A700

[Big John]

Xoooommmm tried to stick it to Adams in ANN for bringing their new
A700 aircraft to Osh without the envelope fully opened.

I guess all the manufacturers that bring new aircraft to the Paris Air
Show should also be slammed for not having fully opened their
envelopes before displaying the bird(s) or should these major
manufacturers, who might advertise in ANN, be given a PASS??

Big John

[Morgans]

You forgot the most important thing while posting zoom related things.
"Thou shall include in the subject line, three ZZZ's, as to alert those who
don't wish to read of his zoomieness's insanity".

Do you repent? Good. I hoped so.<g>
--
Jim in NC

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Xoooommmm tried to stick it to Adams in ANN for bringing their new
> A700 aircraft to Osh without the envelope fully opened.
>
> I guess all the manufacturers that bring new aircraft to the Paris Air
> Show should also be slammed for not having fully opened their
> envelopes before displaying the bird(s) or should these major
> manufacturers, who might advertise in ANN, be given a PASS??
>
> Big John

[Juan E Jimenez]

It's no secret in the industry that Adam Aircraft has a very aggressive
engineering and flight test team, and that they flew a bunch of hours in the
days before the show just to be able to take the a/c to OSH with the gear
locked. There are plenty of people who think that rushing flight tests for
marketing purposes is not a good idea.

Funny that you didn't see the other mention of Adam, in which it was given
the Steel Cojones Award. I nominated them for that one. <shrug>

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Xoooommmm tried to stick it to Adams in ANN for bringing their new
> A700 aircraft to Osh without the envelope fully opened.
>
> I guess all the manufacturers that bring new aircraft to the Paris Air
> Show should also be slammed for not having fully opened their
> envelopes before displaying the bird(s) or should these major
> manufacturers, who might advertise in ANN, be given a PASS??
>
> Big John

[Juan E Jimenez]

"C.D. Damron" > wrote in message
et...
>
>
> So, the Steel Cojones Award, which suggests some level of courage or
bravery
> in the act of a risky or dangerous pursuit, is a compliment? It seems
that
> is consistent with the other mention of Adam Aircraft.

Lots of things seem to you these days. I've already shown that what seems
like something to you is not necessarily what you say it is. <shrug>

> Let's break it down again, you seem to have forgotten the content:

And you seem to have forgotten that I told you that if you have questions
about ANN's editorials, you can either choose to write to ANN and ask them
about the content, or you can choose to not do so. Your choice. Which one of
the choices do you not understand?

[C.D. Damron]

"Juan E Jimenez" > wrote in message
news:WnV6b.286315$cF.88642@rwcrnsc53...
> And you seem to have forgotten that I told you that if you have questions
> about ANN's editorials, you can either choose to write to ANN and ask them
> about the content, or you can choose to not do so. Your choice. Which one
of
> the choices do you not understand?

So, I am limited to the choices that you present and what I am "told" to do?

Sorry, I'm more comfortable dealing with you in public.

[Juan E Jimenez]

"C.D. Damron" > wrote in message
news:1tV6b.286341$cF.89027@rwcrnsc53...
>
> So, I am limited to the choices that you present and what I am "told" to
do?

No, you can call too, or send a fax, or send a courier envelope. Whatever.
:)

> Sorry, I'm more comfortable dealing with you in public.

ROFL! I don't think so. Aside from the fact that you don't seen to
comprehend the simple fact that I did not write that editorial, I think
you're scared of writing to Jim, just like the rest of the all-bark, no-bite
RAH Gaggle. :)

Juan

[C.D. Damron]

"Juan E Jimenez" > wrote in message
news:ICV6b.286363$cF.89323@rwcrnsc53...
>
> ROFL! I don't think so. Aside from the fact that you don't seen to
> comprehend the simple fact that I did not write that editorial, I think
> you're scared of writing to Jim, just like the rest of the all-bark,
no-bite
> RAH Gaggle. :)

I never suggested that you wrote the article. I did suggest quite a number
of other things, however. Other things were apparent without a need for my
direction.

Why would any of us be scared of writing to Campbell? What would give me
more-bite, less bark, Juan?

