Opinions needed: Challenger vs Hawk
Dave
ago!). On paper, I like the Hawk better. Is there anyone out there who
knows both the Hawk and the Challenger (i.e. has built and/or flown them
both) and can give an unbiased opinion? Are the Hawk's flaps that useful?
Are the rumors I hear of CGS' lack of customer support true? What else?
Thanks
Dave
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
FS=C. Freedom x Security = Constant. If you
expect more freedom you must give up some
security. This applies to individuals, nations,
and civilizations - Larry Niven (paraphrased)
Frank Maier
...snip...
>Are the rumors I hear of CGS' lack of customer support true? What else?
I won't comment on the Challenger vs. Hawk; that's too subjective. CGS is
reputable, honest, and "goes the extra mile" IMHO. I'd say that, again IMHO,
the only negative stuff about CGS comes from Zoom, who is insane.
'nuff said,
Frank
Jerry M
ultralight and starting studying the various models on the net I found
numerous Challengers for sale and even quite a few "WTB" listings in the
classifieds ("Wanted to Buy"). It was obvious to me that there are quite a
few out there and they are popular. That much is empirical, the fact that I
like the sleek look is subjective. In reviewing classifieds and newsgroup
mentions for several months the Hawk wasn't even on the radar screen.
Now I am the proud owner of a Challenger II Special, so naturally I am
biased (but I wasn't always that way!).
Dave wrote in message <6qqo3e$fbh$1...@news5.ispnews.com>...
>I only have six dual hours in a Challenger (and 30 in a C-150 a long time
>ago!). On paper, I like the Hawk better. Is there anyone out there who
>knows both the Hawk and the Challenger (i.e. has built and/or flown them
>both) and can give an unbiased opinion? Are the Hawk's flaps that useful?
Jim Campbell
> Dave wrote in message <6qqo3e$fbh$1...@news5.ispnews.com>...
> ...snip...
> >Are the rumors I hear of CGS' lack of customer support true? What else?
>
> I won't comment on the Challenger vs. Hawk; that's too subjective. CGS is
> reputable, honest, and "goes the extra mile" IMHO. I'd say that, again IMHO,
> the only negative stuff about CGS comes from Zoom, who is insane.
>
> 'nuff said,
>
> Frank
Mr. Maier has made a negative assessment of me that has no basis in truth. I've
never met the guy (to my knowledge) nor do I ever recall having submitted any
medical records to him. I hold an unrestricted FAA medical and regularly deal
with Senior FAA medical people (for stories) who have not questioned me about
anything of the kind, despite the fact that we are often in a somewhat
adversarial position.
As to CGS.... we published a well detailed story with links to a number of
corroborating documents and the like. It stands on it's own merits and I suggest
that you look at the FACTS without listening to any more personal attacks and
character assassination that are designed to one thing in particularly... cover
up for the wrong-doing of others. Mind you; we are talking about the
manufacturer of an aircraft that THREATENED one of the customers that he sold an
airplane to, agreed to reimburse fully (with interest), and then went back on
his word. The source of this claim??? COURT RECORDS and CHUCK SLUSARCZYK's OWN
DOCUMENTATION AND STATEMENTS. Look at the story. Look at the documents for
yourself.
READ THE STORY... MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND. The facts are there to research on your
own and dispute or agree with as you see fit. I stand by this story. It is the
truth and if you don't want to believe me, you should talk to the number of
customers who feel they were screwed by CGS (and there are more than are
contained in the story).
http://www.av8r.net/usamag/usa1002/chucked/chucked.htm
I'm sorry that this will ignite another flame war and you will no doubt be
directed to more anonymous web sites authored by cowards too chicken-s**t to use
their own names... and if that's what you use to make up your mind, so be it...
LOOK AT THE FACTS. Simply READ the story and make up your own minds before
giving into the character assassination and personal attacks.
I put up with this crap because I CARE what happens to people... and you have to
admit that I haven't backed down in this fight... no matter how many hundreds of
threatening, libelous and harassing messages and nastigrams are sent by those
who are seeking to shut me up.
I believe in what i do. I stand behind what I've written and Chuck has NEVER
proven a word of our story wrong.... which, admittedly, would be heard to do
because a lot of it is based on his own letters, actions and documents.
--
Jim Campbell, Publisher, US Aviator
Copyright 1998, All Rights Reserved
Author: SportPlane Resource Guide--Second Edition
http://www.av8r.net
http://www.kindredspirit.com
http://www.sportplane.com
"To sin by silence when they should protest,
makes cowards of men." -Abraham Lincoln
Ron Natalie
and his personal vendetta against CGS, the facts are:
Conn paid money to a DISTRIBUTOR not to CGS or any of
it's predecessors.
Chuck when finally made aware of the claim offered to credit
the deposit against any purchase he wished to make from CGS
even though:
1. Chuck never received the money.
2. Chuck is not liable for the actions of distributors.
3. Chuck is not even monetarily liable for his predecessor
company.
However, Chuck, despite Jim's rantings is a good guy has
repeatedly made good on things (US Aviator even listed
CGS as one of the good guys up until an argument over
advertising put Chuck on Jim's hitlist).
All Chuck asked was some documentation (receipt, cancelled
check,...) as to the amount paid. Conn was not real forthcoming
in providing this and communications between the two were
strained (possibly whipped up by Campbell's intervention
in the matter).
Chuck, being exasperated, asked Tony to work out a settlement.
Tony being a much better (less emotionally involved) negotiator.
Lou Hinshaw
Someone wrote:
>LOOK AT THE FACTS. Simply READ the story and make up your own minds before
>giving into the character assassination and personal attacks.
Let me modify that request slightly:
Simply READ AND VALIDATE the story THEN make up your own mind.
One of the main tenets of the Baha't Faith (Which says Christ has already
come back) is that you must INVESTIGATE THE TRUTH FOR YOURSELF,
individually.
Few people do.
I used to subscribe to male superiority, but my wife
cancelled my subscription. (Stolen on the RAH ng) by
Lou H.
Prolific inventor,
Lousy Salesman,
Incompetent businessman.
(Typical of the Breed)
Looking for both around
Tulsa OK, USA
Student Pilot
>On Wed, 12 Aug 1998 11:11:10 -0400, Jim Campbell <usa...@gate.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Frank Maier wrote:
>>
>>> Dave wrote in message <6qqo3e$fbh$1...@news5.ispnews.com>...
><snip>
>> Zoom, who is insane.
>>>
>>> 'nuff said,
>>>
>>> Frank
>>
>>Mr. Maier has made a negative assessment of me that has no basis in truth.
>
>Campbell, you stupid fuckhead, who are you trying to fool?
>
>Charlie Porter
Why does Mr. Cambell elicit this kind of invective? I have seen
several normally polite, seemingly intelligent people, devolve into
foulmouthed cretins when referring to him.
(mostly a lurker)
timf
To reply via email, remove the bananna!
Ron Natalie
>
>
> Why does Mr. Cambell elicit this kind of invective? I have seen
> several normally polite, seemingly intelligent people, devolve into
> foulmouthed cretins when referring to him.
When Jim is at his best, he's a polite, articulate, and fairly
charming guy. However, he has a dark side, and those who have
been exposted to it tend to get a little shell shocked. Many
Campbell detracter started as a supporter. In my case, I liked
the early US Aviators. Jim (and some of his contributors at
the time) had just the right disrepect for the FAA and at
face value it looked like a real no-nosense publication.
However, it doesn't take long observation to realize that
theres a high amount of bullshit going on, and Campbell
actively tries to hurt personally and professionally those
who he believes to have wronged him (even when they were
his supporters).
Jim Campbell
truthful.
Charlie wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 1998 17:32:57 -0400, Jim Campbell <usa...@gate.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Evidence of Mr. Slusarczyk's signed admission of obligation in just ONE
> >particular incident is attached. Mr. Slusarczyk did not keep this agreement and
> >if you peruse the referenced URL, you will also see a scanned copy of the
> >threatening letter he sent to the customer he failed to refund the promised
> >monies to. LOOK AT THE FACTS AND DOCUMENTS FOR YOURSELVES!
> >
> >http://www.av8r.net/usamag/usa1002/chucked/chucked.htm
> >
> >Please note that I have signed my name and that I am referring to a web site
> >that is not published anonymously and that I have carefully documented what I
> >have published. Please also note that I did not attack Mr. Slusarczyk's personal
> >life, post any ridiculous signs, threaten anyone's life, use any profanity, or
> >act like a jerk...
>
> But... Is it the truth? Remember, it's all about credibility. You have
> none.
Is it the truth? READ IT! Check the facts! Look at the documents? No credibility? Not
in your eyes... which is not a great loss, IMO.
> >What I wonder, though, is why these people are so mad at me that they are
> >willing defend the otherwise indefensible actions of someone who screwed one of
> >your fellow flyers. It's pretty sad to see that kind of hatred exercised to the
> >detriment of others.
>
> Gee Jim, I'm not defending anyone here. The people who you have been
> attacking are quite able to show you for the vindictive sob you are.
> Don't you remember calling my up in the middle of the night raving
> like a lunatic? Don't you remember calling the Boise Police department
> and making false accusations of me of threatening the life of your
> non existent son?
That did not happen... I sent them copies of the messages we got from you, including
the repetitive "SHUT THE F*CK UP" message that you sent a number of times from
CTP...@aol.com and ctpo...@aol.com. The cop who talked to you told me that you
admitted to hating my guts but that otherwise he didn't expect that you were a
physical hazard... which was what our concern was. Someone who keeps harassing,
threatening and sending repetitive obscenities (among other things) over the net (in
violation of ID law, apparently) is a potential hazard... and the officer involved
said it was prudent to check. I did. What did you expect me to do? Don't act like a
bad guy and you won't have to answer questions about being a bad guy.
> How about calling my internet provider a few dozen
> times complaining about my alleged harassment?
Who harassed who? I never sent you anything that was not responding to YOU.
> ... only to find it was
> your internet account that got closed. How about filing a frivolous
> lawsuit in an effort to silence my participation in this newsgroup?
