"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in message
oups.com...

The difference I see between sci.physics and rec.aviation.piloting is
that, if someone attempts to re-examine long-standing accepted
theories, there is genuine debate, at least a lot more than ad hominem
attacks.

Guys like Kelly Johnson didn't design the P-38, U-2 and the SR-71 Blackbird
by not understanding aerospace physics. Basically, you came into r.a.p.
popping off like a sophomoric twit, and got called on it by everybody who
bothered to respond.

When I look out the window at 5,000 feet and see my wings continue to work
as described in the manual and the textbooks, just like they do in every
airplane I've flown, I'm dramatically more inclined to believe the physics
of the engineers who actually proved their worth by designed airplanes than
some usenet-know-it-all.

Perhaps I should have posed the question here first, then taken a summary
back to rec.aviation.piloting.

Perhaps before you come out here blathering about possible errors you see in
your flight computer, you should at least know what it's called. It's an
E6B, not an EB-6. (Been that way since before World War II.) Why invest
effort in a "genuine debate" with somebody who can't even correctly identify
his own tool? Even most student pilots learning in, as you called it,
"monkey mode", know that one.

"My question is: How many graduated students, in your opinion, have true
understanding of what is going on and how many have learned by
iliarity?" -you

-c
r.a.p.