X-43A successful flight [Archive]

Tarver Engineering

March 30th 04, 06:13 PM

"Michael Zaharis" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > "Michael Zaharis" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>
> >>Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >>
> >>>It is a new B-52, so you didn't see what you thought.
> >>
> >>Wrong. It was one of the older B-52s. Note the tall tale, indicating
> >>that it is not the new H- model that NASA recently converted.
> >>
> >>http://www.cnn.com/interactive/space/0403/gallery.x43/gal.02.nasa.jpg
> >
> >
> > You are correct. My friends at Dryden had assured me that the H would
be
> > flying the payload and I am wrong.

> BTW, how has the -H been deveoped? I remember some dire warnings early
> on when that aircraft was added to the fleet that it would not be able
> to fulfill all of the roles that the old -Bs do. Have they been able to
> work around that?

My information is that the L-1011 launch airplane has them beat in payload
and climb rate. A lot of work has been done on the H WRT instrumentation
and I know it was expected to debute with the X-43 launch.

> Will they eventually retire the final -B carrier and rely fully on the -H?

That is something that was already supposed to have happened.

Michael Zaharis

March 30th 04, 07:07 PM

Tarver Engineering wrote:

> "Michael Zaharis" > wrote in message
>
>>BTW, how has the -H been deveoped? I remember some dire warnings early
>>on when that aircraft was added to the fleet that it would not be able
>>to fulfill all of the roles that the old -Bs do. Have they been able to
>>work around that?
>
>
> My information is that the L-1011 launch airplane has them beat in payload
> and climb rate. A lot of work has been done on the H WRT instrumentation
> and I know it was expected to debute with the X-43 launch.
>
>
>>Will they eventually retire the final -B carrier and rely fully on the -H?
>
>
> That is something that was already supposed to have happened.
>
>

Thanks.

Limey Dave

March 30th 04, 11:06 PM

"JL Grasso" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 08:03:38 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Michael Zaharis" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>
> >> Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >> > It is a new B-52, so you didn't see what you thought.
> >>
> >> Wrong. It was one of the older B-52s. Note the tall tale, indicating
> >> that it is not the new H- model that NASA recently converted.
> >>
> >> http://www.cnn.com/interactive/space/0403/gallery.x43/gal.02.nasa.jpg
> >
> >You are correct. My friends at Dryden had assured me that the H would be
> >flying the payload and I am wrong.
>
> As per . . .
>
>
Extremely UNusual on the other hand........for him to acknowledge it.

Limey.

Tom Mosher

March 31st 04, 12:03 AM

Michael Zaharis > wrote in message >...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > It is a new B-52, so you didn't see what you thought.
>
> Wrong. It was one of the older B-52s. Note the tall tale, indicating
> that it is not the new H- model that NASA recently converted.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/interactive/space/0403/gallery.x43/gal.02.nasa.jpg

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/FactSheets/FS-005-DFRC.html

Rich Ahrens

March 31st 04, 12:11 AM

Limey Dave wrote:

> "JL Grasso" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 08:03:38 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Michael Zaharis" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Tarver Engineering wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>It is a new B-52, so you didn't see what you thought.
>>>>
>>>>Wrong. It was one of the older B-52s. Note the tall tale, indicating
>>>>that it is not the new H- model that NASA recently converted.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.cnn.com/interactive/space/0403/gallery.x43/gal.02.nasa.jpg
>>>
>>>You are correct. My friends at Dryden had assured me that the H would be
>>>flying the payload and I am wrong.
>>
>>As per . . .
>>
>>
>
> Extremely UNusual on the other hand........for him to acknowledge it.

Yeah, but notice he blamed it on someone else and tried to impress with
his alleged inside contacts. Par for the course for Splappy.

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

Tarver Engineering

March 31st 04, 12:21 AM

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
isi.com...
> Limey Dave wrote:
>
> > "JL Grasso" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 08:03:38 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Michael Zaharis" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>It is a new B-52, so you didn't see what you thought.
> >>>>
> >>>>Wrong. It was one of the older B-52s. Note the tall tale, indicating
> >>>>that it is not the new H- model that NASA recently converted.
> >>>>
> >>>>http://www.cnn.com/interactive/space/0403/gallery.x43/gal.02.nasa.jpg
> >>>
> >>>You are correct. My friends at Dryden had assured me that the H would
be
> >>>flying the payload and I am wrong.
> >>
> >>As per . . .

> > Extremely UNusual on the other hand........for him to acknowledge it.
>
> Yeah, but notice he blamed it on someone else and tried to impress with
> his alleged inside contacts. Par for the course for Splappy.

I have been around enough B-52s to recognize the tall tail, so I can't blame
my mistake on someone else.

Tarver Engineering

March 31st 04, 12:52 AM

"AbsolutelyCertain" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> > isi.com...
> > > Limey Dave wrote:
> > >
> > > > "JL Grasso" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > >>On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 08:03:38 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > >
> > > >>wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>"Michael Zaharis" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>It is a new B-52, so you didn't see what you thought.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>Wrong. It was one of the older B-52s. Note the tall tale,
> indicating
> > > >>>>that it is not the new H- model that NASA recently converted.
> > > >>>>
> > >
> >>>>http://www.cnn.com/interactive/space/0403/gallery.x43/gal.02.nasa.jpg
> > > >>>
> > > >>>You are correct. My friends at Dryden had assured me that the H
> would
> > be
> > > >>>flying the payload and I am wrong.
> > > >>
> > > >>As per . . .
> >
> > > > Extremely UNusual on the other hand........for him to acknowledge
it.
> > >
> > > Yeah, but notice he blamed it on someone else and tried to impress
with
> > > his alleged inside contacts. Par for the course for Splappy.
> >
> > I have been around enough B-52s to recognize the tall tail, so I can't
blame
> > my mistake on someone else.
>
> Yes, John. We pretty much associate you with the Tall Tail. If you know
> what I mean.

Since the short tail B-52 has no ailerons and uses spoilers in their place,
I would have thought you would associate me with the "H". After all, it is
the airplane that puts the lie to Mazor's clueless troll, no matter how cute
the nickname is.

Mike Dargan

March 31st 04, 03:42 AM

Suppose someone made an airliner capable of zooming from London to Tokyo
with a top speed of 5,000 mph. Would would be the minimum realistic G
forces that the passengers would experience going up, and coming down?

Also, wouldn't the vehicle be rather hot once it landed?

Cheers

--mike

Stephen Harding wrote:
> Chad Irby wrote:
>
>> The X-43A flew this afternoon.
>>
>> 4780 miles per hour.
>>
>> Not bad.
>
>
> Especially for a 12 foot length/4 ft wingspan!
>
> Makes it tough to get a ride though.
>
>
> SMH
>
>

Mary Shafer

March 31st 04, 04:03 AM

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:56:14 -0500, Michael Zaharis
> wrote:

> BTW, how has the -H been deveoped? I remember some dire warnings early
> on when that aircraft was added to the fleet that it would not be able
> to fulfill all of the roles that the old -Bs do. Have they been able to
> work around that?

It was modified to carry some vehicles, but it still can't carry all
of them. I've forgotten what the limit is. Weight, maybe. So the
way we're dealing with it is to keep the NB-52B flying for another
year or so. I assume this is how long the vehicle that the H can't
carry should be flying, although I understand the H is scheduled for
further modifications down the road.

> Will they eventually retire the final -B carrier and rely fully on the -H?

I don't understand what you mean by "the final -B" here. There is
only one NB-52B, 008. Its predecessor, 006, was the NB-52A and it's
at Davis-Monthan now.

In any even, yes, we will eventually retire 008 and rely on the new
NB-52H.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

running with scissors

March 31st 04, 05:14 AM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "AbsolutelyCertain" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> > > isi.com...
> > > > Limey Dave wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "JL Grasso" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > >>On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 08:03:38 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> >
> > > > >>wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>"Michael Zaharis" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>It is a new B-52, so you didn't see what you thought.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>Wrong. It was one of the older B-52s. Note the tall tale,
> indicating
> > > > >>>>that it is not the new H- model that NASA recently converted.
> > > > >>>>
>
> http://www.cnn.com/interactive/space/0403/gallery.x43/gal.02.nasa.jpg
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>You are correct. My friends at Dryden had assured me that the H
> would
> be
> > > > >>>flying the payload and I am wrong.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>As per . . .
>
> > > > > Extremely UNusual on the other hand........for him to acknowledge
> it.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, but notice he blamed it on someone else and tried to impress
> with
> > > > his alleged inside contacts. Par for the course for Splappy.
> > >
> > > I have been around enough B-52s to recognize the tall tail, so I can't
> blame
> > > my mistake on someone else.
> >
> > Yes, John. We pretty much associate you with the Tall Tail. If you know
> > what I mean.
>
> Since the short tail B-52 has no ailerons and uses spoilers in their place,
> I would have thought you would associate me with the "H".

no john you are only associated with the "splap" and thunderbird.

Phil Miller

March 31st 04, 09:11 AM

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 22:06:07 GMT, "Limey Dave" >
wrote:

>
>"JL Grasso" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 08:03:38 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Michael Zaharis" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>> >> > It is a new B-52, so you didn't see what you thought.
>> >>
>> >> Wrong. It was one of the older B-52s. Note the tall tale, indicating
>> >> that it is not the new H- model that NASA recently converted.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.cnn.com/interactive/space/0403/gallery.x43/gal.02.nasa.jpg
>> >
>> >You are correct. My friends at Dryden had assured me that the H would be
>> >flying the payload and I am wrong.
>>
>> As per . . .
>>
>>
>Extremely UNusual on the other hand........for him to acknowledge it.

So UNusual in fact that it is worth archiving. Where did the original
post come from, Jerry? ram?

Phil
--
Great Tarverisms #1

> The Air Speed Indicator (ASI) shows

You made that up, didn't you?

The IAS indicator says IAS, not ASI.

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

John

Michael Zaharis

March 31st 04, 02:31 PM

Mary Shafer wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:56:14 -0500, Michael Zaharis
> > wrote:
>>Will they eventually retire the final -B carrier and rely fully on the -H?
>
>
> I don't understand what you mean by "the final -B" here. There is
> only one NB-52B, 008. Its predecessor, 006, was the NB-52A and it's
> at Davis-Monthan now.
>
> In any even, yes, we will eventually retire 008 and rely on the new
> NB-52H.
>
> Mary
>
I was referring to 008. I hadn't remembered the first NB-52 was an -A.
I thought that they were both -B's.

Actually, I was down at the Pima Air Museum a few weeks ago, showing the
NB-52A, among other aircraft, to my wife and sons. The older son, who
is 3, was thoroughly unimpressed, other than repeatedly uttering the
words "Big airplane!".

Harry Andreas

March 31st 04, 05:42 PM

In article <peqac.41666$JO3.31503@attbi_s04>, Mike Dargan
> wrote:

> Suppose someone made an airliner capable of zooming from London to Tokyo
> with a top speed of 5,000 mph. Would would be the minimum realistic G
> forces that the passengers would experience going up, and coming down?
>
> Also, wouldn't the vehicle be rather hot once it landed?

The G forces going up depend entirely on what type engines the craft uses to
get to the starting speed of the SCRAMJET engine(s). It's possible (and likely)
that it could be no different than a typical commercial flight now, due to
passenger concerns. Once at speed, normal 1 G and glidedown also no
different than commercial flights, except a lot longer.

As for the heat, if the post touchdown taxi is anything like it is at LAX,
the vehicle will be stone cold by the time it gets to the gate.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

running with scissors

March 31st 04, 09:10 PM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Michael Zaharis" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > > It is a new B-52, so you didn't see what you thought.
> >
> > Wrong. It was one of the older B-52s. Note the tall tale, indicating
> > that it is not the new H- model that NASA recently converted.
> >
> > http://www.cnn.com/interactive/space/0403/gallery.x43/gal.02.nasa.jpg
>
> You are correct. My friends at Dryden had assured me that the H would be
> flying the payload and I am wrong.

Liar, you dont have any friends.

BTW congrats on your first ever known admission of an error. or is
this a forged post ?

B2431

March 31st 04, 10:58 PM

(running with scissors)
>Date: 3/31/2004 2:10 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>...
>> "Michael Zaharis" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> >
>> > Tarver Engineering wrote:
>> > > It is a new B-52, so you didn't see what you thought.
>> >
>> > Wrong. It was one of the older B-52s. Note the tall tale, indicating
>> > that it is not the new H- model that NASA recently converted.
>> >
>> > http://www.cnn.com/interactive/space/0403/gallery.x43/gal.02.nasa.jpg
>>
>> You are correct. My friends at Dryden had assured me that the H would be
>> flying the payload and I am wrong.
>
>
>Liar, you dont have any friends.
>
>BTW congrats on your first ever known admission of an error. or is
>this a forged post ?

It has to be a fake. Tarver is a legend in his own mind, is never wrong and
will NEVER say he is. Just ask him.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

OXMORON1

March 31st 04, 11:17 PM

Dan wrote:
>It has to be a fake. Tarver is a legend in his own mind, is never wrong and
>will NEVER say he is. Just ask him.

I think you are wrong this time Dan, Tarver has on rare occasions admitted to
mis-speaking as opposed to another individual who NEVER makes or ADMITS a
mistake or is it misteak?

Rick
MFE

Tarver Engineering

April 1st 04, 12:29 AM

"OXMORON1" > wrote in message
...
> Dan wrote:
> >It has to be a fake. Tarver is a legend in his own mind, is never wrong
and
> >will NEVER say he is. Just ask him.
>
> I think you are wrong this time Dan, Tarver has on rare occasions admitted
to
> mis-speaking as opposed to another individual who NEVER makes or ADMITS a
> mistake or is it misteak?

Dan made a fool of himself for years peddling Knoyle's archive troll, until
he saw the paradox of Knoyle's ignorance. Still no apology.

B2431

April 1st 04, 03:16 AM

>From: "Tarver Engineering"

>"OXMORON1" > wrote in message
...
>> Dan wrote:
>> >It has to be a fake. Tarver is a legend in his own mind, is never wrong
>and
>> >will NEVER say he is. Just ask him.
>>
>> I think you are wrong this time Dan, Tarver has on rare occasions admitted
>to
>> mis-speaking as opposed to another individual who NEVER makes or ADMITS a
>> mistake or is it misteak?
>
>Dan made a fool of himself for years peddling Knoyle's archive troll, until
>he saw the paradox of Knoyle's ignorance. Still no apology.

Tarver, someday you will have to explain to us what "Knoyle's archive troll"
means. Everything I ever cited as coming from you came from a Google search,
not Knoyle's or any of the other sites dedicated to you.

There are similar sites dedicated to you in several forums from hot air
balooning to cars to homebuilt aircraft to this one. You have made such a fool
of yourself in all those forums that people collect the "tarverisms" into
sites. They are not all made by Knoyle or any other individual.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Tarver Engineering

April 1st 04, 03:19 AM

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>
> >"OXMORON1" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Dan wrote:
> >> >It has to be a fake. Tarver is a legend in his own mind, is never
wrong
> >and
> >> >will NEVER say he is. Just ask him.
> >>
> >> I think you are wrong this time Dan, Tarver has on rare occasions
admitted
> >to
> >> mis-speaking as opposed to another individual who NEVER makes or ADMITS
a
> >> mistake or is it misteak?
> >
> >Dan made a fool of himself for years peddling Knoyle's archive troll,
until
> >he saw the paradox of Knoyle's ignorance. Still no apology.
>
>
> Tarver, someday you will have to explain to us what "Knoyle's archive
troll"
> means. Everything I ever cited as coming from you came from a Google
search,
> not Knoyle's or any of the other sites dedicated to you.

Right. :)

> There are similar sites dedicated to you in several forums from hot air
> balooning to cars to homebuilt aircraft to this one. You have made such a
fool
> of yourself in all those forums that people collect the "tarverisms" into
> sites. They are not all made by Knoyle or any other individual.

I made up the term Tarverism.

Be a man Dan and post up that apology.

Limey Dave

April 1st 04, 04:26 AM

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
isi.com...
> Limey Dave wrote:
>
> > "JL Grasso" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 08:03:38 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Michael Zaharis" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>It is a new B-52, so you didn't see what you thought.
> >>>>
> >>>>Wrong. It was one of the older B-52s. Note the tall tale, indicating
> >>>>that it is not the new H- model that NASA recently converted.
> >>>>
> >>>>http://www.cnn.com/interactive/space/0403/gallery.x43/gal.02.nasa.jpg
> >>>
> >>>You are correct. My friends at Dryden had assured me that the H would
be
> >>>flying the payload and I am wrong.
> >>
> >>As per . . .
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Extremely UNusual on the other hand........for him to acknowledge it.
>
> Yeah, but notice he blamed it on someone else and tried to impress with
> his alleged inside contacts. Par for the course for Splappy.
>

Yeah, the janitor at Dryden is often as wrong as Splappy himself. Of course,
he's smart enough not to post it all over usenet.

Limey.

