In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Here is my .02 and I would consider myself highly qualified to make determinations on jet engines and how they became that way.
1. This was not a bird strike, as bobski mentioned it is pretty obvious when an animal hits an engine.
2. More than likely it was an internal fod issue, such as a bearing letting go inside the motor and then causing it to grenade. If you take a close look at the second picture you will note that most of the damage on the blades has the blades bent outward, a classic example of an internal failure with a jet engine.
3. I don't believe those are seatbelts, but nylon straps used to prevent windmilling of the engine while it sits on the line or outside waiting to be disassembled. Nothing that uncommon there, except I would expect to see some sort of plastic engine cover, but a strap to keep it from spinning is not completely out of the question. To answer what you said fishkiller, although I don't know what engine that is, if the strap is connected to the IGV's (inlet guide veins) (which they very well could be) then they don't spin, the first set of blades would spin, but the second set you see does not spin, they act more like the butterflies on a carbureator and move on a pivoting axis to control airflow through the engine. (hope that make sense).
4. English is the international language of aviation, but to my knowledge that is limited to radio transmissions, if this is infact chinese engines, at a German airport why is the numbering on the fan blades (each blade has a serial number and is tracked through it's service life) why aren't those numbers written in Chinese? Same with the straps holding the fan blade in place, you can clearly make out "PF" stenciled on them along with some numbers, also in english.
I believe that is a fabricated story, perhaps it was passed along to your friend, but unless he actually took the pictures (which I also found on photobucket.com so they are up for grabs for anyone) I doubt the story to go with the pics is true.
Here's a break down of a typical jet engine. Of course this picture shows from back to front.
The next stage you can see likely does not spin (I don't know what engine this is) they are the IGV's a penny size or smaller piece of bearing or something blown out the front of the engine would have exactly this sort of effect with the first stage fan blades spinning at around 10-20,000 RPM, had pictures of the back of the engine also been taken you would see substancially more damage to the rear of it.
It's not a motor-it's a turbine or an engine. Motors are electrical thingy's that turn fans and pumps.
It does not contain fans-it contains compressor and turbine discs, comprised of blades.
What you are looking at is the fan on a turbo-fan engine. It is powered by the low pressure turbine (the one all the way in the back)
Its purpose is to ram additional air down the intake.
The blades may be tied down for maint. or storage, but not flight. It would generate enough torque on its own to break them. You would be better to cover the whole intake.
They are tied to the IGV's (as Dave W said) and it was not damaged by internal FOD the IGV's are untouched. It was external FOD rejected by the engine or more likely was probably icing damage commonly induced by those pilots who think they know something about jet engines just because they are pilots. You see, the intake ices up, the pilot sees this or it is indicated by EPR (Engine pressure ratio) He says "oh ice" and turns on the anti-ice. The ANTI-ICE melts the ice holding the big chunks to the nacelle and it flies into the intake. It only works if you use it BEFORE ICING UP.
quote:hughbetcha:
It seems convenient that there are no such identifyers as flight numbers, dates, actual name of airlines, not even on the link zipper provided as "proof"
OK - if you are a pilot - and a self proclaimed expert[:D] - it
should be quite easy to disprove it, right? Or, do you want me to
do that for you, too?
You wouldn't mind posting your multiengine rating here, would you?
I'd kinda like to see it - expired, or not. That wouldn't be a
problem, would it, Captain?
OK - if you are a pilot - and a self proclaimed expert[:D] - it
should be quite easy to disprove it, right? Or, do you want me to
do that for you, too?
You wouldn't mind posting your multiengine rating here, would you?
I'd kinda like to see it - expired, or not. That wouldn't be a
problem, would it, Captain?
I'm wearing my waders - post away![:D][:D][:D]
Zip - you're wrong. Do the right thing and admit it.
quote:Originally posted by Flying Clay Disk
Codenamepaul,
The use of the term "motor" was really more of a slang reference.Still incorrect, slang or no. And not slang in any circle I run in. Yes, it is more correctly referred to as a "turbo-fan turbine engine".