[Barnyard BOb --]

"C.D. Damron" wrote:

>> ROFL! I don't think so. Aside from the fact that you don't seen to
>> comprehend the simple fact that I did not write that editorial, I think
>> you're scared of writing to Jim, just like the rest of the all-bark,
>no-bite
>> RAH Gaggle. :)
>
>I never suggested that you wrote the article. I did suggest quite a number
>of other things, however. Other things were apparent without a need for my
>direction.
>
>Why would any of us be scared of writing to Campbell? What would give me
>more-bite, less bark, Juan?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Don't you just love Jaun's "all bark, no bite" jingoistic contempt
and belligerence for those that have him and Zoomer pegged?

Such a macho usenet man.
Him and his mentor.

Yeah ---
With "truth" on their side, all of RAH is running scared...
from a pair of self important, self indulgent comical prevaricators.

When pigs fly.


Barnyard BOb -- 50 years of flight

[Big John]

Jim

Sorry about that. Forgot the rules of the game.

You notice I opened a new thread and tried to limit my comments to a
very narrow area to prevent the cat and dog fights that normally are
associated with ZZZ (see I learned).

Big John


On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 20:55:08 -0400, "Morgans" >
wrote:

>You forgot the most important thing while posting zoom related things.
>"Thou shall include in the subject line, three ZZZ's, as to alert those who
>don't wish to read of his zoomieness's insanity".
>
>Do you repent? Good. I hoped so.<g>

[Juan E Jimenez]

"RobertR237" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you didn't write it then why are you spending so damn much time
defending
> it?
>
> Just like the attention?

No, that's your psychiatric problem, Bob, not mine. There's a difference
between defending it and explaining it. I don't have to defend anything that
comes out in ANN. If you have a problem with it, why don't you write Jim?

<...and another yellow strips flashes down his back...>

It's hilarious watching how you, the barnyard math-challenged animal and the
rest of your herd come up with all kinds of excuses to avoid facing Jim. :)

Juan

[RobertR237]

In article <5r47b.394145$Ho3.59154@sccrnsc03>, "Juan E Jimenez"
> writes:

>
>No, that's your psychiatric problem, Bob, not mine. There's a difference
>between defending it and explaining it. I don't have to defend anything that
>comes out in ANN. If you have a problem with it, why don't you write Jim?
>
><...and another yellow strips flashes down his back...>
>
>It's hilarious watching how you, the barnyard math-challenged animal and the
>rest of your herd come up with all kinds of excuses to avoid facing Jim. :)
>
>Juan
>
>

Not half as hilarious as watching you play the stooge by trying to defend him
and your own stupidity at the same time.




Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Juan E Jimenez]

"RobertR237" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not half as hilarious as watching you play the stooge by trying to defend
him
> and your own stupidity at the same time.

Unhuh. And you're so amused and intelligent you can only come up with these
dime-store comebacks. <g> So predictable...

[Dave Hyde]

Juan E Jimenez wrote:

> There are plenty of people who think that rushing flight tests for
> marketing purposes is not a good idea.

What areas of the envelope were not sufficiently tested for the
ferry flight(s) as conducted and how did that impact safety?

Dave 'WTSOTT' Hyde

[Juan E Jimenez]

"Dave Hyde" > wrote in message
...
>
> What areas of the envelope were not sufficiently tested for the
> ferry flight(s) as conducted and how did that impact safety?

http://www.adamaircraft.com/pressreleases.asp

Why don't you enlighten us on what areas of the envelope you think _were_
sufficiently tested in the _two days_ after first flight in order not to
impact safety, Dave?

[Dave Hyde]

Juan E Jimenez wrote:

> "Dave Hyde" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > What areas of the envelope were not sufficiently tested for the
> > ferry flight(s) as conducted and how did that impact safety?
>
> http://www.adamaircraft.com/pressreleases.asp

You're dodging the question. What areas of the envelope were
not sufficiently tested for the ferry flight(s) as conducted and
how did that impact safety? You *must* have some idea of the
envelope they'd opened prior to flying to OSH...right? So
was it sufficient for a ferry flight or not? Did they
exceed the envelope they'd cleared during the ferry? Was the
ferry flight unsafe? There are some pretty serious allegations
floating around here - I'm giving you a chance to clear them up.

> Why don't you enlighten us on what areas of the envelope you think _were_
> sufficiently tested in the _two days_ after first flight in order not to
> impact safety, Dave?

You first, Juan...we're waiting.