Limey Dave

April 1st 04, 04:26 AM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> isi.com...
> > Limey Dave wrote:
> >
> > > "JL Grasso" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > >>On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 08:03:38 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> >
> > >>wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>"Michael Zaharis" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>It is a new B-52, so you didn't see what you thought.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Wrong. It was one of the older B-52s. Note the tall tale,
indicating
> > >>>>that it is not the new H- model that NASA recently converted.
> > >>>>
> >
>>>>http://www.cnn.com/interactive/space/0403/gallery.x43/gal.02.nasa.jpg
> > >>>
> > >>>You are correct. My friends at Dryden had assured me that the H
would
> be
> > >>>flying the payload and I am wrong.
> > >>
> > >>As per . . .
>
> > > Extremely UNusual on the other hand........for him to acknowledge it.
> >
> > Yeah, but notice he blamed it on someone else and tried to impress with
> > his alleged inside contacts. Par for the course for Splappy.
>
> I have been around enough B-52s to recognize the tall tail, so I can't
blame
> my mistake on someone else.
>
>
Wow! Splappy admits being mortal....a big day in history!

Limey.

B2431

April 1st 04, 06:13 AM

>From: "Tarver Engineering"
>Date: 3/31/2004 8:19 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>>
>> >"OXMORON1" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> Dan wrote:
>> >> >It has to be a fake. Tarver is a legend in his own mind, is never
>wrong
>> >and
>> >> >will NEVER say he is. Just ask him.
>> >>
>> >> I think you are wrong this time Dan, Tarver has on rare occasions
>admitted
>> >to
>> >> mis-speaking as opposed to another individual who NEVER makes or ADMITS
>a
>> >> mistake or is it misteak?
>> >
>> >Dan made a fool of himself for years peddling Knoyle's archive troll,
>until
>> >he saw the paradox of Knoyle's ignorance. Still no apology.
>>
>>
>> Tarver, someday you will have to explain to us what "Knoyle's archive
>troll"
>> means. Everything I ever cited as coming from you came from a Google
>search,
>> not Knoyle's or any of the other sites dedicated to you.
>
>Right. :)
>
>> There are similar sites dedicated to you in several forums from hot air
>> balooning to cars to homebuilt aircraft to this one. You have made such a
>fool
>> of yourself in all those forums that people collect the "tarverisms" into
>> sites. They are not all made by Knoyle or any other individual.
>
>I made up the term Tarverism.
>
>Be a man Dan and post up that apology.

Apologize for what? Not stooping to your level by being vulgar and making
personal attacks? For not using Knoyle's archives to remind you of some of the
incredibly strange assertions you have made? For disagreeing with you on
systems I have worked and you haven't? For not getting angry when you
repeatedly claimed I had been thrown out of the Air Force with a dishonourable?
For proving you wrong with facts from reliable sources? For asking you to cite
independant and reliable sources? For not believing you are correct when
reliable and independant expert sources have proved you wrong?

Just what am I supposed to apologize for?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Tarver Engineering

April 1st 04, 07:39 AM

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> >Date: 3/31/2004 8:19 PM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> >>
> >> >"OXMORON1" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> Dan wrote:
> >> >> >It has to be a fake. Tarver is a legend in his own mind, is never
> >wrong
> >> >and
> >> >> >will NEVER say he is. Just ask him.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think you are wrong this time Dan, Tarver has on rare occasions
> >admitted
> >> >to
> >> >> mis-speaking as opposed to another individual who NEVER makes or
ADMITS
> >a
> >> >> mistake or is it misteak?
> >> >
> >> >Dan made a fool of himself for years peddling Knoyle's archive troll,
> >until
> >> >he saw the paradox of Knoyle's ignorance. Still no apology.
> >>
> >>
> >> Tarver, someday you will have to explain to us what "Knoyle's archive
> >troll"
> >> means. Everything I ever cited as coming from you came from a Google
> >search,
> >> not Knoyle's or any of the other sites dedicated to you.
> >
> >Right. :)
> >
> >> There are similar sites dedicated to you in several forums from hot air
> >> balooning to cars to homebuilt aircraft to this one. You have made such
a
> >fool
> >> of yourself in all those forums that people collect the "tarverisms"
into
> >> sites. They are not all made by Knoyle or any other individual.
> >
> >I made up the term Tarverism.
> >
> >Be a man Dan and post up that apology.
>
> Apologize for what?

You owe me an apology for you being a clueless ass you several years WRT
pitot static systems, Dan.

B2431

April 1st 04, 08:05 AM

>From: "Tarver Engineering"

>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>> >Date: 3/31/2004 8:19 PM Central Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >
>> >"B2431" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>> >>
>> >> >"OXMORON1" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >> Dan wrote:
>> >> >> >It has to be a fake. Tarver is a legend in his own mind, is never
>> >wrong
>> >> >and
>> >> >> >will NEVER say he is. Just ask him.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I think you are wrong this time Dan, Tarver has on rare occasions
>> >admitted
>> >> >to
>> >> >> mis-speaking as opposed to another individual who NEVER makes or
>ADMITS
>> >a
>> >> >> mistake or is it misteak?
>> >> >
>> >> >Dan made a fool of himself for years peddling Knoyle's archive troll,
>> >until
>> >> >he saw the paradox of Knoyle's ignorance. Still no apology.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Tarver, someday you will have to explain to us what "Knoyle's archive
>> >troll"
>> >> means. Everything I ever cited as coming from you came from a Google
>> >search,
>> >> not Knoyle's or any of the other sites dedicated to you.
>> >
>> >Right. :)
>> >
>> >> There are similar sites dedicated to you in several forums from hot air
>> >> balooning to cars to homebuilt aircraft to this one. You have made such
>a
>> >fool
>> >> of yourself in all those forums that people collect the "tarverisms"
>into
>> >> sites. They are not all made by Knoyle or any other individual.
>> >
>> >I made up the term Tarverism.
>> >
>> >Be a man Dan and post up that apology.
>>
>> Apologize for what?
>
>You owe me an apology for you being a clueless ass you several years WRT
>pitot static systems, Dan.

Unlike you I have 20 years experience in pitot-static systems. Do a google
search on your converstations with several of us and you will see I have
nothing to apologize for.

I notice you deleted:

<begin quote>

Apologize for what? Not stooping to your level by being vulgar and making
personal attacks? For not using Knoyle's archives to remind you of some of the
incredibly strange assertions you have made? For disagreeing with you on
systems I have worked and you haven't? For not getting angry when you
repeatedly claimed I had been thrown out of the Air Force with a dishonourable?
For proving you wrong with facts from reliable sources? For asking you to cite
independant and reliable sources? For not believing you are correct when
reliable and independant expert sources have proved you wrong?

Just what am I supposed to apologize for?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

<end quote>

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Tarver Engineering

April 1st 04, 03:22 PM

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> >> >Date: 3/31/2004 8:19 PM Central Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> >> >>
> >> >> >"OXMORON1" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> Dan wrote:
> >> >> >> >It has to be a fake. Tarver is a legend in his own mind, is
never
> >> >wrong
> >> >> >and
> >> >> >> >will NEVER say he is. Just ask him.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I think you are wrong this time Dan, Tarver has on rare occasions
> >> >admitted
> >> >> >to
> >> >> >> mis-speaking as opposed to another individual who NEVER makes or
> >ADMITS
> >> >a
> >> >> >> mistake or is it misteak?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Dan made a fool of himself for years peddling Knoyle's archive
troll,
> >> >until
> >> >> >he saw the paradox of Knoyle's ignorance. Still no apology.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Tarver, someday you will have to explain to us what "Knoyle's
archive
> >> >troll"
> >> >> means. Everything I ever cited as coming from you came from a Google
> >> >search,
> >> >> not Knoyle's or any of the other sites dedicated to you.
> >> >
> >> >Right. :)
> >> >
> >> >> There are similar sites dedicated to you in several forums from hot
air
> >> >> balooning to cars to homebuilt aircraft to this one. You have made
such
> >a
> >> >fool
> >> >> of yourself in all those forums that people collect the "tarverisms"
> >into
> >> >> sites. They are not all made by Knoyle or any other individual.
> >> >
> >> >I made up the term Tarverism.
> >> >
> >> >Be a man Dan and post up that apology.
> >>
> >> Apologize for what?
> >
> >You owe me an apology for you being a clueless ass you several years WRT
> >pitot static systems, Dan.
>
> Unlike you I have 20 years experience in pitot-static systems. Do a google
> search on your converstations with several of us and you will see I have
> nothing to apologize for.

I was here, you have an entire plate of crow to eat, Dan.

B2431

April 1st 04, 05:33 PM

>From: "Tarver Engineering"

>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>>
>> >
>> >"B2431" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>> >> >Date: 3/31/2004 8:19 PM Central Standard Time
>> >> >Message-id: >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >"B2431" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >"OXMORON1" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> Dan wrote:
>> >> >> >> >It has to be a fake. Tarver is a legend in his own mind, is
>never
>> >> >wrong
>> >> >> >and
>> >> >> >> >will NEVER say he is. Just ask him.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I think you are wrong this time Dan, Tarver has on rare occasions
>> >> >admitted
>> >> >> >to
>> >> >> >> mis-speaking as opposed to another individual who NEVER makes or
>> >ADMITS
>> >> >a
>> >> >> >> mistake or is it misteak?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Dan made a fool of himself for years peddling Knoyle's archive
>troll,
>> >> >until
>> >> >> >he saw the paradox of Knoyle's ignorance. Still no apology.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Tarver, someday you will have to explain to us what "Knoyle's
>archive
>> >> >troll"
>> >> >> means. Everything I ever cited as coming from you came from a Google
>> >> >search,
>> >> >> not Knoyle's or any of the other sites dedicated to you.
>> >> >
>> >> >Right. :)
>> >> >
>> >> >> There are similar sites dedicated to you in several forums from hot
>air
>> >> >> balooning to cars to homebuilt aircraft to this one. You have made
>such
>> >a
>> >> >fool
>> >> >> of yourself in all those forums that people collect the "tarverisms"
>> >into
>> >> >> sites. They are not all made by Knoyle or any other individual.
>> >> >
>> >> >I made up the term Tarverism.
>> >> >
>> >> >Be a man Dan and post up that apology.
>> >>
>> >> Apologize for what?
>> >
>> >You owe me an apology for you being a clueless ass you several years WRT
>> >pitot static systems, Dan.
>>
>> Unlike you I have 20 years experience in pitot-static systems. Do a google
>> search on your converstations with several of us and you will see I have
>> nothing to apologize for.
>
>I was here, you have an entire plate of crow to eat, Dan.

Once again you are dismissed to the land of irrelevant fibbers and fools like
petukhov, maron and teuton. Have a fine day.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

running with scissors

April 1st 04, 05:39 PM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "OXMORON1" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Dan wrote:
> > >It has to be a fake. Tarver is a legend in his own mind, is never wrong
> and
> > >will NEVER say he is. Just ask him.
> >
> > I think you are wrong this time Dan, Tarver has on rare occasions admitted
> to
> > mis-speaking as opposed to another individual who NEVER makes or ADMITS a
> > mistake or is it misteak?
>
> Dan made a fool of himself for years peddling Knoyle's archive troll, until
> he saw the paradox of Knoyle's ignorance. Still no apology.

so you still satnd by the following quotes you made:

"Hitler believed the homosexual was already suicidal and just needed a little
push to be a true NAZI achiever. Homosexuals had great power in NAZI
Germany."

or

"That is the case with all modern transports Gord. Pitot tubes are only used
for flight test back up instrumentation for modern transports; pitot tubes
have a nasty habbit of atracting mud bees and are therefore not reliable
enough for revenue these past few decades."

or

"The pitot tube was added to the first American jets to prevent the kind of
failures that killed an entire squadron off Florida. Without P1 and T0 a
jet will stall in fog."

quotes, courtesy of John P. Tarver, MS/PE

running with scissors

April 1st 04, 05:43 PM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>
> > >"OXMORON1" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> Dan wrote:
> > >> >It has to be a fake. Tarver is a legend in his own mind, is never
> wrong
> and
> > >> >will NEVER say he is. Just ask him.
> > >>
> > >> I think you are wrong this time Dan, Tarver has on rare occasions
> admitted
> to
> > >> mis-speaking as opposed to another individual who NEVER makes or ADMITS
> a
> > >> mistake or is it misteak?
> > >
> > >Dan made a fool of himself for years peddling Knoyle's archive troll,
> until
> > >he saw the paradox of Knoyle's ignorance. Still no apology.
> >
> >
> > Tarver, someday you will have to explain to us what "Knoyle's archive
> troll"
> > means. Everything I ever cited as coming from you came from a Google
> search,
> > not Knoyle's or any of the other sites dedicated to you.
>
> Right. :)
>
> > There are similar sites dedicated to you in several forums from hot air
> > balooning to cars to homebuilt aircraft to this one. You have made such a
> fool
> > of yourself in all those forums that people collect the "tarverisms" into
> > sites. They are not all made by Knoyle or any other individual.
>
> I made up the term Tarverism.

no you didnt.

running with scissors

April 1st 04, 05:52 PM

(B2431) wrote in message >...
> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> >Date: 3/31/2004 8:19 PM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>
> >> >"OXMORON1" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> Dan wrote:
> >> >> >It has to be a fake. Tarver is a legend in his own mind, is never
> wrong
> and
> >> >> >will NEVER say he is. Just ask him.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think you are wrong this time Dan, Tarver has on rare occasions
> admitted
> to
> >> >> mis-speaking as opposed to another individual who NEVER makes or ADMITS
> a
> >> >> mistake or is it misteak?
> >> >
> >> >Dan made a fool of himself for years peddling Knoyle's archive troll,
> until
> >> >he saw the paradox of Knoyle's ignorance. Still no apology.
> >>
> >>
> >> Tarver, someday you will have to explain to us what "Knoyle's archive
> troll"
> >> means. Everything I ever cited as coming from you came from a Google
> search,
> >> not Knoyle's or any of the other sites dedicated to you.
> >
> >Right. :)
> >
> >> There are similar sites dedicated to you in several forums from hot air
> >> balooning to cars to homebuilt aircraft to this one. You have made such a
> fool
> >> of yourself in all those forums that people collect the "tarverisms" into
> >> sites. They are not all made by Knoyle or any other individual.
> >
> >I made up the term Tarverism.
> >
> >Be a man Dan and post up that apology.
>
> Apologize for what? Not stooping to your level by being vulgar and making
> personal attacks? For not using Knoyle's archives to remind you of some of the
> incredibly strange assertions you have made? For disagreeing with you on
> systems I have worked and you haven't? For not getting angry when you
> repeatedly claimed I had been thrown out of the Air Force with a dishonourable?
> For proving you wrong with facts from reliable sources? For asking you to cite
> independant and reliable sources? For not believing you are correct when
> reliable and independant expert sources have proved you wrong?
>
> Just what am I supposed to apologize for?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

thats about the size of it, remember without Tarver the wright
brothers would never have got off the ground. Boeing, Honeywell,
Collins the NTSB
the wright brothers, Antonov Design Bureau and NASA all couldnt exist
without Tarver and quotes like the following show his true capacity in
aviation:

...."Retarding the throttles will cease the engines from adding thrust,
my silly rodent. Reducing pilot workload gives the Operator more time
to deploy Spoiler Flaps into a Speed Brake configuration"

running with scissors

April 1st 04, 05:53 PM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> > >Date: 3/31/2004 8:19 PM Central Standard Time
> > >Message-id: >
> > >
> > >
> > >"B2431" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>
> > >> >"OXMORON1" > wrote in message
> > >> ...
> > >> >> Dan wrote:
> > >> >> >It has to be a fake. Tarver is a legend in his own mind, is never
> wrong
> and
> > >> >> >will NEVER say he is. Just ask him.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I think you are wrong this time Dan, Tarver has on rare occasions
> admitted
> to
> > >> >> mis-speaking as opposed to another individual who NEVER makes or
> ADMITS
> a
> > >> >> mistake or is it misteak?
> > >> >
> > >> >Dan made a fool of himself for years peddling Knoyle's archive troll,
> until
> > >> >he saw the paradox of Knoyle's ignorance. Still no apology.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Tarver, someday you will have to explain to us what "Knoyle's archive
> troll"
> > >> means. Everything I ever cited as coming from you came from a Google
> search,
> > >> not Knoyle's or any of the other sites dedicated to you.
> > >
> > >Right. :)
> > >
> > >> There are similar sites dedicated to you in several forums from hot air
> > >> balooning to cars to homebuilt aircraft to this one. You have made such
> a
> fool
> > >> of yourself in all those forums that people collect the "tarverisms"
> into
> > >> sites. They are not all made by Knoyle or any other individual.
> > >
> > >I made up the term Tarverism.
> > >
> > >Be a man Dan and post up that apology.
> >
> > Apologize for what?
>
> You owe me an apology for you being a clueless ass you several years WRT
> pitot static systems, Dan.

then splaps boy, by similarity you should not only be apologizing to
humanity, but flagellating yourself with stinging nettles.