My attorney does not consider the suit frivolous... and you have to remember that it
was a RESPONSE to a suit filed by a guy that you lionized for suing me. You guys
loved Pucillo's suit, you applauded him for it, you participated in his vendetta...
so you were named in the countersuit. We simply got tired of the harassment and
decided to respond. Don't harass, don't threaten, and you don't have to worry about
legal entanglements... simple.
> Did you think that wouldn't piss me off?
Charlie... I think the fact that I'm still breathing pisses you off... so be it...
but it must be a sad existence to expend so much energy trying to hurt a guy you
really don't know. I actually do not wish you ill will... I just wish you'd get a
life that had nothing to do with mine...
> >Student Pilot wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 12 Aug 1998 17:30:06 GMT, x...@newsguy.com (Charlie) wrote:
> >> >Campbell, you stupid fuckhead, who are you trying to fool?
> >> >
> >> >Charlie Porter
> >
> >Mr. Porter....
> >
> >As usual, your true colors show... nasty, profane and unreasonable.
>
> Only when dealing with fuckheads like you. Otherwise I'm a really nice
> guy.
There are number of guys and gals that have been treated to your viciousness... and
as I recall, you've been asked to take it elsewhere a few times. I just don't see the
reason to engage in this kind of constant attack...
> >Take a deep breath and try to get a life that does not include the harassment
> >and attempted infliction of distress on others.
> >You will not shut me up.
>
> Perhaps Bubba will have better luck keeping you quiet. He just hates
> it when a fat white boy starts squealing like a pig...
Interesting phraseology... very similar to a message we got some time ago that the
Feds are investigating.
> >I believe in what I do. Quite a few thousand pilots
> >seem to, as well.
>
> Name two besides yourself. And remember... if they have fake aol
> screen names it doesn't count...
How about in multiples of ten thousand, Charlie? If you were anywhere near my booth
at Oshkosh, you could have HEARD from the hundreds who stopped by to express support
for the fact that we seem to be trying to do something positive... several of them
were victims of the same folks you seem to be trying to cover for.
> >I am sorry that you do not.
>
> I'm quite proud of that fact.
Good for you... but can you do that without being such a negative and malicious
character? Please do express your disagreement,... but let's do so based ON FACTS...
and facts that have something to do with the subject at hand. Since you are
responding to our post about CGS, please take your best shot at what we wrote and I
will be HAPPY to provide whatever current data we have about this story and another
that is under investigation (once completed).
> >I challenge you to expend your efforts in seeking safer and more positive
> >outcomes for your fellow pilots than in harassing, attacking or trying to harm
> >others
>
> Remember the last time you challenged me. You didn't have the guts to
> even show up.
As I recalled... the challenge (about being able to fly a great variety of different
types and categories of equipment) was issued providing you could find people who
would let you fly the same machines and be insured in same. If you responded, you did
not respond to me. There is more than sufficient photographic and other evidence to
prove that I can and have flown those aircraft but I never got any comm indicating
that you able to secure such access to these aircraft. Tell the whole story, Charlie,
not just the part that seems to make you look good. The fact of this challenge was
simple... you were not qualified in those aircraft and I was... and while it was a
somewhat arrogant challenge on my part, I let my temper get the better of me and
issued it. You were impugning my ability to evaluate aircraft and you simply are not
qualified to render that judgment... and there are a great number of people who will
verify that I am, indeed, qualified to fly and evaluate the aircraft we portray in
our magazine and book efforts.
> But, I will accept your challenge because I'm not
> gutless like you. I will do what I can to make flying safer for
> everyone. I will start by making sure everyone knows all about you and
> to not take anything you say too seriously. Savior of aviation you are
> not...
I am not the savior of aviation... just ONE guy trying to do what I can. What have
YOU done, Charlie? I didn't see you putting your business on the line EVERY DAY
fighting bad Feds, unfair rules, bad aircraft and dishonest manufacturers... I didn't
even see you last week questioning the FAA about why they tried to pull that new
Administrative Action program on us.I was there... where were you?
Does the FAA and NTSB (and a number of foreign government reps) call you to ask
questions about things that they know that I am something of an expert on? They call
me, Charlie... and I tell them what I know and try to HELP. Mind you; I'm not always
successful... but I DO make the effort. How many calls do you take each week from
pilots and aviation fans who want honest data? I've taken as many as 100 + in a week.
How 'bout you?
Once again, we differ... but I put facts behind my arguments, and I don't send
profanity riddled messages to people all over the world to express my displeasure and
try to destroy someone else's life.
> > (i'm not the only one who has been treated to your profanity laced
> >vitriol). I'm trying to do that and you're trying to stop me... I find that
> >sad.
>
> Yes, I find it sad also that there are other BS artist that also need
> a virtual slap in the face with a good dose of reality.
And you, Charlie Porter, have the grace, knowledge and manners to be the arbiter of
all that??? Who appointed you? Profanity, harassment, threats, and personal attacks
are the last refuge for those with little to say and no facts to back up their feeble
arguments.
> Now run along Jimmy and go on back to your fantasy world where you are
> Captain Zoom. Around here your BS just don't fly anymore...
> Charlie Porter
And you are sure that you are the one to determine that? It's a true fantasy to
believe that you have all the answers, Charlie... but it's worse that you have to be
so negative and hateful towards someone you truly do not know and for whatever it's
worth, has actually been trying to protect guys like you, too.
Ya know... I can't even summon up the emotional energy to get angry with you and your
ilk anymore... it must be a sad and lonely life for you to live with such assured
negativity. I feel sorry for you... I really do.
God Bless....
Paul Tidball
>OK... I shouldn't do this... but it's simply too easy to prove this man is
not being
>truthful.
You are right, you shouldn't.
Just go away. Aviation does not need you. We do not want you. Why not
give pretending to be a physician another try. You will probably put fewer
lives at risk that way.
I have read up on this subject. I have done my homework. I've read your
material. I've read the material of those that disagree with you. THEY ARE
RIGHT. Get help. You need it. You most surely do.
Paul Tidball
ps> I will post any private eMails to me on usenet at my discretion.
Frank Maier
>>not being truthful.
...snip...
>I have read up on this subject. I have done my homework. I've read your
>material. I've read the material of those that disagree with you. THEY
ARE
>RIGHT.
...snip...
Whew! Guess I unleased a shitstorm; sorry, folks. As the origin of this
cascade, I'll say that I agree completely with Zoom about two things:
1. Check into this, or any subject, for yourself. Caveat emptor and caveat
lector.
2. The Lincoln quote, "To sin by silence when they should protest,
makes cowards of men."
Aside from that, I'm personally looking at the Hawk as a default if I can't
convince my wife to go for the Velocity I'm lusting for. I looked at the
Challenger and the Hawk, and I'm feeling Hawkish. I've done the research for
myself. You should, too.
Frank
P.S. I'm pretty new to aviation. Been reading rec.aviation.* for a few years
and just got my PP-ASEL a couple of weeks ago. But I'm fifty years old and
my parents long ago taught me how to tell shit from shinola. It's an
important life skill.
pierce day
I hope the hell that you guys will move this argument back over to
rec.aviation.homebuilt. I would suspect that most of this newsgroup doesn't
give a rat's ass about who did what to who when. How can anyone expect to win a
pissing contest through e-mail posts? Shows ignorance, I think.
Jeez, I just unsubscribed to 'homebuilt' because of this crap.
Pierce
Frank Maier wrote:
> Paul Tidball wrote in message <6qtvbl$ame$1...@news6.ispnews.com>...
> >Jim Campbell wrote in message <35D2368B...@gate.net>...
> >>OK... I shouldn't do this... but it's simply too easy to prove this man is
> >>not being truthful.
>
> ...snip...
> >I have read up on this subject. I have done my homework. I've read your
> >material. I've read the material of those that disagree with you. THEY
> ARE
> >RIGHT.
> ...snip...
>
> Whew! Guess I unleased a shitstorm; sorry, folks. As the origin of this
> cascade, I'll say that I agree completely with Zoom about two things:
>
> 1. Check into this, or any subject, for yourself. Caveat emptor and caveat
> lector.
>
> 2. The Lincoln quote, "To sin by silence when they should protest,
> makes cowards of men."
>
ChuckSlusarczyk
>Whew! Guess I unleased a shitstorm; sorry, folks. As the origin of this
>cascade, I'll say that I agree completely with Zoom about two things:
>
>1. Check into this, or any subject, for yourself. Caveat emptor and caveat
>lector.
>
>2. The Lincoln quote, "To sin by silence when they should protest,
>makes cowards of men."
No need to apologize Frank but this happens when ever some one defends or
has something positive to say about me.You see,in zoom's world only "his"
opinion counts,only "his" reporting is factual and only "his" version of
things matters. Judge a man by his enemies is an old saying and look at zoom's
enemy list...ex-employees,ex-writers, ex-advertizers, ex-fiancee, ex-wife,
ex-ad salesmen, etc...can "all" these people be nuts? How about EAA's Sun n Fun?
He was escorted off the grounds by 4 motorcycle police are they nuts too? I
hear he's persona non grata at Sun n Fun and is banned from the grounds in the
future.I suspect this is true since reading his latest issue at Oshkosh where
he is posturing himself to explain why he won't be there. I may be wrong but
we'll see...
After I quit advertizing in US Aviator ,with a stroke of a pen,I went from being
a guy who went through hard times after 20/20 but took care of his customers
to a guy who screws his customers and has a high "complaint ratio".Unfortunatly
some people believe him and like the followers of Jim Jones have tunnel vision.
However over the years more and more people are looking at both sides and the
Internet has allowed people like me to tell our side unfiltered by zoom. He
doesn't like it when he is not in control of what people have to say or if the
"spin" of a story doesn't agree with "his" agenda.One of his agendas is "get
Chuck at all costs" has been since I quit advertizing.For proof of this...
I bet we all know of someone in ultralighting who has bought a kit with back
ordered parts,or ordered from a supplier and had the same or delayed delivery
of parts.I read about it on various lists so I know people complain,but not a
sound from zoom about any of this. He is selective about who he chooses to
"punish" for not toeing his line.In my opinion the man is a "phoney",lacks honor
and is not credible.
He claims I threatened him...jim please post here, in public when ,where and how
I threatened you?
