Jay Maynard, Loser
O'Leary III
thread.
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32450
Talk about a fucking loser!
Bwahahahahaha
1) he buys a gazithousand dollar plane in Summer 2008 and by nine months
later, he can't make the payments on it. I guess that Tron thing didn't
work out
LOL LOL LOL LOL
2) He claims that his soon to be repoed plane is grounded by the Feds
because the fucking wings fall off...in flight.
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
3) Then he claims it has been fixed! How could they fix what they don't
admit to or know why the fucking wings fall off? Here is the
nigger-looking Henning handed Tronny his ass....again.
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=518495&postcount=202
Hey, anyone want to buy a busted, grounded, death machine from a stupid
adult-child who dresses up like a cartoon fag?
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
Jeffrey Bloss
Holy shitsky!
--
_?_ Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
(@ @) Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
-oOO-(_)--OOo-------------------------------[ Groucho Marx ]--
grok! Devoted Microsoft User
Darkwing
"O'Leary III" <ywhyohwh...@onfiare.com> wrote in message
news:4b0452b3$0$579$c5fe...@read01.usenet4all.se...
He might dress like a character from Tron but that still doesn't excuse your
cross dressing.
Jeffrey Bloss
Feel free to buy this idiot's plane then since it will take a complete
moron like you to do so.
Jeffrey Bloss
It doesn't bother you one bit that this Maynard clown (with or without
Tronnie suit lol) is hawking his POS Zodiac claiming it is fully tested
and completely safe?
No, you buy that BS don't you? Even in the face of the incontrovertible
fact that no one has ever found out what caused those failures,and can
in now fucking way possible be sure that even with this "fix" if the
problem has been corrected. The designers don't know what the problem
was, how do you know the problem was solved? You don't but yet you
support this clown Maynard Krebs who cries himself to sleep with his
financial undoing (of his own) and his POS unsaleable aircraft.
Certainly he would snooze much better if he sold the thing, pocketed the
money and chortled all the way to the funeral...of the people he sold
the POS too.
Wait, I was wrong, his Zodiac will be bought. I forgot you aren't the
only fucking, retarded fool in aviation.
<bitch slap>
Garry O
news:PNKdnfkxs_dIE5jW...@giganews.com...
you have to also remember that sh!t happens to everyone at some time or
another so having a giggle at someone else's misfortune is like pointing and
laughing at a wino asleep in the gutter, one day that me be us.
--
Flying RA Aus, because its cheaper and I can do it more often :-)
et
> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:PNKdnfkxs_dIE5jW...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Do you all remember when Van's RV's were folding wings in flight?
Ed
Scott
>
> Do you all remember when Van's RV's were folding wings in flight?
>
> Ed
Just the RV-3, correct? http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/sb96-03-1.pdf
Franklin
IIRC licensed for experimental amateur build. Too risky for my liking.
Jeffrey Bloss
That me be us? lol
Maybe you and surely this loser Maynard Krebs but it ain't gonna be me.
Jeffrey Bloss
Excellent Google there, Frankfurter.
LOL LOL LOL
et
Not so. A factory demo RV failed in flight with a potential customer
on board. Prompted a thorough analysis of the airframe. Cost a
bundle, found no smoking gun.
Sound familar?
Ed
Jim Logajan
> On Nov 20, 4:13�am, Scott <acepilotREM...@bloomer.net> wrote:
>> et wrote:
>> > Do you all remember when Van's RV's were folding wings in flight?
>>
>
> Not so. A factory demo RV failed in flight with a potential customer
> on board.
Got an NTSB accident ID for that alleged accident?
> Prompted a thorough analysis of the airframe. Cost a
> bundle, found no smoking gun.
> Sound familar?
I'm familiar with only one aircraft built by Van's Aircraft itself that
resulted in a fatal crash - but it wasn't a demo, it was a prototype. And
the fatalities were a Van's employee and that employee's son (see
highlighted update note in the middle of this article:
http://rvbuildershotline.com/articles/accidentrate.html )
It also didn't fail in flight; it was VFR flight into IMC. NTSB accident ID
is FTW00FA113 .
Darkwing
"Jeffrey Bloss" <jeffre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:he49mi$s1k$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I'm more of a Cessna guy anyway. Caveat emptor.
Darkwing
Down boy, you're foaming at the mouth.