running with scissors

April 1st 04, 06:15 PM

running with scissors

April 2nd 04, 03:04 AM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>
> > >
> > >"B2431" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> > >> >Date: 3/31/2004 8:19 PM Central Standard Time
> > >> >Message-id: >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> > >> ...
> > >> >> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>
> > >> >> >"OXMORON1" > wrote in message
> > >> >> ...
> > >> >> >> Dan wrote:
> > >> >> >> >It has to be a fake. Tarver is a legend in his own mind, is
> never
> wrong
> and
> > >> >> >> >will NEVER say he is. Just ask him.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> I think you are wrong this time Dan, Tarver has on rare occasions
> admitted
> to
> > >> >> >> mis-speaking as opposed to another individual who NEVER makes or
> ADMITS
> a
> > >> >> >> mistake or is it misteak?
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >Dan made a fool of himself for years peddling Knoyle's archive
> troll,
> until
> > >> >> >he saw the paradox of Knoyle's ignorance. Still no apology.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Tarver, someday you will have to explain to us what "Knoyle's
> archive
> troll"
> > >> >> means. Everything I ever cited as coming from you came from a Google
> search,
> > >> >> not Knoyle's or any of the other sites dedicated to you.
> > >> >
> > >> >Right. :)
> > >> >
> > >> >> There are similar sites dedicated to you in several forums from hot
> air
> > >> >> balooning to cars to homebuilt aircraft to this one. You have made
> such
> a
> fool
> > >> >> of yourself in all those forums that people collect the "tarverisms"
> into
> > >> >> sites. They are not all made by Knoyle or any other individual.
> > >> >
> > >> >I made up the term Tarverism.
> > >> >
> > >> >Be a man Dan and post up that apology.
> > >>
> > >> Apologize for what?
> > >
> > >You owe me an apology for you being a clueless ass you several years WRT
> > >pitot static systems, Dan.
> >
> > Unlike you I have 20 years experience in pitot-static systems. Do a google
> > search on your converstations with several of us and you will see I have
> > nothing to apologize for.
>
> I was here, you have an entire plate of crow to eat, Dan.

mmmm coming from an idiot that has a complete smorgasboard of crow and
a dessert trolley of humble pie to work through.

better get them eatin' pants on splaps boy.

monkey

April 2nd 04, 03:55 AM

monkey

April 2nd 04, 04:15 AM

(B2431) wrote in message >...
> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> >> >Date: 3/31/2004 8:19 PM Central Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>
> >> >> >"OXMORON1" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> Dan wrote:
> >> >> >> >It has to be a fake. Tarver is a legend in his own mind, is never
> wrong
> and
> >> >> >> >will NEVER say he is. Just ask him.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I think you are wrong this time Dan, Tarver has on rare occasions
> admitted
> to
> >> >> >> mis-speaking as opposed to another individual who NEVER makes or
> ADMITS
> a
> >> >> >> mistake or is it misteak?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Dan made a fool of himself for years peddling Knoyle's archive troll,
> until
> >> >> >he saw the paradox of Knoyle's ignorance. Still no apology.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Tarver, someday you will have to explain to us what "Knoyle's archive
> troll"
> >> >> means. Everything I ever cited as coming from you came from a Google
> search,
> >> >> not Knoyle's or any of the other sites dedicated to you.
> >> >
> >> >Right. :)
> >> >
> >> >> There are similar sites dedicated to you in several forums from hot air
> >> >> balooning to cars to homebuilt aircraft to this one. You have made such
> a
> fool
> >> >> of yourself in all those forums that people collect the "tarverisms"
> into
> >> >> sites. They are not all made by Knoyle or any other individual.
> >> >
> >> >I made up the term Tarverism.
> >> >
> >> >Be a man Dan and post up that apology.
> >>
> >> Apologize for what?
> >
> >You owe me an apology for you being a clueless ass you several years WRT
> >pitot static systems, Dan.
>
> Unlike you I have 20 years experience in pitot-static systems. Do a google
> search on your converstations with several of us and you will see I have
> nothing to apologize for.
>
> I notice you deleted:
>
> <begin quote>
>
> Apologize for what? Not stooping to your level by being vulgar and making
> personal attacks? For not using Knoyle's archives to remind you of some of the
> incredibly strange assertions you have made? For disagreeing with you on
> systems I have worked and you haven't? For not getting angry when you
> repeatedly claimed I had been thrown out of the Air Force with a dishonourable?
> For proving you wrong with facts from reliable sources? For asking you to cite
> independant and reliable sources? For not believing you are correct when
> reliable and independant expert sources have proved you wrong?
>
> Just what am I supposed to apologize for?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> <end quote>
>
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Here's a great one about Tarver - he claims he designed the F/A-18
simulator, and as a pilot on an F-18 squadron I challenged one of his
opinions about his knowledge of F/A-18 FCS. Initially I was modestly
unsure about what he was saying in that our squadron is a Canadian
CF-18 unit, which flies a slightly different variant. Additionally,
since pilots are more concerned with the labour and study intensive
aspects of the tactical employment of the aircraft rather than the
mundane (to us), extraneous details of how a system works down to the
nut and bolt, we generally are not the experts in all its systems.Well
I came across a USN NATOPS manual today which cements in my mind that
Tarver is completely full of ****. I would like to refer him to
document A1-F18AC-NFM-000, page IV-11-2 para 11.1.1 so he knows my
exact source. Tarver, as a professed expert, claims the flight control
system/limits "break out" at 20 pounds of stick back pressure. Having
flown the aircraft and not believing him, I actually went into the USN
manual we had on squadron which states that "To increase AOA above the
feedback AOA of 22 AOA, aft stick must be applied. The maximum steady
state AOA with full aft stick (35 pounds stick force) is 50 to 55 AOA.
Which refutes what Tarver claims, and which I incidentally already
knew from actual EXPERIENCE in an actual AIRPLANE that contary to his
"expert opinion," what actually happens in the F/A-18 at above 20
pounds of stick force is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. After this discussion it
has become solidified in my mind that I will no longer extend to this
moron any benefit of the doubt. Anyone who so blatantly and habitually
slanders and insults my military brothers and sisters is not worthy of
a response. All I can say to you Dan is to take solace in that fact
that it was people like you who during your military careers allowed
Tarver to enjoy the freedom which allows him to spout boneheaded
bull**** on a daily basis without getting his ass kicked for it. Dan,
please thank all your military and ex military colleagues on your side
of the border for the fine work they've done defending freedom. And if
I may Dan, I would like to speak to Tarver on behalf of you and your
brethren for just a moment. Tarver:
"You're welcome."

Monkey
Captain
CAF

Phil Miller

April 2nd 04, 05:10 AM

On 1 Apr 2004 19:15:23 -0800, (monkey) wrote:

>Here's a great one about Tarver - he claims he designed the F/A-18
>simulator, and as a pilot on an F-18 squadron I challenged one of his
>opinions about his knowledge of F/A-18 FCS. Initially I was modestly
>unsure about what he was saying in that our squadron is a Canadian
>CF-18 unit, which flies a slightly different variant. Additionally,
>since pilots are more concerned with the labour and study intensive
>aspects of the tactical employment of the aircraft rather than the
>mundane (to us), extraneous details of how a system works down to the
>nut and bolt, we generally are not the experts in all its systems.Well
>I came across a USN NATOPS manual today which cements in my mind that
>Tarver is completely full of ****. I would like to refer him to
>document A1-F18AC-NFM-000, page IV-11-2 para 11.1.1 so he knows my
>exact source. Tarver, as a professed expert, claims the flight control
>system/limits "break out" at 20 pounds of stick back pressure. Having
>flown the aircraft and not believing him, I actually went into the USN
>manual we had on squadron which states that "To increase AOA above the
>feedback AOA of 22 AOA, aft stick must be applied. The maximum steady
>state AOA with full aft stick (35 pounds stick force) is 50 to 55 AOA.
>Which refutes what Tarver claims, and which I incidentally already
>knew from actual EXPERIENCE in an actual AIRPLANE that contary to his
>"expert opinion," what actually happens in the F/A-18 at above 20
>pounds of stick force is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. After this discussion it
>has become solidified in my mind that I will no longer extend to this
>moron any benefit of the doubt. Anyone who so blatantly and habitually
>slanders and insults my military brothers and sisters is not worthy of
>a response. All I can say to you Dan is to take solace in that fact
>that it was people like you who during your military careers allowed
>Tarver to enjoy the freedom which allows him to spout boneheaded
>bull**** on a daily basis without getting his ass kicked for it. Dan,
>please thank all your military and ex military colleagues on your side
>of the border for the fine work they've done defending freedom. And if
>I may Dan, I would like to speak to Tarver on behalf of you and your
>brethren for just a moment. Tarver:
>"You're welcome."
>
>Monkey
>Captain
>CAF

From: "jtarver" >
Subject: Re: JOHN MAZOR - ALPA's SPIN MEISTER on usenet. Is he getting
paid by the word now?
Date: 1999/11/14
Message-ID: >#1/1
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.disasters.aviation,alt.aviation .safety

I am coddled in the rec groups. A valuable asset as opposed to your
loony
klan.

John

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~philmil/ADA_FAQ/ADA_FAQ_tarver.htm

Tarver Engineering

April 2nd 04, 05:19 AM

"monkey" > wrote in message
om...

> Here's a great one about Tarver - he claims he designed the F/A-18
> simulator, and as a pilot on an F-18 squadron I challenged one of his
> opinions about his knowledge of F/A-18 FCS.

And you were completely wrong while exposing yourself as either an
incompetent, or a liar. There is an entire group of frauds at ada you can
join and obsess to your heart's content, sock.

John R Weiss

April 2nd 04, 06:08 AM

"monkey" > wrote...
>
> Here's a great one about Tarver - he claims he designed the F/A-18
> simulator, and as a pilot on an F-18 squadron I challenged one of his
> opinions about his knowledge of F/A-18 FCS.

Actually, in a discussion that was (at the time) on the topic of the F-18,
tarver claimed to have designed the HARV simulator.

When I did the tarver-approved google search, however, I found:

"Your search - HARV simulator tarver - did not match any documents."

When I looked at "F/A-18 and HARV Data" in
http://www10.pair.com/jsalvati/resources.htm, though, I found 11 documents
listed. In a search for "Tarver" in each one of them, I found:

"No occurrences of:

Tarver

were found in the document."

In a search for "Tarver in documents containing "HARV" at
http://www2.cemr.wvu.edu/~wwwflt/new_page_3.htm, there were 0 hits.

[Note: Lest you think the search was faulty, I DID find a reference to the
"Jack Tarver Library Gallery" and "Mercer Aims High with NASA Research" and "The
high aspect ratio vessel, or HARV" in an issue of the Mercer University (GA)
newspaper at www.mercer.edu/publications/InsideMercer/Nov2000.pdf in that same
search.]

That would be very upsetting if I were expecting the "designer" of HARV to be
acknowledged in ANY of the documents available on-line, and if I expected that
designer to be John Tarver.

Rich Ahrens

April 2nd 04, 02:41 PM

> On 1 Apr 2004 19:15:23 -0800, (monkey) wrote:
>
>>I came across a USN NATOPS manual today which cements in my mind that
>>Tarver is completely full of ****.

It took a manual to do that? His daily posts are conclusive evidence.

Coddle, coddle, coddle...

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

Tarver Engineering

April 2nd 04, 04:02 PM

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:Sy6bc.54251$gA5.707204@attbi_s03...
> "monkey" > wrote...
> >
> > Here's a great one about Tarver - he claims he designed the F/A-18
> > simulator, and as a pilot on an F-18 squadron I challenged one of his
> > opinions about his knowledge of F/A-18 FCS.
>
> Actually, in a discussion that was (at the time) on the topic of the F-18,
> tarver claimed to have designed the HARV simulator.
>
> When I did the tarver-approved google search, however, I found:
>
> "Your search - HARV simulator tarver - did not match any documents."

Yep, Dryden even went so far as to claim a co-op named Foster designed their
F/A-18 simulator in NASA Tech Briefs. The little cock sucker Foster
designed a fish scale the year Martha Evans and I backed out the F/A-18
flight control computer. The simulator is identical to the copy at Pax
River made from Hornet #3. Shafer remined in denial as the Government
eliminated her and her husband's civil service slots right trough the time
Dryden had their $40 million in Tarver rain pulled. FAA enjoys about $1
billion in Tarver rain today, so they won't be attempting to discredit me
like the idiots of Dryden. Well actually, with all the layoffs Dryden will
have another 150 civil servants out in December to go with the 100
contractors and 20 civil servants this fiscal year the dead wood may be
purged.

Besides that Weiss dip****, nothing in your post changes how the stick in
the F/A-18 works,

Tarver Engineering

April 2nd 04, 04:03 PM

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
isi.com...
> > On 1 Apr 2004 19:15:23 -0800, (monkey) wrote:
> >
> >>I came across a USN NATOPS manual today which cements in my mind that
> >>Tarver is completely full of ****.
>
> It took a manual to do that? His daily posts are conclusive evidence.
>
> Coddle, coddle, coddle...

Yep. Monkey is new at ram and just got caught lying about being an F/A-18
pilot.

Tarver Engineering

April 2nd 04, 06:34 PM

"JL Grasso" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 07:02:56 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
> >news:Sy6bc.54251$gA5.707204@attbi_s03...
> >> "monkey" > wrote...
> >> >
> >> > Here's a great one about Tarver - he claims he designed the F/A-18
> >> > simulator, and as a pilot on an F-18 squadron I challenged one of his
> >> > opinions about his knowledge of F/A-18 FCS.
> >>
> >> Actually, in a discussion that was (at the time) on the topic of the
F-18,
> >> tarver claimed to have designed the HARV simulator.
> >>
> >> When I did the tarver-approved google search, however, I found:
> >>
> >> "Your search - HARV simulator tarver - did not match any
documents."
> >
> >Yep, Dryden even went so far as to claim a co-op named Foster designed
their
> >F/A-18 simulator in NASA Tech Briefs. The little cock sucker Foster
> >designed a fish scale the year Martha Evans and I backed out the F/A-18
> >flight control computer. The simulator is identical to the copy at Pax
> >River made from Hornet #3. Shafer remined in denial as the Government
> >eliminated her and her husband's civil service slots right trough the
time
> >Dryden had their $40 million in Tarver rain pulled. FAA enjoys about $1
> >billion in Tarver rain today, so they won't be attempting to discredit me
> >like the idiots of Dryden. Well actually, with all the layoffs Dryden
will
> >have another 150 civil servants out in December to go with the 100
> >contractors and 20 civil servants this fiscal year the dead wood may be
> >purged.
> >
> >Besides that Weiss dip****, nothing in your post changes how the stick in
> >the F/A-18 works,
>
> Is that what you've nicknamed your old POS firebird with the 3-speed
> column?

400 CID to 400 THD on the floor with 450 horsies, the top down roaring up
PCH. Even the antique BMWs take a look.

Rich Ahrens

April 2nd 04, 10:56 PM

Tarver Engineering wrote:

> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> isi.com...
>
>>>On 1 Apr 2004 19:15:23 -0800, (monkey) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I came across a USN NATOPS manual today which cements in my mind that
>>>>Tarver is completely full of ****.
>>
>>It took a manual to do that? His daily posts are conclusive evidence.
>>
>>Coddle, coddle, coddle...
>
>
> Yep. Monkey is new at ram and just got caught lying about being an F/A-18
> pilot.

You did?

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

Tarver Engineering

April 2nd 04, 11:38 PM

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
isi.com...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> > isi.com...
> >
> >>>On 1 Apr 2004 19:15:23 -0800, (monkey) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I came across a USN NATOPS manual today which cements in my mind that
> >>>>Tarver is completely full of ****.
> >>
> >>It took a manual to do that? His daily posts are conclusive evidence.
> >>
> >>Coddle, coddle, coddle...
> >
> >
> > Yep. Monkey is new at ram and just got caught lying about being an
F/A-18
> > pilot.
>
> You did?

Yep, caught monkey dead to rights.

Rich Ahrens

April 3rd 04, 12:45 AM

Tarver Engineering wrote:

> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> isi.com...
>
>>Tarver Engineering wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
isi.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>>On 1 Apr 2004 19:15:23 -0800, (monkey) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I came across a USN NATOPS manual today which cements in my mind that
>>>>>>Tarver is completely full of ****.
>>>>
>>>>It took a manual to do that? His daily posts are conclusive evidence.
>>>>
>>>>Coddle, coddle, coddle...
>>>
>>>
>>>Yep. Monkey is new at ram and just got caught lying about being an
>
> F/A-18
>
>>>pilot.
>>
>>You did?
>
> Yep, caught monkey dead to rights.

No, you got caught lying. Which is about as difficult as shooting fish
in a barrel, of course...

Coddle, coddle, coddle...

