Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : PLFM - Undervalued with great potential -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: James who wrote (7394)	3/15/1999 11:07:00 PM
From: JOEY	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9096

Anyone read this? It was on Raging Bull: By: Nadge Reply To #479 by SusanH Monday, 15 Mar 1999 at 9:57 PM EST Post # of 532 This is direct from the horses mouth and I quote: Here are some of the facts concerning Vern: * Vern failed to deliver a throttle quadrant to Howard after he was already paid. * Vern failed to deliver any models to Platforms after he was paid * Vern failed to deliver models to Kelly Space timely causing great embarrassment to Platforms - Howard set the deal up * Vern failed to complete a mock-up of the original jet design after being paid * Vern workmanship on the completed portion of the mock-up was simply atrocious - it looked like he never did a model in his life. Kids doing soap box derbies do better jobs. * Vern failed to have the mock-up ready for an interview with Aviation Week to kick off his program and public offering. He was repeatedly notified and warned the interview was going to happen. He simply ignored his obligation as usual, then blamed everybody else for his shortcomings. * Vern has literally failed in every business relationship with Howard or Platforms. He is more than willing to take the money, but has no ethics when time comes to honor the contract for which he has been paid. ********************************* Joey

To: James who wrote (7394)	3/16/1999 1:39:00 PM
From: cliff weller	Respond to of 9096

James, Aircraft of any sort are expensive to maintain. However, Soviet aircraft designers routinely take into account the limitations of their maintenance personnel and create machines which do not require extremes of TLC. General consensus is that Soviet aircraft are overbuilt, rugged, and trustworthy. When the time comes, I think they'll be more than up to the task. Happy trades

To: James who wrote (7394)	3/17/1999 7:15:00 PM
From: ewaggin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9096

James D.: check any of the many links for "TU-144LL" This aircraft is being used to obtain data for the HSCT program. It has been re-fitted with the same engines used by the TU-160. These engines are more powerful than the originals, and are capable of pushing the TU-144LL to nearly Mach 3.0, although the longevity of the engine is measured (literally) in minutes at this speed (which is not planned on in the test series). As another poster noted, the Russians have, in the past, followed a design philosophy which emphasized ruggedness, simplicity, and speed, at the expense of fuel economy and, with respect to the engines, longevity. While these qualities may detract from the value of a combat aircraft, they are not a drawback for a cargo hauler, especially one which will make relatively short and infrequent flights. Used only for actual launches (and perhaps some self-ferrying), these aircraft should actually be rather economical to operate. Also, I suspect that the launch flight profile will make only limited use of the full power setting, which will do much to extend the time between engine replacements.