A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

I want to build the most EVIL plane EVER !!!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #171  
Old December 8th 05, 02:00 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default (Mini-500)I want to build the most EVIL plane EVER !!!

Flyingmonk wrote:
Matt wrote:

Well, I'm not questioning is hacking ability, but saying that because
one person can't do this implies that it can't be done is just
ridiculous. I can't perform open heart surgery either, so I guess that
means to you that it can't be done, right?



No, not at all. My question is WHY would someone named Planeman,
posting from a DIFFERENT email address, would spoof Denise's NNTP and
post with a diferent name to support Denise's arguments? If Planeman
wanted to support Denise, he can just go right ahead and support him.
Why would he need to spoof denise's NNTP? Why would Planeman go
through the trouble of spoofing and yet posted under a different name?


So that someone could claim that Denise is impersonating someone else to
support his cause. That was just too easy. :-)


I'm beginning to appreciate Dennis' frustration now.



Sorry that I frustate you Matt, but I never meant to frustrate YOU in
particular. Normally I'm very docile, He is probably one of very VERY
few people that gets me worked up.


And I wasn't suggesting that you were. I just like to see logical
arguments and your argument in this case (I'm not saying this is true in
general) simply wasn't logical.


Matt
  #172  
Old December 8th 05, 03:44 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default (Mini-500)I want to build the most EVIL plane EVER !!!

Matt wrote:
I just like to see logical arguments and your argument in this case (I'm not saying this is true in general) simply wasn't logical.


I'm just not good at arguing. Anywho, so what you are saying now is
that the one and only person that supported Denise is actually not
supporting him, but instead set him up? The one and only friend he had
in RAH was his enemy? LOL

  #173  
Old December 8th 05, 04:39 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default (Mini-500)I want to build the most EVIL plane EVER !!!

Matt Whiting wrote:
Flyingmonk wrote:
Matt wrote:

Well, I'm not questioning is hacking ability, but saying that because
one person can't do this implies that it can't be done is just
ridiculous. I can't perform open heart surgery either, so I guess that
means to you that it can't be done, right?


No, not at all. My question is WHY would someone named Planeman,
posting from a DIFFERENT email address, would spoof Denise's NNTP and
post with a diferent name to support Denise's arguments? If Planeman
wanted to support Denise, he can just go right ahead and support him.
Why would he need to spoof denise's NNTP? Why would Planeman go
through the trouble of spoofing and yet posted under a different name?


So that someone could claim that Denise is impersonating someone else to
support his cause. That was just too easy. :-)


Except that "planeman" was lashing out at everyone, for no reason, until
Dennis made his timed entrance. Planned and executed by Dennis, a
spoofer couldn't have set it up that way.

I'm beginning to appreciate Dennis' frustration now.


Oh, I don't think you really are. You're rejecting the simple and
obvious, and instead coming up with ridiculously convoluted scenarios.

Sorry that I frustate you Matt, but I never meant to frustrate YOU in
particular. Normally I'm very docile, He is probably one of very VERY
few people that gets me worked up.



And I wasn't suggesting that you were. I just like to see logical
arguments and your argument in this case (I'm not saying this is true in
general) simply wasn't logical.


It's simply the only argument that *is* logical. The spoofing argument
is absurd.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Occam's%20razor
  #174  
Old December 8th 05, 05:34 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default (Mini-500)I want to build the most EVIL plane EVER !!!

In article .com,
"Flyingmonk" wrote:

The CH-7's blades were better, they didn't bow like a banana. The were
bowing forward as you go farther from the root of the blades. This
changed the pivot point for the baldes, imagine taking a straight
bladed sword and rotating it, the tip and the rest of the sword stays
at the pivot point. Now imagine taking a curved sword and rotating it
the same way, you'll notice that the tip stays at the pivot point, but
the remainder of the sword will rise or fall due to the curve.

The CH-7's blades were fabricated better, they were more uniform or
should I say more consistent than what Denise was able to produce.
Being more uniform, and of the shape that they were designed, they were
easier to track and balance. This resulted in a smoother flying ship.
Denise couldn't get the blades to come out as designed. They were not
consistent they bowed where they shouldn't have and all this resulted
in problems when trying to track and balance the blades. I remember
that Gill had a hard time getting the baldes to fly smoothly.

