Re: Looking for B-17 video...

[[email protected]]

Pooh Bear > wrote:

>Duster wrote:
>
>> I saw for the first time, a brief black and white WWII clip of a B-17
>> getting its left wing quite litterly shot off... It was quite eerie I think,
>> but I would like to find it. So, does anyone know where I can find it? Or
>> have it themselves? Thank you
>
>r.a.m can probably help you.
>
>Graham

I'm sorry that I'm not of much help but are you sure it wasn't a
bomb?...the incident that I saw was where a bomb from an a/c
above smashed the wing spar (starboard I thought) and the wing
folded. The bomb didn't explode but the impact did the dirty
deed.
--

-Gord.

[John Keeney]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
> Duster wrote:
>
> > I saw for the first time, a brief black and white WWII clip of a B-17
> > getting its left wing quite litterly shot off... It was quite eerie I
think,
> > but I would like to find it. So, does anyone know where I can find it?
Or
> > have it themselves? Thank you
>
> r.a.m can probably help you.

The clip sounds like one where a B-24 is hit, not a B-17.
Can't help you off hand finding it.

[John Cook]

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 03:53:45 +0000, Pooh Bear
> wrote:

>Duster wrote:
>
>> I saw for the first time, a brief black and white WWII clip of a B-17
>> getting its left wing quite litterly shot off... It was quite eerie I think,
>> but I would like to find it. So, does anyone know where I can find it? Or
>> have it themselves? Thank you
>
>r.a.m can probably help you.


IIRC the footage is from the Imperial war museum in London, but your
best chanch of seeing it is from the "World at War" series either
video or from a rather nifty DVD pack...

I cant remember which dvd the footage is on though..

Cheers

BTW Hope you christmas celebrations was good And a happy new year to
all in RAM...

>
>Graham

John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> Pooh Bear > wrote:
>
> >Duster wrote:
> >
> >> I saw for the first time, a brief black and white WWII clip of a B-17
> >> getting its left wing quite litterly shot off... It was quite eerie I
think,
> >> but I would like to find it. So, does anyone know where I can find it?
Or
> >> have it themselves? Thank you
> >
> >r.a.m can probably help you.
> >
> >Graham
>
> I'm sorry that I'm not of much help but are you sure it wasn't a
> bomb?...the incident that I saw was where a bomb from an a/c
> above smashed the wing spar (starboard I thought) and the wing
> folded. The bomb didn't explode but the impact did the dirty
> deed.
> --
>
> -Gord.
Merry Christmas to you/yours Gord. Glad to see the "Sensible Old Hands" are
still around/lurking ADA.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
y.com...

> > -Gord.
> Merry Christmas to you/yours Gord. Glad to see the "Sensible Old Hands"
are
> still around/lurking ADA.

Look here, Nesbitt, as long as you are calling 747s "bombs", you are a nut.

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> y.com...
>
> > > -Gord.
> > Merry Christmas to you/yours Gord. Glad to see the "Sensible Old Hands"
> are
> > still around/lurking ADA.
>
> Look here, Nesbitt, as long as you are calling 747s "bombs", you are a
nut.
>
Why does my wishing some 1 Merry Christmas cause you such "Heart Burn". Can
you disagree that under "Specified Circumstances" A/C with the "Standard
Boeing CWT Design Philosophy are Bombs". If they weren't/aren't, the
numerous "operating rules/guide lines" to assure safe operation of A/C with
"Standard Boeing CWT Design Philosophy CWT's" would not have been
implemented/enforced as stringently as they are.

What ever it may constitute, "Enjoy the Holidays".
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
y.com...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> > y.com...
> >
> > > > -Gord.
> > > Merry Christmas to you/yours Gord. Glad to see the "Sensible Old
Hands" are
> > > still around/lurking ADA.
> >
> > Look here, Nesbitt, as long as you are calling 747s "bombs", you are a
nut.

> Why does my wishing some 1 Merry Christmas cause you such "Heart Burn".

No, Ralph, it is you attempting to include yourself in some "sensible old
hands" group, that gives me alarm; as you are a nut calling 747s "bombs".
Do you have any clue how humiliated Cal Tech is for that little stunt?

[[email protected]]

"Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote:

>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message

>>
>> I'm sorry that I'm not of much help but are you sure it wasn't a
>> bomb?...the incident that I saw was where a bomb from an a/c
>> above smashed the wing spar (starboard I thought) and the wing
>> folded. The bomb didn't explode but the impact did the dirty
>> deed.
>> --
>>
>> -Gord.
>Merry Christmas to you/yours Gord. Glad to see the "Sensible Old Hands" are
>still around/lurking ADA.
>Ralph Nesbitt
>Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
>
Thank you Ralph...same to you. Get back in here, I need lot's of
help!...
--

-Gord.

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
>
> >>
> >> I'm sorry that I'm not of much help but are you sure it wasn't a
> >> bomb?...the incident that I saw was where a bomb from an a/c
> >> above smashed the wing spar (starboard I thought) and the wing
> >> folded. The bomb didn't explode but the impact did the dirty
> >> deed.
> >> --
> >>
> >> -Gord.
> >Merry Christmas to you/yours Gord. Glad to see the "Sensible Old Hands"
are
> >still around/lurking ADA.
> >Ralph Nesbitt
> >Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
> >
> Thank you Ralph...same to you. Get back in here, I need lot's of
> help!...
> --
>
> -Gord.
>
Have been dealing with the "Kooks/Loons" that have been drifting through ADA
swearing a "Bunch of Saudi's" could not have pulled off 9/11 because of
????? The same bunch also expound/argue differing "Red Herring Preposterous
B/S Theories" as to why it could not have been "Hijacked Commercial A/C"
involved in the 9/11 incidents.

Which group do you frequent?
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> y.com...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> > > y.com...
> > >
> > > > > -Gord.
> > > > Merry Christmas to you/yours Gord. Glad to see the "Sensible Old
> Hands" are
> > > > still around/lurking ADA.
> > >
> > > Look here, Nesbitt, as long as you are calling 747s "bombs", you are a
> nut.
>
> > Why does my wishing some 1 Merry Christmas cause you such "Heart Burn".
>
> No, Ralph, it is you attempting to include yourself in some "sensible old
> hands" group, that gives me alarm; as you are a nut calling 747s "bombs".
> Do you have any clue how humiliated Cal Tech is for that little stunt?
>
I will not debate you over the fine points of Electrical Engineering, simply
because I do not understand the "Fine Points" of same.

You argue from a "Off the Cuff Perspective" without a true understanding of
the hazards inherent in the "Basic Boeing CWT Design Philosophy" under
specified circumstances. Do they occur every day, no, but is there a history
of incidents traceable to a condition resulting from "Specified Shortcoming"
in "Basic Boeing CWT Design Philosophy".

Scream/Rant/Rave till "Hell Freezes Over", it won't change the basic fact,
that unless operated in a specified manner/very carefully"Basic Boeing CWT
Design Philosophy" effectively turns all Boeing A/C into "as you say Bombs,
under certain circumstances".
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[[email protected]]

"Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote:

>Have been dealing with the "Kooks/Loons" that have been drifting through ADA
>swearing a "Bunch of Saudi's" could not have pulled off 9/11 because of
>????? The same bunch also expound/argue differing "Red Herring Preposterous
>B/S Theories" as to why it could not have been "Hijacked Commercial A/C"
>involved in the 9/11 incidents.
>
>Which group do you frequent?
>Ralph Nesbitt
>Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
>
None of them Ralph...I did that till my fingertips developed
calluses and my nerves started fraying then I discovered this
neat little symbol shaped like a red circle with a slash through
it marked 'ignore thread' (whatever that means!) and all those
troublesome posts disappeared!...viola!... :)

I dropped ada a couple years ago when ralfie mailbombed me with
about 6 pictures of 'his' a/c...locked my email up for a week.
--

-Gord.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> > y.com...
> > >
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> > > > y.com...
> > > >
> > > > > > -Gord.
> > > > > Merry Christmas to you/yours Gord. Glad to see the "Sensible Old
Hands" are
> > > > > still around/lurking ADA.
> > > >
> > > > Look here, Nesbitt, as long as you are calling 747s "bombs", you are
a nut.
> >
> > > Why does my wishing some 1 Merry Christmas cause you such "Heart
Burn".
> >
> > No, Ralph, it is you attempting to include yourself in some "sensible
old
> > hands" group, that gives me alarm; as you are a nut calling 747s
"bombs".
> > Do you have any clue how humiliated Cal Tech is for that little stunt?
> >
> I will not debate you over the fine points of Electrical Engineering,
simply
> because I do not understand the "Fine Points" of same.
>
> You argue from a "Off the Cuff Perspective" without a true understanding
of
> the hazards inherent in the "Basic Boeing CWT Design Philosophy" under
> specified circumstances.

Your arguement that the 737 CWT wire bundles covered by advisory circular
has anything to do with a "design philosophy" is delusional. A mistake with
early 737 wire bundles does not translate into a 747 CWT problem.

[B2431]

>From: "Tarver Engineering"

>Your arguement that the 737 CWT wire bundles covered by advisory circular
>has anything to do with a "design philosophy" is delusional. A mistake with
>early 737 wire bundles does not translate into a 747 CWT problem.
>
>
Tarver, this thread was about B-17 video clips until you decided to attack
Nesbit on a totally unrelated subject. The question is why?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Duster]

Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost better
though..

Duster

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Duster" > wrote in message
. ..
> Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost better
> though..
>
> Duster
>
Tarver cannot get it through his head that having the air handling units
operating under the CWT when the A/C is stationary is like putting a
pressure cooker with a small amount of fuel in it, on a stove at low heat.

There have been several incidents world wide where Boeing A/C of various
models have exploded sitting at gates, on ramps, taxing out, or shortly
after take off after sitting with the air handling units running under ~
empty CWT's.

There are now "Air Safety Directives" stipulating/requiring certain
operating protocols to minimize this hazard associated with the "Boeing CWT
Design Philosophy".
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[John Mazor]

"Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Duster" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost better
> > though..
> >
> > Duster
> >
> Tarver cannot get it through his head that having the air handling units
> operating under the CWT when the A/C is stationary is like putting a
> pressure cooker with a small amount of fuel in it, on a stove at low heat.

That, and Tarver being an engineer, reminds me of the old joke: an engineer
is someone who thinks that, if your left leg is in a bucket of hot water and
your right leg is in a bucket of ice, then on average, you're comfortable.

[Duster]

Could you point me to the thread? This sounds intersting...

Duster

"Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Duster" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost better
> > though..
> >
> > Duster
> >
> Tarver cannot get it through his head that having the air handling units
> operating under the CWT when the A/C is stationary is like putting a
> pressure cooker with a small amount of fuel in it, on a stove at low heat.
>
> There have been several incidents world wide where Boeing A/C of various
> models have exploded sitting at gates, on ramps, taxing out, or shortly
> after take off after sitting with the air handling units running under ~
> empty CWT's.
>
> There are now "Air Safety Directives" stipulating/requiring certain
> operating protocols to minimize this hazard associated with the "Boeing
CWT
> Design Philosophy".
> Ralph Nesbitt
> Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
>
>

[Scott M. Kozel]

"Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote:
>
> "Duster" > wrote
>
> > Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost better
> > though..
>
> Tarver cannot get it through his head that having the air handling units
> operating under the CWT when the A/C is stationary is like putting a
> pressure cooker with a small amount of fuel in it, on a stove at low heat.
>
> There have been several incidents world wide where Boeing A/C of various
> models have exploded sitting at gates, on ramps, taxing out, or shortly
> after take off after sitting with the air handling units running under ~
> empty CWT's.
>
> There are now "Air Safety Directives" stipulating/requiring certain
> operating protocols to minimize this hazard associated with the "Boeing CWT
> Design Philosophy".