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

running with scissors

April 3rd 04, 02:19 AM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> isi.com...
> > > On 1 Apr 2004 19:15:23 -0800, (monkey) wrote:
> > >
> > >>I came across a USN NATOPS manual today which cements in my mind that
> > >>Tarver is completely full of ****.
> >
> > It took a manual to do that? His daily posts are conclusive evidence.
> >
> > Coddle, coddle, coddle...
>
> Yep. Monkey is new at ram and just got caught lying about being an F/A-18
> pilot.

whereas you get caught lying on nearly everything you post.

running with scissors

April 3rd 04, 02:32 AM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "monkey" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>
> > Here's a great one about Tarver - he claims he designed the F/A-18
> > simulator, and as a pilot on an F-18 squadron I challenged one of his
> > opinions about his knowledge of F/A-18 FCS.
>
> And you were completely wrong while exposing yourself as either an
> incompetent, or a liar. There is an entire group of frauds at ada you can
> join and obsess to your heart's content, sock.

and john, you are completely wrong about everything. no one would
even take your word on the time of day, you would get that completely
arse about face too.

after all john you are the biggest fraud on ADA, you claim so much
knowledge and you didnt even know what Part 25 pertained to.

you also claim that "Total" and "Average" are interchangable terms,

you also claim that budweiser is the biggest selling beer in oz,

you also claim a spoiler is flap,

you claim a spoiler is a wing,

you claim that Pitot tubes are not istalled on aircraft as it would be
unsafe to put a mud bee home on aircraft,

you claim that Pitot is the frech word for tube,

and i personally love this one for absloute ****ing jibberish:

"Retarding the throttles will cease the engines from adding thrust, my
silly
rodent. Reducing pilot workload gives the Operator more time to
deploy
Spoiler Flaps into a Speed Brake configuration."

yep John, you are the king of wrong.

running with scissors

April 3rd 04, 02:37 AM

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message news:<Sy6bc.54251$gA5.707204@attbi_s03>...
> "monkey" > wrote...
> >
> > Here's a great one about Tarver - he claims he designed the F/A-18
> > simulator, and as a pilot on an F-18 squadron I challenged one of his
> > opinions about his knowledge of F/A-18 FCS.
>
> Actually, in a discussion that was (at the time) on the topic of the F-18,
> tarver claimed to have designed the HARV simulator.
>
> When I did the tarver-approved google search, however, I found:
>
> "Your search - HARV simulator tarver - did not match any documents."
>
>
> When I looked at "F/A-18 and HARV Data" in
> http://www10.pair.com/jsalvati/resources.htm, though, I found 11 documents
> listed. In a search for "Tarver" in each one of them, I found:
>
> "No occurrences of:
>
> Tarver
>
> were found in the document."
>
>
> In a search for "Tarver in documents containing "HARV" at
> http://www2.cemr.wvu.edu/~wwwflt/new_page_3.htm, there were 0 hits.
>
> [Note: Lest you think the search was faulty, I DID find a reference to the
> "Jack Tarver Library Gallery" and "Mercer Aims High with NASA Research" and "The
> high aspect ratio vessel, or HARV" in an issue of the Mercer University (GA)
> newspaper at www.mercer.edu/publications/InsideMercer/Nov2000.pdf in that same
> search.]
>
>
> That would be very upsetting if I were expecting the "designer" of HARV to be
> acknowledged in ANY of the documents available on-line, and if I expected that
> designer to be John Tarver.

you see you you need to use the use following boolean to search on Tarver,

Quote "Tarver"+"Utter Crap" EndQuote

alternatively, use these :

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~philmil/ADA_FAQ/ADA_FAQ_tarver.htm

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

http://www.blippie.org.uk/mazor_explains_splaps.htm

running with scissors

April 3rd 04, 02:41 AM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "John R Weiss" > wrote in message
> news:Sy6bc.54251$gA5.707204@attbi_s03...
> > "monkey" > wrote...
> > >
> > > Here's a great one about Tarver - he claims he designed the F/A-18
> > > simulator, and as a pilot on an F-18 squadron I challenged one of his
> > > opinions about his knowledge of F/A-18 FCS.
> >
> > Actually, in a discussion that was (at the time) on the topic of the F-18,
> > tarver claimed to have designed the HARV simulator.
> >
> > When I did the tarver-approved google search, however, I found:
> >
> > "Your search - HARV simulator tarver - did not match any documents."
>
<Snip>

> Shafer remined in denial as the Government
> eliminated her and her husband's civil service slots right trough the time
> Dryden had their $40 million in Tarver rain pulled.

bwahahahhahhahahahhahahhahhahahahhahhahahahhahahha hahhahahahhahhahhahahahhah

> FAA enjoys about $1
> billion in Tarver rain today, so they won't be attempting to discredit me
> like the idiots of Dryden.

bwahahhahahhahahhahhahahhahhahhahahhahahhahhahhaha hahhahhaahhahhahhahahhahahah

small children in Cameroon discredit you. little old ladies in Boca
let their poodles out to do a "Tarver" in the back yard.

running with scissors

April 3rd 04, 02:44 AM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "JL Grasso" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 07:02:56 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
> > >news:Sy6bc.54251$gA5.707204@attbi_s03...
> > >> "monkey" > wrote...
> > >> >
> > >> > Here's a great one about Tarver - he claims he designed the F/A-18
> > >> > simulator, and as a pilot on an F-18 squadron I challenged one of his
> > >> > opinions about his knowledge of F/A-18 FCS.
> > >>
> > >> Actually, in a discussion that was (at the time) on the topic of the
> F-18,
> > >> tarver claimed to have designed the HARV simulator.
> > >>
> > >> When I did the tarver-approved google search, however, I found:
> > >>
> > >> "Your search - HARV simulator tarver - did not match any
> documents."
> > >
> > >Yep, Dryden even went so far as to claim a co-op named Foster designed
> their
> > >F/A-18 simulator in NASA Tech Briefs. The little cock sucker Foster
> > >designed a fish scale the year Martha Evans and I backed out the F/A-18
> > >flight control computer. The simulator is identical to the copy at Pax
> > >River made from Hornet #3. Shafer remined in denial as the Government
> > >eliminated her and her husband's civil service slots right trough the
> time
> > >Dryden had their $40 million in Tarver rain pulled. FAA enjoys about $1
> > >billion in Tarver rain today, so they won't be attempting to discredit me
> > >like the idiots of Dryden. Well actually, with all the layoffs Dryden
> will
> > >have another 150 civil servants out in December to go with the 100
> > >contractors and 20 civil servants this fiscal year the dead wood may be
> > >purged.
> > >
> > >Besides that Weiss dip****, nothing in your post changes how the stick in
> > >the F/A-18 works,
> >
> > Is that what you've nicknamed your old POS firebird with the 3-speed
> > column?
>
> 400 CID to 400 THD on the floor with 450 horsies, the top down roaring up
> PCH. Even the antique BMWs take a look.

yes john of course, which is why your villa in Tehachapi looks rather
similar to this:

http://www.missouritrailertrash.com/page1.htm

Tarver Engineering

April 3rd 04, 04:54 AM

"JL Grasso" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 17:45:30 -0600, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>
> >Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >
> >> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> >> isi.com...
> >>
> >>>Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> isi.com...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>On 1 Apr 2004 19:15:23 -0800, (monkey) wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>I came across a USN NATOPS manual today which cements in my mind
that
> >>>>>>>Tarver is completely full of ****.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>It took a manual to do that? His daily posts are conclusive evidence.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Coddle, coddle, coddle...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Yep. Monkey is new at ram and just got caught lying about being an
> >>
> >> F/A-18
> >>
> >>>>pilot.
> >>>
> >>>You did?
> >>
> >> Yep, caught monkey dead to rights.
> >
> >No, you got caught lying. Which is about as difficult as shooting fish
> >in a barrel, of course...
> >
> >Coddle, coddle, coddle...
>
> Pretty hilarious, actually. Reeled in on an April Fools' joke!

Not me.

Tarver Engineering

April 3rd 04, 04:55 AM

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
isi.com...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> > isi.com...
> >
> >>Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> isi.com...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>On 1 Apr 2004 19:15:23 -0800, (monkey) wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>I came across a USN NATOPS manual today which cements in my mind
that
> >>>>>>Tarver is completely full of ****.
> >>>>
> >>>>It took a manual to do that? His daily posts are conclusive evidence.
> >>>>
> >>>>Coddle, coddle, coddle...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Yep. Monkey is new at ram and just got caught lying about being an
> >
> > F/A-18
> >
> >>>pilot.
> >>
> >>You did?
> >
> > Yep, caught monkey dead to rights.
>
> No, you got caught lying. Which is about as difficult as shooting fish
> in a barrel, of course...

Not me. Next time I see monkey I'll have to be sure to cross post him to
ramn, he is a hoot. I mean, it was like Ahrens pretending to be a transport
pilot while only knowing panel mount radios.

monkey

April 3rd 04, 05:50 AM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> isi.com...
> > Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >
> > > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> > > isi.com...
> > >
> > >>>On 1 Apr 2004 19:15:23 -0800, (monkey) wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>I came across a USN NATOPS manual today which cements in my mind that
> > >>>>Tarver is completely full of ****.
> > >>
> > >>It took a manual to do that? His daily posts are conclusive evidence.
> > >>
> > >>Coddle, coddle, coddle...
> > >
> > >
> > > Yep. Monkey is new at ram and just got caught lying about being an
> F/A-18
> > > pilot.
> >
> > You did?
>
> Yep, caught monkey dead to rights.

You know what, Tarver, you caught me red handed. You're right. I'm not
an F/A-18 pilot.
I'm actually a CF-18 pilot.

Rich Ahrens

April 3rd 04, 05:52 AM

Tarver Engineering wrote:
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> isi.com...
>
>>Tarver Engineering wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
isi.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Tarver Engineering wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
isi.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 1 Apr 2004 19:15:23 -0800, (monkey) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I came across a USN NATOPS manual today which cements in my mind
>
> that
>
>>>>>>>>Tarver is completely full of ****.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It took a manual to do that? His daily posts are conclusive evidence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Coddle, coddle, coddle...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yep. Monkey is new at ram and just got caught lying about being an
>>>
>>>F/A-18
>>>
>>>
>>>>>pilot.
>>>>
>>>>You did?
>>>
>>>Yep, caught monkey dead to rights.
>>
>>No, you got caught lying. Which is about as difficult as shooting fish
>>in a barrel, of course...
>
>
> Not me. Next time I see monkey I'll have to be sure to cross post him to
> ramn, he is a hoot. I mean, it was like Ahrens pretending to be a transport
> pilot while only knowing panel mount radios.

Something I've never done, Splappy, so quit pulling stories out of your
ass. The hampsters will start leakingout with them.

Coddle, coddle, coddle...

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

Tarver Engineering

April 3rd 04, 06:10 AM

"JL Grasso" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 19:55:57 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> isi.com...
> >> Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> >> > isi.com...
> >> >
> >> >>Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> >> isi.com...
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>>On 1 Apr 2004 19:15:23 -0800, (monkey)
wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>>I came across a USN NATOPS manual today which cements in my mind
> >that
> >> >>>>>>Tarver is completely full of ****.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>It took a manual to do that? His daily posts are conclusive
evidence.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>Coddle, coddle, coddle...
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Yep. Monkey is new at ram and just got caught lying about being an
> >> >
> >> > F/A-18
> >> >
> >> >>>pilot.
> >> >>
> >> >>You did?
> >> >
> >> > Yep, caught monkey dead to rights.
> >>
> >> No, you got caught lying. Which is about as difficult as shooting fish
> >> in a barrel, of course...
> >
> >Not me. Next time I see monkey I'll have to be sure to cross post him to
> >ramn, he is a hoot. I mean, it was like Ahrens pretending to be a
transport
> >pilot while only knowing panel mount radios.
>
>
> More like Tarver pretending to know about EPHIS(sic) when he doesn't even
> know panel-mount equipment.

I have never worked panel mount and I mostly don't care about it. Other
than the CNX-80 I have stayed away from small GA for liability reasons.

Tarver Engineering

April 3rd 04, 06:11 AM

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
isi.com...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> > isi.com...
> >
> >>Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> isi.com...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> isi.com...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>On 1 Apr 2004 19:15:23 -0800, (monkey) wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>I came across a USN NATOPS manual today which cements in my mind
> >
> > that
> >
> >>>>>>>>Tarver is completely full of ****.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>It took a manual to do that? His daily posts are conclusive
evidence.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Coddle, coddle, coddle...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Yep. Monkey is new at ram and just got caught lying about being an
> >>>
> >>>F/A-18
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>pilot.
> >>>>
> >>>>You did?
> >>>
> >>>Yep, caught monkey dead to rights.
> >>
> >>No, you got caught lying. Which is about as difficult as shooting fish
> >>in a barrel, of course...
> >
> >
> > Not me. Next time I see monkey I'll have to be sure to cross post him
to
> > ramn, he is a hoot. I mean, it was like Ahrens pretending to be a
transport
> > pilot while only knowing panel mount radios.
>
> Something I've never done, Splappy, so quit pulling stories out of your
> ass. The hampsters will start leakingout with them.

I do believe LP finally got you to admit to being a 50 hour small GA pilot,
Rich. It was pretty funny to see the experts Mazor delivered.

Tarver Engineering

April 3rd 04, 06:13 AM

"monkey" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> > isi.com...
> > > Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> > > > isi.com...
> > > >
> > > >>>On 1 Apr 2004 19:15:23 -0800, (monkey) wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>I came across a USN NATOPS manual today which cements in my mind
that
> > > >>>>Tarver is completely full of ****.
> > > >>
> > > >>It took a manual to do that? His daily posts are conclusive
evidence.
> > > >>
> > > >>Coddle, coddle, coddle...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yep. Monkey is new at ram and just got caught lying about being an
> > F/A-18
> > > > pilot.
> > >
> > > You did?
> >
> > Yep, caught monkey dead to rights.
>
> You know what, Tarver, you caught me red handed. You're right. I'm not
> an F/A-18 pilot.
> I'm actually a CF-18 pilot.

If you are an F/A-18 pilot then your squadron is in need of remedial
training, sock.

Rich Ahrens

April 3rd 04, 06:22 AM

Tarver Engineering wrote:

> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> isi.com...
>
>>Tarver Engineering wrote:
>>
>>>"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
isi.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Tarver Engineering wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
isi.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Tarver Engineering wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
isi.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On 1 Apr 2004 19:15:23 -0800, (monkey) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I came across a USN NATOPS manual today which cements in my mind
>>>
>>>that
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Tarver is completely full of ****.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It took a manual to do that? His daily posts are conclusive
>
> evidence.
>
>>>>>>>>Coddle, coddle, coddle...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yep. Monkey is new at ram and just got caught lying about being an
>>>>>
>>>>>F/A-18
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>pilot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You did?
>>>>>
>>>>>Yep, caught monkey dead to rights.
>>>>
>>>>No, you got caught lying. Which is about as difficult as shooting fish
>>>>in a barrel, of course...
>>>
>>>
>>>Not me. Next time I see monkey I'll have to be sure to cross post him
>
> to
>
>>>ramn, he is a hoot. I mean, it was like Ahrens pretending to be a
>
> transport
>
>>>pilot while only knowing panel mount radios.
>>
>>Something I've never done, Splappy, so quit pulling stories out of your
>>ass. The hampsters will start leakingout with them.
>
>
> I do believe LP finally got you to admit to being a 50 hour small GA pilot,
> Rich. It was pretty funny to see the experts Mazor delivered.

Nope. Once again, you're blowing smoke on multiple counts: (1) I never
claimed to be a transport pilot. (2) I was here before Mazor, or at
least he had nothing to do with my being here. (3) You're way off on my
hours. (4) LP got nothing out of me.

On the other hand, you got caught out once again as not knowing your
head from your ass.

Coddle, coddle, coddle, Splappy...

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

B2431

April 3rd 04, 09:21 AM

>From: "Tarver Engineering"

>>
>>
>> More like Tarver pretending to know about EPHIS(sic) when he doesn't even
>> know panel-mount equipment.
>
>I have never worked panel mount and I mostly don't care about it. Other
>than the CNX-80 I have stayed away from small GA for liability reasons.

Tarve, from your posts I have come to realize your sole experience in avionics
ia as a dummy load.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Scott M. Kozel

April 3rd 04, 03:07 PM

JL Grasso > wrote:
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> > "JL Grasso" > wrote
> >> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >> > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote
> >> >> Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Yep, caught monkey dead to rights.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, you got caught lying. Which is about as difficult as shooting fish
> >> >> in a barrel, of course...
> >> >
> >> >Not me. Next time I see monkey I'll have to be sure to cross post him to
> >> >ramn, he is a hoot. I mean, it was like Ahrens pretending to be a transport
> >> >pilot while only knowing panel mount radios.
> >>
> >> More like Tarver pretending to know about EPHIS(sic) when he doesn't even
> >> know panel-mount equipment.
> >
> >I have never worked panel mount and I mostly don't care about it.
>
> Translation: "There aren't enough trade publications currently available
> to allow me to concoct a phony background in that."
>
> >Other
> >than the CNX-80 I have stayed away from small GA for liability reasons.
>
> Translation: "My liability umbrella specifically forbids contact with any
> aircraft, it's subassemblies, or any component thereof."

Keyboard!

Tarver Engineering

April 3rd 04, 03:26 PM

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>
> >>
> >>
> >> More like Tarver pretending to know about EPHIS(sic) when he doesn't
even
> >> know panel-mount equipment.
> >
> >I have never worked panel mount and I mostly don't care about it. Other
> >than the CNX-80 I have stayed away from small GA for liability reasons.
>
> Tarve, from your posts I have come to realize your sole experience in
avionics
> ia as a dummy load.

