Zzzzzoom in Zzzzzero Gravity

Hey Mark
I found the US Aviator issue with zooms pilot report on the Capella where he
says he looped and spun in it.It was the November 1992 issue. I Only have one
issue of this one so I copied the article for you. Get me your Postal address
and I'll mail it to you. Send it offline to my e mail address. See ya

Chuck S

On May 16, 4:55 pm, ChuckSlusarczyk
wrote:
Hey Mark
I found the US Aviator issue with zooms pilot report on the Capella where he
says he looped and spun in it.It was the November 1992 issue. I Only have one
issue of this one so I copied the article for you. Get me your Postal address
and I'll mail it to you. Send it offline to my e mail address. See ya

Chuck S

Will do! Sending that immediately!

On May 16, 4:14 pm, wrote:
On May 14, 1:56 pm, DABEAR wrote:





On May 13, 8:36 pm, ChuckSlusarczyk

wrote:
In article , Jim Logajan says...

DABEAR wrote:
On May 11, 7:25 am, ChuckSlusarczyk
wrote:
In article .com,
DABEAR says...
On May 10, 8:38 am, ChuckSlusarczyk
wrote:
Years ago he reviewed a little homebuilt called the Capella.
Later they got on his ****list, but when he reviewed it he did
his standared "looped, rolled and spun" story. A year later, a
couple of kids (without licenses) flying a non-registered but N
number wearing 2 place tried a zoom and pull, and pulled the
wings off. We know for they read Zoom's story. Did he influence
their decision? It's likely.

Hey, Chuck...does anyone have the N Number and full type of aircraft
on this one? Or, a copy or reference (link?) to the accident
report?

I'll see if I can find it .I'm pretty sure I have the issue with his
flight report and probably also have one with the crash report.

Excellent...thanks much!

NTSB search by keyword "capella" yielded 4 hits, one of which had
fatalities and appears to be the accident in question:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...11X12205&key=1

That's the one.

Chuck S- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Chuck:

This is Campbell's latest BIO at RRL:

~~~~~

JIM CAMPBELL
Jim Campbell, CEO of the Aero-News Network, is a 17,000 hour
commercial pilot and flight instructor, a graduate of the National
Test Pilot School and one of the most active aviation writers and test
pilots in the business. The author of 17 books and an active member of
the X Prize and Zero-G programs, Campbell has flown or evaluated over
1100 unique flying machines since his first flight some 35 years ago
(at age 13).

He is the author of 17 books on aviation topics, most notably the 1100
page SportPlane Resource Guide, the ultimate guide to SportPlane kits;
and "Air of Injustice," an exhaustive look at the FAA's persecution of
legendary Test Pilot Bob Hoover. More recently; Campbell led the news
and photography team that provided primary media pool services for the
Ansari X PRIZE competition, including most of the SpaceShipOne air-to-
air photos that were published all over the world following the three
successful suborbital flights of Burt Rutan's world-changing
spacecraft. He has also served as principal Zero-G photographer during
several hundred parabolas for the Zero-G Corporation's Zero-Gravity
flights. A graduate of the National Test Pilot School, he is the
Publisher/Editor In Chief of the Aviation World's Daily News Service,
the Aero-News Network

~~~~~

He's now indicating that he is 48 years of age though prior
information had him at 50 years of age. Do you know what his actual
age is and has there been any age limitation placed on the pilots of
the RRL that you're aware of?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I liked the part about having flown SEVERAL HUNDRED parabolas for
Zero- G Corporation's zero gravity flights. Typical zzzoom speak
"numerous, several, many never a precise number. They average 8
parabolas a flight so several hundred would require numerous flights,
probably more than they have flown :-).

Frank M.Hitlaw, at my secret world Hq- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm laughing at this stuff because it dawns on me, this isn't JUST a
bio...this guy is literally writing his own obituary for posterity.

The first place a Journalist starts in a newsroom is in the Obituaries
Column section, researching information quite literally, on people
while they're alive, updating the file card ~ at one time, a series of
3 x 5 index cards or similar papers ~ today, a folder on a computer in
the Obits archives. They show good progress there, then they move up
until such time as they have a street beat and are out there in the
World as reporters.

This is the first time I've seen an Editor start and finish his career
simultaneously in the Obits.