However, as you probably know, there is, in fact, a "fan" in front of the low and high pressure compressors. Where I slipped up was referring to the low pressure as a "fan", when I should have said "compressor". My error.
I don't think this was ice though. I've seen severe ice damage from grapefruit sized hail, enough to gouge the composite out of a wing root, not do this much damage to the "fans". I still believe the turbine ingested something harder.
BTW...what you are actually seing in the picture is, in fact, the "fan". Agreed, I said this.The compressors are behind this. Also it is the fan which is damaged, not the compressors (although there does appear to be some slight damage to them as well.[:D]
I've got some unscanned photos of what I described that you may not even be able to tell the difference between what we see here. The ice I describe is clear ice and can be three feet in diameter,
quote:Originally posted by zipperzap
quote:hughbetcha:
It seems convenient that there are no such identifyers as flight numbers, dates, actual name of airlines, not even on the link zipper provided as "proof"
OK - if you are a pilot - and a self proclaimed expert[:D] - it
should be quite easy to disprove it, right? Or, do you want me to
do that for you, too?
You wouldn't mind posting your multiengine rating here, would you?
I'd kinda like to see it - expired, or not. That wouldn't be a
problem, would it, Captain?
I'm wearing my waders - post away![:D][:D][:D]
Zipper,
You walk the fine line with your BS every day. This is one of the days when you got caught, so just admit and act like a man even if you can't be one in real life.
I clearly stated in my post that I held a basic airmans certificate class II. I said I have some multi-engine time and some instrument time. I did not say I had a multi-engine rating or an instrument rating.
I do not post my personal documents on the internet, however I clearly offered to email you a copy of my certificate for a mere $100. Can't you read zipper?
I don't keep these documents handy but for the price of $100 I will dig out my certificate and my log book and tell you exactly how many hours I have flying single engine, multiengine and instrument. I will trust you to keep the information confidential and to pay the $100 cost upon receipt of the information.
In turn, I have offered to pay you $100 for proof that you are an astronaut. Should you not accept my offer I think it would be the honorable thing to do to declare that you are not in fact an astronaut.
It's also possible that I can just email you the certificate number and you can look it up on the internet. I don't know if this is possible, but it's a lot less trouble for me. If you find out this is possible I'll send you the number for only $20 since I dont have to find and photograph the stuff.
The truth is I'd do it for free just to make you look like the fool you are zipper. Instead of the $20 i want a full apology posted on the board.
MosinNagantDisciple:
Zip - you're wrong. Do the right thing and admit it.
LOL ... I'm wrong to have passed along an e-mailed URL? LOL
That's funny! I've provided the URL - why don't you prove it
wrong? Should be easy!
Who has proven it false - surely there must be one among you
who can run this down? Who will cast the first ice cube!??
I think codenamepaul's called it right! Ice damage. Makes sense to me!
I do know two things!
#1: I DO KNOW it's not a 'motor.'
#2: If anything is wrong with this thread, it's Captain Hughbetcha's
assertion that he was once a commercial airline pilot (and won't
prove it) ... I'm not saying that he's never cruised along at 40,000
feet, but I think he must be smoking something funny to do it sans
an airframe! ... I know that some of the guys in astronaut training
used to hallucinate, like that, in the high g-force centrifuge training
at the Naval Training System Center, in Orlando. Maybe he Hugh
flew the 'High G' C47, 'Columbian To Mexico Run', eh?[:D][:D][:D]
I've forwarded this thread along to Ted. We'll see what he comes
up with. [:D][:D][:D]
... and I think - with the two aforementioned exceptions (thanks
for the laughs, incidentally) - this has been A VERY SUCCESSFUL
THREAD, don'tcha think?
YIKES! 862 hits on this thread on a Memorial Day Weekend!
I think I've shattered all existing records!
You guys sure are getting testy![:D][:D][:D]
I've posted MUCH more controversial stuff and nary a whimper.