Have ya' another handfull of those pain killers, old fool.

running with scissors

April 3rd 04, 09:32 PM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> isi.com...
> > Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >
> > > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> > > isi.com...
> > >
> > >>>On 1 Apr 2004 19:15:23 -0800, (monkey) wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>I came across a USN NATOPS manual today which cements in my mind that
> > >>>>Tarver is completely full of ****.
> > >>
> > >>It took a manual to do that? His daily posts are conclusive evidence.
> > >>
> > >>Coddle, coddle, coddle...
> > >
> > >
> > > Yep. Monkey is new at ram and just got caught lying about being an
> F/A-18
> > > pilot.
> >
> > You did?
>
> Yep, caught monkey dead to rights.

they same way you get caught bang to rights on the utter garbage you post?

running with scissors

April 3rd 04, 09:33 PM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> isi.com...
> > Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >
> > > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> > > isi.com...
> > >
> > >>Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> > isi.com...
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>>On 1 Apr 2004 19:15:23 -0800, (monkey) wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>I came across a USN NATOPS manual today which cements in my mind
> that
> > >>>>>>Tarver is completely full of ****.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>It took a manual to do that? His daily posts are conclusive evidence.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Coddle, coddle, coddle...
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>Yep. Monkey is new at ram and just got caught lying about being an
> > >
> > > F/A-18
> > >
> > >>>pilot.
> > >>
> > >>You did?
> > >
> > > Yep, caught monkey dead to rights.
> >
> > No, you got caught lying. Which is about as difficult as shooting fish
> > in a barrel, of course...
>
> Not me. Next time I see monkey I'll have to be sure to cross post him to
> ramn, he is a hoot. I mean, it was like Ahrens pretending to be a transport
> pilot while only knowing panel mount radios.

whereas you thought a flight director was an autopilot

running with scissors

April 3rd 04, 09:37 PM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> isi.com...
> > Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> > > isi.com...
> > >
> > >>Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> > isi.com...
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> > isi.com...
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>On 1 Apr 2004 19:15:23 -0800, (monkey) wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>I came across a USN NATOPS manual today which cements in my mind
> > >
> > > that
> > >
> > >>>>>>>>Tarver is completely full of ****.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>It took a manual to do that? His daily posts are conclusive
> evidence.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>Coddle, coddle, coddle...
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Yep. Monkey is new at ram and just got caught lying about being an
> > >>>
> > >>>F/A-18
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>>pilot.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>You did?
> > >>>
> > >>>Yep, caught monkey dead to rights.
> > >>
> > >>No, you got caught lying. Which is about as difficult as shooting fish
> > >>in a barrel, of course...
> > >
> > >
> > > Not me. Next time I see monkey I'll have to be sure to cross post him
> to
> > > ramn, he is a hoot. I mean, it was like Ahrens pretending to be a
> transport
> > > pilot while only knowing panel mount radios.
> >
> > Something I've never done, Splappy, so quit pulling stories out of your
> > ass. The hampsters will start leakingout with them.
>
> I do believe LP finally got you to admit to being a 50 hour small GA pilot,
> Rich. It was pretty funny to see the experts Mazor delivered.

big deal. every pilot at some time has had 50 hours in GA aircraft.
its still 50 hours more than you have, besides, a complete ab-intio
has more knowledge of aircraft than you do.

running with scissors

April 3rd 04, 09:41 PM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "JL Grasso" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 19:55:57 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> > isi.com...
> > >> Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> > >> > isi.com...
> > >> >
> > >> >>Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>>"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> > >> isi.com...
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>>>On 1 Apr 2004 19:15:23 -0800, (monkey)
> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>I came across a USN NATOPS manual today which cements in my mind
> that
> > >> >>>>>>Tarver is completely full of ****.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>It took a manual to do that? His daily posts are conclusive
> evidence.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>Coddle, coddle, coddle...
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>Yep. Monkey is new at ram and just got caught lying about being an
> > >> >
> > >> > F/A-18
> > >> >
> > >> >>>pilot.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>You did?
> > >> >
> > >> > Yep, caught monkey dead to rights.
> > >>
> > >> No, you got caught lying. Which is about as difficult as shooting fish
> > >> in a barrel, of course...
> > >
> > >Not me. Next time I see monkey I'll have to be sure to cross post him to
> > >ramn, he is a hoot. I mean, it was like Ahrens pretending to be a
> transport
> > >pilot while only knowing panel mount radios.
> >
> >
> > More like Tarver pretending to know about EPHIS(sic) when he doesn't even
> > know panel-mount equipment.
>
> I have never worked panel mount and I mostly don't care about it. Other
> than the CNX-80 I have stayed away from small GA for liability reasons.

bwahahahahahhahahhahahhahhaha

clueless ****.

running with scissors

April 3rd 04, 09:49 PM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> isi.com...
> > Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> > > isi.com...
> > >
> > >>Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> > isi.com...
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> > isi.com...
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>On 1 Apr 2004 19:15:23 -0800, (monkey) wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>I came across a USN NATOPS manual today which cements in my mind
> > >
> > > that
> > >
> > >>>>>>>>Tarver is completely full of ****.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>It took a manual to do that? His daily posts are conclusive
> evidence.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>Coddle, coddle, coddle...
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Yep. Monkey is new at ram and just got caught lying about being an
> > >>>
> > >>>F/A-18
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>>pilot.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>You did?
> > >>>
> > >>>Yep, caught monkey dead to rights.
> > >>
> > >>No, you got caught lying. Which is about as difficult as shooting fish
> > >>in a barrel, of course...
> > >
> > >
> > > Not me. Next time I see monkey I'll have to be sure to cross post him
> to
> > > ramn, he is a hoot. I mean, it was like Ahrens pretending to be a
> transport
> > > pilot while only knowing panel mount radios.
> >
> > Something I've never done, Splappy, so quit pulling stories out of your
> > ass. The hampsters will start leakingout with them.
>
> I do believe <snip>

you see whats wrong with those three words Tarver. what you believe
has no tangible reference to reality.

which is why you believe a spoiler is a flap and that Budwieser is the
biggest selling beer in Oz.

running with scissors

April 3rd 04, 09:50 PM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "monkey" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> > > isi.com...
> > > > Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> > > > > isi.com...
> > > > >
> > > > >>>On 1 Apr 2004 19:15:23 -0800, (monkey) wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>I came across a USN NATOPS manual today which cements in my mind
> that
> > > > >>>>Tarver is completely full of ****.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>It took a manual to do that? His daily posts are conclusive
> evidence.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Coddle, coddle, coddle...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yep. Monkey is new at ram and just got caught lying about being an
> F/A-18
> > > > > pilot.
> > > >
> > > > You did?
> > >
> > > Yep, caught monkey dead to rights.
> >
> > You know what, Tarver, you caught me red handed. You're right. I'm not
> > an F/A-18 pilot.
> > I'm actually a CF-18 pilot.
>
> If you are an F/A-18 pilot then your squadron is in need of remedial
> training, sock.

and you on the other hand are in need of a remedial school.

running with scissors

April 3rd 04, 09:51 PM

(B2431) wrote in message >...
> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>
> >>
> >>
> >> More like Tarver pretending to know about EPHIS(sic) when he doesn't even
> >> know panel-mount equipment.
> >
> >I have never worked panel mount and I mostly don't care about it. Other
> >than the CNX-80 I have stayed away from small GA for liability reasons.
>
> Tarve, from your posts I have come to realize your sole experience in avionics
> ia as a dummy load.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

more to the point, his sole experience in aviation is as a dummy load.

monkey

April 4th 04, 12:16 PM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "monkey" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> > > isi.com...
> > > > Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> > > > > isi.com...
> > > > >
> > > > >>>On 1 Apr 2004 19:15:23 -0800, (monkey) wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>I came across a USN NATOPS manual today which cements in my mind
> that
> > > > >>>>Tarver is completely full of ****.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>It took a manual to do that? His daily posts are conclusive
> evidence.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Coddle, coddle, coddle...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yep. Monkey is new at ram and just got caught lying about being an
> F/A-18
> > > > > pilot.
> > > >
> > > > You did?
> > >
> > > Yep, caught monkey dead to rights.
> >
> > You know what, Tarver, you caught me red handed. You're right. I'm not
> > an F/A-18 pilot.
> > I'm actually a CF-18 pilot.
>
> If you are an F/A-18 pilot then your squadron is in need of remedial
> training, sock

err...read the post...like I said, I'm not an F/A-18 pilot, I'm a
CF-18 pilot...BITCH.
p.s. flew a great 2v2 today, what did you do, clown show?

Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal

April 4th 04, 03:06 PM

On 4/4/04 5:16 AM, in article
, "monkey"
> wrote:

<SNIP>
>
> err...read the post...like I said, I'm not an F/A-18 pilot, I'm a
> CF-18 pilot...BITCH.
> p.s. flew a great 2v2 today, what did you do, clown show?

Yep, this guy's a Hornet pilot. He certainly talks like one! Where are you
stationed, Monkey? If Cold Lake, is Pat Peters still up there?

--Woody

Tarver Engineering

April 4th 04, 04:45 PM

"monkey" > wrote in message
m...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>...
> > "monkey" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> > > > isi.com...
> > > > > Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> > > > > > isi.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>On 1 Apr 2004 19:15:23 -0800, (monkey)
wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>I came across a USN NATOPS manual today which cements in my
mind
> > that
> > > > > >>>>Tarver is completely full of ****.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>It took a manual to do that? His daily posts are conclusive
> > evidence.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>Coddle, coddle, coddle...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yep. Monkey is new at ram and just got caught lying about being
an
> > F/A-18
> > > > > > pilot.
> > > > >
> > > > > You did?
> > > >
> > > > Yep, caught monkey dead to rights.
> > >
> > > You know what, Tarver, you caught me red handed. You're right. I'm not
> > > an F/A-18 pilot.
> > > I'm actually a CF-18 pilot.
> >
> > If you are an F/A-18 pilot then your squadron is in need of remedial
> > training, sock
>
> err...read the post...like I said, I'm not an F/A-18 pilot, I'm a
> CF-18 pilot...BITCH.

Do you believe Canadains have somehow eliminated the mechanical backup in
their F-18s? Perhaps you mean you are lying.

Tarver Engineering

April 4th 04, 04:47 PM

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/4/04 5:16 AM, in article
> , "monkey"
> > wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
> >
> > err...read the post...like I said, I'm not an F/A-18 pilot, I'm a
> > CF-18 pilot...BITCH.
> > p.s. flew a great 2v2 today, what did you do, clown show?
>
> Yep, this guy's a Hornet pilot. He certainly talks like one! Where are
you
> stationed, Monkey? If Cold Lake, is Pat Peters still up there?

I don't know about the boy. If his story is true the Canadian Government
has dropped out of the rest of the community and stopped even mentioning the
mechanical stick backup. It is a safety of flight issue.

Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal

April 4th 04, 06:56 PM

On 4/4/04 9:47 AM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" > wrote:

>
> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 4/4/04 5:16 AM, in article
>> , "monkey"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>>
>>> err...read the post...like I said, I'm not an F/A-18 pilot, I'm a
>>> CF-18 pilot...BITCH.
>>> p.s. flew a great 2v2 today, what did you do, clown show?
>>
>> Yep, this guy's a Hornet pilot. He certainly talks like one! Where are
> you
>> stationed, Monkey? If Cold Lake, is Pat Peters still up there?
>
> I don't know about the boy. If his story is true the Canadian Government
> has dropped out of the rest of the community and stopped even mentioning the
> mechanical stick backup. It is a safety of flight issue.
>
>

Missed the front part of the conversation, John. What exactly did he say?

The Mech flight control function isn't easily "eliminated" from the legacy
Hornet. It is still part of the FCF checklist, however and is checked on A
and C FCF's. (I fly so few B's that I haven't a clue if it's on that list.)
I don't personally find it very useful (my opinion only) which is, I think,
why it WAS eliminated from the Super Hornet.

In fact, I can only recall hearing of one Mech-Off-Off incident (i.e. down
to the stabs only for controlling the jet) in the F/A-18A-D, and the guy
flying it (USMC?) shelled out shortly after because of the resulting
oscillations.

--Woody

Tarver Engineering

April 4th 04, 07:46 PM

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/4/04 9:47 AM, in article , "Tarver
> Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >
> > "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On 4/4/04 5:16 AM, in article
> >> , "monkey"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> <SNIP>
> >>>
> >>> err...read the post...like I said, I'm not an F/A-18 pilot, I'm a
> >>> CF-18 pilot...BITCH.
> >>> p.s. flew a great 2v2 today, what did you do, clown show?
> >>
> >> Yep, this guy's a Hornet pilot. He certainly talks like one! Where
are
> > you
> >> stationed, Monkey? If Cold Lake, is Pat Peters still up there?
> >
> > I don't know about the boy. If his story is true the Canadian
Government
> > has dropped out of the rest of the community and stopped even mentioning
the
> > mechanical stick backup. It is a safety of flight issue.

> Missed the front part of the conversation, John. What exactly did he say?

I made a claim WRT the break out force of the F/A-18 stick and monkey came
by to correct me.

> The Mech flight control function isn't easily "eliminated" from the legacy
> Hornet. It is still part of the FCF checklist, however and is checked on
A
> and C FCF's. (I fly so few B's that I haven't a clue if it's on that
list.)
> I don't personally find it very useful (my opinion only) which is, I
think,
> why it WAS eliminated from the Super Hornet.

The Super Hornet exists in a much different electric airplane reliability
reality. Can you imagine the skew the F/A-18E's pilot reported defect rate
is doing to the entire system? The numbers are actual war operations, so
their is no time to play chinese fire drill to hide defects. The numbers
are nearly as unbelievable as FAA turning in two zero killed years since
1997. Applying the RPL Model really paid off for the Navy.

> In fact, I can only recall hearing of one Mech-Off-Off incident (i.e. down
> to the stabs only for controlling the jet) in the F/A-18A-D, and the guy
> flying it (USMC?) shelled out shortly after because of the resulting
> oscillations.

It is a simple thing to just break the stick out and use the backup.

monkey

April 4th 04, 08:52 PM

"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message >...
> On 4/4/04 5:16 AM, in article
> , "monkey"
> > wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
> >
> > err...read the post...like I said, I'm not an F/A-18 pilot, I'm a
> > CF-18 pilot...BITCH.
> > p.s. flew a great 2v2 today, what did you do, clown show?
>
> Yep, this guy's a Hornet pilot. He certainly talks like one! Where are you
> stationed, Monkey? If Cold Lake, is Pat Peters still up there?
>
> --Woody

Cold Lake. If you mean the USAF Pat Peters at AETE, yes he's still
here. I have to admit I don't really know the guy though. Where are
you at?

Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal

April 4th 04, 10:36 PM

On 4/4/04 2:52 PM, in article
, "monkey"
> wrote:

> "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> >...
>> On 4/4/04 5:16 AM, in article
>> , "monkey"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>>
>>> err...read the post...like I said, I'm not an F/A-18 pilot, I'm a
>>> CF-18 pilot...BITCH.
>>> p.s. flew a great 2v2 today, what did you do, clown show?
>>
>> Yep, this guy's a Hornet pilot. He certainly talks like one! Where are you
>> stationed, Monkey? If Cold Lake, is Pat Peters still up there?
>>
>> --Woody
>
> Cold Lake. If you mean the USAF Pat Peters at AETE, yes he's still
> here. I have to admit I don't really know the guy though. Where are
> you at?

That's the guy. More off line. I'm telling you, Tarver, the guy's
authentic.

--Woody

Tarver Engineering

April 4th 04, 10:40 PM

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/4/04 2:52 PM, in article
> , "monkey"
> > wrote:
>
> > "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" > wrote in
message
> > >...
> >> On 4/4/04 5:16 AM, in article
> >> , "monkey"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> <SNIP>
> >>>
> >>> err...read the post...like I said, I'm not an F/A-18 pilot, I'm a
> >>> CF-18 pilot...BITCH.
> >>> p.s. flew a great 2v2 today, what did you do, clown show?
> >>
> >> Yep, this guy's a Hornet pilot. He certainly talks like one! Where
are you
> >> stationed, Monkey? If Cold Lake, is Pat Peters still up there?
> >>
> >> --Woody
> >
> > Cold Lake. If you mean the USAF Pat Peters at AETE, yes he's still
> > here. I have to admit I don't really know the guy though. Where are
> > you at?
>
> That's the guy. More off line. I'm telling you, Tarver, the guy's
> authentic.

He seems authentic in many ways, especially the F/A-18 big dick attitude;
something I have to admit is earned. My only objection is his propigating a
safety of flight training defect.

Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal

April 4th 04, 10:59 PM

On 4/4/04 1:46 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" > wrote:

>
> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> ...
<SNIP>
>
>> Missed the front part of the conversation, John. What exactly did he say?
>
> I made a claim WRT the break out force of the F/A-18 stick and monkey came
> by to correct me.
>

I'm not sure what break-out force you're talking about. Granted, my only
experience with MECH is during FCF's, but when you motor the right engine
(no generators on line), the stabs just move--period. If there was any
sensation of a "break out" force, I'd down the jet for binding flight
controls.

>> The Mech flight control function isn't easily "eliminated" from the legacy
>> Hornet. It is still part of the FCF checklist, however and is checked on
> A
>> and C FCF's. (I fly so few B's that I haven't a clue if it's on that
> list.)
>> I don't personally find it very useful (my opinion only) which is, I
> think,
>> why it WAS eliminated from the Super Hornet.
>
> The Super Hornet exists in a much different electric airplane reliability
> reality.

Electrically? Only because it's new. From what I understand, the FCC's
aren't all that different--2 of 'em, 2 channels each. Hydraulically, it's a
different story entirely though. My last talk with a Boeing engineer about
the issue yielded that the MECH system in the legacy Hornet (baby Hornet,
whatever) was so unused, that it was deemed unnecessary by the Program folks
for the Super Hornet (cost/weight savings).