He claims to write the truth,jim when did you fly food missions in etheopia
as you wrote about in your magazine?
I could go on but lets deal with just these two items...
Credibility is what this whole thing is about.
Thankfully this whole ordeal is coming to an end.I will be there at your
bankruptcy hearings,I will watch you get what you so justly deserve,I want
to see justice done for all the pain you've caused so many people...Then
I hope you get help....
Chuck(RAH-15/1)Slusarczyk
"evil didn't triumph,because good men spoke and evil was nuts" anon
>
Lou Hinshaw
>Paul Tidball wrote in message <6qtvbl$ame$1...@news6.ispnews.com>...
>>Jim Campbell wrote in message <35D2368B...@gate.net>...
>>>OK... I shouldn't do this... but it's simply too easy to prove this man is
>>>not being truthful.
>
>...snip...
>>I have read up on this subject. I have done my homework. I've read your
>>material. I've read the material of those that disagree with you. THEY
>ARE
>>RIGHT.
>...snip...
>
>Whew! Guess I unleased a shitstorm; sorry, folks. As the origin of this
>cascade, I'll say that I agree completely with Zoom about two things:
>
>1. Check into this, or any subject, for yourself. Caveat emptor and caveat
>lector.
>
>2. The Lincoln quote, "To sin by silence when they should protest,
>makes cowards of men."
>
>Aside from that, I'm personally looking at the Hawk as a default if I can't
>convince my wife to go for the Velocity I'm lusting for. I looked at the
>Challenger and the Hawk, and I'm feeling Hawkish. I've done the research for
>myself. You should, too.
>
>Frank
>
>P.S. I'm pretty new to aviation. Been reading rec.aviation.* for a few years
>and just got my PP-ASEL a couple of weeks ago. But I'm fifty years old and
>my parents long ago taught me how to tell shit from shinola. It's an
>important life skill.
>
Have you looked at Rans?
They got some good stuff, too.
BTW, their staff do defense subcontract work, I understand from
a visit, so that means they got U-no-who lookin' over their shoulders
to be sure they got the needed skills.
Some of the others might, too, and it is worth looking at that.
FWIW
Daniel Grunloh
pierce day <pd...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Charlie, Jim:
>
>I hope the hell that you guys will move this argument back over to
>rec.aviation.homebuilt. I would suspect that most of this newsgroup
>ignorance, I think.
>
>Jeez, I just unsubscribed to 'homebuilt' because of this crap.
>
>Pierce
Pierce I'm surprised at you. I thought you had more good sense.
You say you came from R.A.H. and you still don't know what the ZZZ's
are for! You just can't resist opening up the the messages you DON'T
want to see and then reading them. Do you also have this problem
when browsing at magazine racks?... (sarcasm intended).
That DARN Ladies Home Journal. Why do I have to have this crap
within sight of my favorite car and motorcycle magazines. It's too
much. Yuck! :-)
This is not a pissing match, and this is not an argument. It is a
STORY which follows one particular person wherever he posts on the
Internet. It is spurred on by people in aviation and ultralights who
have lost THOUSANDS of dollars or had their employer threatened over
this little pissing match or flame war as the unaffected (the
unzoomed) like to call it.
--Dan (noting crossposting)
P.S. I believe the Hawk flys better than the Challenger.
--------------
Daniel Grunloh (gru...@uiuc.edu)
http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~grunloh
rleo...@wizrealm.com
pd...@mindspring.com wrote:
> Charlie, Jim:
>
> I hope the hell that you guys will move this argument back over to
> rec.aviation.homebuilt. I would suspect that most of this newsgroup doesn't
> give a rat's ass about who did what to who when. How can anyone expect to win
a
> pissing contest through e-mail posts? Shows ignorance, I think.
>
> Jeez, I just unsubscribed to 'homebuilt' because of this crap.
>
> Pierce
>
opening salvo of this can of worms only on the UL group. There
are so many of we, the zoomed on RAH he seldom has the temerity
to post there anymore.
Ray
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Dave
I asked a simple question (I thought) about the relative merits of the
Hawk and the Challenger. I got one reasonable reply. The rest was a bunch
of political crap. OK so the politics of the UL world is no better than that
of skydiving or scubadiving or anything else. I'm sorry about that. I guess
it is everywhere.
But back to the original subject: Is there anyone who can offer an
opinion from experience regarding the relative merits (buying building
flying) of the Hawk and the Challenger?
Thanks (I think)
Dave
ChuckSlusarczyk wrote in message <6quj6i$o...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>In article <epliATox9GA.113@upnetnews05>, "Frank says...
>
>>Whew! Guess I unleased a shitstorm; sorry, folks. As the origin of this
>>cascade, I'll say that I agree completely with Zoom about two things:
>>
>>1. Check into this, or any subject, for yourself. Caveat emptor and caveat
>>lector.
>>
>>2. The Lincoln quote, "To sin by silence when they should protest,
>>makes cowards of men."
>
>No need to apologize Frank but this happens when ever some one defends or
>has something positive to say about me.You see,in zoom's world only "his"
>opinion counts,only "his" reporting is factual and only "his" version of
>things matters. Judge a man by his enemies is an old saying and look at
zoom's
>enemy list...ex-employees,ex-writers, ex-advertizers, ex-fiancee, ex-wife,
>ex-ad salesmen, etc...can "all" these people be nuts? How about EAA's Sun n
Fun?
>He was escorted off the grounds by 4 motorcycle police are they nuts too? I
>hear he's persona non grata at Sun n Fun and is banned from the grounds in
the
>future.I suspect this is true since reading his latest issue at Oshkosh
where
ChuckSlusarczyk
>
>Hey!!!
> I asked a simple question (I thought) about the relative merits of the
>Hawk and the Challenger. I got one reasonable reply. The rest was a bunch
>of political crap.
Your right Dave how about giving me a call and I'll get you some names of Hawk
Owners/Builders that you can talk to, or send me a postal address and I can mail
them to you. You might also read the Aug. issue of Kitplanes for an in depth
article on the CGS Hawk Classic. Good luck
Chuck Slusarczyk
>
>
Editor, Nutflight Central
> Frank Maier wrote:
>
> > Dave wrote in message <6qqo3e$fbh$1...@news5.ispnews.com>...
> > ...snip...
> > >Are the rumors I hear of CGS' lack of customer support true? What
> else?
> >
> > I won't comment on the Challenger vs. Hawk; that's too subjective.
> CGS is
> > reputable, honest, and "goes the extra mile" IMHO. I'd say that,
> again IMHO,
> > the only negative stuff about CGS comes from Zoom, who is insane.
> >
> > 'nuff said,
> >
> > Frank
>
> Mr. Maier has made a negative assessment of me that has no basis in
> truth. I've
> never met the guy (to my knowledge) nor do I ever recall having
> submitted any
> medical records to him. I hold an unrestricted FAA medical and
> regularly deal
> with Senior FAA medical people (for stories) who have not questioned
> me about
> anything of the kind, despite the fact that we are often in a somewhat
>
> adversarial position.
We've recently been working on the story of "Zoom's Last Sun n Fun" for
Nutflight Central. Following are public documents that we've converted
into HTML for inclusion on the Nutflight Central web page. There are
two tresspass notices, issued to Mr. Campbell when he was repeatedly
ejected from SNF '94, and a tresspass notice and police report from Mr.
Campbell's ejection from SNF '98. These versions are taken verbatim
from the original documents. Officer Hughes misspells William
Eickhoff's name "Eickoff" and we have retained his error in this copy.
Mr. Campbell has been warned that if he returns to Sun n Fun next year
he will be arrested.
For verification of these documents, call Lakeland Police Department
Record Division at 941-499-6900. Give them the event number listed at
the top of each document. They are $0.15 per page for duplication.
Is Mr. Campbell insane? Only his therapist can render a legal
opinion... although his ex-wife, ex-fiancee and a lot of ex-employees
call him "psycho-boy."
For more information about Mr. Campbell, visit Nutflight Central and the
Nutflight Index, at www.nutflight.com.
============================================
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Final//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Lakeland PD Trespass Notices</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<body bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
<pre>
LAKELAND POLICE DEPARTMENT
TRESPASS WARNING RECORD
DATE<u><I>_________4-12-94_____________</I></u>TIME<u><I>________3:45
P.M______</u></i>EVENT # <u><I>________94-04-2935______</u></i>
EVENT LOCATION<u><I>___________________________Sun 'n Fun Fly
-In________________________________</I></u>
PERSON ISSUING WARNING<u><I>____________________DET. C. D. Phillips
__#138_______________________</I></u>
ADDRESS<u><I>______________219 N. Mass.
Ave.________</u></i>CITY<u><I>___________Lakeland_________</u></i>ST<u><I>_______Fla_</u></i>
AUTHORITY<u><I>___________________Gary Quill, airport
director_____________</u></i>PH<u><I>______499-8250______</u></i>
SUBJECT NAME<u><I>_____________James Richard
Campbell____________________________________________</u></i>
ADDRESS <u><I>____________________3000 21st St. NW Winter Haven, FL
33861________________________</u></i>
RAC<u><I>_____W_______</u></i>SEX<u><I>______M______</u></i>DOB<u><I>______01-09-57___</u></i>HGT<u><I>_________510________</u></i>WGT<u><I>_____190_____</u></i>
HAIR<u><I>______Bro________</u></i>EYES<u><I>_______Bro_____</u></i>SS#<u><I>______146-52-4672_____</u></i>DL#<u><I>____C514-456-57-099-0__</u></i>
OCCUP<u><I>__________Owner______________________</u></i>EMPLOYER<u><I>_________U.S._Aviator_Magazine___________</u></i>
VEH
MAK___________MOD_____________COLOR____________LIC__________LIS____________LIY_________
CIRCUMSTANCES<u><I>_The subject has been involved in continous problems
with attendees of________
Sun 'n Fun fly in over the span of the Fly In in recent years and during
the 1994 fly in.__</u></i>
COMPLAINANT'S SIGNATURE_<u><I>_____X_____Gary
Quill______________________________________________</u></i>
SUBJECTS SIGNATURE <u><I>_______________J. R.