Splaps Boy is correct in that the A/C is not a "bomb" in the
conventional sense of large object full of high explosive that is
gravity-dropped on a target, but a Boeing 7x7 aircraft's CWT with the
right fuel-air mixture if detonated can equal several sticks of dynamite
in explosive power.

[Scott M. Kozel]

"John Mazor" > wrote:
>
> "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote
> > "Duster" > wrote in message
> >
> > > Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost better
> > > though..
> >
> > Tarver cannot get it through his head that having the air handling units
> > operating under the CWT when the A/C is stationary is like putting a
> > pressure cooker with a small amount of fuel in it, on a stove at low heat.
>
> That, and Tarver being an engineer, reminds me of the old joke: an engineer
> is someone who thinks that, if your left leg is in a bucket of hot water and
> your right leg is in a bucket of ice, then on average, you're comfortable.

Keyboard!

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Duster" > wrote in message
m...
> Could you point me to the thread? This sounds intersting...
>
> Duster
>
This has been an "On Going" exchange in many threads over a period of time.

Tarver being an EE can't get a grip on the concept that the "explosive
limits of fuel vapours in the Uleage of CWT's" vary with temp, pressure, &
air content as the vent system functions.

The normal protocal for ADA is to "Bottom Post", makeing it much easier to
follow.

Be warned to expect less than "Courterous Treatment" when dealing with
Tarver aka "Splaps Boy/Splappy" the self described font of all knowledge re:
things A/C & Aviation. If you do not believe this, just ask him.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

> "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > "Duster" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > > Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost better
> > > though..
> > >
> > > Duster
> > >
> > Tarver cannot get it through his head that having the air handling units
> > operating under the CWT when the A/C is stationary is like putting a
> > pressure cooker with a small amount of fuel in it, on a stove at low
heat.
> >
> > There have been several incidents world wide where Boeing A/C of various
> > models have exploded sitting at gates, on ramps, taxing out, or shortly
> > after take off after sitting with the air handling units running under ~
> > empty CWT's.
> >
> > There are now "Air Safety Directives" stipulating/requiring certain
> > operating protocols to minimize this hazard associated with the "Boeing
> CWT
> > Design Philosophy".
> > Ralph Nesbitt
> > Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
> >
> >
>
>

[Rich Ahrens]

Duster wrote:
> Could you point me to the thread? This sounds intersting...

A good starting point:

http://home.att.net/~j.knoyle/the_tarver_chronicles.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Rich Ahrens | Homepage: http://www.visi.com/~rma/ |
|-----------------------------------------------|
|"In a world full of people only some want to fly - isn't that crazy?" |
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[B2431]

>From: "Ralph Nesbitt"

<snip>

>Be warned to expect less than "Courterous Treatment" when dealing with
>Tarver aka "Splaps Boy/Splappy" the self described font of all knowledge re:
>things A/C & Aviation. If you do not believe this, just ask him.
>Ralph Nesbitt
>Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
>
>> "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>> >
>> > "Duster" > wrote in message
>> > . ..
>> > > Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost better
>> > > though..
>> > >
>> > > Duster
>> > >
>> > Tarver cannot get it through his head that having the air handling units
>> > operating under the CWT when the A/C is stationary is like putting a
>> > pressure cooker with a small amount of fuel in it, on a stove at low
>heat.
>> >
>> > There have been several incidents world wide where Boeing A/C of various
>> > models have exploded sitting at gates, on ramps, taxing out, or shortly
>> > after take off after sitting with the air handling units running under ~
>> > empty CWT's.
>> >
>> > There are now "Air Safety Directives" stipulating/requiring certain
>> > operating protocols to minimize this hazard associated with the "Boeing
>> CWT
>> > Design Philosophy".
>> > Ralph Nesbitt
>> > Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

He's got a similar rep in automotive, rocketry, political etc. newsgroups.

If you disagree or ask for proof of his assertions with him he will make
personal and/or vulgar attacks. If pressed for proof he will tell you he
doesn't have to provide it. If you do a google search on him to prove what he
HAS said he will accuse you of trolling for Noyle even if you don't use his
site.

He just doesn't seem to understand 6 years of being a jet mech in ADC and
getting an EE doen't make him an expert on everything.

Dan, U.S.Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Duster" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost better
> > though..
> >
> > Duster
> >
> Tarver cannot get it through his head that having the air handling units
> operating under the CWT when the A/C is stationary is like putting a
> pressure cooker with a small amount of fuel in it, on a stove at low heat.

Nesbitt can't get it through his head that a 747 is not a bomb and there is
no design philosophy to make airliners that are bombs at Boeing.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
isi.com...
> Duster wrote:
> > Could you point me to the thread? This sounds intersting...
>
> A good starting point:
>
> http://home.att.net/~j.knoyle/the_tarver_chronicles.html

Although you would have to be an idiot to buy Knoyle's archive troll, it is
humorous and an excellent idiot detector.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott M. Kozel" > wrote in message
...
> "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote:
> >
> > "Duster" > wrote
> >
> > > Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost better
> > > though..
> >
> > Tarver cannot get it through his head that having the air handling units
> > operating under the CWT when the A/C is stationary is like putting a
> > pressure cooker with a small amount of fuel in it, on a stove at low
heat.
> >
> > There have been several incidents world wide where Boeing A/C of various
> > models have exploded sitting at gates, on ramps, taxing out, or shortly
> > after take off after sitting with the air handling units running under ~
> > empty CWT's.
> >
> > There are now "Air Safety Directives" stipulating/requiring certain
> > operating protocols to minimize this hazard associated with the "Boeing
CWT
> > Design Philosophy".
>
> Splaps Boy is correct in that the A/C is not a "bomb" in the
> conventional sense of large object full of high explosive that is
> gravity-dropped on a target, but a Boeing 7x7 aircraft's CWT with the
> right fuel-air mixture if detonated can equal several sticks of dynamite
> in explosive power.

No. But it is interesting that ALPA management would spend so much time and
effort trying to cover up a one-off bad retrofit, even to the point of pilot
give backs.

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...

>
> He's got a similar rep in automotive, rocketry, political etc. newsgroups.

Writing a true answer out where everyone can see it, will do that; on
usenet.

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Scott M. Kozel" > wrote in message
...
> "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote:
> >
> > "Duster" > wrote
> >
> > > Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost better
> > > though..
> >
> > Tarver cannot get it through his head that having the air handling units
> > operating under the CWT when the A/C is stationary is like putting a
> > pressure cooker with a small amount of fuel in it, on a stove at low
heat.
> >
> > There have been several incidents world wide where Boeing A/C of various
> > models have exploded sitting at gates, on ramps, taxing out, or shortly
> > after take off after sitting with the air handling units running under ~
> > empty CWT's.
> >
> > There are now "Air Safety Directives" stipulating/requiring certain
> > operating protocols to minimize this hazard associated with the "Boeing
CWT
> > Design Philosophy".
>
> Splaps Boy is correct in that the A/C is not a "bomb" in the
> conventional sense of large object full of high explosive that is
> gravity-dropped on a target, but a Boeing 7x7 aircraft's CWT with the
> right fuel-air mixture if detonated can equal several sticks of dynamite
> in explosive power.
>
Please note "Splaps Boy" is the one screaming "Bomb" not be. I am simply
pointing out "The Boeing CWT Design Philosophy" results in conditions in the
CWT of Boeing A/C conducive to "Self Initiating FAE's (Fuel Air Explosion)".

Certain specified operating protocols have become minimum SOP to limit the
"Inherent Danger" associated with"The Boeing CWT Design Philosophy".
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
y.com...
> Please note "Splaps Boy" is the one screaming "Bomb" not be.

You write "bomb" WRT the 747 on a regular basis, Ralph. If I were an
archive troll, I'd wager there are over 100 instances where Ralph posted
"bomb" in 747 threads WRT the 747 CWT. (all references to "wager" exclude
the no-pay mazor sock)

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> isi.com...
> > Duster wrote:
> > > Could you point me to the thread? This sounds intersting...
> >
> > A good starting point:
> >
> > http://home.att.net/~j.knoyle/the_tarver_chronicles.html
>
> Although you would have to be an idiot to buy Knoyle's archive troll, it
is
> humorous and an excellent idiot detector.
>
"ROFL/KEYBOARD".

I can't believe Tarver/Splappy/Splaps Boy stated "Jim Knoyl's Site" is an
"Excellent Idiot Detector". No doubt IMHO, it has detected an idiot. I hope
Jim see's this.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > "Duster" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > > Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost better
> > > though..
> > >
> > > Duster
> > >
> > Tarver cannot get it through his head that having the air handling units
> > operating under the CWT when the A/C is stationary is like putting a
> > pressure cooker with a small amount of fuel in it, on a stove at low
heat.
>
> Nesbitt can't get it through his head that a 747 is not a bomb and there
is
> no design philosophy to make airliners that are bombs at Boeing.
>
Hopefully your skull is thick enough to deflect the flying "Bits & Pieces"
when an FAE occurs.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
y.com...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> > isi.com...
> > > Duster wrote:
> > > > Could you point me to the thread? This sounds intersting...
> > >
> > > A good starting point:
> > >
> > > http://home.att.net/~j.knoyle/the_tarver_chronicles.html
> >
> > Although you would have to be an idiot to buy Knoyle's archive troll, it
is
> > humorous and an excellent idiot detector.

> I can't believe Tarver/Splappy/Splaps Boy stated "Jim Knoyl's Site" is an
> "Excellent Idiot Detector".

It is true. Knoyle provides a hillarious collection of newsgroup snippets,
where a wide spectrum of aviation buffs demonstrate their adhearance to
newsgroup fairy tales. At ada, the truth doesn't matter, but that delusion
does not play so well outside the newsgroup.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
y.com...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > >
> > > "Duster" > wrote in message
> > > . ..
> > > > Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost better
> > > > though..
> > > >
> > > > Duster
> > > >
> > > Tarver cannot get it through his head that having the air handling
units
> > > operating under the CWT when the A/C is stationary is like putting a
> > > pressure cooker with a small amount of fuel in it, on a stove at low
heat.
> >
> > Nesbitt can't get it through his head that a 747 is not a bomb and there
is
> > no design philosophy to make airliners that are bombs at Boeing.
> >
> Hopefully your skull is thick enough to deflect the flying "Bits & Pieces"
> when an FAE occurs.

You mean aluminium dust?

Sorry, Nesbitt, no aluminium dust bombs, no hydrogen and propane potato gun,
just an empty fuel tank. What you write demonstrates just how deeply Hall's
NTSB implanted their fantasy in your mind.