Morgans
"Franklin" <i-am-f...@usenet.com.invalid> wrote
> IIRC licensed for experimental amateur build. Too risky for my liking.
A bicycle without training wheels is too risky for your liking.
Stop pretending you are an aviator, and be a pesk at some other newsgroup.
--
Jim in NC
Morgans
So what are you doing handging out in a homebuilt aircraft group? There are
no Cessna homebuilding programs, that I am aware of.
Another lost soul who can not read a descriptor on a newsgroup.
--
Jim in NC
Jeffrey Bloss
Cessna makes homebuilts?
D00d, get a grip.
Jeffrey Bloss
Stick around, Franklinslime will amaze you with his expertise...in
cardiovascular surgery.
LOL
Jeffrey Bloss
Say Zodiac 601 XL?
Franklin
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:26:11 -0500, Morgans wrote:
>
>> "Franklin" <i-am-f...@usenet.com.invalid> wrote
>>
>>> IIRC licensed for experimental amateur build. Too risky for my
>>> liking.
>>
>> A bicycle without training wheels is too risky for your liking.
>>
>> Stop pretending you are an aviator, and be a pesk at some other
>> newsgroup.
>
> Stick around, Franklinslime will amaze you with his expertise...in
> cardiovascular surgery.
>
> LOL
I can rip your heart out. Is that good enough? :-)
Franklin
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:50:17 GMT, Franklin wrote:
>> Scott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Do you all remember when Van's RV's were folding wings in flight?
>>>> Ed
>>>
>>> Just the RV-3, correct?
>>> http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/sb96-03-1.pdf
>>
>> IIRC licensed for experimental amateur build. Too risky for my
>> liking.
>
> Excellent Google there, Frankfurter.
>
> LOL LOL LOL
Hello sock, I can't believe you're so sore from the times you threw down
a challenge in r.a.p. which ended with you showing how limited your own
understanding is. Sorry about that.
Do you remember you invented some navigation data and when you got
rumbled you then tried to invent a mountain and some imaginary
passengers. Heh!
Then there was the time you got gulled by a hoax video of someone who
survived being sucked into a jet engine even though I tried to explain
the facts to you.
Don't blame me if you go out of your way to look foolish.
=====================================
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.comp.freeware/msg/4f17a7ff25fdf2dc>
David 'Bear Bottoms' W wrote:
> Here's a little something for you to solve, Franklin
>
> If you are looking at your AF/d and it says RWY xC-yL
> (you know what x and y are <chuckle> VASI(V2L)--GA3 deg
> TCH32' 90 deg up
>
> Whatcha got there, Frankie? C'mon, whatcha got there?
Franklin wrote:
Dearest socko, I've already asked to talk to the organ
grinder rather than his monkey. Could your sockmaster
arrange it for me next time.
Why do you believe there's no one else in the world apart
from you who can fly? When you next get a chance to go up
for spin, make sure the descent follows that VASI's 3 degree
glide but, with a bit of luck, your landing gear will be so
festooned with clinging stowaway socks that altogther their
dangling length exceeds 32 feet just as you clear the
threshold.
That will be a good way to get rid of a few. :)
You never told me what you are trying to hide from the SD
checks.
Rather than occupy yourself concocting basic questions, why
not read up on aircraft energy management so next time you
can impress me with your understanding. That's if you're not
called to single handedly save the troops in Afghanistan.
David 'Bear Bottoms' W replied:
Hope you don't have any pax when you smack into the side of
that mountain.
===================================
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/msg/5365e3f574f969
1d>
Franklin wrote:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_gpPbpONK4>
Some people WANT to believe this even though they need only
look at a jet engine for 2 seconds to know it's fake.
Ricky/David W/Bear Bottoms/Jeffrey Bloss wrote:
"Franklin," why don't explain and entertain us with your
theory this being a fake.
How does "looking at a jet engine for 2 seconds" convince
one to believe this accident was a fake?
Franklin, the serviceman being sucked into the jet on-deck
was real, very, very real.
Ricky
Franklin wrote:
Hello sock. Why doesn't your organ grinder ask the questions
rather than use his monkey?