He's not trusting his bio to anyone so he's giving his own rendition
on this "Golden Life" he's been living. He knows that if the truth is
left to the historians, that his true life story is one of living in
the muck. He wants to have his own version out there to confuse the
World as to the Truth about him even after he's dead.

So, you have the irony and pathetic act of an Editor who must micro-
manage his own life story because he's already botched it so badly in
the eyes of others. Which means, when a reporter screws up, you
punish him by sending him back down to write the obits pieces once
again.

Zoom is the Editor punishing himself by putting himself back in the
obituaries column. A truly hilarious, very subtle, piece of black
comedy if you understand the protocols, the ascending ladder, the
descending ladder, in Journalism.

The saying is: "Be careful about the fingers you step on climbing up
the ladder of life ~ they may be attached to the ass you have to kiss
on the way down."

My interpretation of Zoom writing his own obituary, beyond his bio:
He's stepped on others' fingers on the way up, stepped on them again
on the way down, stepped on his "member" in the process, is having to
kiss their asses, screwed up so bad he's having to kiss his own ass on
the way down, stepped on his "member" again in the process, fell
completely off the ladder and is looping and spinning downward into
the grave.

Very little of this is in jest because I believe it all to be true,
even worded in such a silly, humorous manner.

I was looking at his comments at ANN via "Stephen Hawking Week," and
being out there looping his Glasair, an asset ripe for impounding
prior to sale by the Government to pay settlements in cases pending
out come in court.

This guy is writing like a man about to die. He's reflecting not on
the week...but on his entire life. And he's clearly in a fantasy
world doing it.

I won't speculate as to his personal plans...but I think the next time
one of his Barnstorming columns gets read, don't be surprised if it is
his own obituary. He seems resigned to something, and it looks more
like an end than a future, judging by the way he writes.

Frankly, I think he's the lonliest man on the planet. And if he'd
just stop lying, to others, to himself, about others, to his
readers...come out of the closet about his illnesses; come
clean...change his ways from Corporate Mouthpiece to True Journalist
(The Public's Right to Know comes first over his own rights; such a
man also never lies...) he'd be the man with the most friends.

Like that Brando character in film...he could've been a contender. At
this point, I suspect nearing the end of his "useful life," he hasn't
achieved "has been" yet. He's still out there posing, impersonating,
rather than emulating, those he could have been but ultimately, will
never be.

What was it Shakespeare said in Julius Ceasar? "Look not to the
stars, Brutus, as the reasons for your failures lie within yourself?"

There are Heroes in Greek Tragedies. And then there's James Richard
Campbell...a tragedy as a faux hero.

Enough...I'm through talking (hee-yeah, right...I know) ... I gotta go
to work on this guy. He need's to be put out of his misery. However,
only a Judge in a Court of Law can accomplish that and can only do so
by forcing him to a doctor and forcing him to take the meds, attend
the treatments and participate in the therapies, that might salvage
his life...

....or not.

On May 15, 11:30 am, wrote:
On May 9, 12:03 am, Timothy Sinclair wrote:



...

For the last time:

James Campbell was not on board Stephen Hawking's zero-g flight.

I'm happy to see that you will stop telling us that. I will be even
happier
if you were to start telling us how you know that.

--

FF

I think he's using "deliberate denial" as a form of humor...it gets
funnier every time he uses it and someone demands to know his "proof,"
which only consists of his continuing denial. Very subtle. Very
funny. Flies over everyone's head...

....you know, a takeoff on Spin or "The Big Lie." Which Campbell
uses. He's mocking Campbell and his use of the same; turning around
the Spin and using it against Campbell for a change.

Or, he just could be in denial! GGG 'Cause telling everyone that
Campbell wasn't on the flight, whether or not he was, is about all
he's going to say, which just makes this a masterstroke of wit...

....or, he could just be in denial! GGG

See how it works!!?? GGGGG

On May 14, 12:18 pm, Barnyard BOb wrote:
Richard Riley wrote:
But think about it this way. Imagine someone that wrote about how
wonderfully the RV-3 zoom climbs, how much fun it is and how well the
airplane does it - when he's never done it himeslf? Would he bear any
responsibility for the people that try it and shed their wings?

NOPE.
Not according to the NTSB records concerning the Capella fatalities.

