Hangar Flying

I occasionally hop onto this site, haven't been tempted to join until recently.  I was more than a bit surprised to see the level of sniping and one-sided bashing over an aircraft sale that fell through.  Guess it comes down to that aspect of human nature that keeps such respected publications such as "The Enquirer" in business, an eagerness to believe anything that appears in print.  Call me naive, but I've always believed the aviation community to be immune to such behavior.

Take some time to read and research the facts.  The comments below are easily available and corroborated by reading different posts by both parties.  The first thing that "rang false" here reminds of the the Shakespeare quote - "The lady doth protest too much".  No fair balance, no opposing viewpoint - but a huge number of allegations, innuendo and statements which ANY logical person (much less someone involved in aviation) would have a hard time swallowing.

Examples?
1.  Experience.  Seller = nearly 60 years as a pilot, Commercial/Instr.
                        (seems he has flown this aircraft for over 17 years)
                       Buyer = 20 or so hours since recieving Private license.

Considering the buyer's near total lack of experience, I have a hard time accepting many of the comments claiming the seller was confused with many features of his aircraft, that he flew it poorly, was "reluctant" to fly etc.  I also can't imagine a man surviving half a century of flight if his disregard for maintenance, weight/balance and basic airworthiness of an aircraft were anywhere near the buyer's claim.  

2.  False Statements.  

"Burt said he wouldn't fast taxi this plane"  
In his prior post, seller mentions an encounter with hail en-route to Oshkosh.  Mike Melville apparently took a look at the eroded leading edge of the canard, made some repair suggestions.  No mention anywhere of Rutan's involvement.  Nice choice of a high impact name though.  I found a similar tactic employed in this story, the association of the mechanic with the 911 terrorists - a thinly veiled attempt at creating "guilt through association".

"Coaxial cable connected to the starter"
This is patently ludicrous.  Amp load through a starter cable would instantly melt the copper.  This wouldn's budge a prop even once, much less present a fire hazard.

"Fly a strange new plane without comms"
As a tower controlled airport, Gillespie (SEE) requires 2-way comm.  Did the seller actually suggest taxiing and take-off using hand signals?

Since an awful lot of this story is clearly false, one can't help but wonder how much is true.  For instance, why would an A&P risk his livelihood for "$40 and lunch", sign off an inspection, admit to a total stranger he had never seen the airplane before and then pronounce the aircraft unsafe?  Call me cynical, but when I read or hear ANYTHING that is full of inaccuracy or lies - I usually stop reading.  If my limited knowledge of a subject tells me the author is in error - or worse, lying - I don't see how I can accept ANY part of the story.

No doubt the seller would like his deposit back, but in his own prior post he clearly states he has "purchased his LongEZ".  No mention of arranging a pre-purchase inspection, test flying or tire-kicking.  In his words this is a "done deal".  From everything I've read, it seems the seller acted in good faith.  Bad mag?  He replaced it.  Deposit received to secure purchase?  He took the aircraft off the market.  Buyer gets cold feet (for whatever reason)?  He's allowed to back out of the sale.  

Enough already. let's move on to more productive topics.