Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
oups.com:

On Oct 15, 6:42 pm, "Gatt" wrote:
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in
oglegroups.com...

I read last night in another piloting book, again, that the common
belief about the dynamics of airfoils is wrong,

Yeah? Which one?

I'd have to go back to bookstore to find the name.

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.

Who said your textbooks are right?

No kidding. I mean, HOW DO I KNOW THE AIRPLANE I'M FLYING ACTUALLY
FLIES?!

Seeing is believing.

How do you determine that your textbook is right and the others are
wrong?

Why do you repeatedly snip the bits about Kelly Johnson, the SR-71,
etc?

The snipping was not intended. In any case, are you sayin that Kelly
Johnson is the final authority on the dynamics of flight? Are you
saying that the design of the SR-71 would not have been possible if
the dynamics of flight were not resolved? If there is resolution, why
so much disagreement among experts?

No there isn't

At the very least, the textbooks
are wrong.



No they aren;t

You gotta go deeper than the "little golden book of airplanes" to get a
grip on aeodynamics, fjukwit.





Bertie
E6B, EB-6...this has little to do with my original question.

It shows your lack of understanding of the subject matter and your
lack of attention to detail. As I told you before, physics is an
exact science. If you're unable to properly name the hammer, you're
not going to convince anybody you're a useful carpenter.

So basically you are saying that people who make typographical errors
demonstrate their lack of understanding.

What is it that you do not understand by writing "iliarity" in the
post you wrote today?

-Le Chaud Lapin-