All of a sudden I post something that apparently comes from a
net aircraft URL - sent to me by a long time friend who is an
FAA supervisor of some kind, or another (I don't know what the
hell he does) and all of a sudden BS flags go up all over the
place - which is fine with me - EXCEPT there seems to be no
rational, or much empirical, logic behind it! Captain Hugh and
Disky Flier seem to be the most bothered of anyone - which is
OK by me - and sezs I, "I'll e-mail Ted for more info" and the
frenzy seems to go up a notch, or two.
I'm supposed to, "Give it up!"?
LOL, boys, the only thing, I guess, I've ever had to "Give Up"
was my virginity ... and lads, you're a few decades too late for THAT![:D][:D][:D]
... ya ain't my type(s), anyway! I covered that on another thread, just yesterday,
matter of fact!
IF, I STILL had IT, I'd ONLY give IT up to Bo ... BUT,
I ain't got IT, NO MO! Sorry again, lads![:(][:(][:(]
I suggest you just calm down Captain Hugh, and Disky, and let's
await a ruling from Uncle Ted!
I'll do some discrete asking around/networking with some of my
aviation friends, in the meantime, and see if I can help bail
you boys out a bit!
Wow! Almost 870 hits! Somebody seems to appreciate your
entertainment value here, eh?
Take a chill pill and a nap and I'll see what I can find out for
you ... even though, I suppose, I'm so full of, what did you call
it, BS!??
I always thought 'the accusers' did this - not 'the accused!'[:D]
... part of this New World Order stuff, I suppose, eh!??[:D][:D][:D]
871 ... and counting ... on your ole BS meter![:D]
Anyone who can read the thread knows that not just FCD and myself have called BS on this. Also, anyone can read what I posted and see that I never claimed to have a multi-engine rating nor did i ever claim to be a commercial pilot or an expert on jet engines.
I told you what my rating was and I sent you an email with my airmans certificate number which you can verify was issued to me on Jan. 23, 1977, just two days after my 16th birthday. You have not apologized for you misstatements and that makes you less of a man zipper.
[8D]--Not to change the subject,BUT I wonder if the little belts on those "fan" blades in a Chinese "engine" had a tag that said (Made in america)--[:p][:p]--JIMBO
Sorry for the delay ... Zippette caught me and there was
wrath to pay - but I'm back!
Well, ladies and gents ... yes, Hugh did indeed send
me his(?) 'airman certificate #xxxxxxx'number - of
course, because of privacy laws there is no way it
can be verified, but I have it, I think.
... but, that's OK. I believe you Captain Hugh, and I
apologize in the spirit of 'Good GB'smanship!' If I have
cast aspersions and cut you to the quick, I offer my deepest
heartfelt and sincerest apologies - and will refrain from
any more character inflammations - until next time you provoke
me.
I was, though, hoping for something a little more substantial
... such as my documents, below.
Here are mine.
My current valid California driver's lic.
Primary Certification
Etc.
... still maintaining privacy, yet boldly setting forth for the world
to see, my initial credentials to fly.
Until I hear from my friend, I shall do my own net research and sit tight.
Oh, and my astronaut number is 37 - or, is it 36, I dunno - it's one of those, I think.[:D]LOL
Zipper, I'm not one to not give credit where it is due, therefore, I will accept your apology and offer my own apology for calling you a stinken pekerfaced azzwipe of an excuse for a man.
I will not however accept the word of some internet flunky named "Ted" who is supposed to be somebody in the FAA, or it it the EAA? Anybody with those credentials would know as much as the "armchair experts" on this forum and tell you the same thing.
There's more, or less, to the story than is presented, that's all nice folks on GB have been saying and you ought to just accept it without resorting to nasty remarks.
Also, I don't have those same kind of pilot training documents. My father was my instructor and I did all the ground school study at home. I have an FAA issued certificate and a log book. I dont see any purpose is posting a driver's license, but if it's real you're probably in more trouble than you realize.
Hey, Captain Hugh! Same day service! Can't beat that, can you!???