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> y.com...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> > > isi.com...
> > > > Duster wrote:
> > > > > Could you point me to the thread? This sounds intersting...
> > > >
> > > > A good starting point:
> > > >
> > > > http://home.att.net/~j.knoyle/the_tarver_chronicles.html
> > >
> > > Although you would have to be an idiot to buy Knoyle's archive troll,
it
> is
> > > humorous and an excellent idiot detector.
>
> > I can't believe Tarver/Splappy/Splaps Boy stated "Jim Knoyl's Site" is
an
> > "Excellent Idiot Detector".
>
> It is true. Knoyle provides a hillarious collection of newsgroup
snippets,
> where a wide spectrum of aviation buffs demonstrate their adhearance to
> newsgroup fairy tales. At ada, the truth doesn't matter, but that
delusion
> does not play so well outside the newsgroup.
>
Is that why you post so many "Outlandish Fallacies" to ADA, AR, & AM.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> y.com...
> > Please note "Splaps Boy" is the one screaming "Bomb" not be.
>
> You write "bomb" WRT the 747 on a regular basis, Ralph. If I were an
> archive troll, I'd wager there are over 100 instances where Ralph posted
> "bomb" in 747 threads WRT the 747 CWT. (all references to "wager" exclude
> the no-pay mazor sock)
>
Is that per your interpretation, or mine?
Ralph Nesbitt

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> y.com...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> > > .. .
> > > >
> > > > "Duster" > wrote in message
> > > > . ..
> > > > > Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost
better
> > > > > though..
> > > > >
> > > > > Duster
> > > > >
> > > > Tarver cannot get it through his head that having the air handling
> units
> > > > operating under the CWT when the A/C is stationary is like putting a
> > > > pressure cooker with a small amount of fuel in it, on a stove at low
> heat.
> > >
> > > Nesbitt can't get it through his head that a 747 is not a bomb and
there
> is
> > > no design philosophy to make airliners that are bombs at Boeing.
> > >
> > Hopefully your skull is thick enough to deflect the flying "Bits &
Pieces"
> > when an FAE occurs.
>
> You mean aluminium dust?
>
> Sorry, Nesbitt, no aluminium dust bombs, no hydrogen and propane potato
gun,
> just an empty fuel tank. What you write demonstrates just how deeply
Hall's
> NTSB implanted their fantasy in your mind.
>
Splappy you are beginning to get so far out in the "Briar Patch" beyond the
"Facility's Left Field Fence" you can barely be "Heard".
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[John Mazor]

"Scott M. Kozel" > wrote in message
...
> "John Mazor" > wrote:
> >
> > "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote
> > > "Duster" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > > Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost better
> > > > though..
> > >
> > > Tarver cannot get it through his head that having the air handling
units
> > > operating under the CWT when the A/C is stationary is like putting a
> > > pressure cooker with a small amount of fuel in it, on a stove at low
heat.
> >
> > That, and Tarver being an engineer, reminds me of the old joke: an
engineer
> > is someone who thinks that, if your left leg is in a bucket of hot water
and
> > your right leg is in a bucket of ice, then on average, you're
comfortable.
>
> Keyboard!

Mairzee bo-coopses.

[Scott M. Kozel]

"Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote:
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote
> > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> > > Duster wrote:
> > >
> > > > Could you point me to the thread? This sounds intersting...
> > >
> > > A good starting point:
> > >
> > > http://home.att.net/~j.knoyle/the_tarver_chronicles.html
> >
> > Although you would have to be an idiot to buy Knoyle's archive troll, it is
> > humorous and an excellent idiot detector.
>
> "ROFL/KEYBOARD".

That is an interesting combination... does that involve laughing so hard
that you knock the keyboard onto the floor, and then ruin the keyboard
as you roll over it on the floor while laughing?


> I can't believe Tarver/Splappy/Splaps Boy stated "Jim Knoyl's Site" is an
> "Excellent Idiot Detector". No doubt IMHO, it has detected an idiot. I hope
> Jim see's this.

Keybooard!

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
y.com...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> > y.com...
> > >
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> > > > .. .
> > > > >
> > > > > "Duster" > wrote in message
> > > > > . ..
> > > > > > Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost
> better
> > > > > > though..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Duster
> > > > > >
> > > > > Tarver cannot get it through his head that having the air handling
> > units
> > > > > operating under the CWT when the A/C is stationary is like putting
a
> > > > > pressure cooker with a small amount of fuel in it, on a stove at
low
> > heat.
> > > >
> > > > Nesbitt can't get it through his head that a 747 is not a bomb and
> there
> > is
> > > > no design philosophy to make airliners that are bombs at Boeing.
> > > >
> > > Hopefully your skull is thick enough to deflect the flying "Bits &
> Pieces"
> > > when an FAE occurs.
> >
> > You mean aluminium dust?
> >
> > Sorry, Nesbitt, no aluminium dust bombs, no hydrogen and propane potato
gun,
> > just an empty fuel tank. What you write demonstrates just how deeply
Hall's
> > NTSB implanted their fantasy in your mind.
> >
> Splappy you are beginning to get so far out in the "Briar Patch" beyond
the
> "Facility's Left Field Fence" you can barely be "Heard".

I am completely mainstream. It is your insistance on lying about the
reliability of the 747 that is out in the ozone, Ralph. There is nothing
wrong with the airplane, as it comes from the factory.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
y.com...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> > y.com...
> > > Please note "Splaps Boy" is the one screaming "Bomb" not be.
> >
> > You write "bomb" WRT the 747 on a regular basis, Ralph. If I were an
> > archive troll, I'd wager there are over 100 instances where Ralph posted
> > "bomb" in 747 threads WRT the 747 CWT. (all references to "wager"
exclude
> > the no-pay mazor sock)
> >
> Is that per your interpretation, or mine?

It is your own posted words, Nesbitt. You are a nut, out trashing the 747,
but somehow hurling insults at me will make you right; only on usenet.

[Jim Knoyle]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> y.com...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> > > y.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> > > > > .. .
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Duster" > wrote in message
> > > > > > . ..
> > > > > > > Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost
> > better
> > > > > > > though..
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Duster
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Tarver cannot get it through his head that having the air
handling
> > > units
> > > > > > operating under the CWT when the A/C is stationary is like
putting
> a
> > > > > > pressure cooker with a small amount of fuel in it, on a stove at
> low
> > > heat.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nesbitt can't get it through his head that a 747 is not a bomb and
> > there
> > > is
> > > > > no design philosophy to make airliners that are bombs at Boeing.
> > > > >
> > > > Hopefully your skull is thick enough to deflect the flying "Bits &
> > Pieces"
> > > > when an FAE occurs.
> > >
> > > You mean aluminium dust?
> > >
> > > Sorry, Nesbitt, no aluminium dust bombs, no hydrogen and propane
potato
> gun,
> > > just an empty fuel tank. What you write demonstrates just how deeply
> Hall's
> > > NTSB implanted their fantasy in your mind.
> > >
> > Splappy you are beginning to get so far out in the "Briar Patch" beyond
> the
> > "Facility's Left Field Fence" you can barely be "Heard".
>
> I am completely mainstream. It is your insistance on lying about the
> reliability of the 747 that is out in the ozone, Ralph. There is nothing
> wrong with the airplane, as it comes from the factory.
>
>
Your "burning electricity caused section 40 to fall off" theory
sure finds fault with the electrical fault isolation design and
you accuse Boeing of installing an undocumented section
to boot! Suggest you brush up on chapters 6 and 24.
JK

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> > y.com...
> > >
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> > > > y.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> > > > > > .. .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Duster" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > . ..
> > > > > > > > Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is
almost
> > > better
> > > > > > > > though..
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Duster
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tarver cannot get it through his head that having the air
> handling
> > > > units
> > > > > > > operating under the CWT when the A/C is stationary is like
> putting
> > a
> > > > > > > pressure cooker with a small amount of fuel in it, on a stove
at
> > low
> > > > heat.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nesbitt can't get it through his head that a 747 is not a bomb
and
> > > there
> > > > is
> > > > > > no design philosophy to make airliners that are bombs at Boeing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Hopefully your skull is thick enough to deflect the flying "Bits &
> > > Pieces"
> > > > > when an FAE occurs.
> > > >
> > > > You mean aluminium dust?
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, Nesbitt, no aluminium dust bombs, no hydrogen and propane
> potato
> > gun,
> > > > just an empty fuel tank. What you write demonstrates just how
deeply
> > Hall's
> > > > NTSB implanted their fantasy in your mind.
> > > >
> > > Splappy you are beginning to get so far out in the "Briar Patch"
beyond
> > the
> > > "Facility's Left Field Fence" you can barely be "Heard".
> >
> > I am completely mainstream. It is your insistance on lying about the
> > reliability of the 747 that is out in the ozone, Ralph. There is
nothing
> > wrong with the airplane, as it comes from the factory.

> Your "burning electricity caused section 40 to fall off" theory
> sure finds fault with the electrical fault isolation design and
> you accuse Boeing of installing an undocumented section
> to boot! Suggest you brush up on chapters 6 and 24.

Undocumented in what way, Jimmy loon?

If you mean the unaproved data you mechanics are fed, yes, what you are told
about the equipment you work on is often wrong; that is the nature of every
MM ever produced.

If you mean to say that my posts about the section 41/42 join failing, your
monkey ignorance about inches still has people lauging.

[Jim Knoyle]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> > > y.com...
> > > >
> > > > Splappy you are beginning to get so far out in the "Briar Patch"
> beyond
> > > the
> > > > "Facility's Left Field Fence" you can barely be "Heard".
> > >
> > > I am completely mainstream. It is your insistance on lying about the
> > > reliability of the 747 that is out in the ozone, Ralph. There is
> nothing
> > > wrong with the airplane, as it comes from the factory.
>
> > Your "burning electricity caused section 40 to fall off" theory
> > sure finds fault with the electrical fault isolation design and
> > you accuse Boeing of installing an undocumented section
> > to boot! Suggest you brush up on chapters 6 and 24.
>
> Undocumented in what way, Jimmy loon?
>
Undocumented as in nonexistant.

> If you mean the unaproved data you mechanics are fed, yes, what you are
told
> about the equipment you work on is often wrong; that is the nature of
every
> MM ever produced.
>
There you go again, bad-mouthing Boeing.

> If you mean to say that my posts about the section 41/42 join failing,
your
> monkey ignorance about inches still has people lauging.
>

The only time I've come close to mentioning inches is when I
mentioned station 520. Where is station 520 on a 747, Splaps?
Looks like the laugh is on you again!
Remember why I mentioned sta. 520, Splaps?

JK
http://home.att.net/~j.knoyle/section.html

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> y.com...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> > > y.com...
> > > > Please note "Splaps Boy" is the one screaming "Bomb" not be.
> > >
> > > You write "bomb" WRT the 747 on a regular basis, Ralph. If I were an
> > > archive troll, I'd wager there are over 100 instances where Ralph
posted
> > > "bomb" in 747 threads WRT the 747 CWT. (all references to "wager"
> exclude
> > > the no-pay mazor sock)
> > >
> > Is that per your interpretation, or mine?
>
> It is your own posted words, Nesbitt. You are a nut, out trashing the
747,
> but somehow hurling insults at me will make you right; only on usenet.
>
Google is the official historian of ADA. Show me where I have mentioned the
word "Bomb" regarding this issue, other than in response to your hard
headed, contentious stupidity.

"Get Your Head Out of Where Ever, Clear Anything Which May Blur/Cloud Your
Vision, Then Clear Your Head, as in Get Some Fresh Air," so you may look at
the "Demonstrated Inherently Dangerous Issues" associated with "The Boeing
CWT Design Issue".

That "Inherently Dangerous Conditions" during specified flight
segments/operations exist continuously has been demonstrated by incidents in
the fleet, verified scientifically, & validated in/under real world
operating condition.

To eliminate/limit the "Inherently Dangerous Conditions" common to all
Boeing A/C CWT's, Boeing along/in co-operation with "Regulators & Safety
Oversight Groups" world wide came up with a set of operating protocols
designed to "Limit the Inherent Danger" built into the "Basic Boeing CWT
Design".

