New theory of flight released Sept 2004

[Mark Oliver]

The current theory of flight is based upon the Bernoulli's Principal, the
pressure of a fluid (liquid or gas) decreases at points where the speed of
the fluid increases. The airfoil is designed to increase the velocity of
the airflow above its surface, thereby decreasing pressure above the
airfoil. Simultaneously, the impact of the air on the lower surface of the
airfoil increases the pressure below. This combination of pressure decrease
above and increase below produces lift. Pressure is reduced due to the
smaller space the air has above the wing than below. Air cannot go through
the wing, so it must push around it. The surface air molecules push between
the wing and outer layers of air. Due to the bump of the airfoil, the space
is smaller and the molecules must go faster.

THIS HAS A MAJOR PROBLEM - specifically inverted flight. The current theory
of flight utilizing the Bernoulli's Principal is only applicable to normal
level flight. However, we know and observe that inverted flight is
possible. Thus, the Bernoulli's Principal is no longer applicable to
inverted flight, so there must be another theory that supports flight, be it
level or inverted.

The new theory of flight is based upon the new theory of Gravitational
Vector Force (released Sept 2004). Utilizing Newton's laws that equal
opposite force is generated at right angles, be it applied at once or
successively, and if the angle is oblique (slanted) a new force is
generated. Then inverted flight is possible as force is always generated at
right angles, and this is towards the ground in all cases. The net
difference between the initial velocity and resistance force generated at
the leading edge at right angles (downwards) creates a new force called
Gravitational Vector Force, and it travels in the opposite direction
(upwards) to maintain balance, impacting the bottom of the wing. The wing
becomes less efficient in inverted flight due to the design of the airfoil,
however it is still possible.

This new theory of flight also supports the following;
1) the new force manifests at a faster rate than initial velocity, hence the
wing becomes more efficient at faster speeds
2) As you extend spoilers and flaps at the leading and trailing edges, the
bottom of the wing now becomes "cupped" like a satellite dish, and able to
capture more Gravitational Vector Force, creating more lift

You may read more about this new theory at www.threexd.com

Mark Oliver

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 10:49:58 -0400, "Mark Oliver"
> wrote in
>::

>The new theory of flight is based upon the new theory of Gravitational
>Vector Force (released Sept 2004).

Was this theory formerly held captive? Who released it?

This subject has been discussed in depth in this newsgroup over the
years:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=theory%20flight&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&as_ugroup=rec.aviation.piloting&lr=&hl=en

[Dudley Henriques]

Well, you're on the right newsgroup anyway. Have fun with this one. I
think I'll just sit back and watch :-))
All the best to you,
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired

"Mark Oliver" > wrote in message
. ..
> The current theory of flight is based upon the Bernoulli's Principal,
> the
> pressure of a fluid (liquid or gas) decreases at points where the
> speed of
> the fluid increases. The airfoil is designed to increase the velocity
> of
> the airflow above its surface, thereby decreasing pressure above the
> airfoil. Simultaneously, the impact of the air on the lower surface of
> the
> airfoil increases the pressure below. This combination of pressure
> decrease
> above and increase below produces lift. Pressure is reduced due to the
> smaller space the air has above the wing than below. Air cannot go
> through
> the wing, so it must push around it. The surface air molecules push
> between
> the wing and outer layers of air. Due to the bump of the airfoil, the
> space
> is smaller and the molecules must go faster.
>
> THIS HAS A MAJOR PROBLEM - specifically inverted flight. The current
> theory
> of flight utilizing the Bernoulli's Principal is only applicable to
> normal
> level flight. However, we know and observe that inverted flight is
> possible. Thus, the Bernoulli's Principal is no longer applicable to
> inverted flight, so there must be another theory that supports flight,
> be it
> level or inverted.
>
> The new theory of flight is based upon the new theory of Gravitational
> Vector Force (released Sept 2004). Utilizing Newton's laws that equal
> opposite force is generated at right angles, be it applied at once or
> successively, and if the angle is oblique (slanted) a new force is
> generated. Then inverted flight is possible as force is always
> generated at
> right angles, and this is towards the ground in all cases. The net
> difference between the initial velocity and resistance force generated
> at
> the leading edge at right angles (downwards) creates a new force
> called
> Gravitational Vector Force, and it travels in the opposite direction
> (upwards) to maintain balance, impacting the bottom of the wing. The
> wing
> becomes less efficient in inverted flight due to the design of the
> airfoil,
> however it is still possible.
>
> This new theory of flight also supports the following;
> 1) the new force manifests at a faster rate than initial velocity,
> hence the
> wing becomes more efficient at faster speeds
> 2) As you extend spoilers and flaps at the leading and trailing edges,
> the
> bottom of the wing now becomes "cupped" like a satellite dish, and
> able to
> capture more Gravitational Vector Force, creating more lift
>
> You may read more about this new theory at www.threexd.com
>
> Mark Oliver
>

