"DSK" wrote in message
...
| Capt. Mooron wrote:
| No John.. I believe Doug's premise is that a properly engineered vang
can
| equal the capacity of a topping lift... that I dispute.
|
| And you're wrong.

No I'm not!

|
| Allow me to put to you 2 separate scenarios... a rigid vang on a 20
footer
| and a rigid vang on a 50 footer. Now... on the 20 footer it's obvious
the
| weight of a man on the end of the boom would tax the rigid vang....
|
| Not necessarily. It depends entirely on how the rig is built.

Oh here we go.... the sidewind of the engineer in dire straits.... let's
bring "specialty" manufacturing alloys and specific design criteria into the
equation! It's a smoke screen and I'm not falling for it.



| You assume that the rig, particularly the boom, and the vang must be
| weak. It ain't so.

That's totally incorrect... I never stated such a thing nor utilized any
such reasoning in my argument.

|
| I suspect that you cannot envision a box section boom, or a custom
| section boom. Have you ever seen a boat where the boom was not the same
| extruded section as the mast? They exist.

Pardon Me Doug... who the hell do you think you are discussing with here..
jaxxies or horvath???
Your suspicions are as unfounded as your initial position regarding the
suitability of a vang for hoisting.
What I suspect is that you've suddenly realized the logic of my statement
are finding yourself at a loss to formulate a rational defense.


|
| Furthermore, I suspect you have little to no experience with fractional
| rigs.

That's a rather cocky and mistaken assumption on your part Doug...

A tapered spar is not built to take huge compression loads at the
| mast head. OTOH they can easily be built to take a heck of a torsion
| load at the gooseneck... some have solid struts supporting the mast just
| at or just below the gooseneck.

Oh yeah... let's hide behind the vagaries of specific engineering in an
attempt to mask the basic tenets of the discussion... that vangs were never
designed to hoist.

|
| Your statements about rigid vangs are like the yokel who was shown a
| picture of a giraffe and said "there cain't be no such anny-mal."

Now that is just desperate and totally uncalled for.... don't be an ass
with me Doug.. I don't tolerate such gibberish. If you can't present a
viable argument to back your contentions... you have already lost the
argument before you decided to discuss it. I demand the same respect I've
shown you... and if you find yourself unable to continue this debate without
reducing your counterpoints to suggestions that I'm not up to the task of
basic comprehension... then it's time for you to pack it up and run along.

Understand this.... every poster that has joined this discussion has found
in my favour regarding the suitability of the topping lift versus the vang
for hoist situations.

CM