> Can you imagine the skew the F/A-18E's pilot reported defect rate
> is doing to the entire system? The numbers are actual war operations, so
> their is no time to play chinese fire drill to hide defects. The numbers
> are nearly as unbelievable as FAA turning in two zero killed years since
> 1997. Applying the RPL Model really paid off for the Navy.

I don't think that the "pilot reported defects" in the legacy Hornet's
flight control system were ever "hidden." In fact, I've even seen HAZREPS
with the latest PROM 10.7. The reason the Super Hornet's numbers are better
are more than likely because the jet's new and there aren't many of them
yet.

I don't know what RPL is, but if you're saying that the Super Hornet's doing
well, I agree.

The biggest reason that legacy Hornet pilots end up in MECH is because they
somehow inadvertently drive themselves there (mostly with an engine shut
down on FCF's). This is an extremely rare occurrence though and is easily
reset.

>> In fact, I can only recall hearing of one Mech-Off-Off incident (i.e. down
>> to the stabs only for controlling the jet) in the F/A-18A-D, and the guy
>> flying it (USMC?) shelled out shortly after because of the resulting
>> oscillations.
>
> It is a simple thing to just break the stick out and use the backup.

What does that mean? The DDI will give you a MECH ON caution, and the
tic-tac-toe board will be filled with X's, but there's no "break out"
associated with MECH. The airplane will either continue to be controllable
or it won't--depending on where you are in the flight envelope and how well
the system is working for you. In this guy's case, it wasn't.

--Woody

B2431

April 4th 04, 11:20 PM

>From: "Tarver Engineering"
>Date: 4/4/2004 4:40 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
>> On 4/4/04 2:52 PM, in article
>> , "monkey"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" > wrote in
>message
>> > >...
>> >> On 4/4/04 5:16 AM, in article
>> >> , "monkey"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> <SNIP>
>> >>>
>> >>> err...read the post...like I said, I'm not an F/A-18 pilot, I'm a
>> >>> CF-18 pilot...BITCH.
>> >>> p.s. flew a great 2v2 today, what did you do, clown show?
>> >>
>> >> Yep, this guy's a Hornet pilot. He certainly talks like one! Where
>are you
>> >> stationed, Monkey? If Cold Lake, is Pat Peters still up there?
>> >>
>> >> --Woody
>> >
>> > Cold Lake. If you mean the USAF Pat Peters at AETE, yes he's still
>> > here. I have to admit I don't really know the guy though. Where are
>> > you at?
>>
>> That's the guy. More off line. I'm telling you, Tarver, the guy's
>> authentic.
>
>He seems authentic in many ways, especially the F/A-18 big dick attitude;
>something I have to admit is earned. My only objection is his propigating a
>safety of flight training defect.

Hey guys, a new dance: the Tarver Shuffle. First tarver called him a fraud now
he "seems authentic." At this rate tarver will admit he was wrong in twenty or
thirty years.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Tarver Engineering

April 4th 04, 11:52 PM

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> >Date: 4/4/2004 4:40 PM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 4/4/04 2:52 PM, in article
> >> , "monkey"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" > wrote in
> >message
> >> > >...
> >> >> On 4/4/04 5:16 AM, in article
> >> >> , "monkey"
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> <SNIP>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> err...read the post...like I said, I'm not an F/A-18 pilot, I'm a
> >> >>> CF-18 pilot...BITCH.
> >> >>> p.s. flew a great 2v2 today, what did you do, clown show?
> >> >>
> >> >> Yep, this guy's a Hornet pilot. He certainly talks like one! Where
> >are you
> >> >> stationed, Monkey? If Cold Lake, is Pat Peters still up there?
> >> >>
> >> >> --Woody
> >> >
> >> > Cold Lake. If you mean the USAF Pat Peters at AETE, yes he's still
> >> > here. I have to admit I don't really know the guy though. Where are
> >> > you at?
> >>
> >> That's the guy. More off line. I'm telling you, Tarver, the guy's
> >> authentic.
> >
> >He seems authentic in many ways, especially the F/A-18 big dick attitude;
> >something I have to admit is earned. My only objection is his
propigating a
> >safety of flight training defect.
>
>
> Hey guys, a new dance: the Tarver Shuffle. First tarver called him a fraud
now
> he "seems authentic." At this rate tarver will admit he was wrong in
twenty or
> thirty years.

If monkey is not a frad he requires remedial training. From what Woody
posts the Canadians may have already lost an F-18 to the ignorance monkey
displays.

Tarver Engineering

April 4th 04, 11:55 PM

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/4/04 1:46 PM, in article , "Tarver
> Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >
> > "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> > ...
> <SNIP>
> >
> >> Missed the front part of the conversation, John. What exactly did he
say?
> >
> > I made a claim WRT the break out force of the F/A-18 stick and monkey
came
> > by to correct me.
> >
>
> I'm not sure what break-out force you're talking about. Granted, my only
> experience with MECH is during FCF's, but when you motor the right engine
> (no generators on line), the stabs just move--period. If there was any
> sensation of a "break out" force, I'd down the jet for binding flight
> controls.

There is a cable system connected such that the stick continues to work for
a total electric failure in the F-18ABCD.

Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal

April 5th 04, 11:05 AM

On 4/4/04 5:55 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" > wrote:

>
> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 4/4/04 1:46 PM, in article , "Tarver
>> Engineering" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>> <SNIP>
>>>
>>>> Missed the front part of the conversation, John. What exactly did he
> say?
>>>
>>> I made a claim WRT the break out force of the F/A-18 stick and monkey
> came
>>> by to correct me.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure what break-out force you're talking about. Granted, my only
>> experience with MECH is during FCF's, but when you motor the right engine
>> (no generators on line), the stabs just move--period. If there was any
>> sensation of a "break out" force, I'd down the jet for binding flight
>> controls.
>
> There is a cable system connected such that the stick continues to work for
> a total electric failure in the F-18ABCD.
>
>

Yes. Truly. It's in the NATOPS and everything. My confusion with your
statements is this occasional mention of a "break out" or "break out force."
There is nothing like that.

As I explained before. If while starting up the aircraft, if you simply
windmill the right engine (battery power only, no generators on line, RPM
sitting at about 26-32%), you can wipe out the stick and observe the stabs
move--differentially for roll and together for pitch. There is no binding
and the only force is that of the artificial feel system trying to return
the stick to the neutral position--the same as when the jet is in CAS mode.
They even have more pitch authority with the flap switch in HALF or FULL.
That's MECH in a nutshell.

It is mechanically controlled and hydraulically actuated, so you must have
at least one engine windmilling to make it work.

--Woody

Tarver Engineering

April 5th 04, 06:19 PM

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/4/04 5:55 PM, in article , "Tarver
> Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >
> > "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On 4/4/04 1:46 PM, in article , "Tarver
> >> Engineering" > wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in
message
> >>> ...
> >> <SNIP>
> >>>
> >>>> Missed the front part of the conversation, John. What exactly did he
> > say?
> >>>
> >>> I made a claim WRT the break out force of the F/A-18 stick and monkey
> > came
> >>> by to correct me.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I'm not sure what break-out force you're talking about. Granted, my
only
> >> experience with MECH is during FCF's, but when you motor the right
engine
> >> (no generators on line), the stabs just move--period. If there was any
> >> sensation of a "break out" force, I'd down the jet for binding flight
> >> controls.
> >
> > There is a cable system connected such that the stick continues to work
for
> > a total electric failure in the F-18ABCD.
> >
> >
>
> Yes. Truly. It's in the NATOPS and everything. My confusion with your
> statements is this occasional mention of a "break out" or "break out
force."
> There is nothing like that.

I know that information from having desiged the first accuratee F/A-18
simulator at Dryden. The reason for bringing up the break out force in the
first place was to demonstrate how much force a Flanker applying an
additional 33# of force directly into his crotch to do a cobra would be
risking. It is a completely different thread, but monkey wanted to branch
off into a demonstration is his huge penis and then immediately stepped on
same.

> As I explained before. If while starting up the aircraft, if you simply
> windmill the right engine (battery power only, no generators on line, RPM
> sitting at about 26-32%), you can wipe out the stick and observe the stabs
> move--differentially for roll and together for pitch. There is no binding
> and the only force is that of the artificial feel system trying to return
> the stick to the neutral position--the same as when the jet is in CAS
mode.
> They even have more pitch authority with the flap switch in HALF or FULL.
> That's MECH in a nutshell.

There is no FCS in mech mode for the F/A-18ABCD, so the limits are disabled.
The mechanical control system, is of course interesting to the Flanker
discussion in that the F/A-18ABCD are cobra capable under a disabled FCS
system just as the Flanker is. the difference bring that the F/A-18ABCD has
the FCS over ride switches delected for production.

> It is mechanically controlled and hydraulically actuated, so you must have
> at least one engine windmilling to make it work.

The probabilistic viewpoint is that the system failure most likely is that
"prince of darkness" rotary inverter. It never lived up to it's MTBF
promises.

John Mazor

April 6th 04, 02:43 AM

"AbsolutelyCertain" > wrote in message
...
>
> "JL Grasso >" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 10:19:21 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >I know that information from having desiged the first accuratee F/A-18
> > >simulator at Dryden.
> >
> > How do you ever find the time for all of your exploits?
> >
> > Jerry
>
> They happen mostly during REM sleep, I think. Or while clenching a stick
in
> his teeth to keep from swallowing his tongue.

Jack Nicholson, "One Flew Over the Gerbil's Nest". Who could forget?
Zzzzzzztttt! Zzzzzzztttt!

José Herculano

April 6th 04, 10:26 AM

> Look, Tarver, I've accumulated enough hours in the Hornet to have more
than
> a clue about its systems and how to employ them than you do.

Woody, the Tarver-dude is reasoning-proof. In ancient Greece he'd be a
sophist without a following. Plonk him ;-)

_____________
José Herculano

Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal

April 6th 04, 10:48 PM

On 4/5/04 12:19 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" > wrote:

>
> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
<SNIP>
>> Yes. Truly. It's in the NATOPS and everything. My confusion with your
>> statements is this occasional mention of a "break out" or "break out
>> force." There is nothing like that.
>
> I know that information from having desiged the first accuratee F/A-18
> simulator at Dryden. The reason for bringing up the break out force in the
> first place was to demonstrate how much force a Flanker applying an
> additional 33# of force directly into his crotch to do a cobra would be
> risking. It is a completely different thread, but monkey wanted to branch
> off into a demonstration is his huge penis and then immediately stepped on
> same.
>

Flanker, whatever... It's not a Hornet, which was where I came into this
discussion. Okay? As long as you're agreeing that there's no break out
force in the Hornet, we're square. Based on the fact that you've moved onto
Flankers, it sounds like you are.

>> As I explained before. If while starting up the aircraft, if you simply
>> windmill the right engine (battery power only, no generators on line, RPM
>> sitting at about 26-32%), you can wipe out the stick and observe the stabs
>> move--differentially for roll and together for pitch. There is no binding
>> and the only force is that of the artificial feel system trying to return
>> the stick to the neutral position--the same as when the jet is in CAS
>> mode. They even have more pitch authority with the flap switch in HALF or
>> FULL. That's MECH in a nutshell.
>
> There is no FCS in mech mode for the F/A-18ABCD, so the limits are disabled.

What you mean to say is that there are no FCC's (Flight Control Computers)
in MECH mode. MECH *IS* in fact, part of the FCS (or Flight Control System)
which includes three modes: CAS, DEL, and MECH.

There *IS* additional back-stick pitch authority provided with the flap
switch in HALF or FULL.

> The mechanical control system, is of course interesting to the Flanker
> discussion in that the F/A-18ABCD are cobra capable under a disabled FCS
> system just as the Flanker is. the difference bring that the F/A-18ABCD has
> the FCS over ride switches delected for production.
>

What in the world are you talking about? The only FCS override switch is
the paddle switch on the stick. That switch would have NOTHING to do with a
Cobra maneuver. And ALL Hornets (ABCDEF) are capable of doing a Cobra with
PROM 10.7 or later. You'll never see it at an air show though.

>> It is mechanically controlled and hydraulically actuated, so you must have
>> at least one engine windmilling to make it work.
>
> The probabilistic viewpoint is that the system failure most likely is that
> "prince of darkness" rotary inverter. It never lived up to it's MTBF
> promises.
>

What rotary inverter? Where is it? How is it part of the FCS?

--Woody

Tarver Engineering

April 6th 04, 11:39 PM

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/5/04 12:19 PM, in article , "Tarver
> Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >
> > "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> <SNIP>
> >> Yes. Truly. It's in the NATOPS and everything. My confusion with
your
> >> statements is this occasional mention of a "break out" or "break out
> >> force." There is nothing like that.
> >
> > I know that information from having desiged the first accuratee F/A-18
> > simulator at Dryden. The reason for bringing up the break out force in
the
> > first place was to demonstrate how much force a Flanker applying an
> > additional 33# of force directly into his crotch to do a cobra would be
> > risking. It is a completely different thread, but monkey wanted to
branch
> > off into a demonstration is his huge penis and then immediately stepped
on
> > same.
> >
>
> Flanker, whatever... It's not a Hornet, which was where I came into this
> discussion. Okay? As long as you're agreeing that there's no break out
> force in the Hornet, we're square.

Let us agree that I know where the F/A-18 stick breaks out at (20#) and that
you and monkey are clueless. That is so much easier than stroking your
fragile ego, Woody. It is a safety of flight issue and I am not going to
budge on the fact. If Canada chooses to use less safe operators for their
F-18s then that is their business.

running with scissors

April 7th 04, 12:23 AM

"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message >...
> On 4/4/04 2:52 PM, in article
> , "monkey"
> > wrote:
>
> > "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> > >...
> >> On 4/4/04 5:16 AM, in article
> >> , "monkey"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> <SNIP>
> >>>
> >>> err...read the post...like I said, I'm not an F/A-18 pilot, I'm a
> >>> CF-18 pilot...BITCH.
> >>> p.s. flew a great 2v2 today, what did you do, clown show?
> >>
> >> Yep, this guy's a Hornet pilot. He certainly talks like one! Where are you
> >> stationed, Monkey? If Cold Lake, is Pat Peters still up there?
> >>
> >> --Woody
> >
> > Cold Lake. If you mean the USAF Pat Peters at AETE, yes he's still
> > here. I have to admit I don't really know the guy though. Where are
> > you at?
>
> That's the guy. More off line. I'm telling you, Tarver, the guy's
> authentic.
>
> --Woody

Tarver lives in an alternate reality, where things like a spoiler is flap.

Allen Epps

April 7th 04, 12:36 AM

In article >, Tarver Engineering
> wrote:

> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 4/5/04 12:19 PM, in article , "Tarver
> > Engineering" > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> > <SNIP>
> > >> Yes. Truly. It's in the NATOPS and everything. My confusion with
> your
> > >> statements is this occasional mention of a "break out" or "break out
> > >> force." There is nothing like that.
> > >
> > > I know that information from having desiged the first accuratee F/A-18
> > > simulator at Dryden. The reason for bringing up the break out force in
> the
> > > first place was to demonstrate how much force a Flanker applying an
> > > additional 33# of force directly into his crotch to do a cobra would be
> > > risking. It is a completely different thread, but monkey wanted to
> branch
> > > off into a demonstration is his huge penis and then immediately stepped
> on
> > > same.
> > >
> >
> > Flanker, whatever... It's not a Hornet, which was where I came into this
> > discussion. Okay? As long as you're agreeing that there's no break out
> > force in the Hornet, we're square.
>
> Let us agree that I know where the F/A-18 stick breaks out at (20#) and that
> you and monkey are clueless. That is so much easier than stroking your
> fragile ego, Woody. It is a safety of flight issue and I am not going to
> budge on the fact. If Canada chooses to use less safe operators for their
> F-18s then that is their business.

Woody, just unload and extend on this moron. I thought I'd give him a
chance at sanity but back in the plonk files he goes.
Pugs

>
>

B2431

April 7th 04, 12:37 AM

(running with scissors)

>Tarver lives in an alternate reality, where things like a spoiler is flap.
>
And where he can design the "first accuratee F/A-18 simulator" which no one can
verify.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Tarver Engineering

April 7th 04, 01:51 AM

"Allen Epps" > wrote in message
et...
> In article >, Tarver Engineering
> > wrote:
>
> > "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On 4/5/04 12:19 PM, in article , "Tarver
> > > Engineering" > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in
message
> > > <SNIP>
> > > >> Yes. Truly. It's in the NATOPS and everything. My confusion with
> > your
> > > >> statements is this occasional mention of a "break out" or "break
out
> > > >> force." There is nothing like that.
> > > >
> > > > I know that information from having desiged the first accuratee
F/A-18
> > > > simulator at Dryden. The reason for bringing up the break out force
in
> > the
> > > > first place was to demonstrate how much force a Flanker applying an
> > > > additional 33# of force directly into his crotch to do a cobra would
be
> > > > risking. It is a completely different thread, but monkey wanted to
> > branch
> > > > off into a demonstration is his huge penis and then immediately
stepped
> > on
> > > > same.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Flanker, whatever... It's not a Hornet, which was where I came into
this
> > > discussion. Okay? As long as you're agreeing that there's no break
out
> > > force in the Hornet, we're square.
> >
> > Let us agree that I know where the F/A-18 stick breaks out at (20#) and
that
> > you and monkey are clueless. That is so much easier than stroking your
> > fragile ego, Woody. It is a safety of flight issue and I am not going
to
> > budge on the fact. If Canada chooses to use less safe operators for
their
> > F-18s then that is their business.
>
> Woody, just unload and extend on this moron. I thought I'd give him a
> chance at sanity but back in the plonk files he goes.

