[Fwd: What happened to Jay?]

Bear Bottoms wrote in
:

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:26:03 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:

On Nov 15, 4:11*pm, "Maxwell" #$$9#@%%%.^^^ wrote:
"Bear Bottoms" wrote in message

...
| On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:30:41 -0600, Maxwell wrote:
|
| "Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
| news:e67e5203-6b4b-4994-a821-

| om...
| On Nov 15, 2:12 pm, "Maxwell" #$$9#@%%%.^^^ wrote:
| "Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
|
| news:54c910f1-83f9-4cfc-ac0f-fbbffcb04286
@a26g2000prf.googlegroups
| .com...
|
| I agree. Jay is guilty of nothing more than loving aviation and
| taking huge pride in both his business and his family.
| He posted aggressively on these subjects and attracted a cadre
| of dissenters. It happens on Usenet as both you and I are well
| aware. Jay took much pleasure in inviting people from this forum
| who he thought were friends rather than adversaries to his hotel
| for a party each year before Oshkosh. It was an annual event and
| he and Mary expended much effort in making it fun for everyone
| who attended. I have never seen Jay's posting about his hotel,
| or his discussing his web site as his spamming of the forum.
| I see his decision to leave here as unfortunate both for him AND
| for the forum; for Jay, as he left a group he genuinely liked,
| and for the forum, because what happened here should never have
| happened. Once it started, it became a self fulfilling on going
| action and reaction that was destined to end badly, which is
| exactly how it ended. Dudley Henriques
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| ----
|
| There is nothing self fulfilling about some ******* child like
| your
friend
| Buttlipps, hounding someone's every post until they leave. It's
| just a
2
| year old's method of moderating the group.
|
| As you seem prone to misjudge most everything else, you have
| seriously misjudged my so called "relationship" with Bertie the
| Bunyip. Sorry to disappoint you, but Berttie and I are a
| completely "neutral" relationship on this forum. If you have some
| reference you can post to disavow this comment, please feel free
| to post it below. You're "problem" lies elsewhere my friend, but
| that isn't what it's all about anyway is it now? :-))
| DH
|
| -------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Bull**** again. You relationship with Buttlipps is well
| documented for anyone that has followed this forum, or wants to
| do a search.
|
| I have no relationship with Dudley. My name is not Buttlips, it is
| Bear Bottoms.
|
| Period.
| --

I wasn't talking about you, and unless you are a wolf in sheep's
clothing, I know nothing about you.

Almost too much to "Bear" isn't it Maxie? :-)))

LOL! The Great Warrior Dudley Dewright Henriques, now talking troll.
Query this.

A canard wing and a main wing (on a Cozy IV) reverse the rules of
decolage (compared to a Cessna 150x). Yes?


There are no rules of decalage. the designer arranges it to suit the
application. On most 'conventional' aircraft, the incidence of the stab
is lower than that of the wing, and I'm presuing this is what you are
talking about, but that is not always the case. It depends on the
aircraft and the aerodynamic center.
There are airplanes with a negative wing incindence and a postive stab
incidence. Technically they're tandem wing airplanes, but they look
farily conventional in most respects. The CG would be well aft on the
wing. A lot of early Belriots have a severe aft CG, but there have been
many airplanse like this over the years. Lots of Free flight model
airplanes have a lifting stab as well. The stab is usually very large,
often 50% of the wing area or more. The idea is to make the stab do some
of the work instead of putting in the negative column .There's a
tradeoff, these airplanes would have a fairly small speed range and
wouldn't have the same maneuverability as a conventioanl airplane.


Bertie