On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 10:39:48 -0600, Mike Rhodes
wrote:

(To Margy)

Apologies

But with regard to the rest of the group I think a misunderstanding
remains. (And this should put us at odds again.)
If I see an obvious gap and point at it, and say, "Hey, that's
missing!" then you can be sure I will not accept a dissing "No, you
look over there!", while ignoring my direct question, which is valid.
What you will do is say, "Yep, its missing. Now, this is why..." or
"Yes, this is why we think why." or "You know, we just don't know
why."
If I see something unusual, and am dissed for it for royalty's
reputation, then what I will really want to do is truck over to Kitty
Hawk, find a witness, and then spit on 'hallowed' grounds.
I have no intention of being put down by pilots just because they
are pilots. You may think you rule the skies, but that's only until
you don't survive the next landing. Given the amount of work required
one might wonder who is a slave to whom. You fly for yourself, for
the feeling of self-accomplishment. Good! You also fly for others,
to insure there is a system available that makes it possible for all.
Fine. One thing flying is not is a singular achievement. So pilots
care about other pilots, even unto their manhood. That's natural, I
suppose. But it's also common elsewhere, and therefore ignorable by
those who do other things. Suit yourself. I will, just haven't quite
made it there yet.
I tried to approach the Wright's design question in this group, and
felt I recieved a _deceptive_ response. But now I think they just
didn't know what to say. Apparently that's because no one wants (or
has the guts) to say the Wright's made a rather glaring error.
This question has troubled me for a while. What I've read hinted
there might be a stability problem with their flyer (of course), but
this by stating someone else's design "was stable", without directly
answering any questions that would bring. This is not a difficult
subject! So what do those who should be in the know say, when pushed?
After I queried, and recieved a canard non-answer; then, for just a
moment, I thought men had sent a woman to do a man's job; which was to
defend the "party line." To protect the Wright's reptutation, if
nothing else. (Surely not the canard. Almost no one actually uses
the thing, with the propeller being in the wrong place. Hell, they
won't even use it on fancy jets. Mach drag? Stick pushers.) Anyway,
I feel deserving of the apology, not the other way around. But I also
think many who are in the know don't really know quite what to say.
Please think about it.
I'm beginning to think the Wright's refused the rear stabilizer so
they wouldn't be copying somebody else. It would be their own unique
design, so it would be their 'protected' manhood. What it is is a
silly gap in an otherwise really nice accomplishment.

Mike