Although he looks alone, somebody wants him on the phone.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Yes, I posted the other day that I was familiar with them, and that a lot of good stuff comes out of Greenville, S.C. It is a hot bed of aerospace engineering.
Good links.
Lots of high wing fuselage mounted landing gear type airplanes being fitted with Tigerfish floats.
I'm not saying Tigerfish doesn't have a good concept. I think they do. But what they have won't work on King Airs.
The engineers from Tigerfish are aware. They don't need me. They're designing a system to fit the kind of airplanes suited to the application.
It's the lay person here, who is thinking about investing in QASP on the basis of PR which hints that Hawker/Beechcraft is about to start cranking these puppy dogs out the door, that needs this information.
“folds the floats up into the streamliner pannier below the fuselage during flight”
The type of airplane this system is suited for would be a high winged aircraft with fuselage mounted landing gear. Perhaps a single engine airplane with a low wing could use the system if it had fuselage mounted gear. But there would still be clearance problems with the wings and propellor, unless the floats held the airplane very high off the surface of the water.
The King Air has a low wing, with the landing gear mounted in the nacelles aft of the engines. This system that tigerfish has is incompatible with such a configuration.
Look at the web page: http://tigerfishaviation.net/page3.html
You can scroll down, they show no airplane configured like a King Air is. LOL, I see a Citation 500/501 there. No way they would be able to certify that due to the possibility of water ingestion. This won't work with jets mounted aft on the fuselage.
I'm not saying they got a bum system, I find the concept interesting. It's just that what they have won't work on a King Air, and the engineers will tell you that. It's the hypesters who might say otherwise.
Picking up the conversation as to the practicality of Tigerfish's system on King Airs:
This system as presented by Tigerfish is a fuselage mounted system. The King Air has no fuselage hard points aft of the propellors. You would have to engineer two saddle structures in the fuselage to support this Tigerfish system. This would add considerable weight to the fuselage, and cut useful load. It would also make your airplane a "one off", with special IFCA inspections, whether you left the system installed or converted it back to a land plane. In other words, you detract from the re-sale value. Is this system possible? Perhaps, if you are willing to pay to get it done, anything is possible. Is it practical? I don't see it.
As far as a nacelle mounted system, which is not what Tigerfish has, the points where the gear trunnion and the anti drag link attach are hard points aft the nacelle. Though the actuator (hydraulic, not a jackscrew, unless you fly a very old one) attach point is beefy it can't be considered a hard point as it does not transmit gear loads to the structure. So you have two hard points about two feet apart fore and aft. There is no way that those two points could absorb torquing forces created by choppy water or crosswind landings. The attach points would need to be many feet apart.
And the main problem still remains: The King Air is a low wing airplane. It's the wrong platform to choose for this project. It just sounds to me like whoever thought up the idea of selling this system to Hawker/Beechcraft really didn't think it through. In fact, it sounds to me like this is the extent of the thought that went into it: Hmmm, there are more King Airs out there than any other turboprop, so let's tell 'em we're putting the system on King Airs!
Now if they said they were going to develop a system for the Twin Otter or Caravan (both are in current production) then that would be believable.
I don't think it's wise to be in FAZ or FAS based upon a scenario as to where the economy as whole is or isn't going.
The current market is headline driven, but in the long haul fundamentals always win, and right now, the fundamentals are fabulous for the financials.
FAZ and FAS are set up to reflect 3X daily movements. Over the long haul, both must lose value. It's just the way they are constructed: http://www.direxionshares.com/pdfs/DS_Paper_011210.pdf
I'm in FAS now, but I won't be at the close.
I guess Bernanke is going before Congress this morning. Probably a good day to stay on the side. Things will just be too unpredictable.
I'm either all FAS, or all FAZ. You're right about one thing though, it's been my experience that you're better off being patient with a losing position here. You almost always get it back. When you are up you've got to get out, I never hold it overnight when I'm up.
There is no reward in holding these long. Time decay makes both FAS amd FAZ ultimate losers, and time decay works faster during periods of higher volatility.
I'm leaning FAS today. But I don't know yet.
That's why a Caravan, Twin Otter, or even a Dornier make sense.