That's what Campbell did here. He told the boys, and the world, that
the Capella was able to handle aerobatics that it couldn't handle. He
said he'd done it. They went out and tried it, and they died. I'm
not saying that Zoom was the only one responsible, or even that he has
primary responsibility for it. But I think he has his part.

This is hearsay, fast and loose talk and speculation, IMO.

What authority states the Capella cannot safely perform
the aerobatics in question WHEN EXECUTED PROPERLY?
It is designed to 6.5 g's....
For reference, the Pitts S-2C is only approved for + 6 g's.

Who sez the maneuvers in question cannot be done
at less than 6.5 g's???? AFAIK, all can be done below 4 g's.

For now, I have to see it the way the NTSB reports it.

These "boys" had no licenses, no registration for the N number on the
aircraft, etcetera, etcetera, and are typical of a deadly accident
going somewhere to happen.. with or without the 'assumed' Zoom input.

From dialog I've read so far...
It appears they had no regard or respect for rules, regulations or
listened to much of anything from anybody; a deadly combination
of factors for anyone not knowing how to fly in the first place.

Had Zoom told these kids to get flying lessons and aerobatic
instruction before they killed themselves through trial and error...
would they take that to heart anymore than the requirements
of the FAA or any authority that they were already violating?!?!?

I wouldn't bet the ranch on this pair of free spirits living a minute
longer than they did.

Your CONJECTURE may vary.

- Barnyard BOb -

Totally true, unless proven otherwise, as you say...except for one,
haunting little problem:

I've seen Zoom's "Cowboy Writings" on Aviation and performing deeds in
aircraft that are not possible. Even if he did one and got lucky
enough not to fail the aircraft and kill himself in the process, some
other poor schmuck could go out there, based on Zoom's pilot report,
try the stunt himself and get killed.

Mind you, it's not relevant whether documentation exists that proves
he killed someone. It is even more relevant that documentation by
Zoom exists that could potentially kill someone, even if it already
hasn't. That is what needs to be identified and stopped, and that is
just one of the things that identifies Zoom as a danger to flying.
His cowboy bragging and "advice" to others.

Diverging a little at this point from the serious:

There's an old joke about "Monkey See Monkey Do," in which a guy
taunts a gorrila at a Zoo. The guy does something, the gorilla
follows suit. Until such time as the guy pulls out a huge salami,
tries to fake the Gorilla out by slicing it off between his legs, to
see if the Gorilla will be stupid enough to cut off his own "Salami."

Sorry for the lack of class or taste in this "joke" but the punchline
is critical:

When the guy slices off the salami, the Gorilla looks him in the eye
with a smile and gives him the finger!

Meaning ~ just like with Zoom ~ there are some monkeys out there that
can't be fooled! Quite a large number of them in fact.

Zoom may not have killed anyone, since there are a lot of people out
there smarter than Zoom, and frankly, there are a lot of Monkeys out
there who are smarter than Zoom and would tell you that Darwin's
Theory that man evolved from Ape is a repugnant joke pulled by men on
monkeys.

All they'd have to do is point to Zoom and they'd win the argument
hands down.

So, it would be a very important milestone to prove that someone
listened to Zoom and died as a result of his misinformation; more
important that hopefully no one listened to Zoom and as a result,
didn't die, because speaking personally as a Journalist, that
statistic is far more impressive and I prefer it over the one that
would get Zoom into trouble; if you love mankind, you don't root for
Zoom to screw up and kill men/wome/children; and it's MOST important
that he's out there putting misinformation out there that COULD kill
someone and first and foremost, that misinformation must be stopped...

....and the most important thing of all...and here's where I diverge
from the serious towards humor and irony:

Ham, a monkey, made a spaceflight before any man ever did.

Ham, a monkey, made it into a rocket some four decades before Zoom
did...and Zoom still hasn't climbed into the rocket yet. Only in his
wildest dreams and those usually involve a fine looking woman, or
worse, showing any willingness to procreate with him.

A man put Ham in the capsule...

Monkeys are still ****ed about Mankind's cowardice as expressed by
this act...

WORSE!!! (Emphasis, not screaming...well, maybe just a little g)

How do you think you'd feel if someone told you Zoom evolved from
you? The "Complex" monkeys are developing over the report that Zoom
evolved from them is far more seriously diverged from the term "Launch
Complex" that man developed for them in the days when Cape Canaveral
preceeded Cape Kennedy.