For me, it's too amazing that a guy working next to an
Intruder gets sucked into one of its intakes with such massive
force that it dragged him off the ground but afterwards he
doesn't have any crush damage from jamming between the bullet
cone and cowling and doesn't look like he been squeezed hard
up against the stator vanes.
http://www.imageno.com/k3bfdhgc73i0pic.html
http://images.marketworks.com/hi/72/72196/KL37C03.jpg
Maybe he's supposed to have squeezed through the low bypass
compressor bleed channel to come out unscathed. Heh heh!
Let's have that 2 second look at what those J52s on an
Intruder really looks like ...
http://www.imageno.com/pyopisgsihhtpic.html
OK, so what passed through the engine to cause the rear flash
in the vid? If anything solid went through that turbofan
there'd likely be a blade-out which looks very different to
the brief flare out in the vid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcALjMJbAvU
The vid shows our hero posing for a photo only hours afterwards.
No shock, no crushed shoulders, no broken ribs, no split skull,
no broken nose. Seemed to me the vid showed the mannequin had
a floppy thigh bone but the guy looks fine afterwards, no
bloodied clothing, no major abrasions. ... Just an arm sling
and a bandage for a head graze. Gimme a break. He would be
undergoing tests in ICU for the rest of the day and may be the
day after that as well.
A few hours afterwards he wouldn't be posing with his pals but
he'd be filling in incidence reports, the safety officer would
be going berserk and the carrier's senior officers would be
doing some interviewing.
The vid's date is Feb 20 1991 but the quality looks like it's
from the 1960s. Most vids from 1991 are in color. Try frame
advancing the spoof using this AVI version rather than an FLV:
<http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/sucked%20in%
20engine.avi>
Bob Kuykendall
> Got an NTSB accident ID for that alleged accident?
Jim, it's LAX98FA171.
Thanks, Bob K.
Scott
Oh, yes. I remember that now. If I recall, speculation was the
customer may have had the controls and yanked and banked and
overstressed it, but as you say, I don't recall if a definite cause was
found. Whatever model it was, I didn't see a service bulletin on Van's
website...only for the RV-3.
Scott
Building RV-4
Scott
Can you provide an entire URL to this report? I searched the NTSB site
for the report number above and it didn't find it....
Jim Logajan
Try this:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X10121&key=1
I got no hits also, but then realized that even if you supply the ID you
still need to expand the date range (the default is currently from
1/1/2004; I put in 1/1/1962.)
Bob Kuykendall
> Can you provide an entire URL to this report? I searched the NTSB site
> for the report number above and it didn't find it....
You might have the date range too narrow in your query. The default
date range on the NTSB synopsis query page is set so that it's only
about a year wide. I think they do that because most people are
searching for recent accidents, and it helps keep their server
searches down to a dull roar while still serving the majority of their
visitors.
If you widen the query to encompass 1999 it should show up just fine:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X10121&key=1
Thanks, Bob K.
Jim Logajan
Thanks.
Scott
Thanks! Got it.
Scott
RV-4 in progress
Scott
Yup. Got it, thanks!
Scott
Jeffrey Bloss
> Why do you believe there's no one else in the world apart
> from you who can fly?
Oh so you have your PP certification?
Fuck no you don't.
LOL LOL LOL LOL
Jeffrey Bloss
> 'Franklin' wrote thus:
>>"I tried to explain the facts to you."
>
> How so Franklin?
>
> My time on ACF have taught me one thing about you:
> _you have no idea what a fact is_
>
> [rest binned unread]
I told you his ego is so pathetically warped that he will continue to
claim he's an accomplished, certificated aviator until he slices his
wrists.
Which, we can only hope, is soon. lol
Darkwing
"Morgans" <jsmo...@charterJUNK.net> wrote in message
news:NSDNm.43641$W77....@newsfe11.iad...
Sorry it was cross posted and my post totally ruined your day NetKKKop.
et
I stand by my earlier comment.
RV8 N58RV
LAX98FA171
5/24/98
Ripley, Ca.
I couldn't get the search feature to work, so I went through the
monthly stats.
The point here is, the CH designs are probably as well designed as are
the RV designs. The RV3 was beefed up to protect the pilot from
himself, as the 601 will be.
One of the RV3s that folded a wing was in Maple Valley Wa. in the
early 80's. He had a habit of making a high speed pass and a very
vertical climb. Well, he made one too many and bought the farm.
Fly the plane how it was designed and make sure it's rigged properly.
