The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.

"Douglas Eagleson" wrote:

this link might work, it is an old nasa revioew of the canard issue.

http:ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870013196_1987013196.pdf

[URL corrected]


If you cannot tumble your aircraft you are dead.
.. . .

So larger tumbles means better fighters.
.. . .

Because USA fighters are tumble free, they loose.


?!? Absolute nonsense!

NOTHING in that article supports ANYTHING you say!


Somebody in this review article cites the Wright Brothers. It is disgusting.

?!? They built a canard airplane. It flew. What is "disgusting" about that?

On May 13, 4:49*pm, "JR Weiss"
wrote:
"Douglas Eagleson" wrote:
this link might work, it is an old nasa revioew of the canard issue.
http:ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870013196_1987013196.p*df

[URL corrected]

If you cannot tumble your aircraft you are dead.

. . .

So larger tumbles means better fighters.

. . .

Because USA fighters are tumble free, they loose.

?!? *Absolute nonsense!

NOTHING in that article supports ANYTHING you say!

Somebody in this review article cites the Wright Brothers. It is disgusting.

?!? *They built a canard airplane. *It flew. *What is "disgusting" about that?

The article was a review article that supports a contention. The US
policy is to not use canards. This was one of my contentions in one
reply in this thread.

It is disgusting because the refer to the Wright Flyer as analysis of
behavior of all canards.

And in the article a particular shortfall of the canard was it ability
to tumble. And tumble as a benefit was ignored. A canard can overcome
this shortfall by a properly sized rudder and vertcial stabilizer. And
perform one of the manuvers I suggest without failing. A 45 degree
banked Condor maneuver.

In article
,
Douglas Eagleson wrote:


It is disgusting because the refer to the Wright Flyer as analysis of
behavior of all canards.

I was wondering where all my stupid pills went.

Hi herb.

On May 14, 12:06 am, Herbert Viola wrote:
In article
,
Douglas Eagleson wrote:

It is disgusting because the refer to the Wright Flyer as analysis of
behavior of all canards.

I was wondering where all my stupid pills went.

I agree. The canard is vastly superior and yes the US
aerodynamic intel is retarded.
For example, using negative lift on the tail is less
effective than using positive canard lift, but the dumb
yanks won't learn that until they get a good thrashing!
The F-22 is vulnerable, I could design a machine that
would blow that machine out the sky PRONTO.
Ken

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

Hi herb.

On May 14, 12:06 am, Herbert Viola wrote:
In article
,
Douglas Eagleson wrote:

It is disgusting because the refer to the Wright Flyer as analysis of
behavior of all canards.

I was wondering where all my stupid pills went.

I agree. The canard is vastly superior and yes the US
aerodynamic intel is retarded.
For example, using negative lift on the tail is less
effective than using positive canard lift, but the dumb
yanks won't learn that until they get a good thrashing!
The F-22 is vulnerable, I could design a machine that
would blow that machine out the sky PRONTO.

Oh so could Eagleson - except his machine wouldn't blow - it would
suck.

Eugene L Griessel

Lysdexia: a peech imspediment we live to learn with...

- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -

On Wed, 14 May 2008 10:05:45 GMT, (Eugene
Griessel) wrote:

I agree. The canard is vastly superior and yes the US
aerodynamic intel is retarded.
For example, using negative lift on the tail is less
effective than using positive canard lift, but the dumb
yanks won't learn that until they get a good thrashing!
The F-22 is vulnerable, I could design a machine that
would blow that machine out the sky PRONTO.

Oh so could Eagleson - except his machine wouldn't blow - it would
suck.

It would be amusing to talk about canards on a Sopwith Camel and see
how the bot would respond...

On May 14, 2:05*am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Hi herb.

On May 14, 12:06 am, Herbert Viola wrote:

In article
,
*Douglas Eagleson wrote:

It is disgusting because the refer to the Wright Flyer as analysis of
behavior of all canards.

I was wondering where all my stupid pills went.

I agree. The canard is vastly superior and yes the US
aerodynamic intel is retarded.
For example, using negative lift on the tail is less
effective than using positive canard lift, but the dumb
yanks won't learn that until they get a good thrashing!
The F-22 is vulnerable, I could design a machine that
would blow that machine out the sky *PRONTO.
Ken

Simple slang to confuse was the issue.

I use slang to demand a correct behavior in true thought.

I can read predicate. And to disagree was all the predicate says. So
Tucker writes in slang "two form" to simply evade the issue I proposed
once more.

A slight of hand only. Everybody just wants to evade the point and
flame. A poor behavior.

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Hi herb.

On May 14, 12:06 am, Herbert Viola wrote:
In article
,
Douglas Eagleson wrote:

It is disgusting because the refer to the Wright Flyer as analysis of
behavior of all canards.
I was wondering where all my stupid pills went.

I agree. The canard is vastly superior and yes the US
aerodynamic intel is retarded.
For example, using negative lift on the tail is less
effective than using positive canard lift, but the dumb
yanks won't learn that until they get a good thrashing!
The F-22 is vulnerable, I could design a machine that
would blow that machine out the sky PRONTO.
Ken

Wasn't Pronto the Lone Stranger's sidekick?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On May 14, 8:03 am, Dan wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Hi herb.

On May 14, 12:06 am, Herbert Viola wrote:
In article
,
Douglas Eagleson wrote:

It is disgusting because the refer to the Wright Flyer as analysis of
behavior of all canards.
I was wondering where all my stupid pills went.

I agree. The canard is vastly superior and yes the US
aerodynamic intel is retarded.
For example, using negative lift on the tail is less
effective than using positive canard lift, but the dumb
yanks won't learn that until they get a good thrashing!
The F-22 is vulnerable, I could design a machine that
would blow that machine out the sky PRONTO.
Ken

Wasn't Pronto the Lone Stranger's sidekick?

Wasn't that Toronto? They named a town in canada
after him.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Ken

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On May 14, 8:03 am, Dan wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Hi herb.
On May 14, 12:06 am, Herbert Viola wrote:
In article
,
Douglas Eagleson wrote:
It is disgusting because the refer to the Wright Flyer as analysis of
behavior of all canards.
I was wondering where all my stupid pills went.
I agree. The canard is vastly superior and yes the US
aerodynamic intel is retarded.
For example, using negative lift on the tail is less
effective than using positive canard lift, but the dumb
yanks won't learn that until they get a good thrashing!
The F-22 is vulnerable, I could design a machine that
would blow that machine out the sky PRONTO.
Ken
Wasn't Pronto the Lone Stranger's sidekick?

Wasn't that Toronto? They named a town in canada
after him.


I guess Pronto was the Loan Arranger's sidekick then.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired