Gotta wonder if this same issue could affect the Wagoneer/GW? Because I’d be pissing mad if my new $100k Jeep turned into a paperweight.

Topping my list of projects: I’d like to buy an ‘86 or ‘87 Regal and build a GNX clone with LS3 power. In this current insanity I bet it’d sell for more than I had into it if done right.

Reverse: I had an ‘85 Omni in college in the early 90s. By far the biggest POS I’ve owned out of 16 or so cars. The timing belt was nbd to replace, but the head gasket and rod bearing fixes sucked. My bud at the time had an ‘85 Daytona turbo so he felt the same K-Car pain as me. To this day though, we still laugh…

I had an ‘81 LP Custom I bought for $500 and sold a year later, also about 30 years ago. I wish I could reach back and smack young Turbineguy in the head for that one.. 

Ok, so this sounds like a design defect based on the number of accidents involving mast bumping/tunnel strikes. Why wouldn’t this have been addressed with an AD then? Does the FAA not regard this as a defect? Now I’m curious to know if the R22 has the same issue.

In contrast (I think) Gibson seems to be much more defensive of trade dress when it comes to the LP body shape or even the open book headstock design. They’re like the Ferrari of guitar makers, only not quite so assholish. 

Having owned a few Strats and Teles over the years, my thinking is if it looks like a Tele it is a Tele. Similar to Partscasters; they’re referred to as Strats, right? Both shapes are immediately recognizable to any guitar player, but if you want to call it a Hohner Telecaster then that’s cool. 

They didn’t play this particular model and Prince didn’t play a Tele at all

Glass garage doors?

Did somebody say singed Aventador??

AGM-65 Maverick heat-seeker ftw!

The idea that anyone would pay the ask for this truck is astounding. 

I love that big wedge of cheese they put on the bow. Thoughtful. 

Isn’t this what guys do when they don’t want to sell a car? List it for a ridiculous price?
I sense a strategy here..

That which is understood need not be discussed. 

If the FAA is not taking action after multiple accidents then that’s wrong, and I have to wonder why. 

So it’s not as simple as just adding mass to the rotors?

Huh. Speaking as a CFI, that doesn’t sound like a great attribute in a training aircraft. Why hasn’t this been addressed with an AD then?

The 206 is not a great comparison because it’s a turbine-powered heli vs the R44, and the Robinson is used a lot by flight schools as a training aircraft. By now, any design flaws in the R44 causing repeated accidents should’ve been fixed through an Airworthiness Directive from the feds. That’s not an excuse for bad…

I’m guessing those deficiencies would’ve been addressed by the FAA with an emergency Airworthiness Directive.