Screw the FAA! They're not going to do anything about Zoom! Just the
same, we need to stop Zoom and the complex he's giving to monkeys.

It's time to call PETA and file a complaint with them! GGG

Because Zoom killing other men don't mean s~t to monkeys!

Men stating Zoom evolved from Monkey is enough to cause Monkeys to
kill! Now THAT means SOMETHING! THAT'S something we should REALLY
worry about!!!!!

joking, running, ducking, just not from Zoom...)

This "Planet of the Apes" Scenario brought to you by Chiquita Bananas,
dedicated to "helping the Darwin Challenged (Zoom) adjust."

"Oh, that nice Mr. Zoom even offered to write the pamphlet for us!
However, we had to decline..."

~ Chiquita, Spokeswoman, Chiquita Brands

On May 14, 5:18 pm, Barnyard BOb wrote:
Richard Riley wrote:
But think about it this way. Imagine someone that wrote about how
wonderfully the RV-3 zoom climbs, how much fun it is and how well the
airplane does it - when he's never done it himeslf? Would he bear any
responsibility for the people that try it and shed their wings?

NOPE.

Respectfully, this is what I call binary thinking. This is not the
sort
of question for which a yes or no (or nope) answer is appropriate.
It s a question of the extent to which he contributed to the cause,
even if other contributions totaled in excess of 100% the fatal.
stupidity.

Of course people who prefer binary thinking don't see it that way.

Not according to the NTSB records concerning the Capella fatalities.

That's what Campbell did here. He told the boys, and the world, that
the Capella was able to handle aerobatics that it couldn't handle. He
said he'd done it. They went out and tried it, and they died. I'm
not saying that Zoom was the only one responsible, or even that he has
primary responsibility for it. But I think he has his part.

This is hearsay, fast and loose talk and speculation, IMO.

What authority states the Capella cannot safely perform
the aerobatics in question WHEN EXECUTED PROPERLY?

Does the manufacturer claim it can?

It is designed to 6.5 g's....
For reference, the Pitts S-2C is only approved for + 6 g's.

Who sez the maneuvers in question cannot be done
at less than 6.5 g's???? AFAIK, all can be done below 4 g's.

For now, I have to see it the way the NTSB reports it.

These "boys" had no licenses, no registration for the N number on the
aircraft, etcetera, etcetera, and are typical of a deadly accident
going somewhere to happen.. with or without the 'assumed' Zoom input.

From dialog I've read so far...
It appears they had no regard or respect for rules, regulations or
listened to much of anything from anybody; a deadly combination
of factors for anyone not knowing how to fly in the first place.

Had Zoom told these kids to get flying lessons and aerobatic
instruction before they killed themselves through trial and error...
would they take that to heart anymore than the requirements
of the FAA or any authority that they were already violating?!?!?

Possibly. Some people are naturally inclined to take stupid risks,
for others it is an acquired flaw. In either case the tendency can
be encouraged or mitigated.


I wouldn't bet the ranch on this pair of free spirits living a minute
longer than they did.

Probably so.


Your CONJECTURE may vary.


My conjecture is--we don't know.

--

FF

wrote:

What authority states the Capella cannot safely perform
the aerobatics in question WHEN EXECUTED PROPERLY?

Does the manufacturer claim it can?

Fred, given our litigious society...
Manufacturers seem loath to claim anything,
other than they are NOT responsible. g

- Barnyard BOb -

On May 17, 9:27 pm, Barnyard BOb wrote:
wrote:
What authority states the Capella cannot safely perform
the aerobatics in question WHEN EXECUTED PROPERLY?

Does the manufacturer claim it can?