I think this fact alone(bad blades) resulted in inefficient rotor
system, Unlike propellers, the blades of a helicopter changes pitch
continously, this resulted in "shaking" or unsmooth helicopter. The
shaking caused the frames to crack! Again, instead of addressing the
problem (bad blades), Denise added more metal to the frame in an
attempt to beef up the area prone to cracking.

Since the blades were not as efficient as the CH-7's blades, the engine
had to work much harder to get the same lift. That's where Denise came
up with the bandaid fix again, the PEP kit. Instead of tackling the
blade problem, he overworked the engine by PEPing it up. CH-7s didn't
need to be PEPed up.

That's my two cents worth.


Sir, I hope you will not feel singled out by me, but how does abusing
the man's name lend credibility to what appears to be a reasonably
scholarly hypothesis? This is only one example of what I mean when I say
I don't give much credence to either Mr. Fetters or his detractors.
Sarcasm, rudeness, disrespect, arrogance, snottiness, and all the other
exhibits of hostility that permeate both sides of this discussion - and
so many others here - may bring self-righteous snickers to the
like-minded, but do *nothing* to persuade your opponents or the neutral
lurkers.
  #175  
Old December 8th 05, 07:05 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default (Mini-500)I want to build the most EVIL plane EVER !!!

Smitty Two wrote:
Sir, I hope you will not feel singled out by me, but how does abusing
the man's name lend credibility to what appears to be a reasonably
scholarly hypothesis? This is only one example of what I mean when I say
I don't give much credence to either Mr. Fetters or his detractors.
Sarcasm, rudeness, disrespect, arrogance, snottiness, and all the other
exhibits of hostility that permeate both sides of this discussion - and
so many others here - may bring self-righteous snickers to the
like-minded, but do *nothing* to persuade your opponents or the neutral
lurkers.


Fetters is one of very very few people that makes my blood boil.
Normally I'm a very docile person. I lost a friend, Gil Armbruster, An
FAA executive with 10s of thousands of hours of flight time, in the
mini500. Gil was a metoculous builder. Fetters is blamed his accident
on pilot error. Which is correct, Gil's accident was due to pilot
error, his error was choosing the mini500.

  #176  
Old December 8th 05, 07:13 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default (Mini-500)I want to build the most EVIL plane EVER !!!

The CH-7's blades were better, they didn't bow like a banana. The
Mini500's blades were bowing forward as you go from the root to tip.
This changed the pivot point for the baldes, imagine taking a straight
bladed sword and rotating it, the tip and the rest of the sword pivots
at the pivot point. Now imagine taking a curved sword and rotating it
the same way, you'll notice that the tip stays at the pivot point as
well as the root, but the remainder of the sword will rise or fall due
to the curve.

The CH-7's blades were fabricated better, they were more uniform or
should I say more consistent than what Fetters was able to produce.
Being more uniform, and of the shape that they were designed, they were
easier to track and balance. This resulted in a smoother flying ship.
Fetters couldn't get the blades to come out as designed. They were not
consistent, they bowed where they shouldn't have and this resulted in
problems when trying to track and balance the blades. I remember that
Gill had a hard time getting the baldes to fly smoothly.

I think this fact alone (bad blades) resulted in inefficient rotor
system, Unlike propellers, the blades of a helicopter changes pitch
continously, with bad blades, this resulted in "shaking" or unsmooth
helicopter. The shaking caused the frames to crack! Again, instead
of addressing the problem (bad blades), Fetters added more metal to the
frame in an attempt to beef up the area prone to cracking.

Since the blades were not as efficient as the CH-7's blades, the engine
had to work much harder to get the same lift. That's where Fetters
came up with the bandaid fix, the PEP kit. Instead of tackling the
blade problem, he overworked the engine by PEPing it up. CH-7s didn't
need to be PEPed up.

That's my two cents worth.

  #177  
Old December 8th 05, 07:20 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default (Mini-500)I want to build the most EVIL plane EVER !!!

Smitty Two wrote:

Sir, I hope you will not feel singled out by me, but how does abusing
the man's name lend credibility to what appears to be a reasonably
scholarly hypothesis? This is only one example of what I mean when I say
I don't give much credence to either Mr. Fetters or his detractors.
Sarcasm, rudeness, disrespect, arrogance, snottiness, and all the other
exhibits of hostility that permeate both sides of this discussion - and
so many others here - may bring self-righteous snickers to the
like-minded, but do *nothing* to persuade your opponents or the neutral
lurkers.