Above is a reiteration of my position on the Boeing CWT Design Issue".

The above is a "Fact of Life". Accept it & move on.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Pooh Bear]

Tarver Engineering wrote:

> "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> y.com...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> > > y.com...
> > >
> > > > > -Gord.
> > > > Merry Christmas to you/yours Gord. Glad to see the "Sensible Old
> Hands" are
> > > > still around/lurking ADA.
> > >
> > > Look here, Nesbitt, as long as you are calling 747s "bombs", you are a
> nut.
>
> > Why does my wishing some 1 Merry Christmas cause you such "Heart Burn".
>
> No, Ralph, it is you attempting to include yourself in some "sensible old
> hands" group, that gives me alarm; as you are a nut calling 747s "bombs".
> Do you have any clue how humiliated Cal Tech is for that little stunt?

Are you referring to the 'explosive mix' experiment that was conducted using
propane ? IIRC as a substitute for Jet A fumes ?

Graham

[Pooh Bear]

Duster wrote:

> Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost better
> though..
>
> Duster

Glad to be of service ;-)

About time a.d.a talked about real a/c probs instead of crank dip****
conspiracy theories.


Graham

[Pooh Bear]

Ralph Nesbitt wrote:

> "Duster" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost better
> > though..
> >
> > Duster
> >
> Tarver cannot get it through his head that having the air handling units
> operating under the CWT when the A/C is stationary is like putting a
> pressure cooker with a small amount of fuel in it, on a stove at low heat.
>
> There have been several incidents world wide where Boeing A/C of various
> models have exploded sitting at gates, on ramps, taxing out, or shortly
> after take off after sitting with the air handling units running under ~
> empty CWT's.
>
> There are now "Air Safety Directives" stipulating/requiring certain
> operating protocols to minimize this hazard associated with the "Boeing CWT
> Design Philosophy".

All very true.

I was nevertheless disappointed as a pyromaniac kid, that placing a closed
paint can 1/4 full of petrol / gasoline over a camp stove *didn't* result in
the conflagration I was hoping for !


Graham ;-)

[Pooh Bear]

John Mazor wrote:

> "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > "Duster" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > > Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost better
> > > though..
> > >
> > > Duster
> > >
> > Tarver cannot get it through his head that having the air handling units
> > operating under the CWT when the A/C is stationary is like putting a
> > pressure cooker with a small amount of fuel in it, on a stove at low heat.
>
> That, and Tarver being an engineer, reminds me of the old joke: an engineer
> is someone who thinks that, if your left leg is in a bucket of hot water and
> your right leg is in a bucket of ice, then on average, you're comfortable.

Maybe your balls are ?

Graham

[Pooh Bear]

Ralph Nesbitt wrote:

> "Scott M. Kozel" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote:
> > >
> > > "Duster" > wrote
> > >
> > > > Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost better
> > > > though..
> > >
> > > Tarver cannot get it through his head that having the air handling units
> > > operating under the CWT when the A/C is stationary is like putting a
> > > pressure cooker with a small amount of fuel in it, on a stove at low
> heat.
> > >
> > > There have been several incidents world wide where Boeing A/C of various
> > > models have exploded sitting at gates, on ramps, taxing out, or shortly
> > > after take off after sitting with the air handling units running under ~
> > > empty CWT's.
> > >
> > > There are now "Air Safety Directives" stipulating/requiring certain
> > > operating protocols to minimize this hazard associated with the "Boeing
> CWT
> > > Design Philosophy".
> >
> > Splaps Boy is correct in that the A/C is not a "bomb" in the
> > conventional sense of large object full of high explosive that is
> > gravity-dropped on a target, but a Boeing 7x7 aircraft's CWT with the
> > right fuel-air mixture if detonated can equal several sticks of dynamite
> > in explosive power.
> >
> Please note "Splaps Boy" is the one screaming "Bomb" not be. I am simply
> pointing out "The Boeing CWT Design Philosophy" results in conditions in the
> CWT of Boeing A/C conducive to "Self Initiating FAE's (Fuel Air Explosion)".

Self - initiating ? I've never known a fuel air mixture explode of its own
accord outside a diesel engine. Especially with quite low temps.

An ignition source is also required.


> Certain specified operating protocols have become minimum SOP to limit the
> "Inherent Danger" associated with"The Boeing CWT Design Philosophy".

As in turning off the fuel pumps with the dodgy wiring when the tank is low ?


Graham

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Scott M. Kozel" > wrote in message
...
> "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote:
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote
> > > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> > > > Duster wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Could you point me to the thread? This sounds intersting...
> > > >
> > > > A good starting point:
> > > >
> > > > http://home.att.net/~j.knoyle/the_tarver_chronicles.html
> > >
> > > Although you would have to be an idiot to buy Knoyle's archive troll,
it is
> > > humorous and an excellent idiot detector.
> >
> > "ROFL/KEYBOARD".
>
> That is an interesting combination... does that involve laughing so hard
> that you knock the keyboard onto the floor, and then ruin the keyboard
> as you roll over it on the floor while laughing?
>
More like grabbing the keyboard due falling out of my chair laughing,
getting tangled in the keyboard cord, pulling it loose, while nearly pulling
the computer off bacause of laughing so hard
>
> > I can't believe Tarver/Splappy/Splaps Boy stated "Jim Knoyl's Site" is
an
> > "Excellent Idiot Detector". No doubt IMHO, it has detected an idiot. I
hope
> > Jim see's this.
>
> Keybooard!
>
Hopefully Jim does not destroy his computer, as I nearly did when he see's
this.

Hopefully Phil picks this up for his section on "Tarver/Splaps Boy/Splappy.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> y.com...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> > > y.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> > > > > .. .
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Duster" > wrote in message
> > > > > > . ..
> > > > > > > Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost
> > better
> > > > > > > though..
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Duster
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Tarver cannot get it through his head that having the air
handling
> > > units
> > > > > > operating under the CWT when the A/C is stationary is like
putting
> a
> > > > > > pressure cooker with a small amount of fuel in it, on a stove at
> low
> > > heat.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nesbitt can't get it through his head that a 747 is not a bomb and
> > there
> > > is
> > > > > no design philosophy to make airliners that are bombs at Boeing.
> > > > >
> > > > Hopefully your skull is thick enough to deflect the flying "Bits &
> > Pieces"
> > > > when an FAE occurs.
> > >
> > > You mean aluminium dust?
> > >
> > > Sorry, Nesbitt, no aluminium dust bombs, no hydrogen and propane
potato
> gun,
> > > just an empty fuel tank. What you write demonstrates just how deeply
> Hall's
> > > NTSB implanted their fantasy in your mind.
> > >
> > Splappy you are beginning to get so far out in the "Briar Patch" beyond
> the
> > "Facility's Left Field Fence" you can barely be "Heard".
>
> I am completely mainstream. It is your insistance on lying about the
> reliability of the 747 that is out in the ozone, Ralph. There is nothing
> wrong with the airplane, as it comes from the factory.
>
Get your story straight. I have not made any comment regarding the
reliability of 747's or any other Boeing A/C.

I have stated that

A=: "The Boeing CWT Design Philosophy" results in an "Inherently Dangerous
Situation" across a broad spectrum of a Boeing A/C/s flight profile.

B=: This has been determined to be a "Safety of Flight".

C=: To minimize/eliminate to the extent possible the "Inherently Dangerous
Situation" due "The Boeing CWT Design Philosophy" across the majority of the
flight spectrum of any given A/C, "Implementation of Specified Operating
Protocols" have been mandated by Air Safety Regulation/Safety Oversight
Organizations" world wide.

To my knowledge nothing "Design Philosophy" wise has changed that would
eliminate "The Inherently Dangerous Situation CWT" issue on Boeing A/C
across the models with CWT's irrespective of whether a given A/C was #1 from
the line or the latest 1 off the line.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
> Ralph Nesbitt wrote:
>
> > "Duster" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > > Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost better
> > > though..
> > >
> > > Duster
> > >
> > Tarver cannot get it through his head that having the air handling units
> > operating under the CWT when the A/C is stationary is like putting a
> > pressure cooker with a small amount of fuel in it, on a stove at low
heat.
> >
> > There have been several incidents world wide where Boeing A/C of various
> > models have exploded sitting at gates, on ramps, taxing out, or shortly
> > after take off after sitting with the air handling units running under ~
> > empty CWT's.
> >
> > There are now "Air Safety Directives" stipulating/requiring certain
> > operating protocols to minimize this hazard associated with the "Boeing
CWT
> > Design Philosophy".
>
> All very true.
>
> I was nevertheless disappointed as a pyromaniac kid, that placing a closed
> paint can 1/4 full of petrol / gasoline over a camp stove *didn't* result
in
> the conflagration I was hoping for !
>
>
> Graham ;-)
>
You left/put to much in the can.

You want a show. Put 1 cap full of gasoline/petrol in a dry standard 2 liter
bottle, put the lid on, put it in the middle of a 55 gallon "Burn Barrel"
filled with loose News paper. Light the News paper, stand way back.

Just the closed bottle itself exploding has been known to scatter burning
paper some distance. Adding a "Cap full of Petrol/Gasoline" to the bottle,
depending on exact direction of explosive failure within the barrel, has
been know to turn the barrel over/roll it around.

Caution have a water hose handy to deal with "Grass Fires" resulting from
the scattered burning paper. Don't try this where burning paper will land on
building roofs, or drift into areas conducive of "Wild Fires". Expect
burning paper to be blown as much as 100' in the air depending on proper
placement of paper in barrel before lighting the fire.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Scott M. Kozel]

"Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote:
>
> "Pooh Bear" > wrote
> > Ralph Nesbitt wrote:
> > > "Duster" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > > Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost better
> > > > though..
> > > >
> > > > Duster
> > > >
> > > Tarver cannot get it through his head that having the air handling units
> > > operating under the CWT when the A/C is stationary is like putting a
> > > pressure cooker with a small amount of fuel in it, on a stove at low heat.
> > >
> > > There have been several incidents world wide where Boeing A/C of various
> > > models have exploded sitting at gates, on ramps, taxing out, or shortly
> > > after take off after sitting with the air handling units running under ~
> > > empty CWT's.
> > >
> > > There are now "Air Safety Directives" stipulating/requiring certain
> > > operating protocols to minimize this hazard associated with the "Boeing CWT
> > > Design Philosophy".
> >
> > All very true.
> >
> > I was nevertheless disappointed as a pyromaniac kid, that placing a closed
> > paint can 1/4 full of petrol / gasoline over a camp stove *didn't* result in
> > the conflagration I was hoping for !
> >
> > Graham ;-)
>
> You left/put to much in the can.
>
> You want a show. Put 1 cap full of gasoline/petrol in a dry standard 2 liter
> bottle, put the lid on, put it in the middle of a 55 gallon "Burn Barrel"
> filled with loose News paper. Light the News paper, stand way back.
>
> Just the closed bottle itself exploding has been known to scatter burning
> paper some distance. Adding a "Cap full of Petrol/Gasoline" to the bottle,
> depending on exact direction of explosive failure within the barrel, has
> been know to turn the barrel over/roll it around.
>
> Caution have a water hose handy to deal with "Grass Fires" resulting from
> the scattered burning paper. Don't try this where burning paper will land on
> building roofs, or drift into areas conducive of "Wild Fires". Expect
> burning paper to be blown as much as 100' in the air depending on proper
> placement of paper in barrel before lighting the fire.

Splaps Boy can fire a shotgun blast into a gallon can full of gasoline,
at point-blank range.

