Looking for B-17 video...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

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

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
m...

snip
I have stated that

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

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

snip of additional false statements

Challenge FAA & NTSB, not the messenger, "Me".

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

snip

Please elucidate as to "Detail & Specifics" re;"your statement above.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
Tarver Engineering wrote:

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

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The vapor mix created for use in the tests was molecularly equivalent to
that of Jet A at a specified barometric pressure at a specified temp.

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

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

Pooh Bear wrote:

John Mazor wrote:

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
.. .

"Duster" wrote in message
. ..
Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost better
though..

Duster

Tarver cannot get it through his head that having the air handling units
operating under the CWT when the A/C is stationary is like putting a
pressure cooker with a small amount of fuel in it, on a stove at low heat.

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

Maybe your balls are ?

Graham

Unless you're quite well endowed, then it depends which side you
dress on.
--

-Gord.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
Tarver Engineering wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
Duster wrote:

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

Duster

Glad to be of service ;-)

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

You mean that crank dip**** Hall?

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

So, basically, yes I guess so.

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

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

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
Tarver Engineering wrote:

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

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The vapor mix created for use in the tests was molecularly equivalent to
that of Jet A at a specified barometric pressure at a specified temp.

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

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 05:20:36 GMT, "Ralph Nesbitt"
wrote:


I have stated that

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

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

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

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

Would you care to provide us with a list of all of the Boeing
aircraft that have "blown up" due to this "inherantly dangerous"
condition?

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

Most certainly.

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

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
m...


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

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

Interesting statement. I am sure there will be appropriate responses.

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

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

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

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

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

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

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

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

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

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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