Campbell___________________________________________</u></i>
INVESTIGATING OFFICER(s)<u><I>_____________ C. D
Phillips___________</u></i>Badge (#/s)<u><I>_____138__________</u></i>
ORIGINAL - LPD CARBON - COMPLAINANT
LPD Form #160 1/88
</pre>
<hr>
<pre>
<pre>
LAKELAND POLICE DEPARTMENT
TRESPASS WARNING RECORD
DATE<u><I>__________4-15-94_____________</I></u>TIME<u><I>________1845______</u></i>EVENT
# <u><I>________94-04-3775_________</u></i>
EVENT LOCATION<u><I>______________________________4175 Mudulla
RD________________________________</I></u>
PERSON ISSUING WARNING<u><I>____________________William A. Eichkoff
_____________________________</I></u>
ADDRESS<u><I>______________4175 Mudulla
Rd________</u></i>CITY<u><I>___________Lakeland_________</u></i>ST<u><I>_______Fla___</u></i>
AUTHORITY<u><I>___________________President, Sun &
Fun_____________</u></i>PH<u><I>______644-2431______________</u></i>
SUBJECT NAME<u><I>_____________James Richard
Campbell____________________________________________</u></i>
ADDRESS <u><I>____________________3000 21st St. NW Winter Haven, FL
33861________________________</u></i>
RAC<u><I>_____W_______</u></i>SEX<u><I>______Male______</u></i>DOB<u><I>______01-09-57___</u></i>HGT<u><I>______510________</u></i>WGT<u><I>_____190_____</u></i>
HAIR<u><I>______Bro________</u></i>EYES<u><I>_______Bro_____</u></i>SS#<u><I>______146-52-4672_____</u></i>DL#<u><I>_______________________</u></i>
OCCUP<u><I>__________Publisher______________________</u></i>EMPLOYER<u><I>_________U.S._Aviator________________</u></i>
VEH
MAK___________MOD_____________COLOR____________LIC__________LIS____________LIY_________
CIRCUMSTANCES<u><I>__________Disrupting the Desired Environment for Sun
& Fun Participants_______</u></i>
___________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINANT'S SIGNATURE_<u><I>__________William A. Eickhoff, Sun n Fun
Fly In Corp.______________</u></i>
SUBJECTS SIGNATURE
<u><I>____Refused_____________________________________________________________</u></i>
INVESTIGATING OFFICER(s)<u><I>_____________ Officer DW
Doty__________</u></i>Badge (#/s)<u><I>_____215_________</u></i>
ORIGINAL - LPD CARBON - COMPLAINANT
LPD Form #160 1/88
</pre>
<hr>
<pre>
LAKELAND POLICE DEPARTMENT
TRESPASS WARNING RECORD
DATE<u><I>__________4-25-98_____________</I></u>TIME<u><I>________1310______</u></i>EVENT
# <u><I>________98-04-7201_________</u></i>
EVENT LOCATION<u><I>______________________________4175 Mudulla
RD___(Lkld Airport/Sun-n-Fun)_____</I></u>
PERSON ISSUING WARNING<u><I>____________________Bill Eichkoff
__________________________________</I></u>
ADDRESS<u><I>______________4175 Mudulla
Rd________</u></i>CITY<u><I>___________Lakeland_________</u></i>ST<u><I>_______FL____</u></i>
AUTHORITY<u><I>___________________President________________________</u></i>PH<u><I>______644-2431______________</u></i>
SUBJECT NAME<u><I>_____________James Richard
Campbell____________________________________________</u></i>
ADDRESS <u><I>____________________PO Box
9132____________________________________________________</u></i>
RAC<u><I>_____W_______</u></i>SEX<u><I>______Male______</u></i>DOB<u><I>______01-09-57___</u></i>HGT<u><I>______5'10_______</u></i>WGT<u><I>_____________</u></i>
HAIR<u><I>______Bro________</u></i>EYES<u><I>_______Bro_____</u></i>SS#<u><I>______________________</u></i>DL#<u><I>___C514-456-57-009-0___</u></i>
OCCUP<u><I>__________Media__________________________</u></i>EMPLOYER<u><I>_________Aero
Media__________________</u></i>
VEH
MAK<u><I>_Plym______</u></i>MOD<u><I>____Van______</u></i>COLOR<u><I>__Bro_______</u></i>LIC<u><I>__TPA17D__</u></i>LIS<u><I>_____FL_____</u></i>LIY<u><I>___99____</u></i>
CIRCUMSTANCES<u><I>__________Unwanted
guest______________________________________________________</u></i>
___________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINANT'S SIGNATURE_<u><I>__________William A. Eickhoff, President
Snf Fly In Inc.___________</u></i>
SUBJECTS SIGNATURE <u><I>____JR Campbell signed under threat of
arrest_____________________</u></i>
INVESTIGATING OFFICER(s)<u><I>_________Ofcr
Hughes___________________</u></i>Badge
(#/s)<u><I>_____160_________</u></i>
<I>Officer used profanity + threats
<U>JRC</U></I>
ORIGINAL - LPD CARBON - COMPLAINANT
LPD Form #160 1/88
<hr>
CASE FILE
4/25/1998 18:45 LAKELAND POLICE DEPARTMENT -- 98047201.501
SUPLIMENT EVENT # :
98047201
ORI#: 531200
===========================================================================================
DESC [TRESPASS ] VI [CITY OF
LAKELAND ]
LOC [4175 MEDULLA RD ] ORIG DT [042598]
THIS DT [042598]
===========================================================================================
SUSPECT: CAMPBELL, JAMES RICHARD, W/M, 01/09/57
NARRATIVE:
</PRE>
ON 04/25/98 I, OFCR HUGHES #160, RESPONDED TO THE SECURITY BUILDING FOR
SUN-N-FUN FLY IN, LOCATED AT THE LAKELAND AIRPORT. I WAS REQUESTED BY
SGT. MACK TO RESPOND AND MEET WITH DET. PHILLIPS #138 IN REFERENCE TO AN
UNWANTED GUEST. DET. PHILLIPS REQUESTED THAT A TAPE RECORDER BE
UTILIZED, HOWEVER I DID NOT HAVE MINE, AS I HAD PLANED TO UTILIZE IT ON
A TRAFFIC HOMICIDE I WAS WORKING. OFCR SKJEFTE #147 RESPONDED WITH THIS
OFFICER<P>
UPON ARRIVAL WE MET WITH DET. PHILLIPS WHO ADVISED THE PRESIDENT OF
SUN-N-FUN (WILLIAM EICKOFF) WAS REQUESTING THAT THE ABOVE PERSON BE
TRESPASSED FROM THE LAKELAND AIRPORT/SUN-N-FUN. DET. PHILLIPS ALSO
MENTIONED THAT IN THE YEARS PAST, MR. CAMPBELL HAD MENTIONED THAT HE HAD
A FIREARM IN HIS VEHICLE.<P>
MR. EIKOFF ADVISED MR CAMPBELL HAD BEEN CAUSING SEVERAL PROBLEMS THROUGH
OUT YEARS OF SUN-N-FUN AND THAT HE WAS BACK DOING IT AGAIN THIS YEAR.
MR. EICKOFF ADVISED MR. CAMPBELL HAD MADE PHOTO COPIES OF PARKING PASSES
AND GATE PASSES AND ISSUED THEM TO HIS EMPLOYEES. MR. EICKOFF THEN
REQUESTED THAT MR. CAMPBELL BE TRESPASSED FROM SUN-N-FUN.<P>
BY THIS TIME, OFCR'S KEMPER #205 AND KERCHER #135 HAD ALSO RESPONDED TO
THE SECURITY BUILDING. WE ALL WALKED OVER TO THE MEDIA CENTER (ONE
BUILDING EAST OF THE SECURITY BUILDING) AND MET WITH MR. CAMPBELL ON THE
FRONT PORCH.<P>
MR. CAMPBELL WAS WEARING A "FANNY BAG" AROUND HIS WAIST. MR. EICKOFF
ENGAGED IN A CONVERSATION WITH MR. CAMPBELL, REQUESTING THAT MR.
CAMPBELL LEAVE THE AREA, AND NOT RETURN. MR. CAMPBELL REFUSED AND
STARTED GETTING VERY "LOUD" ABOUT HOW HE HAD BEEN STRUCK BY A SECURITY
GUARD IN A GOLF CART. MR. CAMPBELL THEN STARTED TO OPEN THE "FANNY
PACK". I REQUESTED MR. CAMPBELL NOT TO, DUE TO THE THREAT OF
MR.CAMPBELL HAVING A FIREARM INSIDE OF IT. HE THEN ADVISED HIS TAPE
RECORDER WAS IN IT AND THAT HE WANTED TO TAPE THE CONVERSATION FO A
FUTURE LAW SUIT AND THAT THIS WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. WE ATTEMPTED TO
EXPLAIN THE TRESPASS WARNING TO MR. CAMPBELL, HOWEVER HE CONTUINUED TO
YELL AND INTERRUPT THE OFFICERS AND MR. EICKOFF.<P>
I THEN REQUESTED MR. CAMPBELL TO HAND ME HIS IDENTIFICATION SO THAT I
COULD COMPLETE THE TRESPASS WARNING. MR. CAMPBELL AGAIN REFUSED AND
STARTED WALKING AWAY FROM US. I THEN HAD MR. EICKOFF SIGN THE TRESPASS
WARNING IN FRONT OF THE OTHER OFFICERS AS MR. CAMPBELL WALKED AWAY.
WHEN MR. CAMPBELL WALKED BEHING THE MEDIA BUILDING, HE YELLED OUT "YOU
FUCKING NEO NAZI'S". WE THEN WALKED TO OUR MOTORCYCLES AND ESCORTED MR.