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
> Ralph Nesbitt wrote:
>
> > "Scott M. Kozel" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Duster" > wrote
> > > >
> > > > > Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost
better
> > > > > though..
> > > >
> > > > Tarver cannot get it through his head that having the air handling
units
> > > > operating under the CWT when the A/C is stationary is like putting a
> > > > pressure cooker with a small amount of fuel in it, on a stove at low
> > heat.
> > > >
> > > > There have been several incidents world wide where Boeing A/C of
various
> > > > models have exploded sitting at gates, on ramps, taxing out, or
shortly
> > > > after take off after sitting with the air handling units running
under ~
> > > > empty CWT's.
> > > >
> > > > There are now "Air Safety Directives" stipulating/requiring certain
> > > > operating protocols to minimize this hazard associated with the
"Boeing
> > CWT
> > > > Design Philosophy".
> > >
> > > Splaps Boy is correct in that the A/C is not a "bomb" in the
> > > conventional sense of large object full of high explosive that is
> > > gravity-dropped on a target, but a Boeing 7x7 aircraft's CWT with the
> > > right fuel-air mixture if detonated can equal several sticks of
dynamite
> > > in explosive power.
> > >
> > Please note "Splaps Boy" is the one screaming "Bomb" not be. I am simply
> > pointing out "The Boeing CWT Design Philosophy" results in conditions in
the
> > CWT of Boeing A/C conducive to "Self Initiating FAE's (Fuel Air
Explosion)".
>
> Self - initiating ? I've never known a fuel air mixture explode of its own
> accord outside a diesel engine. Especially with quite low temps.
>
> An ignition source is also required.
>
>
> > Certain specified operating protocols have become minimum SOP to limit
the
> > "Inherent Danger" associated with"The Boeing CWT Design Philosophy".
>
> As in turning off the fuel pumps with the dodgy wiring when the tank is
low ?
>
>
> Graham
>
For details regarding the "Self-initiateing" comment above see:
http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/EDL/projects/JetA/misconceptions.html

There are references to several scientific papers here. Effectively it is
not uncommon for the "Air Temp" inside the "Vapour Space" of an A/C with a
"~ empty CWT" sitting on a ramp in high ambient temp conditions with the air
handling units running, to exceed the "Flash Point" of "Jet A Vapors" within
the ambient atmospheric conditions.

The upper & lower flammable limits of Jet A vapors vary with atmospheric
pressure & temp of the vapor. When Jet A Vapor that has been heated to a
Temp close to it's self ignition Temp at a given atmospheric pressure, a
change in the atmospheric pressure can result in self ignition resulting in
an FAE.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[B2431]

>From: "Scott M. Kozel"

>
>Splaps Boy can fire a shotgun blast into a gallon can full of gasoline,
>at point-blank range.
>

You'd trust that boy with a firearm?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Pooh Bear]

Tarver Engineering wrote:

> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Duster wrote:
> >
> > > Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost better
> > > though..
> > >
> > > Duster
> >
> > Glad to be of service ;-)
> >
> > About time a.d.a talked about real a/c probs instead of crank dip****
> > conspiracy theories.
>
> You mean that crank dip**** Hall?

The TWA 800 enquiry was so badly handled that it was bound to result in
conspiracy theories regardless of the merits of the variously debated
scenarios.

So, basically, yes I guess so.

GRaham

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
m...

<snip>
> I have stated that
>
> A=: "The Boeing CWT Design Philosophy" results in an "Inherently
Dangerous
> Situation" across a broad spectrum of a Boeing A/C/s flight profile.

An out and out lie and a conclusion which Nesbitt is completely unqualified
to draw.

<snip of additional false statements>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> > > > y.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > Splappy you are beginning to get so far out in the "Briar Patch"
> > beyond
> > > > the
> > > > > "Facility's Left Field Fence" you can barely be "Heard".
> > > >
> > > > I am completely mainstream. It is your insistance on lying about
the
> > > > reliability of the 747 that is out in the ozone, Ralph. There is
> > nothing
> > > > wrong with the airplane, as it comes from the factory.
> >
> > > Your "burning electricity caused section 40 to fall off" theory
> > > sure finds fault with the electrical fault isolation design and
> > > you accuse Boeing of installing an undocumented section
> > > to boot! Suggest you brush up on chapters 6 and 24.
> >
> > Undocumented in what way, Jimmy loon?
> >
> Undocumented as in nonexistant.

Jimmy, there is no possibility that you could know what you are writting.

The truely fantastic part, is the notion of a grease monkey aregueing with a
systems engineer, about how an airplane works. You couldn't be more of an
idiot, Knoyle.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
m...

>
> Hopefully Phil picks this up for his section on "Tarver/Splaps
Boy/Splappy.

You do know, Ralph, that the spoiler is operated as a flap on 707, 727, and
747 Boeing aircraft, by the automatic Yaw damper? That is of course a
predictable result, when you parrot Craig, a scab road engineer's draftsman.
(crossing state lines to evade the engineer's Act) The Mazor sock mighthave
been a better choice to parrot, except his puppetmaster Marron was never
more that a turboprop operator. (with knowledge of a large transport)

[Tarver Engineering]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
> Duster wrote:
>
> > Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost better
> > though..
> >
> > Duster
>
> Glad to be of service ;-)
>
> About time a.d.a talked about real a/c probs instead of crank dip****
> conspiracy theories.

You mean that crank dip**** Hall?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
> Ralph Nesbitt wrote:
>
> > "Duster" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > > Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost better
> > > though..
> > >
> > > Duster
> > >
> > Tarver cannot get it through his head that having the air handling units
> > operating under the CWT when the A/C is stationary is like putting a
> > pressure cooker with a small amount of fuel in it, on a stove at low
heat.
> >
> > There have been several incidents world wide where Boeing A/C of various
> > models have exploded sitting at gates, on ramps, taxing out, or shortly
> > after take off after sitting with the air handling units running under ~
> > empty CWT's.
> >
> > There are now "Air Safety Directives" stipulating/requiring certain
> > operating protocols to minimize this hazard associated with the "Boeing
CWT
> > Design Philosophy".
>
> All very true.

All very false, Ralph is lying and has not a clue.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
> Ralph Nesbitt wrote:

> Self - initiating ? I've never known a fuel air mixture explode of its own
> accord outside a diesel engine. Especially with quite low temps.

Yes and that is why Nesbit is a resident idiot, at ada.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
m...

<snip>
> There are references to several scientific papers here. Effectively it is
> not uncommon for the "Air Temp" inside the "Vapour Space" of an A/C with a
> "~ empty CWT" sitting on a ramp in high ambient temp conditions with the
air
> handling units running, to exceed the "Flash Point" of "Jet A Vapors"
within
> the ambient atmospheric conditions.

It is all bull****, Ralph; all an attempt to save TWA's managment from their
own bad decisions.

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> m...
>
> <snip>
> > I have stated that
> >
> > A=: "The Boeing CWT Design Philosophy" results in an "Inherently
> Dangerous
> > Situation" across a broad spectrum of a Boeing A/C/s flight profile.
>
> An out and out lie and a conclusion which Nesbitt is completely
unqualified
> to draw.
>
> <snip of additional false statements>
>
Challenge FAA & NTSB, not the messenger, "Me".

FAA & NTSB did not order implementation of "Specified Operating Protocols"
as SOP for operators of Boeing A/C to minimize the "Inherent Danger"
associated with the "Boeing CWT Design Philosophy" on a whim.

Your failure to accept reality is a "prime example" of 1 hand refusing to
acknowledge the other, which causes many problems in the A/C world.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
y.com...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> > m...
> >
> > <snip>
> > > I have stated that
> > >
> > > A=: "The Boeing CWT Design Philosophy" results in an "Inherently
> > Dangerous
> > > Situation" across a broad spectrum of a Boeing A/C/s flight profile.
> >
> > An out and out lie and a conclusion which Nesbitt is completely
unqualified
> > to draw.
> >
> > <snip of additional false statements>
> >
> Challenge FAA & NTSB, not the messenger, "Me".

FAA has already capitulated to the "wire fire" theory and NTSB is of no
concern to me.

Paroting obvious lies does not make you less of a liar, Nesbitt.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> > "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> > y.com...
> > >
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> > > > y.com...
> > > >
> > > > > > -Gord.
> > > > > Merry Christmas to you/yours Gord. Glad to see the "Sensible Old
> > Hands" are
> > > > > still around/lurking ADA.
> > > >
> > > > Look here, Nesbitt, as long as you are calling 747s "bombs", you are
a
> > nut.
> >
> > > Why does my wishing some 1 Merry Christmas cause you such "Heart
Burn".
> >
> > No, Ralph, it is you attempting to include yourself in some "sensible
old
> > hands" group, that gives me alarm; as you are a nut calling 747s
"bombs".
> > Do you have any clue how humiliated Cal Tech is for that little stunt?
>
> Are you referring to the 'explosive mix' experiment that was conducted
using
> propane ? IIRC as a substitute for Jet A fumes ?

Propane and hydrogen was the mix used by Cal Tech and they are now
humiliated for the stunt nation wide. No longer will America's Universities
even consider lending their credibility to NTSB and they can no longer get a
University to do work for them.

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> m...
>
> >
> > Hopefully Phil picks this up for his section on "Tarver/Splaps
> Boy/Splappy.
>
> You do know, Ralph, that the spoiler is operated as a flap on 707, 727,
and
> 747 Boeing aircraft, by the automatic Yaw damper? That is of course a
> predictable result, when you parrot Craig, a scab road engineer's
draftsman.
> (crossing state lines to evade the engineer's Act) The Mazor sock
mighthave
> been a better choice to parrot, except his puppetmaster Marron was never
> more that a turboprop operator. (with knowledge of a large transport)
>
Interesting statement. I am sure there will be appropriate responses.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 05:20:36 GMT, "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote:


>I have stated that
>
>A=: "The Boeing CWT Design Philosophy" results in an "Inherently Dangerous
>Situation" across a broad spectrum of a Boeing A/C/s flight profile.
>
>B=: This has been determined to be a "Safety of Flight".
>
>C=: To minimize/eliminate to the extent possible the "Inherently Dangerous
>Situation" due "The Boeing CWT Design Philosophy" across the majority of the
>flight spectrum of any given A/C, "Implementation of Specified Operating
>Protocols" have been mandated by Air Safety Regulation/Safety Oversight
>Organizations" world wide.
>
>To my knowledge nothing "Design Philosophy" wise has changed that would
>eliminate "The Inherently Dangerous Situation CWT" issue on Boeing A/C
>across the models with CWT's irrespective of whether a given A/C was #1 from
>the line or the latest 1 off the line.
>Ralph Nesbitt
>Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
>
Would you care to provide us with a list of all of the Boeing
aircraft that have "blown up" due to this "inherantly dangerous"
condition?

Surely, with the thousands of Boeings operating around the
world such an "inherently dangerous" condition would
manifest itself in "aluminum rain".

Al Minyard

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Ralph Nesbitt wrote:
> >
> > > "Duster" > wrote in message
> > > . ..
> > > > Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost better
> > > > though..
> > > >
> > > > Duster
> > > >
> > > Tarver cannot get it through his head that having the air handling
units
> > > operating under the CWT when the A/C is stationary is like putting a
> > > pressure cooker with a small amount of fuel in it, on a stove at low
> heat.
> > >
> > > There have been several incidents world wide where Boeing A/C of
various
> > > models have exploded sitting at gates, on ramps, taxing out, or
shortly
> > > after take off after sitting with the air handling units running under
~
> > > empty CWT's.
> > >
> > > There are now "Air Safety Directives" stipulating/requiring certain
> > > operating protocols to minimize this hazard associated with the
"Boeing
> CWT
> > > Design Philosophy".
> >
> > All very true.
>
> All very false, Ralph is lying and has not a clue.
>
Ok in "Detail & Specifics" explain;
What is "Very False?
Why am I allegedly "Lying About"?
What is it I do not have a "Clue About" regarding the "Inherent Dangers"
associated with "The Boeing CWT Design Philosophy"?