If you attach floats where the Kig Air gear is, they will interfere with the propellor arc.
I'm just skeptical about a low wing aircraft like the King Air.
I'll get back to you.
I can surf the web from right here in my cabana.
No, this one is gonna take a trip to the airport and consultation with some friends I know. So bear with me.
And if the results are favorable to being able to float a King Air, I'll let you know that too.
I'm just trying to value this stock. I admit to a cynical viewpoint, because that's exactly what it takes to make money playing pinks.
"the engineers at king air"
LOL, yeah right. It does look like you all need some help with this. Glad to provide. Give me some time though, I need a little more info before I can make the calculations.
No, it's a low wing design. No fuselage hard points. MTOGW is 12,500 lbs.
In other words, those floats would have to be huge to displace 12,500 lbs, and where will you mount them?
I'll see what I can work up. Just at a glance this doesn't seem practical. Give me a little time, and I'll get back to the board.
It just seems to me, that the way the King Air is built, this would not be practicable.
I'll check it out and let the board here know.
Now, these guys are saying that they are going to put this Tigerfish float system on a King Air? Is that what I am to understand?
That's real good advice. Selling is more important than buying.
It's important to have good sell discipline. If you're up... GET OUT!
Get up early, look at Asia, Europe, listen to Bloomberg and CNBC, and then buy the one that drops early in the morning, especially when the drop is contrary to what you expect...
I usually place my orders about an hour or two into the day. You just have to sort of get a feel for where the market is going. I can't really explain it. And certainly there are days when you just have to leave it alone.
Right now the volatility index is high, so these can be dangerous.
I'm not a FAS or FAZ guy, I am an equal opportunity (hopefully) money maker. Whichever one wants to give me money, no problem... Glad to have it.
FAZ and FAS both are for quick in and out positions.
That is how I treat them: get in, get out.
Don't know.
A more interesting question is why did the Foundation feel the need to seperate from Mineseeker Overseas Operation, Ltd?
I don't know. But I need that info before I can feel confident about a valuation of this stock.
Yes, I do know a little about performance based contracts. I read AW&ST from cover to cover every week.
I'm just pointing out that the article says that the technology is being supplied under license from the US Military, and not from Mineseeker Overseas Operation, Ltd.
QASP was touting the value of Mineseeker based on their "unique ground penetrating radar system": http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=46494417
I think it is important to seperate the Foundation's work from Mineseeker Overseas Operation, Ltd. (the QASP "aquisition target"), when trying to value this stock. And, at least according to that article, the foundation, which is Mineseeker Ltd's only potential customer, is no longer using Mineseeker Ltd's technology.
I can't disagree.
I'm thinking of putting in an OTA order to buy at .005 and sell at .010. It's the lower portion of the recent trading range. That's based strictly on the evolution of this as a typical penny play.
As they like to say here: Patience will pay!
"Quasar has invested in Mineseeker Operations, the for-profit company which develops and licenses the technology."
And from what I get out of the article, that's not the technology the foundation is using.
I wish the foundation great success. But if profits are generated somehow, U.N. grants or whatever, they need to dedicate it to maintaining the humanitarian operations.
It's immoral to think that money should flow to penny stock speculators to get rich with. If such moneys were diverted from U.N. grants, then that would be an international scandal.
I was waiting for someone to point that out.
The article says that the foundation is using technology supplied under license from the U.S. military.
Not from Mineseeker Overseas Operation, Ltd
Interesting article on the Mineseeker project. I applaud Mr. Bradley et al. for the humanitarian effort.
But as a stock investor one must question the wisdom of "buying" a not for profit foundation, which seems dependent on donations for continuing operations. Or is it a company which supplies tachnology for one single customer which is a not for profit foundation? They present a kind of blurry picture as to what is going on.
Looks like the government is going to step up the war on Goldman's and the rest of the financials.
Looks like FAZ is the play today.
Nah. I've tried to contribute some very detailed D.D. to this board over the last six days. It's been pretty much rejected.
QASP is in the early part of the life cycle of a typical pink sheet stock. It still has some bounces left in it (I hope anyway) on the way to .0001. The real danger is to be in it when some kind of re-structuring hits, and since it's about to max out the A/S, that may be sooner rather than later.
