Tina wrote in news:3cae129f-1ac7-4a13-b1cf-
:

Your making it sound more complicated and you are, I am afraid, wrong.

Did someone steal Berite's id? Are you Mx hiding in Bertie garb?

Of course the cg remains the cg, it's a convenient way of describing
the mass as a point, not unlike assuming a spherical cow or MX, for
example. But airplanes are extended bodies. Point masses are ok for
translattional movements, but one needs to be careful about making
assumptions as to what happens to them if forces operate off center.

I continue to assert it's a matter of defining 'rotation' rather than
cg, and you choose to define it with what could be called from a
physics point of view an interesting frame of reference. That's fine,
in pilot to pilot speak, but not so fine if you actually want to crank
some numbers (but it is pretty good for cranking someone's tail!).


And where did you get the idea that I disagreed with that?

Now here's the other thing, and it will shock you. You are arguing
with a woman, and you can have the last words, even if they are not
(as I am sure you have been trained to say) "Yes, dear."


OK, we're throught the looking glass now.


And even there the airplane still rotates arounf it's CG.


Bertie