Fred, given our litigious society...
Manufacturers seem loath to claim anything,
other than they are NOT responsible. g


http://www.aviataircraft.com/pitts/overview.htm

PITTS S-2C
Until you've flown the new Pitts S-2C, there's no way to fully
comprehend the way we have harnessed the power, expanded the
performance envelope, locked in a new level of precision and taken the
lead in aerobatic flying technology.

http://www.extraaircraft.com/about_history.asp

1998
The FAA Type Certificate is received for the EXTRA 400, flown by many
world aerobatic champions, including Patty Wagstaff.

http://www.russianaeros.com/yak55product.htm

Aerobatic

We say that the '55 will give 85% of a Sukhoi's performance at 40% of
the cost, which is a reflection of the aircraft's capability. It is
very tough, rugged and with very good performance. It has quite a lot
of drag because of its thick (but of course very strong) wing, but of
course a lot of power to overcome this.

http://www.amerchampionaircraft.com/newac/newmain.htm

Our ZLIN Z 242 L (PDF file 357KB) training and fully aerobatic two
seater,


http://www.amerchampionaircraft.com/newac/newmain.htm

Super Decathlon

Fully Aerobatic

....

--

FF

On May 18, 7:55 am, wrote:
On May 17, 9:27 pm, Barnyard BOb wrote:

wrote:
What authority states the Capella cannot safely perform
the aerobatics in question WHEN EXECUTED PROPERLY?

Does the manufacturer claim it can?

Fred, given our litigious society...
Manufacturers seem loath to claim anything,
other than they are NOT responsible. g

http://www.aviataircraft.com/pitts/overview.htm

PITTS S-2C
Until you've flown the new Pitts S-2C, there's no way to fully
comprehend the way we have harnessed the power, expanded the
performance envelope, locked in a new level of precision and taken the
lead in aerobatic flying technology.

http://www.extraaircraft.com/about_history.asp

1998
The FAA Type Certificate is received for the EXTRA 400, flown by many
world aerobatic champions, including Patty Wagstaff.

http://www.russianaeros.com/yak55product.htm

Aerobatic

We say that the '55 will give 85% of a Sukhoi's performance at 40% of
the cost, which is a reflection of the aircraft's capability. It is
very tough, rugged and with very good performance. It has quite a lot
of drag because of its thick (but of course very strong) wing, but of
course a lot of power to overcome this.

http://www.amerchampionaircraft.com/newac/newmain.htm

Our ZLIN Z 242 L (PDF file 357KB) training and fully aerobatic two
seater,

http://www.amerchampionaircraft.com/newac/newmain.htm

Super Decathlon

Fully Aerobatic

...

--

FF

But there are no concrete claims in that just the usual publicity
fluff. Must be some someplace though.

Harry K

On May 19, 9:32 am, Harry K wrote:
On May 18, 7:55 am, wrote:





On May 17, 9:27 pm, Barnyard BOb wrote:

wrote:
What authority states the Capella cannot safely perform
the aerobatics in question WHEN EXECUTED PROPERLY?

Does the manufacturer claim it can?

Fred, given our litigious society...
Manufacturers seem loath to claim anything,
other than they are NOT responsible. g

http://www.aviataircraft.com/pitts/overview.htm

PITTS S-2C
Until you've flown the new Pitts S-2C, there's no way to fully
comprehend the way we have harnessed the power, expanded the
performance envelope, locked in a new level of precision and taken the
lead in aerobatic flying technology.

http://www.extraaircraft.com/about_history.asp

1998
The FAA Type Certificate is received for the EXTRA 400, flown by many
world aerobatic champions, including Patty Wagstaff.

http://www.russianaeros.com/yak55product.htm

Aerobatic

We say that the '55 will give 85% of a Sukhoi's performance at 40% of
the cost, which is a reflection of the aircraft's capability. It is
very tough, rugged and with very good performance. It has quite a lot
of drag because of its thick (but of course very strong) wing, but of
course a lot of power to overcome this.

http://www.amerchampionaircraft.com/newac/newmain.htm

Our ZLIN Z 242 L (PDF file 357KB) training and fully aerobatic two
seater,

http://www.amerchampionaircraft.com/newac/newmain.htm

Super Decathlon

Fully Aerobatic

...

--

FF

But there are no concrete claims in that just the usual publicity
fluff. Must be some someplace though.

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Capellas wing failed at 6.6 G's an aerobatic category plane is
rated safe at 6 G's. However they have to be tested to 150% of that
value or a failure at no less than 9 G's. A failure at the 6.6 G level
would put the rating squarely into the utility category (4.8 G's) if
it were a certified aircraft. If the Capella had a stall speed of 30
mph and Mr Smith was do 90 mph and did a maximum effort pull up he
could have achieved a load of 9 G's, far more than enough to fail the
structure.

Frank M.Hitlaw, at my secret world Hq