Dave 'SETP points' Hyde

[Barnyard BOb --]

"C.D. Damron" wrote:

>
>How Adam Aircraft satisfied their own standards and the standards of the FAA
>would have been an interesting story for ANN to publish.
>
>Your rhetoric reminds me of high school and college debaters that utilize a
>"spread" tactic. The spread tactic widens the scope of the debate by asking
>the opposition to respond to a number of points that are only marginally
>related to the point in question. The strategy banks on the hope that the
>opposition will not have the time or preparation to respond to each and
>every one of the marginally related points or the opposition will not argue
>one of these trivial points effectively.
>
>The proper response is to jerk the opponent back to the point of contention.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Thanx, C.D.
It's a pleasure to read unabashed truth like this.


Barnyard BOb --

[Del Rawlins]

On 08 Sep 2003 06:17 PM, Juan E Jimenez posted the following:
>
> "Dave Hyde" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> You're dodging the question.
>
> No, I'm not. Apparently you think it's a good idea to rush through
> flight testing over a period of less than 48 hours right after first
> flight just to be able to make an airshow. Is that what you are trying
> to defend? Go right ahead, kiddo, knock yourself out and show us how
> your lack of common sense knows no limits. <g>

You are simply not sufficiently qualified to question Dave's opinion in
the area of flight test, by any measure.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[Barnyard BOb --]

> Juan E Jimenez posted the following:
>>
>> "Dave Hyde" wrote:

>>> You're dodging the question.
>>
>> No, I'm not. Apparently you think it's a good idea to rush through
>> flight testing over a period of less than 48 hours right after first
>> flight just to be able to make an airshow. Is that what you are trying
>> to defend? Go right ahead, kiddo, knock yourself out and show us how
>> your lack of common sense knows no limits. <g>
>
>You are simply not sufficiently qualified to question Dave's opinion in
>the area of flight test, by any measure.
>
>Del Rawlins-
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Spot on, but....

When has jaun's lack of appropriate formal education, training,
experience or expertise, ever caused him to be bashful about
being difficult, denigrating and disrespectful to those professionals
here that are eminently qualified to speak on any number of topics...
aero or otherwise.

P.S.
Have you noticed how juan's "common sense" ...
more than makes up for any lack of legitimate credentials?


Barnyard BOb -- just an honest and sincere opinion

[Dave Hyde]

Juan E Jimenez wrote:
>
> "Dave Hyde" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > You're dodging the question.
>
> No, I'm not.

Then answer it.

Dave 'call and response' Hyde

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article <CFb7b.395401$YN5.262669@sccrnsc01>, C.D. Damron says...

>Your rhetoric reminds me of high school and college debaters that utilize a
>"spread" tactic. The spread tactic widens the scope of the debate by asking
>the opposition to respond to a number of points that are only marginally
>related to the point in question. The strategy banks on the hope that the
>opposition will not have the time or preparation to respond to each and
>every one of the marginally related points or the opposition will not argue
>one of these trivial points effectively.

Thanks for defining the tactic both jaun and zoom use,I wasn't aware it had a
name. Great thing about this group ,there is always something to learn .

See ya

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

"evil didn't prosper because good men spoke and evil was nuts" anon

[RobertR237]

In article >, Barnyard BOb --
> writes:

>
>P.S.
>Have you noticed how juan's "common sense" ...
>more than makes up for any lack of legitimate credentials?
>
>

NO! I have not see a demonstration of either from Juan. Did I miss something?

HAHAHAHAHAHAAH

Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Juan E Jimenez]

"C.D. Damron" > wrote in message
news:CFb7b.395401$YN5.262669@sccrnsc01...
>
> There's nothing wrong with second-guessing either Adam Aircraft or the
FAA,
> but to publish an article that doesn't even detail specific concerns, let
> alone facts, is certainly irresponsible.

Seems you have a problem getting through your skull the difference between
an article and an editorial. Maybe Chuck can read that thread for you as a
nighty-night story.

> How Adam Aircraft satisfied their own standards and the standards of the
FAA
> would have been an interesting story for ANN to publish.

They are perfectly capable of responding with that information.

[Juan E Jimenez]

"Del Rawlins" > wrote in message
...
>
> You are simply not sufficiently qualified to question Dave's opinion in
> the area of flight test, by any measure.

And you are? I guess the fact that you didn't speaks for itself.