First of all, I want to thank you for pointing that out. You are
correct, I have rewritten it:

Cicarre's CH-7's blades were better, they didn't bow like a banana.
The Mini500's blades were bowing forward as you go from the root to
tip. This changed the pivot point for the baldes, imagine taking a
straight bladed sword and rotating it, the tip and the rest of the
sword pivots at the pivot point. Now imagine taking a curved sword and
rotating it the same way, you'll notice that the tip stays at the pivot
point as well as the root, but the remainder of the sword will rise or
fall due to the curve.

The CH-7's blades were fabricated better, they were more uniform or
should I say more consistent than what Fetters was able to produce.
Being more uniform, and of the shape that they were designed, they were
easier to track and balance. This resulted in a smoother flying ship.
Fetters couldn't get the blades to come out as designed. They were not
consistent, they bowed where they shouldn't have and this resulted in
problems when trying to track and balance the blades. I remember that
Gill had a hard time getting the baldes to fly smoothly.

I think this fact alone (bad blades) resulted in inefficient rotor
system, unlike propellers, the blades of a helicopter changes pitch
continously as it goes around the vertical shaft, with bad blades, this
resulted in "shaking" or unsmooth helicopter. The shaking caused the
frames to crack! Again, instead of addressing the problem (bad
blades), Fetters added more metal to the frame in an attempt to beef up
the area prone to cracking.

Since the blades were not as efficient as the CH-7's blades, the engine
had to work much harder to get the same lift. That's where Fetters
came up with the bandaid fix, the PEP kit. Instead of tackling the
blade problem, he overworked the engine by PEPing it up. CH-7s didn't
need to be PEPed up.

That's my two cents worth.

  #178  
Old December 8th 05, 12:33 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default (Mini-500)I want to build the most EVIL plane EVER !!!

Flyingmonk wrote:
Matt wrote:

I just like to see logical arguments and your argument in this case (I'm not saying this is true in general) simply wasn't logical.



I'm just not good at arguing. Anywho, so what you are saying now is
that the one and only person that supported Denise is actually not
supporting him, but instead set him up? The one and only friend he had
in RAH was his enemy? LOL


No, I didn't say that at all and putting words in people's mouths isn't
a great way to make friends and influence people. It really takes away
from your credibility.

I don't know Dennis or the history of his helicopter to comment on
whether he had one supporter, 1000, or none, and I don't have any reason
to find out.

I'm going to exit this discussion now as I've confirmed to my
satisfaction what I suspected all along.


Cheers,
Matt
  #179  
Old December 8th 05, 02:44 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default (Mini-500)I want to build the most EVIL plane EVER !!!

Flyingmonk wrote:

Fetters is one of very very few people that makes my blood boil.
Normally I'm a very docile person. I lost a friend, Gil Armbruster, An
FAA executive with 10s of thousands of hours of flight time, in the
mini500. Gil was a metoculous builder. Fetters is blamed his accident
on pilot error. Which is correct, Gil's accident was due to pilot
error, his error was choosing the mini500.


Gil had around 200 hours in the Mini, which seems to be its life limit
for airframe and pilot...
  #180  
Old December 8th 05, 02:51 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default (Mini-500)I want to build the most EVIL plane EVER !!!

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:33:06 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:


I don't know Dennis or the history of his helicopter to comment on
whether he had one supporter, 1000, or none, and I don't have any reason
to find out.

I'm going to exit this discussion now as I've confirmed to my
satisfaction what I suspected all along.


Any chance you're available for jury duty about a year from now?

Karl
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
American nazi pond scum, version two bushite kills bushite Naval Aviation 0 December 21st 04 11:46 PM
Hey! What fun!! Let's let them kill ourselves!!! [email protected] Naval Aviation 2 December 17th 04 10:45 PM
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ Dr. Guenther Eichhorn Aerobatics 0 November 1st 03 07:27 AM
Conspiracy Theorists (amusing) Grantland Military Aviation 1 October 2nd 03 12:17 AM
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ Dr. Guenther Eichhorn Aerobatics 0 October 1st 03 07:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.