[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

"Maxwell" #$$9#@%%%.^^^ wrote in
:


"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
news:bab4ac56-0218-4a5f-8814-11d455fd66b1
@g17g2000prg.googlegroups.com.
.. On Nov 16, 6:54 am, More_Flaps wrote:
On Nov 16, 2:08 pm, Bear Bottoms wrote:



On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:34:08 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
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?
--
Bear Bottoms
website:http://bearware.com

If you are asking me if the angles of incidence between the tail
and wing combination and canard and wing combination on the Cozy
are different on each type I'll refer you to Nat Puffer.

I'm asking whether or not you understand the rules of decalage as
they apply to a pusher. Do they operate on the same principles of
decalage as they do in a Cessna? Or not?

Is the question about aerodynamic or geoemetric decalage?

LOL

Cheers

Believe it or not it's a viable question as he asked it. I just don't
like the way it was asked :-))
Dudley

--------------------------------

You don't like the way anyone does anything, unless they kiss your ass
first.


You can kiss mine, i'm out of TP and i don't want to ruin my new tighty
whiteys



Bertie

I've flown a pusher. Have you? Don't sound like in ur crazy posts.

Big John (now the lurker due to the nuts on RAP)
************************************************** *****************

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 14:54:33 -0500, Ari
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 01:06:47 -0500, Dudley Henriques wrote:

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 20:02:22 -0800 (PST), george wrote:

On Nov 16, 2:08*pm, Bear Bottoms wrote:

Bear Bottoms
website:http://bearware.com

I'd suggest if you really want to be taken seriously you'd not have a
broken webpage

Pay no attention, george, I will smite this reptile once and for all!

Ever flown a pusher, a Velocity in particular, henriques? No? Then STFU.

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:28:13 -0600, Tech Support wrote:

I've flown a pusher. Have you? Don't sound like in ur crazy posts.

Big John (now the lurker due to the nuts on RAP)
************************************************** *****************

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 14:54:33 -0500, Ari
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 01:06:47 -0500, Dudley Henriques wrote:

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 20:02:22 -0800 (PST), george wrote:

On Nov 16, 2:08*pm, Bear Bottoms wrote:

Bear Bottoms
website:http://bearware.com

I'd suggest if you really want to be taken seriously you'd not have a
broken webpage

Pay no attention, george, I will smite this reptile once and for all!

Ever flown a pusher, a Velocity in particular, henriques? No? Then STFU.

Own one.
--
Meet Ari!
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Dudley Henriques writes:

I'm curious about something. Do idiots like you actually believe that
people who ignore these Usenet "challenges" people like you put out
here supposedly to embarrass them are proving to the world that they
don't know the answers to your questions?
Seriously.......I've always wondered how your minds work? You
actually believe that if you throw out some "gauntlet" and it's
refused, that this constitutes irrefutable proof on two levels...the
first being that YOU know the answer, and secondly that the person
refusing to answer the question does NOT?

It happens to me regularly. People assume that if you don't answer,
you don't have the answer. Keep that in mind the next time someone
asks me a question.



'kay.

What happened to you to make you such a fjukkwit?


Bertie