"Douglas Eagleson" wrote...

If you can go to the edge of the envelope and stall safely you can beat
nonstallable aircraft. It is an exact stall issue, not flight, but stall.

NO!!! That is still utter nonsense!

I did generalize about canards. It is allowed because they have a
characteristic of their centers of gravity.

The NO!! does not make sense to me. WHy does a person fly at the edge of the
envelope? If you are in a bad place in the envelope you can not do anything
but loose the aircraft.

One more time... You are attempting to generalize to ALL canard airplanes a
performance parameter that is [maybe] specific to a specific design. We cannot
even assume your performance assessment is correct for any specific design,
because most of it is utter nonsense.


I point out that inverted stall is a SAFE place in a canard and NOT safe in
rear stabilizer aircraft. SO you claim my point is nonsense. Why not just say
what you only allude to, "inverted stalls in rear stabilizer fighters are
safe."

Your point is nonsense simply because it makes no sense whatsoever! You claim
that a recoverable inverted stall is a "safe place" in a dogfight, but there is
NO REASON any pilot would want to be in an inverted stall in a dogfight! That
is even beyond your [false] baseline assumption that all canard aircraft are
equal.

I do not allude to that statement about rear stabilizer fighters anywhere. The
ONLY thing I might "allude to" is that inverted stalls in SOME fighters may be
recoverable. Again, it is a SPECIFIC DESIGN performance factor!