesn't preclude the initial idea being roughed out by a
> > > hand drawn sketch does it?
> >
> > Scott's refering to the original pitch that sold the B-52 to the
Air
> > Force. According to Gunston, a team of Boeing engineers initially
> > pitched a turboprop B-52. When it became plain that the Air Force
> > thought a developed B-36 was preferable, the USAF types handed
Boeing
> > a draft set of requirements for a jet bomber, the Boeing guys
retired
> > to a hotel in Dayton and over a long weekend, developed the
concept of
> > the BUFF from scratch,
>
> Where else do you suppose new airplanes come from besides "from
scratch"?
>
> There is nothing different about the B-52.

Those kinds of proposals are much more often done by a cast of dozens
back at the plant with all the resources the company can bring to
bear, rather than in a hotel room. That's the remarkable thing about
the history of the B-52. Every great invention starts out as a vision
distilled by one or a few people, as often as not through informal
discussions that <ghasp> may involve beer lubricants.

The B-52 isn't the only airplane that was radically different from
what the customer originally had in mind. The A4D was even more wildly
different from what the procuring agency (NAVAIR in this case) though
they would be buying. Ed Heinemann didn't do the conceptual design in
a hotel room though. He used every resource that Douglas could muster,
back at the plant before he went to Washington to pitch it.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Paul Austin" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Paul Austin" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Gord Beaman" wrote
> > > > Scott Ferrin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >They built a model to go with it that weekend too. Hardly a
> napkin
> > > > >and I doubt many (any actually) manufactures use napkin
> drawings
> > > for
> > > > >their presentation to the brass.
> > > >
> > > > That's really quite a silly suggestion Scott...of course they
> > > > don't, doesn't preclude the initial idea being roughed out by a
> > > > hand drawn sketch does it?
> > >
> > > Scott's refering to the original pitch that sold the B-52 to the
> Air
> > > Force. According to Gunston, a team of Boeing engineers initially
> > > pitched a turboprop B-52. When it became plain that the Air Force
> > > thought a developed B-36 was preferable, the USAF types handed Boeing
> > > a draft set of requirements for a jet bomber, the Boeing guys retired
> > > to a hotel in Dayton and over a long weekend, developed the concept of
> > > the BUFF from scratch,
> >
> > Where else do you suppose new airplanes come from besides "from
scratch"?
> >
> > There is nothing different about the B-52.
>
> Those kinds of proposals are much more often done by a cast of dozens
> back at the plant with all the resources the company can bring to
> bear, rather than in a hotel room. That's the remarkable thing about
> the history of the B-52. Every great invention starts out as a vision
> distilled by one or a few people, as often as not through informal
> discussions that <ghasp> may involve beer lubricants.

I see what you are saying, Boeing submitted napkin drawings as their Air
Force proposal.

That is different.

> The B-52 isn't the only airplane that was radically different from
> what the customer originally had in mind. The A4D was even more wildly
> different from what the procuring agency (NAVAIR in this case) though
> they would be buying. Ed Heinemann didn't do the conceptual design in
> a hotel room though. He used every resource that Douglas could muster,
> back at the plant before he went to Washington to pitch it.

[B2431]

>From: "Tarver Engineering" j

<snip>

>
>I see what you are saying, Boeing submitted napkin drawings as their Air
>Force proposal.
>
Of course they didn't. They had them properly drawn before submission. No way
anyone is going to hand over a bunch of napkins as a formal proposal.

Dan, U. S. Air Forec, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Tarver Engineering" j
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> >I see what you are saying, Boeing submitted napkin drawings as their Air
> >Force proposal.

> Of course they didn't. They had them properly drawn before submission. No
way
> anyone is going to hand over a bunch of napkins as a formal proposal.

Boeing does it all the time.

I speak from just having completed an amended type Certificate with Boeing
for JAL and of course the time I spent at BCAG Everett in '97; and of course
our part of the VC-25A modification.

Dan of course, can only speak out of his ass, on the matter.

[MLenoch]

>Dan of course, can only speak out of his ass, on the matter.
>

Traver wrote the above.

I wonder what Traver uses his testicles for?

He's the ultimate loser, isn't he.

VL

[Tarver Engineering]

"MLenoch" > wrote in message
...
> >Dan of course, can only speak out of his ass, on the matter.
> >
>
> Traver wrote the above.
>
> I wonder what Traver uses his testicles for?
>
> He's the ultimate loser, isn't he.

Dude, if I was any more of a winner I'd have to go to hell.

Did you know those Thales guys say their name "Telis"?

[Scott Ferrin]

On 04 Oct 2003 23:54:23 GMT, (MLenoch) wrote:

>>Dan of course, can only speak out of his ass, on the matter.
>>
>
>Traver wrote the above.
>
>I wonder what Traver uses his testicles for?


Hopefully not for reproducing.



>
>He's the ultimate loser, isn't he.
>
>VL

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On 04 Oct 2003 23:54:23 GMT, (MLenoch) wrote:
>
> >>Dan of course, can only speak out of his ass, on the matter.
> >>
> >
> >Traver wrote the above.
> >
> >I wonder what Traver uses his testicles for?
>
>
> Hopefully not for reproducing.

Times five, dip****.

[MLenoch]

>"Tarver Engineering"

wrote:>Times five, dip****.

Do they all have your language skills?
Or are they in a drug induced coma?