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article >,
Mark Oliver > wrote (from another space-time
continuum):
[snip intro that actually passes the smell test]
>
>THIS HAS A MAJOR PROBLEM - specifically inverted flight. The current theory
>of flight utilizing the Bernoulli's Principal is only applicable to normal
>level flight. However, we know and observe that inverted flight is
>possible. Thus, the Bernoulli's Principal is no longer applicable to
>inverted flight, so there must be another theory that supports flight, be it
>level or inverted.

That is a fascinating claim -- one that bespeaks access to the good drugs.
You should share them.

[snip exposition of material that shows Mark isn't wearing his tinfoil
beanie]

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/wwap/

[Dan Luke]

"Mark Oliver" wrote:
[snip "interesting" lift ideas]

When you get through with this one, how about explaining the effect of
downwind turns to us?
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[OtisWinslow]

Bernoulli sucks. The wing lifts because air pushes on one side
and not the other.




"Mark Oliver" > wrote in message
. ..
> The current theory of flight is based upon the Bernoulli's Principal, the
> pressure of a fluid (liquid or gas) decreases at points where the speed of
> the fluid increases. The airfoil is designed to increase the velocity of
> the airflow above its surface, thereby decreasing pressure above the
> airfoil. Simultaneously, the impact of the air on the lower surface of the
> airfoil increases the pressure below. This combination of pressure
> decrease
> above and increase below produces lift. Pressure is reduced due to the
> smaller space the air has above the wing than below. Air cannot go through
> the wing, so it must push around it. The surface air molecules push
> between
> the wing and outer layers of air. Due to the bump of the airfoil, the
> space
> is smaller and the molecules must go faster.
>
> THIS HAS A MAJOR PROBLEM - specifically inverted flight. The current
> theory
> of flight utilizing the Bernoulli's Principal is only applicable to normal
> level flight. However, we know and observe that inverted flight is
> possible. Thus, the Bernoulli's Principal is no longer applicable to
> inverted flight, so there must be another theory that supports flight, be
> it
> level or inverted.
>
> The new theory of flight is based upon the new theory of Gravitational
> Vector Force (released Sept 2004). Utilizing Newton's laws that equal
> opposite force is generated at right angles, be it applied at once or
> successively, and if the angle is oblique (slanted) a new force is
> generated. Then inverted flight is possible as force is always generated
> at
> right angles, and this is towards the ground in all cases. The net
> difference between the initial velocity and resistance force generated at
> the leading edge at right angles (downwards) creates a new force called
> Gravitational Vector Force, and it travels in the opposite direction
> (upwards) to maintain balance, impacting the bottom of the wing. The wing
> becomes less efficient in inverted flight due to the design of the
> airfoil,
> however it is still possible.
>
> This new theory of flight also supports the following;
> 1) the new force manifests at a faster rate than initial velocity, hence
> the
> wing becomes more efficient at faster speeds
> 2) As you extend spoilers and flaps at the leading and trailing edges, the
> bottom of the wing now becomes "cupped" like a satellite dish, and able to
> capture more Gravitational Vector Force, creating more lift
>
> You may read more about this new theory at www.threexd.com
>
> Mark Oliver
>

[Hartwig Flamm]

Mark Oliver wrote:

> The current theory of flight is based upon the Bernoulli's Principal, the

No it's not!
Do not stress old Bernoulli. His findings are restricted to the flowing
media only. You can use the _some_ of his laws to find the forces caused by
the air on the structure of the airplane.
In fact the "real" cause for an airplane to stay up is inertia and friction
of the air.
Please see some new publications on aerodynamics (past 1980') to get an idea
on how that works. (You might want to dust of Your knowledge about
differential equations.)