I don't understand why the Canadians not knowing that the stick force
transducers on the F/A-18 break out at 20#s is a reason why I can't know it.
I am the sane one and cognitive dissonance from those avoiding learning
something new that is only adding noise to these threads.

Mike Kanze

April 7th 04, 02:02 AM

>Let us agree that I know where the F/A-18 stick breaks out at (20#) and
that you and monkey are clueless.

Once again, the Tarverbot shows his OWN cluelessness.

--
Mike Kanze

"The hot dog is the reductio ad absurdum of American eating. The Sicilian
in the ditch, though he may never be President, knows better: he puts a
slice of onion between his slabs of bread, not a cartridge filled with the
sweepings of abattoirs."

- H. L. Mencken (1926)

Hooray for the start of ballpark franks and Major League Baseball this week!

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 4/5/04 12:19 PM, in article , "Tarver
> > Engineering" > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in
message
> > <SNIP>
> > >> Yes. Truly. It's in the NATOPS and everything. My confusion with
> your
> > >> statements is this occasional mention of a "break out" or "break out
> > >> force." There is nothing like that.
> > >
> > > I know that information from having desiged the first accuratee F/A-18
> > > simulator at Dryden. The reason for bringing up the break out force
in
> the
> > > first place was to demonstrate how much force a Flanker applying an
> > > additional 33# of force directly into his crotch to do a cobra would
be
> > > risking. It is a completely different thread, but monkey wanted to
> branch
> > > off into a demonstration is his huge penis and then immediately
stepped
> on
> > > same.
> > >
> >
> > Flanker, whatever... It's not a Hornet, which was where I came into this
> > discussion. Okay? As long as you're agreeing that there's no break out
> > force in the Hornet, we're square.
>
> Let us agree that I know where the F/A-18 stick breaks out at (20#) and
that
> you and monkey are clueless. That is so much easier than stroking your
> fragile ego, Woody. It is a safety of flight issue and I am not going to
> budge on the fact. If Canada chooses to use less safe operators for their
> F-18s then that is their business.
>
>

Tarver Engineering

April 7th 04, 02:11 AM

"Mike Kanze" > wrote in message
...
> >Let us agree that I know where the F/A-18 stick breaks out at (20#) and
> that you and monkey are clueless.
>
> Once again, the Tarverbot shows his OWN cluelessness.

Not me. It is unsafe for the operator to not know that the stick breaks out
to activate the mechanical backup. There is no guarantee the failure of the
electric controls will cause the force transducer to deactivate. Once agian
a pilot is so ignorant as to believe they know more about how an airplane
works than a systems engineer for that airplane.

How many F-18 hours a year in the air are you and monkey getting Woody? 50?
20?

Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal

April 7th 04, 03:22 AM

On 4/6/04 8:11 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" > wrote:

>
> "Mike Kanze" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> Let us agree that I know where the F/A-18 stick breaks out at (20#) and
>> that you and monkey are clueless.
>>

Well, THAT was an insult. Nice work.

>> Once again, the Tarverbot shows his OWN cluelessness.
>
> Not me. It is unsafe for the operator to not know that the stick breaks out
> to activate the mechanical backup. There is no guarantee the failure of the
> electric controls will cause the force transducer to deactivate. Once agian
> a pilot is so ignorant as to believe they know more about how an airplane
> works than a systems engineer for that airplane.
>

This is NOT a safety of flight issue, and you couldn't possibly be a systems
engineer for the Hornet.

There is no difference in stick forces or "break out" as you're calling it
between CAS, DEL, or MECH modes. Perhaps you're talking about the feedback
force that is added when the stick is displaced from its neutral position?
That is certainly not a "break out."

> How many F-18 hours a year in the air are you and monkey getting Woody? 50?
> 20?
>

Per year? Absolutely ZERO in MECH, more than 150 or so in CAS, less than 1
in DEL (spin recovery mode).

Look, Tarver, I've accumulated enough hours in the Hornet to have more than
a clue about its systems and how to employ them than you do.

--Woody

Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal

April 7th 04, 03:30 AM

On 4/6/04 5:39 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" > wrote:

>
> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 4/5/04 12:19 PM, in article , "Tarver
>> Engineering" > wrote:
<SNIP>
>> Flanker, whatever... It's not a Hornet, which was where I came into this
>> discussion. Okay? As long as you're agreeing that there's no break out
>> force in the Hornet, we're square.
>
> Let us agree that I know where the F/A-18 stick breaks out at (20#) and that
> you and monkey are clueless. That is so much easier than stroking your
> fragile ego, Woody.

We'll agree to disagree, since I'm the only participant in this two-way
conversation who has actually held a Hornet joystick.

> It is a safety of flight issue and I am not going to
> budge on the fact.

You're not going to budge on that *opinion.* Knowing the numbers for a
"break out" force means nothing when that force doesn't exist. MECH either
works when the FCC's fail or it doesn't. Stick forces don't change between
CAS, DEL, and MECH.

> If Canada chooses to use less safe operators for their
> F-18s then that is their business.
>

Oh, and don't worry about my ego. I'll eventually get tired of playing this
little game with you and simply quit.

Now, how about answering my questions about the so-called "rotary inverter"
and its MTBF's? Where is it located, and how is it part of the FCS?

--Woody

Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal

April 7th 04, 03:32 AM

On 4/6/04 6:36 PM, in article
, "Allen Epps"
> wrote:
>
> Woody, just unload and extend on this moron. I thought I'd give him a
> chance at sanity but back in the plonk files he goes.
> Pugs
>

Sorry, Pugs. Just entertaining myself. Don't mean to clog the NG so much.

--Woody

Chad Irby

April 7th 04, 03:52 AM

In article >,
"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" > wrote:

> Look, Tarver, I've accumulated enough hours in the Hornet to have more than
> a clue about its systems and how to employ them than you do.

Don't try to confuse him with the facts. He's confused enough without
them

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Regnirps

April 7th 04, 07:02 AM

Anybody know if Roger Lenard had anything to do with this project? I thnk he is
retired from AF now and works for Sandia?

-- Charlie Springer

Mary Shafer

April 7th 04, 04:52 PM

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 02:22:48 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
> wrote:

> There is no difference in stick forces or "break out" as you're calling it
> between CAS, DEL, or MECH modes. Perhaps you're talking about the feedback
> force that is added when the stick is displaced from its neutral position?
> That is certainly not a "break out."

That is, too. That's the definition of break out force, the force you
have to overcome to leave the deadband.

What do you think break out force is?

Don't get me started on stick force shaping, as I spent some serious
flight time and money looking at a variety of schedules for pilot
cueing. I can probably tell you more than you want to know about how
pilots perceive the cues, although the most interesting part is how
they can fail to consciously notice a major cue, even when it affects
their technique.

> > How many F-18 hours a year in the air are you and monkey getting Woody? 50?
> > 20?
>
> Per year? Absolutely ZERO in MECH, more than 150 or so in CAS, less than 1
> in DEL (spin recovery mode).

Keep it that way. The Plastic Bug flies miserably in MECH. It was a
big deal when they finally trapped in MECH, in fact. Before that, it
had meant diverting to land. When Tom McMurtry had to land one of
ours in MECH he cheerfully declared it to be one of the worse control
modes he'd ever flown, not counting those he'd flown for me when we
were doing the PIO work.

I thought DEL was a reversionary mode for more than spin recovery,
though. Doesn't the Bug drop into DEL when the MC faults? It's the
spin recovery mode that overrides the surface limits for spin recovery
when the yaw rate goes over some limit (40 deg/sec, maybe?), isn't it?

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

Mary Shafer

April 7th 04, 04:52 PM

On 07 Apr 2004 06:02:19 GMT, (Regnirps) wrote:

> Anybody know if Roger Lenard had anything to do with this project? I thnk he is
> retired from AF now and works for Sandia?

The sim John refers to was at DFRC and had nothing to do with the
USAF. He did work on it; I checked.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

Tarver Engineering

April 7th 04, 06:05 PM

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/6/04 8:11 PM, in article , "Tarver
> Engineering" > wrote:

>
> There is no difference in stick forces or "break out" as you're calling it
> between CAS, DEL, or MECH modes. Perhaps you're talking about the
feedback
> force that is added when the stick is displaced from its neutral position?
> That is certainly not a "break out."

The stick doesn't move for electric modes.

> > How many F-18 hours a year in the air are you and monkey getting Woody?
50?
> > 20?
> >
>
> Per year? Absolutely ZERO in MECH, more than 150 or so in CAS, less than
1
> in DEL (spin recovery mode).
>
> Look, Tarver, I've accumulated enough hours in the Hornet to have more
than
> a clue about its systems and how to employ them than you do.

I did not comment on your ability to operate the F-18 wood man. You
insutled me in assuming that because you do not know something that I could
not know it. I can assure you that I know more about the
electric/electronic systems in the F-18 than you ever possibly could. I
have the advantage over you, in having brought dead F-18s back to life and
having integrated F-18 aircraft hardware and software to a computer. When I
wrote simulator, it is not the kind you think of, but something to do
controls research on.

You see, once long ago some in NASA and USN were certain that GE was lying
about their F-18 flight control computer. Much anger was exchanged between
NASA Lewis and GE and Congress was ready to get involved. Using Gould's
software we were able to input GE's numbers and match the airplane at
Dryden. Martha Evans and a delegation went back to NASA Lewis where before
a couple of Congress critters Lewis demanded that Dryden adjust their
simulation results to match Lewis, Martha just laid the airplane strip chart
over our simulation results and showed they matched.

Next thing you know Congress is having a comittee meeting and Bob Myers is
going with Martha to testify. It was all quite a big deal and Dryden was
able to become a flight test center again on the achievement. I remember
Bob comming to my office every morning to see if I was still showing up, as
Martha was hanging on by a thread in those days.

Tarver Engineering

April 7th 04, 06:07 PM

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...

> Oh, and don't worry about my ego. I'll eventually get tired of playing
this
> little game with you and simply quit.

Is this just some silly game you are playing Wood man?

> Now, how about answering my questions about the so-called "rotary
inverter"
> and its MTBF's? Where is it located, and how is it part of the FCS?

I am not doing this to have some "superior being" play games with me.

Tarver Engineering

April 7th 04, 06:32 PM

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> On 07 Apr 2004 06:02:19 GMT, (Regnirps) wrote:
>
> > Anybody know if Roger Lenard had anything to do with this project? I
thnk he is
> > retired from AF now and works for Sandia?
>
> The sim John refers to was at DFRC and had nothing to do with the
> USAF. He did work on it; I checked.

I designed the hardware and unloaded all the instrument timing off of the
Stoneburner. I laid out the 1553 for Martha, wrote aircraft work orders and
was rubber stamped by Chris at the CCB. Dryden granted me a considerable
amount of authority to get a simulator that soon.

I remember one of the Navy guys stopping me in the hallway and saying, "I
don't don't what we will get out of all this". Now they have the F/A-18E to
a great extent as a direct product of having an accurate model of the
F/A-18A in 1986.

B2431

April 7th 04, 10:32 PM

>From: "Tarver Engineering"

>
>How many F-18 hours a year in the air are you and monkey getting Woody? 50?
>20?

That would be 20 to 50 hours more than you ever will have.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Tarver Engineering

April 8th 04, 01:35 AM

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>
> >
> >How many F-18 hours a year in the air are you and monkey getting Woody?
50?
> >20?
>
> That would be 20 to 50 hours more than you ever will have.

Too late old fool, Wood man already spun into the ground.

Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal

April 8th 04, 01:49 AM

On 4/7/04 10:52 AM, in article ,
"Mary Shafer" > wrote:

> On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 02:22:48 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
> > wrote:
>
>> There is no difference in stick forces or "break out" as you're calling it
>> between CAS, DEL, or MECH modes. Perhaps you're talking about the feedback
>> force that is added when the stick is displaced from its neutral position?
>> That is certainly not a "break out."
>
> That is, too. That's the definition of break out force, the force you
> have to overcome to leave the deadband.
>
> What do you think break out force is?
>

The way he seems to be describing it there is an additional force imparted
beyond the normal feedback when the stick is displaced from neutral. Of
course, I've got no formal training in TPS terms, so perhaps I
misunderstand.

This discussion is going round and round, but my point is... that the stick
forces do not change whether in CAS, MECH or DEL--i.e. any "break out" force
in the cockpit is incidental to what the pilot normally experiences when
pulling on the pole.

> Don't get me started on stick force shaping, as I spent some serious
> flight time and money looking at a variety of schedules for pilot
> cueing. I can probably tell you more than you want to know about how
> pilots perceive the cues, although the most interesting part is how
> they can fail to consciously notice a major cue, even when it affects
> their technique.
>

I wouldn't dare even attempt to discuss it with you, Mary unless I were in
receive only mode. |:-)

>>> How many F-18 hours a year in the air are you and monkey getting Woody? 50?
>>> 20?
>>
>> Per year? Absolutely ZERO in MECH, more than 150 or so in CAS, less than 1
>> in DEL (spin recovery mode).
>
> Keep it that way. The Plastic Bug flies miserably in MECH. It was a
> big deal when they finally trapped in MECH, in fact. Before that, it
> had meant diverting to land. When Tom McMurtry had to land one of
> ours in MECH he cheerfully declared it to be one of the worse control
> modes he'd ever flown, not counting those he'd flown for me when we
> were doing the PIO work.
>

That's what I've heard. I had no idea that a trap in MECH had actually
occurred. It must have been MECH in one axis only. Eh? Sea story?

> I thought DEL was a reversionary mode for more than spin recovery,
> though. Doesn't the Bug drop into DEL when the MC faults? It's the
> spin recovery mode that overrides the surface limits for spin recovery
> when the yaw rate goes over some limit (40 deg/sec, maybe?), isn't it?
>
> Mary

It is. You are correct that's DEL, but the only time *I'VE* ever
experienced flying in DEL is when I do Spin Recovery Mode (SRM) checks on
FCF's (only on the A profiles now).

The way I had it explained to me years ago (by some dude at China Lake) is
that SRM is a subset of the DEL mode (with the LEF's at 33-34 degrees and
the TEF's at 0 +/- 1 degree). The nose gets a bit "slicy" coming out of 30K
in with SRM engaged, and the AOA must be kept between 10-20 degrees
(although I know from personal experience that the jet won't explode if you
fall outside of that limit for transitory periods).

It's kind of a squirrelly deal to fly in. Nauga, where are you?

--Woody

Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal

April 8th 04, 01:51 AM

On 4/7/04 12:07 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" > wrote:

>
> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Oh, and don't worry about my ego. I'll eventually get tired of playing
> this
>> little game with you and simply quit.
>
> Is this just some silly game you are playing Wood man?

It is if you're going to resort to these comments about my "fragile ego."

>
>> Now, how about answering my questions about the so-called "rotary
> inverter"
>> and its MTBF's? Where is it located, and how is it part of the FCS?
>
> I am not doing this to have some "superior being" play games with me.
>

Still waiting.

Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal

April 8th 04, 01:56 AM

On 4/7/04 12:05 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" > wrote:

<SNIP>
>
> I did not comment on your ability to operate the F-18 wood man. You
> insutled me in assuming that because you do not know something that I could
> not know it.

What we have here is... Failure to communicate. I never made that
assumption... At least not publically.

> I can assure you that I know more about the
> electric/electronic systems in the F-18 than you ever possibly could. I
> have the advantage over you, in having brought dead F-18s back to life and
> having integrated F-18 aircraft hardware and software to a computer. When I
> wrote simulator, it is not the kind you think of, but something to do
> controls research on.
>

I understand more than you might think.

> You see, once long ago some in NASA and USN were certain that GE was lying
> about their F-18 flight control computer. Much anger was exchanged between
> NASA Lewis and GE and Congress was ready to get involved. Using Gould's
> software we were able to input GE's numbers and match the airplane at
> Dryden. Martha Evans and a delegation went back to NASA Lewis where before
> a couple of Congress critters Lewis demanded that Dryden adjust their
> simulation results to match Lewis, Martha just laid the airplane strip chart
> over our simulation results and showed they matched.
>

Are you talking about that hangar in Cleveland?

> Next thing you know Congress is having a comittee meeting and Bob Myers is
> going with Martha to testify. It was all quite a big deal and Dryden was
> able to become a flight test center again on the achievement. I remember
> Bob comming to my office every morning to see if I was still showing up, as
> Martha was hanging on by a thread in those days.
>

Who are Bob and Martha? Just trying to get educated now.

--Woody

Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal

April 8th 04, 02:04 AM

On 4/7/04 7:35 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" > wrote:

>
> "B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> From: "Tarver Engineering"
>>
>>>
>>> How many F-18 hours a year in the air are you and monkey getting Woody?
> 50?
>>> 20?
>>
>> That would be 20 to 50 hours more than you ever will have.
>
> Too late old fool, Wood man already spun into the ground.

?

--Woody

Chad Irby

April 8th 04, 03:28 AM

In article >,
"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" > wrote:

> On 4/7/04 7:35 PM, in article , "Tarver
> Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > Too late old fool, Wood man already spun into the ground.
>
> ?

