On Jan 26, 11:50 pm, Nomen Nescio wrote:

From:

Like I said earlier, CG is probably good enough for our puddle-
jumper purposes, but I think the guys who study advanced aerodynamics
would have something to add to it. I don't think it's really all that
simple.

Yea, it's REALLY all that simple!

There's a flaw in your seesaw example that makes it distinctly different
from an aircraft. Figure out the flaw, and reality will fall right into place.

You're no help at all. Maybe you could point out the flaw: I
would be pleased to know what it is so I can retract my analogy if it
IS wrong.

Dan