[Juan E Jimenez]

I already did. That you don't like the answer is of no concern to me. If you
think you're in a position to defend the actions that Adam Aircraft took in
those two days, for what appears to be nothing more than marketing reasons,
go right ahead. :)

"Dave Hyde" > wrote in message
...
> Juan E Jimenez wrote:
> >
> > "Dave Hyde" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > You're dodging the question.
> >
> > No, I'm not.
>
> Then answer it.
>
> Dave 'call and response' Hyde
>

[Dave Hyde]

Juan E Jimenez wrote:

> I already did [answer my question about the A700 envelope expansion].

Evasion and obfuscation. In case you simply didn't understand
it, I'll repost the question:

What areas of the envelope were not sufficiently tested for the
ferry flight(s) as conducted and how did that impact safety?

Nothing you've posted so far answers this.

> If you think you're in a position to defend
> the actions that Adam Aircraft took...

Judging by your confusion about what I asked and
this little gem, I'm guessing you haven't read what
I posted. Here's a tip: Read before you respond.

Dave 'SERE' Hyde

[sean trost]

BOOTS BOOTS BOOTS BOOTS......

Dave Hyde wrote:
> Juan E Jimenez wrote:
>
>
>>I already did [answer my question about the A700 envelope expansion].
>
>
> Evasion and obfuscation. In case you simply didn't understand
> it, I'll repost the question:
>
> What areas of the envelope were not sufficiently tested for the
> ferry flight(s) as conducted and how did that impact safety?
>
> Nothing you've posted so far answers this.
>
>
>>If you think you're in a position to defend
>>the actions that Adam Aircraft took...
>
>
> Judging by your confusion about what I asked and
> this little gem, I'm guessing you haven't read what
> I posted. Here's a tip: Read before you respond.
>
> Dave 'SERE' Hyde
>

[Juan E Jimenez]

"Dave Hyde" > wrote in message
...
>
> Evasion and obfuscation.

Dave, I could really care less if you didn't like the answer I gave you. :)

[Juan E Jimenez]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Nothing on ANN purports to be an editorial (everything is billed as a
"Headline").
> Of course, all of the stories are written as if they were editorials.

I can't help if you have trouble reading. Try an optometrist.

[Rick N Sure]

Juan,

Please show the group exactly where you answered Daves' question.... no
smart remarks; no "I'm not gonna do you work for you" answers, just show
us where you answered Daves' question. Or would you prefer that you son
follow in what seems to be your footsteps and answers your questions to him
in the same manner.,....


"Juan E Jimenez" > wrote in message
news:yArab.506672$o%2.223776@sccrnsc02...
>
> "Dave Hyde" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Evasion and obfuscation.
>
> Dave, I could really care less if you didn't like the answer I gave you.
:)
>
>
>

[Warren & Nancy]

Juan E Jimenez wrote:

> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> > Nothing on ANN purports to be an editorial (everything is billed as a
> "Headline").
> > Of course, all of the stories are written as if they were editorials.
>
> I can't help if you have trouble reading. Try an optometrist.

Pot, Kettle, Black

[Sam]

A couple of thoughts -

The A700 uses a design similar to the A500 which has more hours of test time
and is nearing certification.

Also, the trip to and from the show were probably used as additional test
time for the A700, and the A500.

Adam Aircraft, FAA, and maybe more importantly the test pilots who flew the
A700 felt the aircraft was airworthy for the trip.

About the only negative was probably the time lost for testing while the
A700 was on the ground at the show.

Of course there is marketing value for attending the show, AA isn't a
nonprofit company. Although I don't think they have started taking orders
yet for the A700.

In the end, the A700 will probably be the first to market, and the lowest
priced, entry in this class of aircraft.

"Juan E Jimenez" > wrote in message
news:RBS7b.412734$o%2.188052@sccrnsc02...
>
> "C.D. Damron" > wrote in message
> news:CFb7b.395401$YN5.262669@sccrnsc01...
> >
> > There's nothing wrong with second-guessing either Adam Aircraft or the
> FAA,
> > but to publish an article that doesn't even detail specific concerns,
let
> > alone facts, is certainly irresponsible.
>
> Seems you have a problem getting through your skull the difference between
> an article and an editorial. Maybe Chuck can read that thread for you as a
> nighty-night story.
>
> > How Adam Aircraft satisfied their own standards and the standards of the
> FAA
> > would have been an interesting story for ANN to publish.
>
> They are perfectly capable of responding with that information.
>
>
>