Ed
Franklin
Jeffrey Bloss wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:14:08 GMT, Franklin wrote:
>
>
> LOL LOL LOL LOL
Blossom, these days your posts repeat David W's comments. He was the
sock Bear Bottoms was using at the time and as usual Bob Adkins leant a
lot of support.
I didn't believe you when you said you had trouble getting a licence for
a remote controlled model plane.
Now I'm beginning to see it really was difficult for you. However why
snipe and bellyache at those who have their PPL. Is it because you had
difficulty with that or never got it?
Scott
The one thing that might be different is that the RV's (according to the
report) do not have flutter inside their normal speed envelope. From
the little I've read on the 601, flutter seems to be the issue. I'm
sure Zenith can resolve the issue in time.
Jeffrey Bloss
> The one thing that might be different is that the RV's (according to the
> report) do not have flutter inside their normal speed envelope. From
> the little I've read on the 601, flutter seems to be the issue. I'm
> sure Zenith can resolve the issue in time.
Really? Considering they don't admit that anything is seriously wrong in
their basic design. Yet they somehow claimed to have fixed this
flaw....that doesn't exist!
Get your head out of your ass, Heintz et all is satisfied with
continually putting people at the risk of their lives to save their own
financial ones.
And they have Tron Morons like Cartoon Boi Jay Maynard to sing their
mantra. Go on, drink the Zodiac Kool-Aid.
Then kiss your ass goodbye.
Scott
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:35:26 +0000, Scott wrote:
>
>> The one thing that might be different is that the RV's (according to the
>> report) do not have flutter inside their normal speed envelope. From
>> the little I've read on the 601, flutter seems to be the issue. I'm
>> sure Zenith can resolve the issue in time.
>
>
> Get your head out of your ass, Heintz et all is satisfied with
> continually putting people at the risk of their lives to save their own
> financial ones.
>
Well, thanks for the friendly note. Now that the FAA has stepped in,
they (Zenith) have two choices. Make changes to satisfy the FAA, right
or wrong, or walk away from the design.
I don't know why you keep blowing up and insulting people that comment
here. I was civilized and you tell me to pull my head out. You're a
real endearing fellow, but I can only assume you don't really care how
you come across. I guess it's your way or no way. Plonk.
Scott
jan olieslagers
Plonk.
>
> Scott
>
Only good way to deal. You get it quicker than I did.
Jeffrey Bloss
> Plonk.
>
> Scott
Looks like Stupoid Scottie laid a turd.
LOL
Jeffrey Bloss
> Jeffrey Bloss wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:35:26 +0000, Scott wrote:
>>
>>> The one thing that might be different is that the RV's (according to the
>>> report) do not have flutter inside their normal speed envelope. From
>>> the little I've read on the 601, flutter seems to be the issue. I'm
>>> sure Zenith can resolve the issue in time.
>>
>
>>
>> Get your head out of your ass, Heintz et all is satisfied with
>> continually putting people at the risk of their lives to save their own
>> financial ones.
>>
>
> Well, thanks for the friendly note. Now that the FAA has stepped in,
> they (Zenith) have two choices. Make changes to satisfy the FAA, right
> or wrong, or walk away from the design.
Wrong. They have a third, moral choice and that is to fess up to and
find out exactly WTF is going on with their Death Machine. But, hey,
they get to gig losers like Jay TronClown for $7,000+ to fix a problem
they say doesn't exist.
Isn't that oh so fucking sweet of them. lol
The company should be liable, they sold a dangerous aircraft with a
design flaw that killed a bunch of people. If I killed as many people as
that airplane I'd be a mass murderer.
It's not that the fucking wings fell of either this plane is screwed,
blued and TronTattooed. E.g. wing structure, structural stability,
flutter, airspeed calibration, and stick force characteristics all are
under scrutiny.
> I don't know why you keep blowing up and insulting people that comment
> here. I was civilized and you tell me to pull my head out of my ass.
Because it's doofi like you and TronniBoi that pass out garbage
information and haven't the ballz to call down a plane out of the air.
Please, go ahead, buy Maynard's eh, like right now, eh?
> You're a
> real endearing fellow, but I can only assume you don't really care how
> you come across. I guess it's your way or no way.
>
> Scottie Stupido
I'll live, you fly Zodiac.