Just got off the phone with Ted a few minutes ago. I had sent him the GB
thread URL. Ted said, he called a few of his friends - mostly retired FAA -
and they all had a good laugh over some of your comments and they
suggested to him that I might think about "playing with guys more my
own age!" LOL [:D][:D][:D]
They sent along a few good aviation forum URLs.
I told them that GB was a gun forum - they said they certainly believed it!
I wonder what they meant by that?
EAA CHAPTER 663 Livermore, California Vol. XXIII, No. 9,
September, 2003
Scroll down to above the photos at the end of the newsletter.
Captain Hugh: Paul Lipps, EAA, Chapter 170, San Luis Obispo, is the fella
you want to get into contact with. - Ted said you call him a liar and he'd
come on out and tear your GD head off! LOL I told Ted I'd contribute to any
expenses that he might incur![:D]
Next :
There is mention of it in another FAA connected URL but it states
`source unknown' - Ted said he found the source after reading it but has
to find it again - and will do so if I so wish him to.
So, there you go, pal.
I hope this makes you feel better. I know it certainly has given ME more than
a few chuckles today - in between Memorial Day Sunday family stuff!!
I'll be more careful about posting difficult to understand technical stuff in the
future! LOL[:D][:D][:D]
hughbetcha:
Zipper,
You walk the fine line with your BS every day. This is one of the days when you got caught, so just admit and act like a man even if you can't be one in real life.
&
hughbetcha:
Give it up Zipper,
You are a complete fraud and a classic internet puzzy!
You are too much of a puzzy to admit you are wrong. You are not fooling anybody you stinkin pekerfaced azzwipe of an excuse for a man.
As far as those quotes are concerned, it's just more of the same - sad but funny in an adolescent sort of a way, I suppose.
Bottom line is ... that you're not much of an opponent but keep swinging ... the important thing is that you try.
You seem to make some folks around here laugh.[:D][:D][:D]
Comments
1. This was not a bird strike, as bobski mentioned it is pretty obvious when an animal hits an engine.
2. More than likely it was an internal fod issue, such as a bearing letting go inside the motor and then causing it to grenade. If you take a close look at the second picture you will note that most of the damage on the blades has the blades bent outward, a classic example of an internal failure with a jet engine.
3. I don't believe those are seatbelts, but nylon straps used to prevent windmilling of the engine while it sits on the line or outside waiting to be disassembled. Nothing that uncommon there, except I would expect to see some sort of plastic engine cover, but a strap to keep it from spinning is not completely out of the question. To answer what you said fishkiller, although I don't know what engine that is, if the strap is connected to the IGV's (inlet guide veins) (which they very well could be) then they don't spin, the first set of blades would spin, but the second set you see does not spin, they act more like the butterflies on a carbureator and move on a pivoting axis to control airflow through the engine. (hope that make sense).
4. English is the international language of aviation, but to my knowledge that is limited to radio transmissions, if this is infact chinese engines, at a German airport why is the numbering on the fan blades (each blade has a serial number and is tracked through it's service life) why aren't those numbers written in Chinese? Same with the straps holding the fan blade in place, you can clearly make out "PF" stenciled on them along with some numbers, also in english.
I believe that is a fabricated story, perhaps it was passed along to your friend, but unless he actually took the pictures (which I also found on photobucket.com so they are up for grabs for anyone) I doubt the story to go with the pics is true.
Here's a break down of a typical jet engine. Of course this picture shows from back to front.
but then who's to say if snopes knows?
It's ALL a farenheit 911 conspiracy.
It's not a motor-it's a turbine or an engine. Motors are electrical thingy's that turn fans and pumps.
It does not contain fans-it contains compressor and turbine discs, comprised of blades.
What you are looking at is the fan on a turbo-fan engine. It is powered by the low pressure turbine (the one all the way in the back)
Its purpose is to ram additional air down the intake.
The blades may be tied down for maint. or storage, but not flight. It would generate enough torque on its own to break them. You would be better to cover the whole intake.