>
> THIS HAS A MAJOR PROBLEM - specifically inverted flight. The current
> theory of flight utilizing the Bernoulli's Principal is only applicable to
> normal
> level flight. However, we know and observe that inverted flight is

Once again if You want to find what the moving air is doing Bernoulli is
fine. And if You do some experimenting, like I did, You will find there is
no dependence from the direction.

>
> The new theory of flight is based upon the new theory of Gravitational
> Vector Force (released Sept 2004). Utilizing Newton's laws that equal
> opposite force is generated at right angles, be it applied at once or

What Newton was that? Can You cite any document from Mister Newton?

>
> 2) As you extend spoilers and flaps at the leading and trailing edges, the
> bottom of the wing now becomes "cupped" like a satellite dish, and able to
> capture more Gravitational Vector Force, creating more lift
>

The paragraph above says that a prop can not produce any thrust when heading
straight down? I haven't ever done that but I guess some of the Aerobatics
guys around here can prove You wrong on this point.


And one last statement: There is no "Universal Balance" anywhere (like there
is no "Earth in the Balance"). There is either Stability or Transformation.
Prove me wrong on _that_ if You can!

I keep flying with my old friend Bernoulli and his brother until then....
--

Remove the cork to Reply by e-Mail.

[NW_PILOT]

"Mark Oliver" > wrote in message
. ..
> The current theory of flight is based upon the Bernoulli's Principal, the
> pressure of a fluid (liquid or gas) decreases at points where the speed of
> the fluid increases. The airfoil is designed to increase the velocity of
> the airflow above its surface, thereby decreasing pressure above the
> airfoil. Simultaneously, the impact of the air on the lower surface of the
> airfoil increases the pressure below. This combination of pressure
decrease
> above and increase below produces lift. Pressure is reduced due to the
> smaller space the air has above the wing than below. Air cannot go through
> the wing, so it must push around it. The surface air molecules push
between
> the wing and outer layers of air. Due to the bump of the airfoil, the
space
> is smaller and the molecules must go faster.
>
> THIS HAS A MAJOR PROBLEM - specifically inverted flight. The current
theory
> of flight utilizing the Bernoulli's Principal is only applicable to normal
> level flight. However, we know and observe that inverted flight is
> possible. Thus, the Bernoulli's Principal is no longer applicable to
> inverted flight, so there must be another theory that supports flight, be
it
> level or inverted.
>
> The new theory of flight is based upon the new theory of Gravitational
> Vector Force (released Sept 2004). Utilizing Newton's laws that equal
> opposite force is generated at right angles, be it applied at once or
> successively, and if the angle is oblique (slanted) a new force is
> generated. Then inverted flight is possible as force is always generated
at
> right angles, and this is towards the ground in all cases. The net
> difference between the initial velocity and resistance force generated at
> the leading edge at right angles (downwards) creates a new force called
> Gravitational Vector Force, and it travels in the opposite direction
> (upwards) to maintain balance, impacting the bottom of the wing. The wing
> becomes less efficient in inverted flight due to the design of the
airfoil,
> however it is still possible.
>
> This new theory of flight also supports the following;
> 1) the new force manifests at a faster rate than initial velocity, hence
the
> wing becomes more efficient at faster speeds
> 2) As you extend spoilers and flaps at the leading and trailing edges, the
> bottom of the wing now becomes "cupped" like a satellite dish, and able to
> capture more Gravitational Vector Force, creating more lift
>
> You may read more about this new theory at www.threexd.com
>
> Mark Oliver
>
>

Ok what happens when you remove gravity and air? now that space flight is
within the reach of civilian man.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
>>Well, you're on the right newsgroup anyway. Have fun with this one. I
>>think I'll just sit back and watch :-))
>
> That's what I decided to do too :-)

Where do these guys COME from????? :-))))
Dudley

[Roger Long]

Here I am, popping up as usual whenever lift is mentioned. Dudley's saying
right now, "Uh, oh, here we go again."