CAMPBELL TO HIS VEHICLE. I THEN WALKED UP TO THE DRIVERS DOOR AND AGAIN
ASKED MR. CAMPBELL FOR HIS IDENTIFICATION. MR. CAMPBELL ADVISED HE WOUL
BE GETTING HIS TAPE RECORDER OUT OF HIS "FANNY PACK" SO THAT THE
CONVERSATION COULD BE RECORDED FOR HIS ATTORNEY. I WATCHED MR. CAMPBELL
REMOVE THE TAPE RECORDER AND EXIT HIS VEHICLE. I THEN TOOK THE TAPE
RECORDER FROM MR. CAMPBELL SO THAT IT COULD NOT BE USED AS A WEAPON
AGAINST THIS OFFICER. MR. CAMPBELL WAS VERY IRATE AND CURSING AT THE
OFFICERS. THIS CONVERSATION WAS RECORDED (SEE TRANCRIPTS).<P>
DUE TO MR. CAMPBELL'S ATTITUDE AND THE PAST PROBLEMS THAT HAD OCCURED
FROM MR. CAMPBELL, I FELT THAT THE TAPE COULD BE UTILIZED WHEN MR.
CAMPBELL MADE HIS COMPLAINT. I REMOPVED THE TAPE AS A PRECAUTIONARY
ACTION SO THAT MR. CAMPBELL COULD NOT ALTER THE TAPE IF HE SHOULD
COMPLAIN OR ATTEMPT SOME KIND OF CIVIL ACTION.<P>
MR, CAMPBELL WAS THEN ESCORTED OFF THE PROPERTY WITHOUT INCIDENT.<P>
I PLACED THE TAPE INTO LPD EVIDENCE ON 04/25/98 AFTER I SECURED FROM THE
SUN-N-FUN FLY IN.<P>
<PRE>
===========================================================================================
OFCR [HUGHES, HL ] ID# [160] CLR TYP [0] [N/A]
OT CASE CLR [ ] EX TYPE [0] [N/A] ADT JV [N] [N/A]
#AR [00]
===========================================================================================
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------A P P R O V E D R E P O R T
------------------------------------<BR>
SUPERVISOR : 079WE
EVENT FILE : 98047201.501
DATE : 4/25/1998
TIME : 18:46
David A. Barnhart
>
> ...I'd say that, again IMHO,
> the only negative stuff about CGS comes from Zoom, who is insane.
Zoomy then responded:
>
>Mr. Maier has made a negative assessment of me that has no basis in truth.
I've
>never met the guy (to my knowledge) nor do I ever recall having submitted any
>medical records to him. I hold an unrestricted FAA medical and regularly deal
>with Senior FAA medical people (for stories) who have not questioned me about
>anything of the kind, despite the fact that we are often in a somewhat
>adversarial position... (much ranting deleted)
See. He *is* insane. No sane well-adjusted person would respond to a simple,
isolated derogatory remark with such ranting and raving.
Go ahead, Zoomy, sue me to. Make My Day.
Dave Barnhart
Rob
>
> Hey!!!
> I asked a simple question (I thought) about the relative merits of the
> Hawk and the Challenger. I got one reasonable reply. The rest was a bunch
> of skydiving or scubadiving or anything else. I'm sorry about that. I guess
> it is everywhere.
> But back to the original subject: Is there anyone who can offer an
> opinion from experience regarding the relative merits (buying building
> flying) of the Hawk and the Challenger?
> Thanks (I think)
> Dave
>
I guess I could give you some advise. I am an ultralight instructor
with over 2500 hours in ultralights since 1983. I have flown both the
Hawk and Challenger as well as over 35 different models. I am also an
aircraft mechanic with over 17 years experience.
A lot of folks buy the Challenger I think because of ease of
construction and at first glance they seem to be a good bargain for the
buck. They are pretty efficient as far as fuel economy goes, and I
think that is because the engine is tucked in behind the fuselage.
There is a lot of things in the Challenger that are not exactly aircraft
quality though such as routing control cables through plastic tubing and
snaking around through the fuselage and wing struts held on by nuts on
bolts in tension and not in sheer. The flap handle is the same handle
you would find on a screen window.
I feel the nose gear is a weak area in both planes but more so on the
Challenger. I think the Hawk can be configured with conventional gear
now. The Challenger flies okay and is fairly responsive but has some
stability problems which are evident to pilots with experience. I have
flown two seat and single seat Challengers and all of them need more
vertical fin or yaw directional stability. In one I took my feet off
the rudder pedals, added a burst of throttle and the plane went into a
side-slip and stayed. Some pilots have added two extra strakes on the
outer edge of their horizontal stabs. When you make an aggressive turn
it is difficult to coordinate the rudder and ailerons to keep the ball
centered. I think most pilots slip a lot in their turns in the
Challenger without even realizing it. Some know it's the case but just
don't care... as long as it gets them around.
The Hawks that I flew were the older models with Cuyuna engines. They
handled very well and flew more similar to a Cessna 150 than most
ultralights I've flown. I like the tube and dacron fabric method of
construction because if you get hangar rash or need to do repairs it is
fairly easy.
They both would make pretty good cross country planes but I think the
Hawk would be my choice because of construction and control and I would
choose the conventional gear over the tricycle gear... I train in a
Drifter with over 1600 hrs on it and am still using the original gear.
I replaced my Flightstar nose gear several times. I'm a believer in
strong, flexible landing gear like the Drifter.
That's my pitch, hope I've help you out.
... Rob
Don Campbell
>threatening letter he sent to the customer he failed to refund the promised
>monies to. LOOK AT THE FACTS AND DOCUMENTS FOR YOURSELVES!
Hi Jim, just a quick question so that I can better look at the facts. Is
this true? what was said by Ron Natalie <r...@sensor.com>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Conn paid money to a DISTRIBUTOR not to CGS or any of
it's predecessors.
Chuck when finally made aware of the claim offered to credit
the deposit against any purchase he wished to make from CGS
even though:
1. Chuck never received the money.
2. Chuck is not liable for the actions of distributors.
3. Chuck is not even monetarily liable for his predecessor
company.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I saw what was said over the last few years reading USAviator and I don't
remember were it was this was said nor did you address it in the the message
that I am replaying to.
Also Ron said:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
All Chuck asked was some documentation (receipt, cancelled
check,...) as to the amount paid. Conn was not real forthcoming
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is this part true? I know that it will be hard to say for sure this is true
or not because it is a transaction between two other people. So maybe I
should ask " Did you see anything to make you believe that Conn was forthcoming
i.e.: did you see a receipt, cancelled check or other what not being sent off to
Chuck.
Before you think that this is just a attack on you look at the messages I have
posted over the last two your around the time of Sun and Fun. I just believe
that it would help to prove your point by telling us what parts Ron Natalie
has wrong.
Don Campbell
tonyp...@my-dejanews.com
usa...@gate.net wrote:
> >[snip -- by Meier] Zoom, who is insane.
> >
>
> Mr. Maier has made a negative assessment of me that has no basis in truth.
This is surely a subject of some debate. Campbell says the word "insane"
has "no basis in truth." Others who have worked with him suggest otherwise.
I only know what I read and the behavior I've observed, and I don't know how
a diagnosis of "Personality Disorder" equates to "insane" so I suggest
reading the NTSB transcript and DSM-IV (the expert's classification guide)
and deciding for yourself. I understand that one reason DSM-IV and its
definitions LIKE "Personality Disorder -- Narcissistic" and "Personality
Disorder -- Borderline" exist is that words like "crazy" and "insane" are so
imprecise as to be near meaningless.
For example, is a person who knows right from wrong and knows what he's
doing but can't seem to stop doing it "insane"? You'll find in the criminal
and Constitutional caselaw a neverending debate on that issue. For some
purposes, splitting semantic hairs seems silly and as the FAA psychiatrist
testified in Campbell's NTSB hearing in 1980 (SE4661), usually nonexperts can
even pretty easily spot abnormal behavior. When a person can't stop a
dysfunctional, destructive thought pattern or behavior, DSMIV gives it a name
based on the characteristics and leaves the hairsplitting to lawyers.
Campbell himself described his difficulty in ceasing his pattern of lying in
the hearing transcript, in explaining his fabricated history and
impersonation of a physician. Is that irrelevant if people previously close
to him say he's still the same?
>I've
> never met the guy (to my knowledge) nor do I ever recall having submitted any
> medical records to him. I hold an unrestricted FAA medical and regularly deal
> with Senior FAA medical people (for stories) who have not questioned me about
> anything of the kind, despite the fact that we are often in a somewhat
> adversarial position.
In other words, there are SOME FAA personnel who haven't raised the issue
with him?? He can discuss totally different issues without having his own
history come up? So what? This theme that, in order to properly suggest
there is a question as to Campbell's mental health, one must be a shrink and
perform an examination has been heard frequently in recent months, along with
the claim that the NTSB ruling was "rescinded" because he eventually got a
new medical certificate years later (the order was not rescinded or overruled
-- though one presumes at a later date a different agency -- the FAA --
judged that he was on good behavior at least and that there was no proof he
was still acting out). Another amusing distortion is the claim that the
NTSB's periodic destruction of its files means the Order is invalid or the
hearing transcript inauthentic. I'd call this "grasping at straws" and
anybody who wants a copy of the Order need only ask the NTSB. The transcript
is available r the asking from many other sources.
> As to CGS.... we published a well detailed story with links to a number of
> corroborating documents and the like. It stands on it's own merits
Absolutely correct for once -- it stands on "it's" own merits as a piece of
skewed, totally subjective purported journalism by a man with an evident
grudge, which is undoubtedly visible to the most casual reader. AND a
self-styled "Editor-in-Chief" and "Publisher" who hasn't the training or
judgment to take himself off of a story when it involves a personal
adversary, ex-fiance, ex-business partner or other person with whom he has a
personal dispute.
>and I suggest
> that you look at the FACTS without listening to any more personal attacks and
> character assassination that are designed to one thing in particularly...
cover
> up for the wrong-doing of others.
Right - don't listen to evidence of his past behavior and mental history,
even if they indicts his credibility completely. Again, any criticism of
Campbell, any reminders of his credibility problems, grudges, lack of
objectivity and obsessive fixation and attacks upon those who have crossed
him are "personal attacks" and "character assassination" intended to hide
"the truth." Again, his total lack of credibility is asserted to be
irrelevant, as is any evidence of a long history of questionable judgment and
credibility. Again, the "facts" are whatever he asserts, regardless of
credibility problems.
Like the police officers and Sun & Fun officials who ejected him
AGAIN, his critics are all ill-motivated liars seeking to hide the truth. And
he, despite the conduct that GOT him ejected and his enraged bellowing of
obscenities, is objective and truthful, and is the victim of concerted illegal
behavior of others.
