"Lars Møllebjerg" wrote in message
...
But please notice that I never EVER said that I was saying how to climb
the
fastest [...] Basically your long statement of how wrong I was is based
on trying to acheive the most efficiant climb - which I never stated it
was.

No. You said that to climb, one needed to fly at the maximum speed for the
given altitude. This is simply wrong. The maximum speed for any given
altitude will NOT produce a climb.

Just like you trid to make it look like I thought a flight model can be
judged from one single messurement. Obviously I never stated that, and
obviously I never meant it, so why comment on it as if I made a mistake?

I didn't "try to make it look like" anything. You said "this is the
configuration where you should compare it to the real world aircraft to see
how well the model is done". In my reply, I even refrained from saying that
you were flat out wrong. I simply agreed that the "data point" you
described was useful, but pointed out it was not sufficient.

If anything, I gave way more benefit of the doubt than your post deserved.

I can see you might interprete my "maximum lift" statement as "maximum
climb" - it is not how I read it, but I agree - it is a bit "on the edge",
I
will give you that.

The point is that the phrase "maximum lift" is meaningless. You get the
same amount of lift at any airspeed for normal, unaccelerated flight.

If you take this into account, along with the fact that I was trying to
explain a simple way of reaching max speed, I still claim my original
information is good enough to reach the ceiling - and that was what this
question was about, the rest you made up.

"The rest you made up"? Funny. Bottom line: your advice, to fly at maximum
speed, won't allow the airplane to climb at all, never mind reach the
airplane's ceiling.

I understand your desire to save face, but revisionist history just doesn't
cut it on Usenet. Anyone can go back to your previous post to see what you
really said.

Pete