Sorry, gotta play it like I see it.
I'm not sure what you mean. You get in and the stock goes up, you get out. If it goes down flippers get burned, or just need to be patient... just like long positions.
It's been pulled down. My bookmarked links lead to: "This video has been removed by the user."
I'm not sure what that means. If anyone has a fresh link it would be appreciated.
I think he has a good idea.
I'm thinking of putting in an OTA order to buy at .005 and sell at .010, I've watched this for a couple months, and I think that trade has a good chance of filling both sides.
We have a participant who got his multi-engine rating there: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=50853595
OK, I'm throwing the whole story out the window for a while. This thing is still at an early point in the micro-cap life cycle. It's just going to be a series of lower lows, and lower highs as it adds zeros to the right side of the decimal point.
Perhaps a buy in at .008 or so, anticipating a sell at .012? Keeping both buy and sell points within the recent trading range.
So far as shrillness factor goes, wow, that's a tough one. It seems to maintain one level here --- maximum output.
JAN $10 calls are only $6 with GE at $15.71. Even with semi, sort of high volatility right now, I'm not sure how that play can lose.
All that needs is for GE to trade above $16 somtime between now and Jan. 22nd.
Looks mighty tempting to me.
Only two words in that post matter: "secured debt".
Equity is subordinate to debt.
The warrants are worthless.
You cannot be a successful investor without being a cynic.
And there is no law against diluting your shareholders into oblivion. At 6:00 minutes into the video that I can't find anymore, Mr. Newby accurately predicts the fate of the common shareholders in this company.
Blind Faith + Investing = Broke
Cynicism + Investing = Maybe you'll make money.
OK, I'm sorry, maybe I was too hasty.
My bookmarks to those CCs only return this message: This video has been removed by the user.
Help me out with some fresh links. TIA!
And in any case, the introduction of V.C. is by it's very nature dilutive to common share value. The liens on all the assets that this company has, and all the assets it proposes to acquire and use to collateralize debt will be senior to equity.
This kind of financing in not good news for shareholders.
No, listen again. Oh wait, you can't. They've pulled all that stuff down off the internet.
Oh well, I seem to recall that they said "funding upon closing". That may not be completely accurate, but it's the impression I came away with. So... It hasn't happened yet. Close, but it still hasn't happened yet.
Spelled "Tranche". It splits an investment apart according to differing degrees of risk. In this case, Mr. Newby wiil split the assets backing the loans into subsets, each representing the degree of riskiness.
Each tranche will be backed with assets of a differing caliber, or degree of riskiness. If after the first tranche is granted, they can't find another set of assets of the same quality, the second tranche can be denied, or be granted under differing terms, shorter time to re-pay, higher interest, whatever.
There are no hard and fast rules. In the case as outlined in the last CC, shareholders are clueless as to the exact structure of this particular loan. I don't think the principals even know at this point. It's kind of like Mr. Newby is baiting the hook, and now it's a matter of seeing if investors will bite.
Well, you have to put the flight school into the picture as it is one of only two entities in this 'conglomerate' that actually seems to be engaged in the business of income generation.
The other one is "Corporate Air Repair" also based at Herlong. But now of course since we have opened that can of worms one must ask: Why is it that Corporate Air Repair does not appear on this list?
http://av-info.faa.gov/RepairStation.asp
You will have to enter Jacksonville, Florida in the search feilds. It is not necesary to enter rating types.
Not that independent A&P's can't work out of a hangar... They certainly can, and sign off work under their own personal license (FAR Part 65.) But Corporate Air Repair seems to present itself as a company engaged in the business of being a repair station.
I've proven it to my own satisfaction. They train pilots under Part 61, they do not have a certified flight school. In their promotional material they claim they do.
It's a discrepancy between what the company says it is, and what the company actually is.
They don't HAVE a certificate to fax! It did take a few days to get to the bottom of it didn't it?
It's valuable info to me because it helps me to determine if this company's business is what they say it is. It helps me place a vlauation on this stock. It's tough that it has to hurt my own estimation of it's valuation, but that's the way it is.
If we could have verified the existence of certification, then that would have had a positive effect of my estimation of the valuation.