In the above context I am using the Term "Inherent Dangers" as defined/used
by the Liability Insurance Industry.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Ralph Nesbitt wrote:
>
> > Self - initiating ? I've never known a fuel air mixture explode of its
own
> > accord outside a diesel engine. Especially with quite low temps.
>
> Yes and that is why Nesbit is a resident idiot, at ada.
>
Yesterday you were claiming Jim Knoyle's (?sp apologies if incorrect) Webb
Site was very good at pointing out/to an "Idiot". To my knowledge I am not
the subject of review anywhere on Jim's Webb Site.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> m...
>
> <snip>
> > There are references to several scientific papers here. Effectively it
is
> > not uncommon for the "Air Temp" inside the "Vapour Space" of an A/C with
a
> > "~ empty CWT" sitting on a ramp in high ambient temp conditions with the
> air
> > handling units running, to exceed the "Flash Point" of "Jet A Vapors"
> within
> > the ambient atmospheric conditions.
>
> It is all bull****, Ralph; all an attempt to save TWA's managment from
their
> own bad decisions.
>
Refute the technical issues point by point.

Especially the combined effects of varying "Ambient Atmospheric Pressure",
Temp, & Altitude have on LEL, UEL, Flame & Flash point.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> y.com...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> > > m...
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > I have stated that
> > > >
> > > > A=: "The Boeing CWT Design Philosophy" results in an "Inherently
> > > Dangerous
> > > > Situation" across a broad spectrum of a Boeing A/C/s flight profile.
> > >
> > > An out and out lie and a conclusion which Nesbitt is completely
> unqualified
> > > to draw.
> > >
> > > <snip of additional false statements>
> > >
> > Challenge FAA & NTSB, not the messenger, "Me".
>
> FAA has already capitulated to the "wire fire" theory and NTSB is of no
> concern to me.
>
<snip>
>
Please elucidate as to "Detail & Specifics" re;"your statement above.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >
> > > "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> > > y.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> > > > > y.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > > > -Gord.
> > > > > > Merry Christmas to you/yours Gord. Glad to see the "Sensible Old
> > > Hands" are
> > > > > > still around/lurking ADA.
> > > > >
> > > > > Look here, Nesbitt, as long as you are calling 747s "bombs", you
are
> a
> > > nut.
> > >
> > > > Why does my wishing some 1 Merry Christmas cause you such "Heart
> Burn".
> > >
> > > No, Ralph, it is you attempting to include yourself in some "sensible
> old
> > > hands" group, that gives me alarm; as you are a nut calling 747s
> "bombs".
> > > Do you have any clue how humiliated Cal Tech is for that little stunt?
> >
> > Are you referring to the 'explosive mix' experiment that was conducted
> using
> > propane ? IIRC as a substitute for Jet A fumes ?
>
> Propane and hydrogen was the mix used by Cal Tech and they are now
> humiliated for the stunt nation wide. No longer will America's
Universities
> even consider lending their credibility to NTSB and they can no longer get
a
> University to do work for them.
>
The vapor mix created for use in the tests was molecularly equivalent to
that of Jet A at a specified barometric pressure at a specified temp.

I understand the concept/principal followed, but am not qualified to argue
the fine points of the "Why/How".

Please explain/offer an alternative proposal/method of creating a substance
with the "Molecular Equivalency" of Jet A at varying altitudes & Temps.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[[email protected]]

Pooh Bear > wrote:

>John Mazor wrote:
>
>> "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>> >
>> > "Duster" > wrote in message
>> > . ..
>> > > Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost better
>> > > though..
>> > >
>> > > Duster
>> > >
>> > Tarver cannot get it through his head that having the air handling units
>> > operating under the CWT when the A/C is stationary is like putting a
>> > pressure cooker with a small amount of fuel in it, on a stove at low heat.
>>
>> That, and Tarver being an engineer, reminds me of the old joke: an engineer
>> is someone who thinks that, if your left leg is in a bucket of hot water and
>> your right leg is in a bucket of ice, then on average, you're comfortable.
>
>Maybe your balls are ?
>
>Graham
>
Unless you're quite well endowed, then it depends which side you
dress on. :)
--

-Gord.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> > "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Duster wrote:
> > >
> > > > Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost better
> > > > though..
> > > >
> > > > Duster
> > >
> > > Glad to be of service ;-)
> > >
> > > About time a.d.a talked about real a/c probs instead of crank dip****
> > > conspiracy theories.
> >
> > You mean that crank dip**** Hall?
>
> The TWA 800 enquiry was so badly handled that it was bound to result in
> conspiracy theories regardless of the merits of the variously debated
> scenarios.
>
> So, basically, yes I guess so.

I found Blakey to be a breath of fresh air, in an NTSB rotten to the core.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
.com...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> > > > y.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> > > > > > y.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -Gord.
> > > > > > > Merry Christmas to you/yours Gord. Glad to see the "Sensible
Old Hands" are
> > > > > > > still around/lurking ADA.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Look here, Nesbitt, as long as you are calling 747s "bombs", you
are a nut.
> > > >
> > > > > Why does my wishing some 1 Merry Christmas cause you such "Heart
Burn".
> > > >
> > > > No, Ralph, it is you attempting to include yourself in some
"sensible old
> > > > hands" group, that gives me alarm; as you are a nut calling 747s
"bombs".
> > > > Do you have any clue how humiliated Cal Tech is for that little
stunt?
> > >
> > > Are you referring to the 'explosive mix' experiment that was conducted
using
> > > propane ? IIRC as a substitute for Jet A fumes ?
> >
> > Propane and hydrogen was the mix used by Cal Tech and they are now
> > humiliated for the stunt nation wide. No longer will America's
Universities
> > even consider lending their credibility to NTSB and they can no longer
get a
> > University to do work for them.
> >
> The vapor mix created for use in the tests was molecularly equivalent to
> that of Jet A at a specified barometric pressure at a specified temp.

What Cal Tech did was peer reviewed to much snickering; don't count on a
sequel.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 05:20:36 GMT, "Ralph Nesbitt"
> wrote:
>
>
> >I have stated that
> >
> >A=: "The Boeing CWT Design Philosophy" results in an "Inherently
Dangerous
> >Situation" across a broad spectrum of a Boeing A/C/s flight profile.
> >
> >B=: This has been determined to be a "Safety of Flight".
> >
> >C=: To minimize/eliminate to the extent possible the "Inherently
Dangerous
> >Situation" due "The Boeing CWT Design Philosophy" across the majority of
the
> >flight spectrum of any given A/C, "Implementation of Specified Operating
> >Protocols" have been mandated by Air Safety Regulation/Safety Oversight
> >Organizations" world wide.
> >
> >To my knowledge nothing "Design Philosophy" wise has changed that would
> >eliminate "The Inherently Dangerous Situation CWT" issue on Boeing A/C
> >across the models with CWT's irrespective of whether a given A/C was #1
from
> >the line or the latest 1 off the line.
> >Ralph Nesbitt
> >Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
> >
> Would you care to provide us with a list of all of the Boeing
> aircraft that have "blown up" due to this "inherantly dangerous"
> condition?
>
> Surely, with the thousands of Boeings operating around the
> world such an "inherently dangerous" condition would
> manifest itself in "aluminum rain".

Most certainly.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
.com...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> > m...
> >
> > >
> > > Hopefully Phil picks this up for his section on "Tarver/Splaps
> > Boy/Splappy.
> >
> > You do know, Ralph, that the spoiler is operated as a flap on 707, 727,
> and
> > 747 Boeing aircraft, by the automatic Yaw damper? That is of course a
> > predictable result, when you parrot Craig, a scab road engineer's
draftsman.
> > (crossing state lines to evade the engineer's Act) The Mazor sock
mighthave
> > been a better choice to parrot, except his puppetmaster Marron was never
> > more that a turboprop operator. (with knowledge of a large transport)
> >
> Interesting statement. I am sure there will be appropriate responses.

Here is some more shocking news for you, Kris is the most qualified to post
WRT a pilot's view of a large transport, of regular ada posters.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> What Cal Tech did was peer reviewed to much snickering; don't count on a
> sequel.

Then you should be able to cite some good scathing peer reviews, right?

The NTSB seems to have agreed with the obvious results (like the heating
problems from the air conditioners, which puts the fuel/air ignition
temps up into the "oh ****" range...).

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > What Cal Tech did was peer reviewed to much snickering; don't count on a
> > sequel.
>
> Then you should be able to cite some good scathing peer reviews, right?

I could put forward the outright refusal of the University system refusing
to do any more work for NTSB, due to their misuse of the material. As usual
though, I will expect you to do your own research.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> I could put forward the outright refusal of the University system refusing
> to do any more work for NTSB, due to their misuse of the material.

Then you have a link, or a reference which mentions this, right?

> As usual though, I will expect you to do your own research.

As usual, it doesn't exist, and you were hoping nobody would notice.

And you're not even going to mention the two other Boeing-made planes
(737s in Manila 1991, and Bangkok 2001) which have exploded on the
ground from exactly the sort of fuel-tank problem that got TWA 800,
right?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > I could put forward the outright refusal of the University system
refusing
> > to do any more work for NTSB, due to their misuse of the material.
>
> Then you have a link, or a reference which mentions this, right?
>
> > As usual though, I will expect you to do your own research.
>
> As usual, it doesn't exist, and you were hoping nobody would notice.

More likely, it doesn't really matter what you imagine, Chad.

> And you're not even going to mention the two other Boeing-made planes
> (737s in Manila 1991, and Bangkok 2001) which have exploded on the
> ground from exactly the sort of fuel-tank problem that got TWA 800,
> right?

No, in fact that detail has already been covered; in this thread. There is
an AD covering the 737 -300 and earlier wire bundle problem. The idea that
their is a "design philosophy" that causes 747 CWT's to be bombs is nutty.
The 747 not only lacks the "too short" wire bundle of some 737s, but that
bundle is not even routed through the CWT in 747s, like the 737.

The best part was when Blakey invalidated the NTSB's 737 rudder PCU finding.
When she tied USAir 427 to "rudder reversal, due to flow seperation", the
blatant waste of money Hall's NTSB was comes into full focus.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:


> No, in fact that detail has already been covered; in this thread. There is
> an AD covering the 737 -300 and earlier wire bundle problem. The idea that
> their is a "design philosophy" that causes 747 CWT's to be bombs is nutty.

Well, since it's you claiming that it's "nutty," it's pretty much 100%
certain that that's exactly what causes it.

And it's really funny that, since you claim there's no problem, Boeing
just spent all of theat time and money redesigning their fuel tanks...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
>
> > No, in fact that detail has already been covered; in this thread. There
is
> > an AD covering the 737 -300 and earlier wire bundle problem. The idea
that
> > their is a "design philosophy" that causes 747 CWT's to be bombs is
nutty.
>
> Well, since it's you claiming that it's "nutty," it's pretty much 100%
> certain that that's exactly what causes it.

What "it" are you after there, my lun?