"My critics are character assassins," he says, or is it "Don't pay any
attention to the man behind the curtain?" If the criticisms are true,
theyre' not character assassination (you can't kill something that's dead),
and if they accurately call into question his credibility on a topic where he
stakes his credibility against that of his victims, it's mandatory reading.
>Mind you; we are talking about the
> manufacturer of an aircraft that THREATENED one of the customers that he sold
>an airplane to,
Again, Campbell's version of what a "threat" is, is laughable. Is it a
"threat" when one says "if you break the law, I'll call the police" as
Slusarczyk did? Or is it a "threat" when one says "if you say something bad
about me, I'll sue you" as Campbell does? When Campbell calls people at home
univited following their critical Usenet posts by ferreting out their phone
numbers, tells them his lawyer will be suing them for calling him "beneath
contempt" or otherwise contradicting or criticizing him, it is apparently not
a "threat." When he tells them they are exposed to criminal prosecution for
agreeing with his critics (a laughable claim), it is not a "threat." When an
aviation manufacturer which doesn't owe a dime to a disgruntled customer of a
former, 13-year defunct company responds to that person's avowed intent to
make a spectacle that interferes with the conduct of business that THAT
BUSINESS WILL CALL THE POLICE should he be disruptive, IT IS A "THREAT."
When that former company's customer avows an intention to damage the new
business to the maximum extent possible unless it pays money that new company
doesn't owe, and to use for that purpose a journalist who is "after him" to
do it, it isn't a "threat" but the company's defensive response IS a
"threat."
"How can a word mean so many things?" says Alice.
>agreed to reimburse fully (with interest), and then went back on
> his word.
"His" word? Totally false. First, the sale was by a dealer, as all the
documents demonstrate, and Conn's payment was TO a dealer. In fact, Conn
wanted to BECOME a dealer and even had a corporation, rather than being the
put-upon consumer or now-flightless bird Campbell claims. Second, the
"manufacturer" involved (CGS Aviation, Inc.) which DID promise to make
good-faith payments AS IT WAS ABLE went under over a decade ago, and Chuck
Slusarczyk personally never had a liability -- yet still paid many other
creditors. Campbell fails to distinguish between the old company's
good-faith promise to do what it could -- read the letter (after Conn refused
to accept delivery of the airplane and demanded cash) -- and Chuck
Slusarczyk's recent attempt to resolve the matter DESPITE the absence of any
legal obligation to do so. Campbell freely confuses references to what Chuck
PERSONALLY did and owed and the obligations of the company. Campbell makes
no such mistake in his own business, which is why his company's creditors
(writers owed a few hundred dollars all the way to printers claiming close to
$100K) are stuck with hundreds of thousands of dollars owed by (he says)
Airedale Press, Inc. -- not by Campbell himself. Those promises are not "his"
to honor, and I expect he'd be surprised to get a call from any of the
creditors -- especially the one who claims to be out over thirty times what
Conn paid -- 13 years from now, demanding that he pay up or be publicly
attacked
Campbell makes it sound as if Chuck's recent promise was to pay this in
full with 13 years' interest at 12% (i.e. more than even the old company
could legally owe). Read the April, '97 document Campbell points to, if it's
legible enough. In no way does it promise to "reimburse fully (with
interest)." It's an agreement that Conn and Chuck "will agree to a cash
settlement ON AN ORDER FROM KEECH [the dealer]" The agreement was to agree
on a cash settlement in an unspecified amount by a certain date (May 7). The
cash settlement WAS offered before that date (I made the call myself -- and
Campbell wasn't there) and Conn rejected it -- or at least deflected it in
preference to other options. Chuck, who had no legal obligation, offered
payment in full of the original deposit paid to the dealer, WITHOUT interest.
The customer put aside the cash discussion in favor of pursuing a
negotiation on a credit against an aircraft THAT INCLUDED interest at 12% --
more than the legal rate in Florida. In short, $7000 in trade looked better,
at least at that moment -- than $2900 cash (Chuck actually offered $2900,
forgetting the company had already paid $200 of the $2900). All the rest of
the dialogue was about WHAT aircraft, until we learned FROM CAMPBELL -- who
had nothing to do with it until then -- that the deal had fallen through.
Somebody here is misrepresenting what occurred. Campbell wasn't there, but
claims to have recorded a lenghty interview with Conn. If the falsehoods are
coming from Campbell, so be it. If they're coming from Conn, shame on him.
He has declined to comment on the accuracy of Campbell's characterzations of
his statements. Eventually the truth of all that will come to light.
>The source of this claim??? COURT RECORDS and CHUCK SLUSARCZYK's OWN
> DOCUMENTATION AND STATEMENTS.
False. The documents say what they say. Anybody who says that '97 paper
promises $7000 -- the amount Conn now claims with 12% interest -- is simply
willfully distorting facts or can't read. Anybody who claims that Chuck
personally, or any entity but the old company owed or promised to pay the
original deposit in '85 does the same. Having been involved in the '97
negotiation, I can further tell you that Mr. Conn never CLAIMED there was a
promise to pay that sum in cash in the '97 -- and I've never heard anybody
except Campbell who wasn't there and wasn't involved, imply so. The paper
signed by Chuck appears likely to have been a trick to get Chuck to somehow
"reaffirm" (a legal term) a statute-of-limitations expired debt, likely at
the advice of counsel. Problem is, only the original debtor (the dealer or
the old company, dissolved in 1985??) can "reaffirm" its expired debt, and a
promise by another to agree in the future to an unspecified settlement amount
is not an agreement until an amount is agreed upon.
>Look at the story. Look at the documents for
> yourself.
> READ THE STORY... MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND. The facts are there to research on
your
> own and dispute or agree with as you see fit. I stand by this story. It is the
> truth
More of Campbell's truth. He stands by THIS story. What about the others?
Several times in the years after the failure of the original CGS company
(which occurred in about 1985 despite Chuck's efforts to rebuild it AND
depite many payments to creditors) -- and with clearly-stated knowledge of
Chuck's previous financial difficulties -- Campbell wrote in glowing terms
about Chuck, his airplane and his business. He even lauded Chuck's
"propriety" and his personal following, sense of humor and popularity with
customers. Copies are available.
Then a few years ago, Chuck had a disagreement with Campbell over an
advertising bill, and harsh words were spoken (well, written). In fact,
Chuck questioned the circulation figures allegedly given out by Campbell's
company, which reportedly claimed circulations as high as 75,000 or even
more, when postal service documents showed less than half of that. Is it
coincidence that Campbell now seems obsessed enough to ignore the major sins
of a hundred other companies while scouring the shrubberies for any evidence
of disgruntlement by ANYBODY at all with Chuck's company? If you believe
that, you'll probably believe Mr. Campbell's claim of 13000 hours as PIC,
1000 different aircraft flown, his exploits in Ethiopia and the stories about
his son.
>and if you don't want to believe me, you should talk to the number of
> customers who feel they were screwed by CGS (and there are more than are
> contained in the story).
The question isn't whether anybody WANTS to believe Campbell. I once
wanted desperately to do so, as those who were around in late '96 recalled.
Newbies here desperately want to believe the magazine's "Captain Zoom"
character really exists. The question is whether ANYBODY in his or her right
mind would EVER believe anything Campbell says about a friend, an enemy,
about himself or his credentials or experiences -- anything of importance.
And the question has gotten a lot of negative answers around here in recent
years.
>[snip]
> I'm sorry that this will ignite another flame war
I seriously doubt that.
>and you will no doubt be directed to more anonymous web sites authored by
>cowards too chicken-s**t to use
> their own names... and if that's what you use to make up your mind, so be
it...
Actually, it takes a good deal of courage to spar with Campbell. You can
get sued, have weird reports filed against you with police and other agencies
and worse. For the experiences of one NON-anonymous Web site host, look at
John Ousterhout's "Zoomland" (http://www.cyberis.net~jouster). Or just
research Dejanews. Be sure to read about the phone conversation with the
wife of Ousterhout's EAA Chapter officer, and the threats to Ousterhout --
not to mention the lawsuit. If you want to read parody and less balanced
reporting, you might look at the Nutflight Index, wherever it is these days
-- though even it seems to have copies of pretty indisputable documentation
at times.
While I don't personally approve of anybody -- including Campbell --
authoring things under a shield of anonymity, and never do so myself, I can
certainly understand why some people feel the need. Perhaps it's the endless
threats of lawsuits against Campbell's critics, or the calls to police,
federal and state law enforcement agencies, Bar officials, call to peoples'
homes and ranting at their families (children, parents, wife). Or maybe it's
the lawsuit against the fellow who merely posted the transcript of Campbell's
bankruptcy hearings, or the one who put Campbell's NTSB mental illness
hearing on his Website so these public records could be read by other
citizens. Or maybe it's the coincidental anonymous calls to Children's
Services agencies reporting that former employees of his company -- now also
adversaries -- abused or neglecting their kids. Or the claims of criminal
behavior and police reports against employees who were seemingly just fine
until they left. Or the use of bogus accounts by SOMEBODY in the names of
Campbell's perceived enemies to send threats of death and dismemberment to
public officials and private persons.
> LOOK AT THE FACTS. Simply READ the story and make up your own minds before
> giving into the character assassination and personal attacks.
Yep, read the whole story -- NOT just what Campbel trusts you with
> I put up with this crap because I CARE what happens to people... and you have
to
> admit that I haven't backed down in this fight...
True enough. Instead of having enough sense to "back down" when his
excessive behavior is pointed out, Campbell simply escalates the conflict in
the apparent beleif that raising the stakes high enough will force his
adversaries to back down -- that's the only SANE reason I can think of for
his behavior, though it's admittedly speculative.
> no matter how many hundreds of
> threatening, libelous and harassing messages and nastigrams are sent by those
> who are seeking to shut me up.
I have yet to see a libellous message. I have yet to see one that was
HARRASSING by any definition the law knows of -- as opposed to Campbell's
self-generated version. I don't know what a "nastigram" is, but I think it
was invented by him. And I don't know anyone who is seeking to "shut [him]
up" as opposed to compelling him to TELL THE TRUTH when he speaks.