You're run into Tarver Air Turbulence.

That's the phenomenon when you've hammered Tarver into the ground, think
you've settled it, and he wafts back up telling you that you lost.

Sorta like reincarnation without the being dead part.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Chad Irby

April 8th 04, 05:28 AM

In article >,
Clark <stillnospam@me> wrote:

> Do the psychotic episodes of Tarver's always follow his public humiliations
> or does he occasionally lead with one?

Follows.

Sure, you can have some posts that *seem* like random starts, but
there's always a "told you so!" in the last paragraph.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Tarver Engineering

April 8th 04, 05:30 AM

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/7/04 12:05 PM, in article , "Tarver
> Engineering" > wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
> >
> > I did not comment on your ability to operate the F-18 wood man. You
> > insutled me in assuming that because you do not know something that I
could
> > not know it.
>
> What we have here is... Failure to communicate. I never made that
> assumption... At least not publically.

Sure you did. It is very insulting for you to ask me to admit I am wrong
when i am correct and you just don't know. You come off as a prick, instead
of that big dick F-18 thing, same for little blo monkey.

Mary Shafer

April 8th 04, 06:17 AM

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 00:49:00 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
> wrote:

> On 4/7/04 10:52 AM, in article ,
> "Mary Shafer" > wrote:

> This discussion is going round and round, but my point is... that the stick
> forces do not change whether in CAS, MECH or DEL--i.e. any "break out" force
> in the cockpit is incidental to what the pilot normally experiences when
> pulling on the pole.

I thought the feel system changed in the spin recovery mode, with more
surface deflection per inch of stick displacement, but there's a good
chance that was either a non-standard F-18 or some other airplane. I
mean, I could have been thinking of the F-16 deep stall recovery mode,
you know.

> > Don't get me started on stick force shaping, as I spent some serious
> > flight time and money looking at a variety of schedules for pilot
> > cueing. I can probably tell you more than you want to know about how
> > pilots perceive the cues, although the most interesting part is how
> > they can fail to consciously notice a major cue, even when it affects
> > their technique.
>
> I wouldn't dare even attempt to discuss it with you, Mary unless I were in
> receive only mode. |:-)

Did you know, for example, that you have a different tolerance for
time delay in the feel system than you do for time delay in the flight
control system? If asked, you probably don't even know you can tell
the difference, but you can.

> > Keep it that way. The Plastic Bug flies miserably in MECH. It was a
> > big deal when they finally trapped in MECH, in fact. Before that, it
> > had meant diverting to land. When Tom McMurtry had to land one of
> > ours in MECH he cheerfully declared it to be one of the worse control
> > modes he'd ever flown, not counting those he'd flown for me when we
> > were doing the PIO work.
>
> That's what I've heard. I had no idea that a trap in MECH had actually
> occurred. It must have been MECH in one axis only. Eh? Sea story?

I honestly don't know if it was one axis or more. It's not a sea
story, because we got the notification from the class desk (or
whatever they call it). You know the thing I mean, the telex to all
F/A-18 squadrons and Dryden, with time-critical information.

> > I thought DEL was a reversionary mode for more than spin recovery,
> > though. Doesn't the Bug drop into DEL when the MC faults? It's the
> > spin recovery mode that overrides the surface limits for spin recovery
> > when the yaw rate goes over some limit (40 deg/sec, maybe?), isn't it?
>
> It is. You are correct that's DEL, but the only time *I'VE* ever
> experienced flying in DEL is when I do Spin Recovery Mode (SRM) checks on
> FCF's (only on the A profiles now).
>
> The way I had it explained to me years ago (by some dude at China Lake) is
> that SRM is a subset of the DEL mode (with the LEF's at 33-34 degrees and
> the TEF's at 0 +/- 1 degree). The nose gets a bit "slicy" coming out of 30K
> in with SRM engaged, and the AOA must be kept between 10-20 degrees
> (although I know from personal experience that the jet won't explode if you
> fall outside of that limit for transitory periods).

I think this is all exactly right, except that my crummy memory for
numbers means I can't say about them. I don't think you can get the
jet to explode on transient excursions outside the limit, although I
know that no one should ever underestimate the fleet pilots, but you
can get it to depart again if you botch the recovery (usually by being
a little too enthusiastic too soon). If you do it just right, you can
get it to depart into a worse mode, like oscillatory instead of flat.

I'll give you my standard stall-departure-spin warning, which I give
to every fighter pilot and test pilot I know. Be careful if you're
flying a two-seat version with a centerline tank. It will depart and
spin much more easily than a single-seat jet or a clean jet. You're
not guaranteed to depart and spin, of course, but you're at greater
risk. It also probably won't recover as well or as quickly and it may
have more spin modes.

I used to have a couple of plots that really made this point clear,
but I left them with one of the flying qualities engineers when I
retired. I wasn't sure if all the data was generally available.

> It's kind of a squirrelly deal to fly in. Nauga, where are you?

They're all squirrelly in stall-departure-spin. Maybe it's because
it's all forebody flow so there's a lot of moment arm or something.
The F-16 deep stall procedure is odd, to say the least, because you
get out of the stall by pulling up the nose and increasing the stall
angle before you push over and "rock" the airplane out of the stall.

Yo, Nauga, over here!

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal

April 8th 04, 11:56 AM

On 4/7/04 11:30 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" > wrote:

>
> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 4/7/04 12:05 PM, in article , "Tarver
>> Engineering" > wrote:
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>>
>>> I did not comment on your ability to operate the F-18 wood man. You
>>> insutled me in assuming that because you do not know something that I
> could
>>> not know it.
>>
>> What we have here is... Failure to communicate. I never made that
>> assumption... At least not publically.
>
> Sure you did. It is very insulting for you to ask me to admit I am wrong
> when i am correct and you just don't know. You come off as a prick, instead
> of that big dick F-18 thing, same for little blo monkey.
>

Okay, I've asked you several questions trying to get answers... About rotary
inverters, about Bob and Mary etc... You seem to refuse to answer or to
educate, but instead break down to insults.

Meanwhile several others on the NG have asked me to stop because they're
tired of reading this tripe (probably getting nearly as bad as those "KILL
THE DEMON BUSH..." posts).

Since you've degraded into throwing around personal insults, I'm going to
oblige them.

The only good thing I got out of this discussion is a chance to learn from
Mary Shafer. Good day, sir.

--Woody

Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal

April 8th 04, 12:10 PM

On 4/8/04 12:17 AM, in article ,
"Mary Shafer" > wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 00:49:00 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
> > wrote:
>
>> On 4/7/04 10:52 AM, in article ,
>> "Mary Shafer" > wrote:
>
>> This discussion is going round and round, but my point is... that the stick
>> forces do not change whether in CAS, MECH or DEL--i.e. any "break out" force
>> in the cockpit is incidental to what the pilot normally experiences when
>> pulling on the pole.
>
> I thought the feel system changed in the spin recovery mode, with more
> surface deflection per inch of stick displacement, but there's a good
> chance that was either a non-standard F-18 or some other airplane. I
> mean, I could have been thinking of the F-16 deep stall recovery mode,
> you know.
>

It may, but I wouldn't know because I never move the stick more than about
1/2 an inch in that mode. I sort of doubt it though because pulling the
stick back or cycling it in a cold/dead airplane feels (force wise) exactly
the same as moving it around in a live running airplane.

I should explain here that the only time I've USED SRM is when I'm doing an
FCF A. The SRM check starts at 30K and 200 KCAS. Basically, turn the SRM
switch to RCVY, and hold the stick back. Then the aircraft hits the correct
numbers (which embarrassingly escape me right now... Circa 150 KCAS), SRM
actually engages. You basically hold 10-20 alpha for the rest of the
recovery while accelerating through 250 so that SRM will auto-disengage.
Basically, we're just diving in SRM in level flight and checking that it
engages and disengages when it's supposed to.

We used to do these checks on C and A FCF's. Now just on A's.

<SNIP>
>>
>> I wouldn't dare even attempt to discuss it with you, Mary unless I were in
>> receive only mode. |:-)
>
> Did you know, for example, that you have a different tolerance for
> time delay in the feel system than you do for time delay in the flight
> control system? If asked, you probably don't even know you can tell
> the difference, but you can.
>

Ow.

<SNIP>
>
> I think this is all exactly right, except that my crummy memory for
> numbers means I can't say about them. I don't think you can get the
> jet to explode on transient excursions outside the limit, although I
> know that no one should ever underestimate the fleet pilots, but you
> can get it to depart again if you botch the recovery (usually by being
> a little too enthusiastic too soon). If you do it just right, you can
> get it to depart into a worse mode, like oscillatory instead of flat.
>

The explode thing was a poor attempt at humor.

> I'll give you my standard stall-departure-spin warning, which I give
> to every fighter pilot and test pilot I know. Be careful if you're
> flying a two-seat version with a centerline tank. It will depart and
> spin much more easily than a single-seat jet or a clean jet. You're
> not guaranteed to depart and spin, of course, but you're at greater
> risk. It also probably won't recover as well or as quickly and it may
> have more spin modes.
>

Concur with the two-seater/single C/L.

Departing I have done (single-seat)... Twice. Once was fairly eye-opening.
460KCAS (probably much slower 350 or less when it stopped flying) at 15000
feet with a full load of back stick and a full boot of top rudder--a real
ham-fist piece of work. The airplane recovered after disappearing into its
own cotton-ball and some real bang-me-up PSG's. I felt pretty sheepish.
Jet was just fine. The immediate action procedures (basically let go and
wait) worked like a champ.

> I used to have a couple of plots that really made this point clear,
> but I left them with one of the flying qualities engineers when I
> retired. I wasn't sure if all the data was generally available.
>
>> It's kind of a squirrelly deal to fly in. Nauga, where are you?
>
> They're all squirrelly in stall-departure-spin. Maybe it's because
> it's all forebody flow so there's a lot of moment arm or something.
> The F-16 deep stall procedure is odd, to say the least, because you
> get out of the stall by pulling up the nose and increasing the stall
> angle before you push over and "rock" the airplane out of the stall.
>

Weird. Do those guys still do that with the 25 alpha limiter installed?

> Yo, Nauga, over here!
>

If he's lurking, this is usually the point where he shows up.

--Woody

> Mary

Tarver Engineering

April 8th 04, 03:59 PM

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/7/04 11:30 PM, in article , "Tarver
> Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >
> > "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On 4/7/04 12:05 PM, in article , "Tarver
> >> Engineering" > wrote:
> >>
> >> <SNIP>
> >>>
> >>> I did not comment on your ability to operate the F-18 wood man. You
> >>> insutled me in assuming that because you do not know something that I
> > could
> >>> not know it.
> >>
> >> What we have here is... Failure to communicate. I never made that
> >> assumption... At least not publically.
> >
> > Sure you did. It is very insulting for you to ask me to admit I am
wrong
> > when i am correct and you just don't know. You come off as a prick,
instead
> > of that big dick F-18 thing, same for little blo monkey.
> >
>
> Okay, I've asked you several questions trying to get answers... About
rotary
> inverters, about Bob and Mary etc... You seem to refuse to answer or to
> educate, but instead break down to insults.

I am sorry that once found clueless, being a prick didn't carry the day for
you, wood man. Perhaps in our next encounter you might act in a civilized
manner and I may answer your questions. It is you and little blo monkey
that are being insulting and that is odd considering the laughable condition
of the Canadain military.

Tarver Engineering

April 8th 04, 04:01 PM

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/8/04 12:17 AM, in article ,
> "Mary Shafer" > wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 00:49:00 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/7/04 10:52 AM, in article
,
> >> "Mary Shafer" > wrote:
> >
> >> This discussion is going round and round, but my point is... that the
stick
> >> forces do not change whether in CAS, MECH or DEL--i.e. any "break out"
force
> >> in the cockpit is incidental to what the pilot normally experiences
when
> >> pulling on the pole.
> >
> > I thought the feel system changed in the spin recovery mode, with more
> > surface deflection per inch of stick displacement, but there's a good
> > chance that was either a non-standard F-18 or some other airplane. I
> > mean, I could have been thinking of the F-16 deep stall recovery mode,
> > you know.
> >
>
> It may, but I wouldn't know

There is your problem, wood man. Next time you want to be a prick, let it
be about something you know; instead of making such a fool of yourself and
your Nation.

Tarver Engineering

April 8th 04, 04:58 PM

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/7/04 10:52 AM, in article ,
> "Mary Shafer" > wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 02:22:48 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> There is no difference in stick forces or "break out" as you're calling
it
> >> between CAS, DEL, or MECH modes. Perhaps you're talking about the
feedback
> >> force that is added when the stick is displaced from its neutral
position?
> >> That is certainly not a "break out."
> >
> > That is, too. That's the definition of break out force, the force you
> > have to overcome to leave the deadband.
> >
> > What do you think break out force is?
> >
>
> The way he seems to be describing it there is an additional force imparted
> beyond the normal feedback when the stick is displaced from neutral. Of
> course, I've got no formal training in TPS terms, so perhaps I
> misunderstand.

You didn't know, so you assumed I must not know. The only misunderstanding
here is your confucion at why being a dick didn't work for you. That is a
very common practice amoung pilots with more ego than knowledge. In the
past I would have just walked away and left you to your ignorance, but I
have learned over my years on usenet that walking away will only embolden
you to be even more of a prick, wood man. (see Weiss' posts)

> This discussion is going round and round, but my point is...

No it isn't, you have allready spun into the ground wood man.

B2431

April 8th 04, 11:29 PM

>From: "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
>Date: 4/8/2004 5:56 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 4/7/04 11:30 PM, in article , "Tarver
>Engineering" > wrote:
>
>>
>> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 4/7/04 12:05 PM, in article , "Tarver
>>> Engineering" > wrote:
>>>
>>> <SNIP>
>>>>
>>>> I did not comment on your ability to operate the F-18 wood man. You
>>>> insutled me in assuming that because you do not know something that I
>> could
>>>> not know it.
>>>
>>> What we have here is... Failure to communicate. I never made that
>>> assumption... At least not publically.
>>
>> Sure you did. It is very insulting for you to ask me to admit I am wrong
>> when i am correct and you just don't know. You come off as a prick,
>instead
>> of that big dick F-18 thing, same for little blo monkey.
>>
>
>Okay, I've asked you several questions trying to get answers... About rotary
>inverters, about Bob and Mary etc... You seem to refuse to answer or to
>educate, but instead break down to insults.
>
>Meanwhile several others on the NG have asked me to stop because they're
>tired of reading this tripe (probably getting nearly as bad as those "KILL
>THE DEMON BUSH..." posts).
>
>Since you've degraded into throwing around personal insults, I'm going to
>oblige them.
>
>The only good thing I got out of this discussion is a chance to learn from
>Mary Shafer. Good day, sir.
>
>--Woody

Woody, you will never get answers from tarver. He genuinely feels anyone who
disagrees with him is personally insulting or attacking him. He uses this to
justify vulgar, crude and rude personal attacks. He really does believe
subsituting vitriol for independently verifiable proof of his claims is a
proper form of debate. A google search of his behaviour in this and several
other forums will prove this.

As for the rotary inverter I seriously doubt it exists in the F/A-18 since
solid state inverters are more reliable.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Chad Irby

April 9th 04, 12:15 AM

In article >,
(B2431) wrote:

> Woody, you will never get answers from tarver. He genuinely feels
> anyone who disagrees with him is personally insulting or attacking
> him.

....which really bothers those of us who disagree with him, *while*
insulting and attacking him.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

running with scissors

April 9th 04, 01:41 AM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Mike Kanze" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >Let us agree that I know where the F/A-18 stick breaks out at (20#) and
> > that you and monkey are clueless.
> >
> > Once again, the Tarverbot shows his OWN cluelessness.
>
> Not me. It is unsafe for the operator..............
<Snip>

mmm lets look at a tarver quote from the archives....

Newsgroups: alt.disasters.aviation
Subject: Re: Southwest skids another one off the runway
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 10:05:37 -0800

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message ...

> Bwawhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahhw!

> So, Splaps boy, wanna tell me how an autothrottle is going to slow an
> airplane down?

Retarding the throttles will cease the engines from adding thrust, my silly
rodent. Reducing pilot workload gives the Operator more time to deploy
Spoiler Flaps into a Speed Brake configuration.

Not like your Piper at all.

John

running with scissors

April 9th 04, 01:43 AM

"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message >...
> On 4/6/04 8:11 PM, in article , "Tarver
> Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >
> > "Mike Kanze" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>> Let us agree that I know where the F/A-18 stick breaks out at (20#) and
> >> that you and monkey are clueless.
> >>
>
> Well, THAT was an insult. Nice work.
>
> >> Once again, the Tarverbot shows his OWN cluelessness.
> >
> > Not me. It is unsafe for the operator to not know that the stick breaks out
> > to activate the mechanical backup. There is no guarantee the failure of the
> > electric controls will cause the force transducer to deactivate. Once agian
> > a pilot is so ignorant as to believe they know more about how an airplane
> > works than a systems engineer for that airplane.
> >
>
> This is NOT a safety of flight issue, and you couldn't possibly be a systems
> engineer for the Hornet.

Tarver's engineering capabilities are predominantly associated with
repairs of the domestic toaster.