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> m...
> > In article >,
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >
> >
> > > No, in fact that detail has already been covered; in this thread.
There
> is
> > > an AD covering the 737 -300 and earlier wire bundle problem. The idea
> that
> > > their is a "design philosophy" that causes 747 CWT's to be bombs is
> nutty.
> >
> > Well, since it's you claiming that it's "nutty," it's pretty much 100%
> > certain that that's exactly what causes it.
>
> What "it" are you after there, my lun?
>
Tarver will it ever get through to you an "Inherent Danger" was identified
in "The Classic Boeing CWT Design Philosophy".

To minimize/reduce this "Inherent Danger" it was necessary to carry
additional fuel in the CWT of Boeing A/C with CWT's based on "The Classic
Boeing CWT Design Philosophy". This increased operating costs for the
following reasons;

A:= Necessary to carry extra fuel in CWT reducing "Payload".

B:= Carry fuel normally carried in wing tanks in CWT, resulting in wing
stress issues shortening life of A/C.

C:= A & B above resulted in reduced "Market Value" of Boeing A/C with CWT's
of "The Classic Boeing CWT Design Philosophy".

A, B, & C above resulted in Air Bus taking over a greater % of the market
for "Pax A/C". This is why Air Bus has delivered more Pax A/C this year &
probably will for some time until Boeing can fully implement the "New CWT
Design Philosophy" across its product line.

The above reasons are the basis for Boeing changing it's "CWT Design
Philosophy".

Some have made logical arguments Tarver is not the "Swiftest" re; A/C
electronic issues, & he certainly has no grasp of the CWT issue.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> What "it" are you after there, my lun?

The "it" you chopped out of the reply.

Still can't even spell your insults, eh Tarver?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Jim Knoyle]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> > > > > y.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Splappy you are beginning to get so far out in the "Briar Patch"
> > > beyond
> > > > > the
> > > > > > "Facility's Left Field Fence" you can barely be "Heard".
> > > > >
> > > > > I am completely mainstream. It is your insistance on lying about
> the
> > > > > reliability of the 747 that is out in the ozone, Ralph. There is
> > > nothing
> > > > > wrong with the airplane, as it comes from the factory.
> > >
> > > > Your "burning electricity caused section 40 to fall off" theory
> > > > sure finds fault with the electrical fault isolation design and
> > > > you accuse Boeing of installing an undocumented section
> > > > to boot! Suggest you brush up on chapters 6 and 24.
> > >
> > > Undocumented in what way, Jimmy loon?
> > >
> > Undocumented as in nonexistant.
>
> Jimmy, there is no possibility that you could know what you are writting.
>
> The truely fantastic part, is the notion of a grease monkey aregueing with
a
> systems engineer, about how an airplane works. You couldn't be more of an
> idiot, Knoyle.
>
>
I'm sure everybody notices the selective snipping again but I
wonder if they know that by refusing to comment about sta. 520
you yet again shoot yourself in the foot! :-)
My earlier mention of sta. 520 was partly leaning in your favor.
That three phase wiring run that you claim burnt would run between
the P14/15 panels in the E/E compartment up to the upper deck in
the vicinity of sta. 520 *and* sta. 520 is the precise location of
the section 41/42 join. A real engineer would know that and not
let his paranoia get the better of him.

By the way, I was an R&E and not a grease monkey.
(Not that there is anything wrong with being an A&P)

JK

[Jim Knoyle]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> om...
> > In article >,
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >
> > > I could put forward the outright refusal of the University system
> refusing
> > > to do any more work for NTSB, due to their misuse of the material.
> >
> > Then you have a link, or a reference which mentions this, right?
> >
> > > As usual though, I will expect you to do your own research.
> >
> > As usual, it doesn't exist, and you were hoping nobody would notice.
>
> More likely, it doesn't really matter what you imagine, Chad.
>
> > And you're not even going to mention the two other Boeing-made planes
> > (737s in Manila 1991, and Bangkok 2001) which have exploded on the
> > ground from exactly the sort of fuel-tank problem that got TWA 800,
> > right?
>
> No, in fact that detail has already been covered; in this thread. There
is
> an AD covering the 737 -300 and earlier wire bundle problem. The idea
that
> their is a "design philosophy" that causes 747 CWT's to be bombs is nutty.
> The 747 not only lacks the "too short" wire bundle of some 737s, but that
> bundle is not even routed through the CWT in 747s, like the 737.
>
Wrong again, Tarver! There is a single connector with shielded wiring
running from said connector to each of the probes in the tank. The
setup is identical for both the 737 and 747 (and all other Boeing
transports, for that matter) with the only difference being in the number
of probes per tank. That is the only wiring inside the tank i.e. passive
fuel quantity probes (capacitors). As I've said before, the fuel pump
motors and valve actuators are outside of the tank.
Yes, John, I've assisted in the replacement of dozens of fuel qty.
harnesses, though most were 737s.

> The best part was when Blakey invalidated the NTSB's 737 rudder PCU
finding.
> When she tied USAir 427 to "rudder reversal, due to flow seperation", the
> blatant waste of money Hall's NTSB was comes into full focus.
>
>
No comment.

JK

[Pooh Bear]

Jim Knoyle wrote:

< snip>

> Wrong again, Tarver! There is a single connector with shielded wiring
> running from said connector to each of the probes in the tank. The
> setup is identical for both the 737 and 747 (and all other Boeing
> transports, for that matter) with the only difference being in the number
> of probes per tank. That is the only wiring inside the tank i.e. passive
> fuel quantity probes (capacitors). As I've said before, the fuel pump
> motors and valve actuators are outside of the tank.

Uh ?

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression that certain pumps
(scavenge ?) were located internally to the tank, using fuel as a coolant IIRC
too.

Some pumps ( 737s - late models ? ) were shown to have been mis-manufactured
resulting in a possible spark hazard when worn due to internal wire chafing.

This was a while back - someone must also remember this ?


Graham

[Jim Knoyle]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
>
> Jim Knoyle wrote:
>
> < snip>
>
> > Wrong again, Tarver! There is a single connector with shielded wiring
> > running from said connector to each of the probes in the tank. The
> > setup is identical for both the 737 and 747 (and all other Boeing
> > transports, for that matter) with the only difference being in the
number
> > of probes per tank. That is the only wiring inside the tank i.e. passive
> > fuel quantity probes (capacitors). As I've said before, the fuel pump
> > motors and valve actuators are outside of the tank.
>
> Uh ?
>
> Please correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression that certain
pumps
> (scavenge ?) were located internally to the tank, using fuel as a coolant
IIRC
> too.
>
Fuel is cycled through the pump for cooling *but* in all cases the
pumps can be removed and replaced from outside the tanks
without tank entry. All three 747 ctr tank pumps can be replaced
from the wheelwell. Lt. and rt. 737 ctr tank pumps can be replaced
by removing an underwing plate, pulling the shutoff valve handle and
removing/installing the pump. They are pretty much 'plugged into'
the plumbing.

> Some pumps ( 737s - late models ? ) were shown to have been
mis-manufactured
> resulting in a possible spark hazard when worn due to internal wire
chafing.
>
> This was a while back - someone must also remember this ?
>

I read about that too but never was involved with this in 27 years
at a Major. Lots of potentially serious problems are found and
avoided/fixed by the way the system is set up. I've found a few
myself . That reminds me of the two guys at UAL who got the
award for devising the pins for keeping JT9D cowlings from
slipping out of track on 747s.

JK

[Tarver Engineering]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
>
> Jim Knoyle wrote:

> Uh ?

Knoyle doesn't remember anything Graham, he just spews.

Which proves once and for all, you can point an idiot to an Airworthyness
Directive, but you can't expect him to be able to read it.

[Scott M. Kozel]

"Idiot" > wrote:
>
> "Pooh Bear" > wrote:
> > Jim Knoyle wrote:
>
> > Uh ?
>
> Knoyle doesn't remember anything Graham, he just spews.

Pot, kettle, black.

> Which proves once and for all, you can point an idiot to an Airworthyness
> Directive, but you can't expect him to be able to read it.

Pot, kettle, black.

[Dr. George O. Bizzigotti]

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 08:55:57 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>Propane and hydrogen was the mix used by Cal Tech and they are now
>humiliated for the stunt nation wide.

Really? According to the US News and World Report's rankings, Cal Tech
is tied for 5th with Duke, Stanford and the University of Pennsylvania
among the 248 universities in the country (162 public and 86 private)
that offer a wide range of undergraduate majors as well as master's
and doctoral degrees:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/natudoc/tier1/t1natudoc_brief.php

It must be so humiliating to trail only Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and
MIT! (I fully realize that such rankings are highly subjective, but if
Cal Tech had really been humiliated nationwide, one might expect it to
affect such rankings.) Perhaps Cal Tech fired the guy responsible for
their humiliation? Oops, Joseph Shepherd was promoted to full
Professor of Aeronautics in 1999. Perhaps students have noticed this
humiliation and are going elsewhere? Oops, they get roughly 3,000
applications for about 215 places in the freshman class.

Is there any objective evidence that they have been humiliated, or is
this just Mr. Tarver's impression?

Curious readers might also note that the Cal Tech research group
conducted several hundred combustion experiments with Jet A besides
the propane/hydrogen/air experiments. They might also note that back
on Thu, 24 May 2001 11:45:45 -0700, Mr. Tarver acknowledged that he
had not read any of the reports published by Cal Tech's Explosion
Dynamics Laboratory, because "any credibility Cal Tech ever had with
me left when their potato gun was on National News." How his
preference for sound bite science affects his credibility is left as
an exercise to the reader.

>No longer will America's Universities
>even consider lending their credibility to NTSB and they can no longer get a
>University to do work for them.

Can Mr. Tarver cite an instance where a NTSB tried to get a University
to work for them and failed to do so? Details such as which University
and which request for proposal might be helpful.

Regards,

George
************************************************** ********************
Dr. George O. Bizzigotti Telephone: (703) 610-2115
Mitretek Systems, Inc. Fax: (703) 610-1558
3150 Fairview Park Drive South E-Mail:
Falls Church, Virginia, 22042-4519
************************************************** ********************

[Tarver Engineering]

"Dr. George O. Bizzigotti" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 08:55:57 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >Propane and hydrogen was the mix used by Cal Tech and they are now
> >humiliated for the stunt nation wide.
>
> Really? According to the US News and World Report's rankings, Cal Tech
> is tied for 5th with Duke, Stanford and the University of Pennsylvania
> among the 248 universities in the country (162 public and 86 private)
> that offer a wide range of undergraduate majors as well as master's
> and doctoral degrees:

Yes, Cal Tech has an excellent reputation in the sciences; which made the
NTSB's misrepresentation of the "potato gun" all the more embarrassing. I
believe California has the best Universities in the World.