This gravitational lift vector is one of the most misunderstood forces in
physics and misconceptions about it in media just won't die.

IT HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH GRAVITATIONAL ATTRACTION.

The forces this theory refer to are a field of time space reality distortion
that is being project "towards" us in a fourth dimensional fashion from
aliens that inhabit the parallel universe that exists slightly separated
from ours by differing alignment of the string particles that compose the
various universes inhabiting what we think of as space we are alone in.

Don't get fooled by over simplifications of the reality around you. The web
site for this theory does just as much of a dis-service to the aliens (they
aren't really aliens because they are actually right next to us and have
been her all along) as the popular lift explanations do to Bernoulli and
Newton.

--

Roger Long

[Gary G]

How about the force one one side ****ers the force (gravity) on the other.
Turning an airfoil upside down doesn't violate Bernoulli.
You just change teh angle of attack to componesate.

However, I wish it were new - wouldn't that be fun to discuss?
Imagine all of those smart wing and airfoil designers who would
feel stupid that they missed this all along!

I hear Nobel Prize! Better yet, Bluelight Special!

[Dudley Henriques]

"Roger Long" > wrote in message
...
> Here I am, popping up as usual whenever lift is mentioned. Dudley's
> saying right now, "Uh, oh, here we go again."


Actually, I'm finding this type of thing less and less worth the effort
it takes to post to it as time goes by. There might be others out here
that feel the same way as well....I don't know or even care any longer.
The Usenet experience in general has lost much of it's appeal for me ,
and the plain simple truth of it is that I just don't give much of a
damn any more. :-))
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired

[Bob Gardner]

How does this comport with the theory of lift gnomes? As everyone knows,
lift gnomes reside on the upper surface of the wing (which ever side is "up"
at the moment) and derive nourishment from exhaust gases. When throttle is
added, the gnomes get stronger and lift the airplane into the air...the
reverse is true when power is reduced. Which side of the airfoil is "up" is
immaterial.

Most maneuvers can be explained by the lift gnome theory.

Bob Gardner
"Mark Oliver" > wrote in message
. ..
> The current theory of flight is based upon the Bernoulli's Principal, the
> pressure of a fluid (liquid or gas) decreases at points where the speed of
> the fluid increases. The airfoil is designed to increase the velocity of
> the airflow above its surface, thereby decreasing pressure above the
> airfoil. Simultaneously, the impact of the air on the lower surface of the
> airfoil increases the pressure below. This combination of pressure
> decrease
> above and increase below produces lift. Pressure is reduced due to the
> smaller space the air has above the wing than below. Air cannot go through
> the wing, so it must push around it. The surface air molecules push
> between
> the wing and outer layers of air. Due to the bump of the airfoil, the
> space
> is smaller and the molecules must go faster.
>
> THIS HAS A MAJOR PROBLEM - specifically inverted flight. The current
> theory
> of flight utilizing the Bernoulli's Principal is only applicable to normal
> level flight. However, we know and observe that inverted flight is
> possible. Thus, the Bernoulli's Principal is no longer applicable to
> inverted flight, so there must be another theory that supports flight, be
> it
> level or inverted.
>
> The new theory of flight is based upon the new theory of Gravitational
> Vector Force (released Sept 2004). Utilizing Newton's laws that equal
> opposite force is generated at right angles, be it applied at once or
> successively, and if the angle is oblique (slanted) a new force is
> generated. Then inverted flight is possible as force is always generated
> at
> right angles, and this is towards the ground in all cases. The net
> difference between the initial velocity and resistance force generated at
> the leading edge at right angles (downwards) creates a new force called
> Gravitational Vector Force, and it travels in the opposite direction
> (upwards) to maintain balance, impacting the bottom of the wing. The wing
> becomes less efficient in inverted flight due to the design of the
> airfoil,
> however it is still possible.
>
> This new theory of flight also supports the following;
> 1) the new force manifests at a faster rate than initial velocity, hence
> the
> wing becomes more efficient at faster speeds
> 2) As you extend spoilers and flaps at the leading and trailing edges, the
> bottom of the wing now becomes "cupped" like a satellite dish, and able to
> capture more Gravitational Vector Force, creating more lift
>
> You may read more about this new theory at www.threexd.com
>
> Mark Oliver
>

[Andrew Gideon]

Roger Long wrote:

> The web
> site for this theory does just as much of a dis-service to the aliens
> (they aren't really aliens because they are actually right next to us and
> have been her all along) as the popular lift explanations do to Bernoulli
> and Newton.
>

Wait...are you suggesting that it's the aliens lifting our aircraft? That
would explain so much!