Jeffrey Bloss
> Jeffrey Bloss wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:35:26 +0000, Scott wrote:
>>
>>> The one thing that might be different is that the RV's (according to the
>>> report) do not have flutter inside their normal speed envelope. From
>>> the little I've read on the 601, flutter seems to be the issue. I'm
>>> sure Zenith can resolve the issue in time.
>>
>
>>
>> Get your head out of your ass, Heintz et all is satisfied with
>> continually putting people at the risk of their lives to save their own
>> financial ones.
>>
>
> Well, thanks for the friendly note. Now that the FAA has stepped in,
> they (Zenith) have two choices.
Dealer:"I've got this great little two place plane for you., nice 110kt
cruise, low stall speed, great visibility."
Buyer: "That sounds great, are there any problems?"
Dealer: "No, Its perfect, except.... Well, except for the fact that 1
out of 35 break up mid-ar"
Buyer: "What do you mean 'break up'? "
Dealer: "I just mean that 1 out of 35 of the planes have their wings
fall off during flight. Now If you'll just sign here..."
Buyer: "Wait, were the pilots trying to do aerobatics or crazy flying?"
Dealer: "Not that we know of. The only reports we have heard said it was
during normal flight. Now let me tell you about some of our financing
options..."
Buyer: "Why is this happening?"
Dealer: "We have no idea. Are you interested in cloth or leather
upholstery? I prefer cloth during the summer, personally."
Buyer: "Hold On! Are any other LSAs experiencing unexplained structural
failures like this?"
Dealer: "No, just us. By the way, I think I can get you a good deal on a
nice avionics package, how does that sound?"
brian whatcott
> Jeffrey Bloss wrote:
> I don't know why you keep blowing up and insulting people that comment
> here. I was civilized and you tell me to pull my head out.
> Scott
>
Ho hum: Bloss is a pseudoym (one of five or six) for a fellow who has
been posting on rec.aviation piloting and some pc software group for a
good while.
He's pretty young, pretty dirty mouthed, and gets his kicks from
stirring folks up. I've been hoping he would get someone
stoked up enough to fix him up with a strict disciplinarian,
but I haven't been working at it very long.
Ignoring him or fixing him up seem to be the only reasonable
responses to his stuff.
Brian W
Jeffrey Bloss
Or in your case, ButtCakes, trying to find out where I work and get me
fired.
LOL
Disingenuous assclown that you are.
Franklin
>
> "Franklin" <i-am-f...@usenet.com.invalid> wrote
>
>> IIRC licensed for experimental amateur build. Too risky for my
>> liking.
>
>
> Stop pretending you are an aviator, and be a pesk at some other
> newsgroup.
Hi Jim. Maybe you like Vans more than I do. I don't care how many
categories their kits are licensed for, I'm uneasy about Filipino
subcontractors building the main structures.
I'm only passing through this group but I picked me up a troll back in
alt.comp.freeware who sticks like bubble gum to my shoe.
The same troll casts his bait in the aviation groups (as Maxwell, Mxsmanic,
Jeffrey Bloss, etc) and he got so bad that Dudley announced he wasn't going
to post.
When this troll's not in freeware or aviation groups then he's in what's
been left of the 70s music groups.
Jeffrey Bloss
> 'Franklin' wrote thus:
>>"I tried to explain the facts to you."
>
> How so Franklin?
>
> My time on ACF have taught me one thing about you:
> _you have no idea what a fact is_
>
> [rest binned unread]
The only fact that anyone needs to know about Franklin is that he's a
obsessed goofus whose aviation experience started and stopped with
Flight Simulator. Which he never got to run.
lol
Jeffrey Bloss
I love it when the goodies argue without my help. lol
Franklin
You're right that I have never run Flight Simulator. What's it like?
Franklin
> 'Jeffrey Bloss' wrote thus:
> He's one of those folks who collects buzzwords and phrases and
> strings them into sentences to fool people that he knows what
> he's blathering about. When necessary, cut/paste 1-2 website
> pages. lol.
Hummingbird, if what you write is true then it shouldn't be hard for you
to find the web sites I'm supposed to have copied from.
Jeffrey Bloss
Then what room would be left for the rest of the posts on Usenet?
LOL
Franklin
> Then what room wouldn't be left for the best about the posts on
> Usenet?
>
English translation please.