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > In article >,
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I could put forward the outright refusal of the University system
> > refusing
> > > > to do any more work for NTSB, due to their misuse of the material.
> > >
> > > Then you have a link, or a reference which mentions this, right?
> > >
> > > > As usual though, I will expect you to do your own research.
> > >
> > > As usual, it doesn't exist, and you were hoping nobody would notice.
> >
> > More likely, it doesn't really matter what you imagine, Chad.
> >
> > > And you're not even going to mention the two other Boeing-made planes
> > > (737s in Manila 1991, and Bangkok 2001) which have exploded on the
> > > ground from exactly the sort of fuel-tank problem that got TWA 800,
> > > right?
> >
> > No, in fact that detail has already been covered; in this thread. There
> is
> > an AD covering the 737 -300 and earlier wire bundle problem. The idea
> that
> > their is a "design philosophy" that causes 747 CWT's to be bombs is
nutty.
> > The 747 not only lacks the "too short" wire bundle of some 737s, but
that
> > bundle is not even routed through the CWT in 747s, like the 737.
> >
> Wrong again, Tarver! There is a single connector with shielded wiring
> running from said connector to each of the probes in the tank. The
> setup is identical for both the 737 and 747 (and all other Boeing
> transports, for that matter) with the only difference being in the number
> of probes per tank. That is the only wiring inside the tank i.e. passive
> fuel quantity probes (capacitors). As I've said before, the fuel pump
> motors and valve actuators are outside of the tank.
> Yes, John, I've assisted in the replacement of dozens of fuel qty.
> harnesses, though most were 737s.
>
<snip>
>
> JK
>
Thanks for verifying/validating a "Consistent Boeing CWT Design Philosophy"
used on all Boeing Models with CWT's.

It is my understanding Boeing has changed it's "CWT Design Philosophy" to
minimize/eliminate the "Inherent Danger" of the older "Design Philosophy.

In the future I will refer to the new CWT design Philosophy as "NEW" & the
older 1 as "Heritage".
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Dr. George O. Bizzigotti" > wrote in message
...
>
<snip>
> Regards,
>
> George
> ************************************************** ********************
Best wishes for the "Holidays" to you/yours.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott M. Kozel" > wrote in message
...
> "Idiot" > wrote:
> >
> > "Pooh Bear" > wrote:
> > > Jim Knoyle wrote:
> >
> > > Uh ?
> >
> > Knoyle doesn't remember anything Graham, he just spews.
>
> Pot, kettle, black.

Not the case, Kozel, the fuel tank differences between the 737 and 747 are
well known and the AD to the 737 fuel tank is also well known and public.

> > Which proves once and for all, you can point an idiot to an
Airworthyness
> > Directive, but you can't expect him to be able to read it.
>
> Pot, kettle, black.

For Jimmy troll to claim to be ex-United, is especially a hoot, as United
didn't bother "inspecting and replacing the bundle as necessary", but
replaced every single suspect bundle in every suspect 737 they flew.

That is, of course, the reason the pre and some -300 737s have a higher
incidence of CWT problems and also completely different from a 747 CWT.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
> ...

> Thanks for verifying/validating a "Consistent Boeing CWT Design
Philosophy"
> used on all Boeing Models with CWT's.
>
> It is my understanding Boeing has changed it's "CWT Design Philosophy" to
> minimize/eliminate the "Inherent Danger" of the older "Design Philosophy.

Why would Knoyle have any knowledge of any "design philosophy", for any
airplane, anywhere in this universe?

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > Thanks for verifying/validating a "Consistent Boeing CWT Design
> Philosophy"
> > used on all Boeing Models with CWT's.
> >
> > It is my understanding Boeing has changed it's "CWT Design Philosophy"
to
> > minimize/eliminate the "Inherent Danger" of the older "Design
Philosophy.
>
> Why would Knoyle have any knowledge of any "design philosophy", for any
> airplane, anywhere in this universe?
>
People who work with/around numerous things in whatever capacity have
numerous reasons to have a "broad basic understanding of the "Design
Philosophy" of what ever they are working with.

Identifying/Having a Basic Understanding of differing Architectural
Philosophies is necessary for FD Personnel to do their job properly. The
same applies to CFR/ARFF Personnel.

His description of CWT's across the "Boeing Commercial Pax Product Line",
you conveniently "Creatively Sniped" in your response above, speaks for
itself. To work on/repair anything, especially something as sophisticated as
a modern commercial pax A/C, requires some familiarity with the design
philosophies involved.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> >
> > > Thanks for verifying/validating a "Consistent Boeing CWT Design
> > Philosophy"
> > > used on all Boeing Models with CWT's.
> > >
> > > It is my understanding Boeing has changed it's "CWT Design Philosophy"
> to
> > > minimize/eliminate the "Inherent Danger" of the older "Design
> Philosophy.
> >
> > Why would Knoyle have any knowledge of any "design philosophy", for any
> > airplane, anywhere in this universe?
> >
> People who work with/around numerous things in whatever capacity have
> numerous reasons to have a "broad basic understanding of the "Design
> Philosophy" of what ever they are working with.

Knoyle has created an entire archive of his own misunderstandings of how an
airplane works. Therefore your attempt to draw credibility for your
statements that the 747 CWT is a "bomb", can not come from Jimmy.

Once again, Ralph, Boeing made some boost pump wire bundles for early 737s
that run throuh the CWT too short, that error created a "source of
ignition"; but it has absolutely nothing to do with the 747 CWT. The bundle
is not only lacking a "too short" error for the 747 boost pumps, but the
bundle is also routed differently.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> Once again, Ralph, Boeing made some boost pump wire bundles for early 737s
> that run throuh the CWT too short, that error created a "source of
> ignition"; but it has absolutely nothing to do with the 747 CWT.

But the rest of the flawed electrical equipment in the 747 could, as
shown by the various TWA 800 investigations.

Funny how you keep harping on the one thing you *think* you know, but
keep "forgetting" the rest...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > Once again, Ralph, Boeing made some boost pump wire bundles for early
737s
> > that run throuh the CWT too short, that error created a "source of
> > ignition"; but it has absolutely nothing to do with the 747 CWT.
>
> But the rest of the flawed electrical equipment in the 747 could, as
> shown by the various TWA 800 investigations.

There was never anything wrong with the electrical system on a factory 747
and what you write is nutty.

> Funny how you keep harping on the one thing you *think* you know, but
> keep "forgetting" the rest...

In fact, I am deleting video and cartoon evidence from the record. I have
shown where several of the sales tools NTSB used to peddle their pre-drawn
conclusion in a technocratic way. The statistical evidence since that time
points to a large flaw in NTSB's motives, but no problem with the 747.

[Chad Irby]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> There was never anything wrong with the electrical system on a factory 747
> and what you write is nutty.

"A factory 747." I note that you neglect to mention a 747 that had been
flying for a few years. And I also note that you don't mention the very
specific problems with older 747s...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Pooh Bear]

Chad Irby wrote:

> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > There was never anything wrong with the electrical system on a factory 747
> > and what you write is nutty.
>
> "A factory 747." I note that you neglect to mention a 747 that had been
> flying for a few years. And I also note that you don't mention the very
> specific problems with older 747s...

I suspect that was intentional. A 'factory new' 747 is assuredly fine. The FAA
says so for one !

What I suspect few expected was that some of the early a/c would continue to fly
so long, being the solid brick ****houses that they are.

Also, in depth knowledge of wire ageing was in its infancy when the 747 came off
the drawing board.

I confess to having learnt a great deal about ageing issues when it came to TWA
800.

One of the most interesting subtle issues was the surely well intentioned use of
silver plated crimp connectors in the FQIS. Turns out that after a few decades,
the sulphur in the fuel has combined sufficiently with the silver on the
connector to form a semi-conductive silver sulphide film on terminal blocks,
capable of providing an ignition source if sufficient voltage is applied.

The lessson has been learnt - thanks in part IIRC to a Tower Air 747 that
reported erratic fuel quantity readings.

These days nickel plated parts are used.


Graham

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> . com...
> > In article >,
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >
> > > Once again, Ralph, Boeing made some boost pump wire bundles for early
> 737s
> > > that run throuh the CWT too short, that error created a "source of
> > > ignition"; but it has absolutely nothing to do with the 747 CWT.
> >
> > But the rest of the flawed electrical equipment in the 747 could, as
> > shown by the various TWA 800 investigations.
>
> There was never anything wrong with the electrical system on a factory 747
> and what you write is nutty.
>
> > Funny how you keep harping on the one thing you *think* you know, but
> > keep "forgetting" the rest...
>
> In fact, I am deleting video and cartoon evidence from the record. I have
> shown where several of the sales tools NTSB used to peddle their pre-drawn
> conclusion in a technocratic way. The statistical evidence since that
time
> points to a large flaw in NTSB's motives, but no problem with the 747.
>
Why did Boeing spend the money to change their "Basic CWT Design Philosophy"
& implement this "CWT Design Philosophy" across all commercial Pax AC with
CWT's?

Why has the operating costs of all Boeing Commercial A/C with CWT's
increased to eliminate the "Inherent Danger" associated with the "Heritage
Boeing CWT Design Philosophy"?

Why has the value of all Boeing A/C built to the "Heritage Boeing CWT Design
Philosophy" decreased in value?

Why have the "Maintence Costs" of Boeing A/C built to "Heritage Boeing CWT
Design Philosophy" increased exponentially because of the need to eliminate
the "Inherent Danger" associated with the ""Heritage Boeing CWT Design
Philosophy"?
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> You do know, Ralph, that the spoiler is operated as a flap on 707, 727, and
> 747 Boeing aircraft, by the automatic Yaw damper?

I have seen nothing in any manual that associates the spoilers in the 747-400
with the yaw dampers, and have not seen any wiring diagram that indicates they
are connected. I don't think the yaw damper has any control over the spoilers
in the 744.

[Scott M. Kozel]

"John R Weiss" > wrote:
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> > You do know, Ralph, that the spoiler is operated as a flap on 707, 727, and
> > 747 Boeing aircraft, by the automatic Yaw damper?
>
> I have seen nothing in any manual that associates the spoilers in the 747-400
> with the yaw dampers, and have not seen any wiring diagram that indicates they
> are connected. I don't think the yaw damper has any control over the spoilers
> in the 744.

John "Splaps Boy" Tarver is famous for inventing nonexistent aircraft parts.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...

<snip>
> One of the most interesting subtle issues was the surely well intentioned
use of
> silver plated crimp connectors in the FQIS. Turns out that after a few
decades,
> the sulphur in the fuel has combined sufficiently with the silver on the
> connector to form a semi-conductive silver sulphide film on terminal
blocks,
> capable of providing an ignition source if sufficient voltage is applied.

That ignition source relies on the 140 Ampres of three phase under the
flight deck floor of TWA-800. (ie upper deck alley) The best that can be
said for TWA-800 is that the market punished the perpitrators perfectly.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
gy.com...

<snip>
> Why did Boeing spend the money to change their "Basic CWT Design
Philosophy"
> & implement this "CWT Design Philosophy" across all commercial Pax AC with
> CWT's?

Politics; the same reason NTSB lied in the first palce.

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> gy.com...
>
> <snip>
> > Why did Boeing spend the money to change their "Basic CWT Design
> Philosophy"
> > & implement this "CWT Design Philosophy" across all commercial Pax AC
with
> > CWT's?
>
> Politics; the same reason NTSB lied in the first palce.
>
IMHO "Market Pressure" would be a better description of why the change was
made.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Pooh Bear]

Tarver Engineering wrote:

> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> <snip>
> > One of the most interesting subtle issues was the surely well intentioned
> use of
> > silver plated crimp connectors in the FQIS. Turns out that after a few
> decades,
> > the sulphur in the fuel has combined sufficiently with the silver on the
> > connector to form a semi-conductive silver sulphide film on terminal
> blocks,
> > capable of providing an ignition source if sufficient voltage is applied.
>
> That ignition source relies on the 140 Ampres of three phase under the
> flight deck floor of TWA-800. (ie upper deck alley) The best that can be
> said for TWA-800 is that the market punished the perpitrators perfectly.

Actually, the Smiths Industries ? report on an ex Tower Air cwt terminal block
indicated visible flame with 9V applied from a 'transistor radio battery' IIRC.



Graham