The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.

"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...