They are tied to the IGV's (as Dave W said) and it was not damaged by internal FOD the IGV's are untouched. It was external FOD rejected by the engine or more likely was probably icing damage commonly induced by those pilots who think they know something about jet engines just because they are pilots. You see, the intake ices up, the pilot sees this or it is indicated by EPR (Engine pressure ratio) He says "oh ice" and turns on the anti-ice. The ANTI-ICE melts the ice holding the big chunks to the nacelle and it flies into the intake. It only works if you use it BEFORE ICING UP.
Class dismissed...
I've seen motors which look just like this.
LOL ... nice try!
I ain't nebber seen no aeroplane motor like that'n!
You claim I'm "full of it" ... you look about
'half full' ... on your BEST DAY!
[:D][:D][:D]
It seems convenient that there are no such identifyers as flight numbers, dates, actual name of airlines, not even on the link zipper provided as "proof"
OK - if you are a pilot - and a self proclaimed expert[:D] - it
should be quite easy to disprove it, right? Or, do you want me to
do that for you, too?
You wouldn't mind posting your multiengine rating here, would you?
I'd kinda like to see it - expired, or not. That wouldn't be a
problem, would it, Captain?
I'm wearing my waders - post away![:D][:D][:D]
OK - if you are a pilot - and a self proclaimed expert[:D] - it
should be quite easy to disprove it, right? Or, do you want me to
do that for you, too?
You wouldn't mind posting your multiengine rating here, would you?
I'd kinda like to see it - expired, or not. That wouldn't be a
problem, would it, Captain?
I'm wearing my waders - post away![:D][:D][:D]
Zip - you're wrong. Do the right thing and admit it.
Codenamepaul,
The use of the term "motor" was really more of a slang reference.Still incorrect, slang or no. And not slang in any circle I run in. Yes, it is more correctly referred to as a "turbo-fan turbine engine".
However, as you probably know, there is, in fact, a "fan" in front of the low and high pressure compressors. Where I slipped up was referring to the low pressure as a "fan", when I should have said "compressor". My error.
I don't think this was ice though. I've seen severe ice damage from grapefruit sized hail, enough to gouge the composite out of a wing root, not do this much damage to the "fans". I still believe the turbine ingested something harder.
BTW...what you are actually seing in the picture is, in fact, the "fan". Agreed, I said this.The compressors are behind this. Also it is the fan which is damaged, not the compressors (although there does appear to be some slight damage to them as well.[:D]
I've got some unscanned photos of what I described that you may not even be able to tell the difference between what we see here. The ice I describe is clear ice and can be three feet in diameter,
quote:hughbetcha:
It seems convenient that there are no such identifyers as flight numbers, dates, actual name of airlines, not even on the link zipper provided as "proof"
OK - if you are a pilot - and a self proclaimed expert[:D] - it
should be quite easy to disprove it, right? Or, do you want me to
do that for you, too?
You wouldn't mind posting your multiengine rating here, would you?
I'd kinda like to see it - expired, or not. That wouldn't be a
problem, would it, Captain?
I'm wearing my waders - post away![:D][:D][:D]
Zipper,
You walk the fine line with your BS every day. This is one of the days when you got caught, so just admit and act like a man even if you can't be one in real life.
I clearly stated in my post that I held a basic airmans certificate class II. I said I have some multi-engine time and some instrument time. I did not say I had a multi-engine rating or an instrument rating.
I do not post my personal documents on the internet, however I clearly offered to email you a copy of my certificate for a mere $100. Can't you read zipper?
I don't keep these documents handy but for the price of $100 I will dig out my certificate and my log book and tell you exactly how many hours I have flying single engine, multiengine and instrument. I will trust you to keep the information confidential and to pay the $100 cost upon receipt of the information.
In turn, I have offered to pay you $100 for proof that you are an astronaut. Should you not accept my offer I think it would be the honorable thing to do to declare that you are not in fact an astronaut.
It's also possible that I can just email you the certificate number and you can look it up on the internet. I don't know if this is possible, but it's a lot less trouble for me. If you find out this is possible I'll send you the number for only $20 since I dont have to find and photograph the stuff.
The truth is I'd do it for free just to make you look like the fool you are zipper. Instead of the $20 i want a full apology posted on the board.
Zip - you're wrong. Do the right thing and admit it.
LOL ... I'm wrong to have passed along an e-mailed URL? LOL
That's funny! I've provided the URL - why don't you prove it
wrong? Should be easy!
Who has proven it false - surely there must be one among you
who can run this down? Who will cast the first ice cube!??
I think codenamepaul's called it right! Ice damage. Makes sense to me!
I do know two things!
#1: I DO KNOW it's not a 'motor.'
#2: If anything is wrong with this thread, it's Captain Hughbetcha's
assertion that he was once a commercial airline pilot (and won't
prove it) ... I'm not saying that he's never cruised along at 40,000
feet, but I think he must be smoking something funny to do it sans
an airframe! ... I know that some of the guys in astronaut training
used to hallucinate, like that, in the high g-force centrifuge training
at the Naval Training System Center, in Orlando. Maybe he Hugh
flew the 'High G' C47, 'Columbian To Mexico Run', eh?[:D][:D][:D]
I've forwarded this thread along to Ted. We'll see what he comes
up with. [:D][:D][:D]
... and I think - with the two aforementioned exceptions (thanks
for the laughs, incidentally) - this has been A VERY SUCCESSFUL
THREAD, don'tcha think?
Good work GB'ers![:D]
You are a complete fraud and a classic internet puzzy!
Show me where I ever claimed to be a commercial airline pilot.
I stated clearly my qualifications and I'm willing to provide proof.
You are too much of a puzzy to admit you are wrong. You are not fooling anybody you stinkin pekerfaced azzwipe of an excuse for a man.
When you are done picken your *, check your email. I sent you my certificate #
I think I've shattered all existing records!
You guys sure are getting testy![:D][:D][:D]
I've posted MUCH more controversial stuff and nary a whimper.
All of a sudden I post something that apparently comes from a
net aircraft URL - sent to me by a long time friend who is an
FAA supervisor of some kind, or another (I don't know what the
hell he does) and all of a sudden BS flags go up all over the
place - which is fine with me - EXCEPT there seems to be no
rational, or much empirical, logic behind it! Captain Hugh and
Disky Flier seem to be the most bothered of anyone - which is
OK by me - and sezs I, "I'll e-mail Ted for more info" and the
frenzy seems to go up a notch, or two.
I'm supposed to, "Give it up!"?
LOL, boys, the only thing, I guess, I've ever had to "Give Up"
was my virginity ... and lads, you're a few decades too late for THAT![:D][:D][:D]
... ya ain't my type(s), anyway! I covered that on another thread, just yesterday,
matter of fact!
IF, I STILL had IT, I'd ONLY give IT up to Bo ... BUT,
I ain't got IT, NO MO! Sorry again, lads![:(][:(][:(]
I suggest you just calm down Captain Hugh, and Disky, and let's
await a ruling from Uncle Ted!
I'll do some discrete asking around/networking with some of my
aviation friends, in the meantime, and see if I can help bail
you boys out a bit!
Wow! Almost 870 hits! Somebody seems to appreciate your
entertainment value here, eh?
Take a chill pill and a nap and I'll see what I can find out for
you ... even though, I suppose, I'm so full of, what did you call
it, BS!??
I always thought 'the accusers' did this - not 'the accused!'[:D]
... part of this New World Order stuff, I suppose, eh!??[:D][:D][:D]
871 ... and counting ... on your ole BS meter![:D]
Anyone who can read the thread knows that not just FCD and myself have called BS on this. Also, anyone can read what I posted and see that I never claimed to have a multi-engine rating nor did i ever claim to be a commercial pilot or an expert on jet engines.
I told you what my rating was and I sent you an email with my airmans certificate number which you can verify was issued to me on Jan. 23, 1977, just two days after my 16th birthday. You have not apologized for you misstatements and that makes you less of a man zipper.
... sorry, Captain Hugh.
Come ON man, we've got some serious family BBQing going
on here!
