<To say that the prior invention (art) was used in a motorcycle for a different purpose and I'm using it in a jet airplane for a completely different purpose does not defeat obviousness. >

This is exactly the argument the examiner wants. Because the pieces of your invention can be found in the mororcycle, it obviously can be used in a jet airplane. But just don't ask me to fly on it, because I realize it won't work. But it is up to you, the patent owner, to prove to me that it won't. Don't you see the trap in trying to argue the way the examiner wants? Anyhow, I'm done with this subject. Opty