> I believe in what i do. I stand behind what I've written and Chuck has NEVER
> proven a word of our story wrong.... which, admittedly, would be heard to do
> because a lot of it is based on his own letters, actions and documents.
>
And Campbell will have every opportunity to prove his statements.
> Jim Campbell, Publisher, US Aviator
> Copyright 1998, All Rights Reserved
> Author: SportPlane Resource Guide--Second Edition
> http://www.av8r.net
> http://www.kindredspirit.com
> http://www.sportplane.com
> "To sin by silence when they should protest,
> makes cowards of men." -Abraham Lincoln
tonyp...@my-dejanews.com
tonyp...@my-dejanews.com
I seriously doubt that.
As to the truth of the remainder, including the denomination "publisher"
those are issues in litigation and I won't comment.
Tony Pucillo
Castigat Ridendo Mores <Laughter succeeds where lecturing won't>
I speak only for myself unless I say otherwise; one personality is quite
enough, thank you.
tonyp...@my-dejanews.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Conn paid money to a DISTRIBUTOR not to CGS or any of
> it's predecessors.
Yep. The Documents are clear. He paid the dealer.
> Chuck when finally made aware of the claim offered to credit
> the deposit against any purchase he wished to make from CGS
> even though:
>
> 1. Chuck never received the money.
> 2. Chuck is not liable for the actions of distributors.
> 3. Chuck is not even monetarily liable for his predecessor
> company.
Chuck personally didn't receive the money, certainly. There are always
credits back and forth between dealers and manufacturers and I'm sure at least
some of the money was credited to the dealer's (Keach) account and some net
proceeds sent to CGS with the order after the dealer deducted whatever was due
him. As I recall, some of the money was used by the dealer to pay advertising
expenses in addition to commissions and some net amount went to CGS.
No, Chuck is not liable for the actions of distributors -- not even
their promised delivery dates, only his own to the dealer -- even if the
customer refuses to accept delivery due to the delay.
And no, neither Chuck nor his later company are liable for the earlier
company's obligations. The old company failed after the "money" partner
pulled his money out when the ultralight market hit the fan and the company
was left unable to pay its bills. I wonder why Campbell has nothing to say
about the what, 50% of sport aviation companies that have had a previous
business failures -- including himself and his hundreds of thousands of
dollars in creditors? People always point to the Bede history and other
egregious examples, but I suspect half the manufacturers out there have had
business failures. How many times have some of these designs changed hands
exactly for that reason?
>[snip]>
> Also Ron said:
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> All Chuck asked was some documentation (receipt, cancelled
> check,...) as to the amount paid. Conn was not real forthcoming
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Is this part true?
When Conn "popped up" after a decade, he claimed to have bought the
aircraft from CGS, not from a dealer, and the only documents he produced --
which did NOT include the contract or check -- had much of the information
blacked out as if he didn't want Chuck to know how long it had been, whom
he'd paid, the the statute of limitations was expired, etc. Initially he
even reportedly said he was owed $7000, rather than that he'd paid $2900 a
decade earlier. I can only guess why he was so cagey, but until Chuck got
the dealer file, he couldn't even verify that Conn had ever ordered an
aircraft in '84. He NEVER mentioned that he had a corporation of his own in
the ultralight aviation business; that information had to come from later
correspondence files and state records.
I have had some sympathy for this guy as a purchaser -- albeit one who
could have taken the aircraft ordered and refused -- who lost a deposit.
Obviously, so did Chuck, since it wasn't MY money he was offering to pay or
credit against an aircraft. But to this date I've seen no recognition by
Conn that Chuck was trying to do the right thing by accommodating him; only
obnoxious behavior when angry and an apparent willingness to endorse the
things Campbell has done and said. I'm personally convinced I could have
gotten Chuck to pay him most of the money including interest (i.e. more than
the $3000 cash offered) because the net cost to Chuck's new company to
deliver the aircraft would have been higher. But I never got a chance to
explore that because Conn went directly from discussing the details of the
aircraft selected, to standing in the background while Campbell gloated and
ranted. And despite having been warned that this kind of attack would
destroy any chance of settlement (why would Chuck do anything for a guy who
acts like this?) he opted to ally himself with Campbell. I can only explain
it by saying that Conn is a very likeable guy to speak with, UNTIL he gets
angry, at which time he's like a different person. Perhaps Campbell managed
to set him off and the die was cast. [snip]
> Before you think that this is just a attack on you look at the messages I have
> posted over the last two your around the time of Sun and Fun. I just believe
> that it would help to prove your point by telling us what parts Ron Natalie
> has wrong.
The problem is none of this matters. Campbell has a fixation on Chuck which
can only be credibly attributed to Chuck's repeated attacks on Campbell's
credibility after their argument. Why else does Campbell ignore virtually
every current scam or lousy product in sport aviation in order to focus on
one company's ancient claimed debts -- even while he has walked away from his
own company's debts totalling hundreds of times more money? There's at least
one company out there I know of that takes at least this amount from
unsuspecting purchasers EVERY DAY, without any expose by Campbell. No, I'm
sure these attacks won't stop as long as Campbell has a pen and an obsession
with CGS -- and Conn seems delighted with Campbell's willingness to exploit
his claims, consistent with Conn's earlier threat to "drop a rock" on Chuck
using the journalist who was "after him" to help with the CGS story unless
Chuck paid up.
And as can be seen from the very damaging things he said in his rant
against Charlie Porter, even Campbell's own lawyer obviously can't force him
to exercise decent judgment when he starts his spit-flying rants.
Anyway, it's good to see you exercising independent judgment,Don; just
don't expect to win any awards from Campbell for doing so. It seems clear
from the way he omits inconvenient facts in his attacks that he doesn't trust
his readers to reach the correct conclusions with access to the full story,
so it truly does become an issue of credibility -- his against that of all
those people who question his. I don't believe Campbell sees a middle ground
-- only those who believe whatever he dishes out and enemies. Read the NTSB
transcript and the words of others with more recent experience.
Tony Pucillo
Castigat ridendo mores <laughter succeeds where lecturing won't>.
tonyp...@my-dejanews.com
In article <35D2368B...@gate.net>,
usa...@gate.net wrote:
> OK... I shouldn't do this...
He's right, he shouldn't, especially in a public forum, but his public
statements are fair game for others to dispute.
>but it's simply too easy to prove this man is not
>being
> truthful.
Though he hasn't yet done so, at least by anyone's standards but his own.
>> Jim Campbell <usa...@gate.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Evidence of Mr. Slusarczyk's signed admission of obligation in just ONE
> > >particular incident is attached.
"Campbell truth" again. A good-faith promise by the old company to pay
Conn what it could, as it could, is in "Campbell truth" equivalent to "Mr.
Slusarczyk's signed admission of obligation." Or is he referring to
Slusarczyk's agreement with Conn to attempt to reach a cash settlement, which
was fulfilled by a timely offer of about $3000 transmitted to Conn but
rejected in favor of pursuing a larger purchase credit? We're flopping around
here again. Nothing like truth in publishing here.
>> > >http://www.av8r.net/usamag/usa1002/chucked/chucked.htm
> > >
> > >Please note that I have signed my name and that I am referring to a web
>>>site
> > >that is not published anonymously and that I have carefully documented what
I
> > >have published.
Carefully documented? by his standards no doubt. And there's no need to
publish anonymously. With a captive audience and no opportunity for his
adversaries to respond in his personal forum, where's the risk that his
readers will disagree with him? Or that if they do, he'll ever admit it
instead of describing the "thousands of messages of support" -- which claim
amuses some former employees.
>Please also note that I did not attack Mr. Slusarczyk's
>personal
> > >life,
Good tactical decision -- if you leave their irrelevant personal history
alone, maybe they won't bring up the relevant stuff in one's own history??
Chuck's "personal life" does not reflecting an utter lack of personal
credibility or retaliatory behavior (in fact, according to one Jim Campbell,
Chuck's history reflects a great deal of "propriety" and a great sense of
humor, as well as a loyal customer following). Nor is Chuck publishing
articles placing his personal credibility or motives in issue, so what's the
point? Campbell also doesn't discuss Chuck's (to euphemize) "medical"
history, presumably because he prefers not to place his own in issue. But it
IS in issue.
>post any ridiculous signs,
Nor did Chuck place on the World Wide Web a vicious and unfounded attack on
Campbell's business, nor repeatedly fill a magazine with venom about him.
Besides, what's "ridiculous" about "Zoom Free Zone"? I hear the demand far
exceeded supply. Is it better to put up a sign saying "stay the hell away"
when an antagonistic individual skulks around taking pictures, or to scream
"stalking" and threaten to call the police when an adversary walks by as
Campbell has? If the Harmenings had put up a sign, would Campbell have
refrained from lurking around trying to take pictures of them talking to me?
>threaten anyone's life,
Nor has Chuck, nor anyone affiliated with Chuck, as Campbell of all
people surely knows better than anyone.
>use any profanity,
Never heard Chuck do this, either, despite extreme provocation at times.
Actually, Chuck is a very even-tempered person and doesn't call people "%^&*(
Neo-Nazis" or other "horrible anti-Semitic" epithets, either.
>or
> > >act like a jerk...
Jerk? I've never seen Chuck do that, either, though his chicken-snatch at
the "seventh annual" [:)] '97 Sun & Fun party (the one that was reportedly,
by express decree of Sun & Fun management required to be open to all) WAS in
poor taste, or tasted poor, or something (I'm told -- I wasn't anyplace
nearby at the time). As the Sisters of Eternal Revenge used to say, "Chuck's
not bad, he's just mischievous." And frankly, I've considered charging Chuck
with misdemeanor-harmonica-honking myself, but he has so much fun I won't
spoil it.
> >
> > But... Is it the truth? Remember, it's all about credibility. You have
> > none.
> Is it the truth? READ IT! Check the facts! Look at the documents? No
credibility?
Well, we all seem to be in agreement about this at least. It's all about
credibility and truth. Now let's explore our personal histories of
credibility and truthfulness (dot,dot,dot). Isn't doing otherwise simply
equivalent to saying "Well, I may have lied a lot back then, and lots of
people claim that I still lie all the time now, but I say I'm telling the
truth this time so you should believe me and it's not fair to bring that
stuff up"? What did I miss here? Words do not become truth without being
subjected to verification, and credibility cannot be created out of whole
cloth by unilateral declaration.