I'm sneaking back in to dash off these electromagnetic
thunderbolts![:D]
You've already called me 'less of a man' -
unless ALL REAL MEN are full of BS, eh?[:D]
OK, I'll read my mail.
If I've hurt your feelings I'll send out
a 'preemptive apology,' Captain Hugh.
This is the internet and you can be a pilot
if I can be an astronaut - OK?[:D][:D][:D]
BRB
wrath to pay - but I'm back!
Well, ladies and gents ... yes, Hugh did indeed send
me his(?) 'airman certificate #xxxxxxx'number - of
course, because of privacy laws there is no way it
can be verified, but I have it, I think.
... but, that's OK. I believe you Captain Hugh, and I
apologize in the spirit of 'Good GB'smanship!' If I have
cast aspersions and cut you to the quick, I offer my deepest
heartfelt and sincerest apologies - and will refrain from
any more character inflammations - until next time you provoke
me.
I was, though, hoping for something a little more substantial
... such as my documents, below.
Here are mine.
My current valid California driver's lic.
Primary Certification
Etc.
... still maintaining privacy, yet boldly setting forth for the world
to see, my initial credentials to fly.
Until I hear from my friend, I shall do my own net research and sit tight.
Oh, and my astronaut number is 37 - or, is it 36, I dunno - it's one of those, I think.[:D]LOL
Just read a few posts before my last one.
Anyone who calls me "sweetie,' has issues
I'm crtainly not qualified to address![:0]
Pass![8D]
I will not however accept the word of some internet flunky named "Ted" who is supposed to be somebody in the FAA, or it it the EAA? Anybody with those credentials would know as much as the "armchair experts" on this forum and tell you the same thing.
There's more, or less, to the story than is presented, that's all nice folks on GB have been saying and you ought to just accept it without resorting to nasty remarks.
Also, I don't have those same kind of pilot training documents. My father was my instructor and I did all the ground school study at home. I have an FAA issued certificate and a log book. I dont see any purpose is posting a driver's license, but if it's real you're probably in more trouble than you realize.
Just got off the phone with Ted a few minutes ago. I had sent him the GB
thread URL. Ted said, he called a few of his friends - mostly retired FAA -
and they all had a good laugh over some of your comments and they
suggested to him that I might think about "playing with guys more my
own age!" LOL [:D][:D][:D]
They sent along a few good aviation forum URLs.
I told them that GB was a gun forum - they said they certainly believed it!
I wonder what they meant by that?
Anyway, check out this URL:
http://www.eaa663.org/Newsletter/PDF/2003/EAA 2003-9.pdf
EAA CHAPTER 663 Livermore, California Vol. XXIII, No. 9,
September, 2003
Scroll down to above the photos at the end of the newsletter.
Captain Hugh: Paul Lipps, EAA, Chapter 170, San Luis Obispo, is the fella
you want to get into contact with. - Ted said you call him a liar and he'd
come on out and tear your GD head off! LOL I told Ted I'd contribute to any
expenses that he might incur![:D]
Next :
There is mention of it in another FAA connected URL but it states
`source unknown' - Ted said he found the source after reading it but has
to find it again - and will do so if I so wish him to.
So, there you go, pal.
I hope this makes you feel better. I know it certainly has given ME more than
a few chuckles today - in between Memorial Day Sunday family stuff!!
I'll be more careful about posting difficult to understand technical stuff in the
future! LOL[:D][:D][:D]
hughbetcha:
Zipper,
You walk the fine line with your BS every day. This is one of the days when you got caught, so just admit and act like a man even if you can't be one in real life.
&
hughbetcha:
Give it up Zipper,
You are a complete fraud and a classic internet puzzy!
You are too much of a puzzy to admit you are wrong. You are not fooling anybody you stinkin pekerfaced azzwipe of an excuse for a man.
As far as those quotes are concerned, it's just more of the same - sad but funny in an adolescent sort of a way, I suppose.
Bottom line is ... that you're not much of an opponent but keep swinging ... the important thing is that you try.
You seem to make some folks around here laugh.[:D][:D][:D]