visualisation of the lift distribution over a wing

Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
Beryl wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:

And your comparing an Airframe & Power instructor to a Ph.D. in
Aeronautics...

LOL
I didn't compare him to anyone.

Yes, you did. You suggest that since an A&P instructor could

Would.

have some misconceptions about physics that a Ph.D. in Aeronautics would as well.

Could as well.

You made "could" and "would" switch positions. Not by accident. You're
simply dishonest.

In article ,
Beryl wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
Beryl wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:

And your comparing an Airframe & Power instructor to a Ph.D. in
Aeronautics...

LOL
I didn't compare him to anyone.

Yes, you did. You suggest that since an A&P instructor could

Would.

have some misconceptions about physics that a Ph.D. in Aeronautics would as
well.

Could as well.

You made "could" and "would" switch positions. Not by accident. You're
simply dishonest.

LOL

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg

Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
Beryl wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
Beryl wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:

And your comparing an Airframe & Power instructor to a Ph.D. in
Aeronautics...

LOL
I didn't compare him to anyone.
Yes, you did. You suggest that since an A&P instructor could
Would.

have some misconceptions about physics that a Ph.D. in Aeronautics would as
well.
Could as well.

You made "could" and "would" switch positions. Not by accident. You're
simply dishonest.

LOL

Step-by-step now, just for Alan.

A = An A&P guy is a dummy
B = A PhD guy could be a dummy as well


A and B
That's it, my statement.


if A then B
A, therefore B
That's your understanding of it.

Beryl wrote:
Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
Beryl wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
Beryl wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:

And your comparing an Airframe & Power instructor to a
Ph.D. in Aeronautics...

LOL
I didn't compare him to anyone.
Yes, you did. You suggest that since an A&P instructor could
Would.

have some misconceptions about physics that a Ph.D. in
Aeronautics would as well.
Could as well.

You made "could" and "would" switch positions. Not by accident.
You're simply dishonest.

LOL

Step-by-step now, just for Alan.

No, it's worse than I thought.


A = An A&P guy is a dummy
B = A PhD guy could be a dummy as well
C = An A&P guy could be a dummy
D = A PhD guy is a dummy

A and B That's it, my statement.


if C then D
C therefore D
That's your understanding of it.

In article ,
Beryl wrote:

Beryl wrote:
Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
Beryl wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
Beryl wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:

And your comparing an Airframe & Power instructor to a
Ph.D. in Aeronautics...

LOL
I didn't compare him to anyone.
Yes, you did. You suggest that since an A&P instructor could
Would.

have some misconceptions about physics that a Ph.D. in
Aeronautics would as well.
Could as well.

You made "could" and "would" switch positions. Not by accident.
You're simply dishonest.

LOL

Step-by-step now, just for Alan.

No, it's worse than I thought.


A = An A&P guy is a dummy
B = A PhD guy could be a dummy as well
C = An A&P guy could be a dummy
D = A PhD guy is a dummy

A and B That's it, my statement.


if C then D
C therefore D
That's your understanding of it.

LOL

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg

In article ,
Beryl wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
Beryl wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
Beryl wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:

And your comparing an Airframe & Power instructor to a Ph.D. in
Aeronautics...

LOL
I didn't compare him to anyone.
Yes, you did. You suggest that since an A&P instructor could
Would.

have some misconceptions about physics that a Ph.D. in Aeronautics would
as
well.
Could as well.

You made "could" and "would" switch positions. Not by accident. You're
simply dishonest.

LOL

Step-by-step now, just for Alan.

A = An A&P guy is a dummy

An A&P is uninformed in an area outside is area of training and
expertise.

B = A PhD guy could be a dummy as well

But you think that a Ph.D. in aeronautics doesn't understand...

....aeronautics.



A and B
That's it, my statement.


if A then B
A, therefore B
That's your understanding of it.

Nope.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg

Alan Baker wrote:

An A&P is uninformed in an area outside is area of training and
expertise.

The examples (other than chloroform in grass) were well inside his area
of training. He holds an A&P Certificate. It's FAA test material. The
stuff he goofs up on is the stuff that he's teaching A&P students. You
want your airplane repaired by someone who narrowly squeaked by his
exams with a 70% score?

And the Navy didn't do any better with him.

So, just like A&P Master Instructors, and their students, and their
students on down the line, the Ph.D.s among us may be every bit as good
as those they learned from.

In article ,
Beryl wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:

An A&P is uninformed in an area outside is area of training and
expertise.

The examples (other than chloroform in grass) were well inside his area
of training. He holds an A&P Certificate. It's FAA test material. The
stuff he goofs up on is the stuff that he's teaching A&P students. You
want your airplane repaired by someone who narrowly squeaked by his
exams with a 70% score?

You really are a ninny aren't you? Learning about chloroform as it
pertains to aircraft doesn't teach you a thing about plants and what
they actually contain.


And the Navy didn't do any better with him.

So, just like A&P Master Instructors, and their students, and their
students on down the line, the Ph.D.s among us may be every bit as good
as those they learned from.

This is about you suggesting that because you once knew an A&P
instructor who spouted off a lot of foolishness outside his areas of
training and expertise, that therefore a Ph.D. in aeronautics won't
(alright "might not") understand aeronautics.

And it's laughable.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg

Alan Baker wrote:
In article , Beryl
wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:

An A&P is uninformed in an area outside is area of training and
expertise.
The examples (other than chloroform in grass) were well inside
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

Dip**** focuses on chloroform:

You really are a ninny aren't you? Learning about chloroform as it
pertains to aircraft

Alan Baker wrote:

An A&P is uninformed in an area outside is area of training and
expertise.

That's a remarkably ignorant statement Alan; you can't possibly know
what areas of information any given individual might or might not have
studied and mastered in addition to earning an A&P rating.

Backpedalling and trying to save yourself by holding up "...is area of
training and expertise...", by the way, won't help you here. You're the
one who circumscribed your argument by limiting it to holders of an A&P
rating, and by implication that they understand nothing outside that
area.

You're not dealing here with sociopath trolls infesting a computer
advocacy newsgroup, you can't slide by with the same sort of
intellectually limp and limited argumentation.