[snip]
>>[snip] [by Porter]>>Don't you remember calling the Boise Police department
> > and making false accusations of me of threatening the life of your
> > non existent son?
>
> That did not happen... I sent them copies of the messages we got from you,
Wait a second, he DIDN'T call the police? It was THEIR idea to treat it as
an emergency and show up in the middle of the night to stop the
devil-worshipper? Credulity begins to strain. And is the son "nonexistent"
or not?
>[snip] The cop who talked to you told me
AHA! he DID talk to the police instead of just sending "copies of the
messages"!
>that
you
> admitted to hating my guts
Hardly a crime, or even unusual from other posts I've seen. Campbell's
past statements seem to reflect a belief in -- for lack of a better term
"actionable malice" -- meaning that disliking him, in and of itself, seems to
rise to the level of an actionable tort. Perhaps this explains in part the
lengths he seems to go to in order to engage his critics in intensely
unpleasant personal exchanges. If he can behave obnoxiously enough that any
normal person would dislike him, he can claim they do. It's only one more
step to "and that's why they are attacking me."
[snip]
> My attorney does not consider the suit frivolous... and you have to remember
that it
> was a RESPONSE to a suit filed by a guy that you lionized for suing me. You
guys
> loved Pucillo's suit, you applauded him for it, you participated in his
vendetta...
> so you were named in the countersuit. We simply got tired of the harassment
and
> decided to respond. Don't harass, don't threaten, and you don't have to worry
about
> legal entanglements... simple.
As he acknowledges above, this should not have been written, and I
won't respond to it since it involves litigation.
[large snip of ranting, self-praise, etc.]
we differ... but I put facts behind my arguments, and I don't send
> profanity riddled messages to people all over the world to express my
>displeasure and
> try to destroy someone else's life.
>
Here is an interesting and fundamental point. His adversaries -- those who
attack his credibility and the truth of his claims are trying to "destroy"
his "life" -- I don't know what "destroying a life" is, but it's melodramatic
and inflammatory. Sounds like transforming hurt feelings into murder,
doesn't it? From what I've read of his claims, it appears he believes that
simply telling the truth about his history, behavior and credibility
constitutes trying to "destroy his life." And his (admittedly
amateurish)legal theories seem to reflect a view that telling the truth about
a publicity-seeking public figure who aggressively holds himself out as a
paragon of truth and honor is actionable if not criminal, so long as he
questions the motive behind doing so. Naturally, no self-respecting lawyer
would assert such a silly notion. Would he?
[snip more emoting and self-praise]
Tony Pucillo I speak only for myself unless I say otherwise; one
personality is quite enought, thank you.
Tony P.
Good point. Campbell has been so vicious in his distortions that
everyone jumps on whenever he pops up.
I can only tell you what I read. I've read nothing bad, ever about the
CGS Hawk and spoken with perhaps two dozen owners who love them. The
fact that even the alleged journalist who utters such negativity about
Chuck acknowledges how good the aircraft is may say it all. When I get
a UL or light aircraft, it'll be a Hawk.
Challenger is popular and also well spoken of -- the only criticism
I've heard had to do with loss of yaw control in turns -- something to
do with doors, so check it out.
Personally, I'd go with the Hawk, but I freely admit that I've now been
around them and the people who fly them enough to be very comfortable
with their safety and docility, so the "known aircraft" factor is
significant.
Tony Pucillo
Dave wrote:
>
> Hey!!!
> I asked a simple question (I thought) about the relative merits of the
> Hawk and the Challenger. I got one reasonable reply. The rest was a bunch
> of political crap. OK so the politics of the UL world is no better than that
> of skydiving or scubadiving or anything else. I'm sorry about that. I guess
> it is everywhere.
> But back to the original subject: Is there anyone who can offer an
> opinion from experience regarding the relative merits (buying building
> flying) of the Hawk and the Challenger?
> Thanks (I think)
> Dave
>
> ChuckSlusarczyk wrote in message <6quj6i$o...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> >In article <epliATox9GA.113@upnetnews05>, "Frank says...
> >
> >>Whew! Guess I unleased a shitstorm; sorry, folks. As the origin of this
> >>cascade, I'll say that I agree completely with Zoom about two things:
> >>
> >>1. Check into this, or any subject, for yourself. Caveat emptor and caveat
> >>lector.
> >>
> >>2. The Lincoln quote, "To sin by silence when they should protest,
> >>makes cowards of men."
> >
--
Castigat ridendo mores. <Laughter succeeds where lecturing won't.>
I speak only for myself unless otherwise stated. One personality is
enough, thank you.
William Gleason
Want to discuss it, E-Mail me. Wgle...@kodak.com or bil...@frontiernet.net.
Happy Hawk Arrow II Owner Bill Gleason
ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
> In article <6r06o7$m2m$1...@news10.ispnews.com>, "Dave" says...
> >
> >Hey!!!
> > I asked a simple question (I thought) about the relative merits of the
> >Hawk and the Challenger. I got one reasonable reply. The rest was a bunch
> >of political crap.
>
ChuckSlusarczyk
>
>I'll save you some time Chuck. Here is one for you. ME! I am a happy customer.
>Want to discuss it, E-Mail me. Wgle...@kodak.com or bil...@frontiernet.net.
> Happy Hawk Arrow II Owner Bill Gleason
Thanks Bill for your kind remarks.
Chuck
steve spring
talk one on one to the guy who made it! [little things come up that
your not sure of,but tell me of one company that hasn,t had that! ]
The problem solved with talking to him not the sec. ! Look at the want
ads how many used HAWKS are for sale! NOT meneyyyy! I,m flying the
hell out out of mine and loving it!
attack hawk ! s spring
EWL
Hawks are the best flying ultralight Type airplanes on the market, have you
seen how a challenger is built? do you know anything about design features?
Find out then make your decision... you'll see!
J. Reid Howell
>
>Hawks are the best flying ultralight Type airplanes on the market,
Except for Javelins of course!
>have you
>seen how a challenger is built? do you know anything about design features?
>Find out then make your decision... you'll see!
I agree.
Sorry Chuck. You pompous polish poultry pilferer! :)
J. Reid Howell
cape...@flash.net
http://www.capellakitplanes.com
The Hecksel's
Oh Oh Chuck! Sombody else was at P-Ville or saw the tape.
Warren
ChuckSlusarczyk
>
>J. Reid Howell wrote:
>
>Oh Oh Chuck! Sombody else was at P-Ville or saw the tape.
>
>Warren
Story of my life,do something good and nobody knows,do something a little
naughty and ya never live it down.
Chuck(EL POLLO LOCO)Slusarczyk
ChuckSlusarczyk
>
>EWL wrote in message <6sh7t2$57g$1...@leol.net-link.net>...
>>
>>Hawks are the best flying ultralight Type airplanes on the market,
>
>Except for Javelins of course!
>
>>have you
>>seen how a challenger is built? do you know anything about design features?
>>Find out then make your decision... you'll see!
>
>
>I agree.
>
>Sorry Chuck. You pompous polish poultry pilferer! :)
>
>
>J. Reid Howell
>cape...@flash.net
>http://www.capellakitplanes.com
Hey Reid
Your Javalin flies pretty good too!!! In spite of the engine being on the wrong
end :) I'd fly one...see ya
Chuck( Polish Poultry Prince)Slusarczyk
PS..Got any spare chicken???
WWW.cgsaviation.com
William Gleason
try to hide anything, I felt the honesty. Well, I bought the Hawk anyway and
the Challenger came in second. What's the problem? They are both very fun
flying machines. I am sure the the Hawk has problems too if you dig deep
enough, the negitive can always find something wrong. The Hawk flys very much
like a 150 and that makes me happy as I have the most time in a 150. The
difference, $300.00 for inspections, $700.00 for repairs, $75 to 100.00 for a
hanger and longer runways needed and a lot less friends to fly with. I will
always have a Hawk, period...
EWL wrote:
> Hawks are the best flying ultralight Type airplanes on the market, have you
excalibu...@my-dejanews.com
Rob <fly...@micron.net> wrote:
> Dave wrote:
> >
> > Hey!!!
> > I asked a simple question (I thought) about the relative merits of the
> > Hawk and the Challenger. I got one reasonable reply. The rest was a bunch
> > of skydiving or scubadiving or anything else. I'm sorry about that. I guess
> > it is everywhere.
> > But back to the original subject: Is there anyone who can offer an
> > opinion from experience regarding the relative merits (buying building
> > flying) of the Hawk and the Challenger?
> > Thanks (I think)
> > Dave
> >
>
As a former Challenger dealer I am personally aware of the changes that
Challenger owners have requested in the past issues of the "Challenger
Owner's Newsletter." I have gone back to the very first issue and read
through 6 years of artcles and made a list of the most desired changes. ALL
of these changes have been incorporated into the new EXLIBUR
Ultralight/experimental Kitplane. See our website at:
http://www.excaliburaircraft.com Changes that I have made include, but are
not limited to: Upright engine 64" prop Rotax gear box In regards to the
cable routing in the Challenger: It has all been removed and a more
traditional control system utilizing a tourque tube and push pull rods has
been incorporated. This takes all the slop out of the system. Ease of
construction is better because the EXCALIBUR comes to you more complete than
a Challeneger. The EXCALIBUR has no flaps, because they are unnecessary. The
ailerons have a greater chord for better response. The landing gear has been
completely redesigned and now features a shock cord system for super smooth
landings every time. This shock cord system is preinstalled at the factory.
The stability problems have been eliminated due to a larger vertical
stabilizer and rudder. The nose cone has been completely redesigned. It is
shorter and lower in height allowing a much greater frontal visability. In
short the EXCALIBUR will out perform the Challenger hands down. The EXCALIBUR
factory sells direct to the public, and therefore very price competitive.
Kits purchased during September will include a free set of Hegar Hydraulic
Disc Brakes.(a $500 value) Be sure to visit our website at:
http://www.excaliburaircraft.com
Tom Karr
President
EXCALIBUR AIRCRAFT