Why do *I* end up with the lazy alien, I'd like to know.

- Andrew

[Gene Seibel]

"Mark Oliver" > wrote in message >...
> The current theory of flight is based upon the Bernoulli's Principal, the
> pressure of a fluid (liquid or gas) decreases at points where the speed of
> the fluid increases. The airfoil is designed to increase the velocity of
> the airflow above its surface, thereby decreasing pressure above the
> airfoil. Simultaneously, the impact of the air on the lower surface of the
> airfoil increases the pressure below. This combination of pressure decrease
> above and increase below produces lift. Pressure is reduced due to the
> smaller space the air has above the wing than below. Air cannot go through
> the wing, so it must push around it. The surface air molecules push between
> the wing and outer layers of air. Due to the bump of the airfoil, the space
> is smaller and the molecules must go faster.

Hey, don't mess with the mechanics of flight. My airplane was built in
1966 and I don't want to have to buy a new one.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> How does this comport with the theory of lift gnomes? As everyone
> knows, lift gnomes reside on the upper surface of the wing (which ever
> side is "up" at the moment) and derive nourishment from exhaust gases.
> When throttle is added, the gnomes get stronger and lift the airplane
> into the air...the reverse is true when power is reduced. Which side
> of the airfoil is "up" is immaterial.
>
> Most maneuvers can be explained by the lift gnome theory.
>
> Bob Gardner

In addition...............from a fine friend of mine in engineering at
NASA
"
The Emerging Science of Lift Demons
Abstract- Advanced formal study of Lift has become respectable as its
radical
tenets undergo controlled experimental confirmation. As in other
difficult
fields, theorists rely on gut intuition, finding beauty in simplicity,
in
formulating grant proposals.



Introduction to Lift Demons
Ariel: "...I come
To answer thy best pleasure; be't to fly,
To swim, to dive into the fire, to ride
On the curled clouds, to thy strong bidding task
Ariel and all his quality." [SHKSPR]Graham E. Laucht
> posted the following helpful
overview of Lift-
[Discussion Thread] Discuss "the hump on top of the wing that produces
lift" ...
Definitely Lift Demons, they wait unseen near the downwind end of the
runway and
hop on for the ride dismounting again on landing ready for the next
plane.
That's why taking off from the other end (looking into the big end of
the
windsock) can be tricky.
It's also why air traffic control regulates arrivals and departures
especially
in areas where there is a lack of lift demons. Like at large
international
airports where the supply of them and baggage carts is limited.
They are very sensitive to poor pilotage and can easily fall off the
wing if a
pilot lifts the nose too much whilst going slowly. A slightly roughened
surfaces
helps them to stay on longer.
Originally discovered and bred in captivity by a certain Mr Bernoulli
which
accounts for why early attempts at manned flight were often so
unsuccessful.
Being air breathing creatures they are not found at very high altitudes,
they
don't like it much when the wings are icy or dirty which seems fair
enough.
Male demons outnumber females by approximately three to one and are
predominantly found on the mainwing topsides whilst the females, which
can only
push, are found on the underside of wings and tailplanes. The males find
it
fairly easy to "pull" the females due to the imbalance in numbers. A
favourite
area for congregating males is near the wing's hump where the view is
often
better. Known scientifically as humping. Humping can be controlled by
the pilot
by raising and lowering flags at the wing ends to signify the end he
would like
them to pull hardest. The female of the species being on the undersides
are
often kept in the dark especially about the cost impact of aviation.
Demons are
sexually very active and have it away near the wing tips. Demon spawn
can
sometimes be seen streaming off the tips in a conical cocoon.
Kitbuilders generally find enough in the box for the first flight,
however
builders of porkies might not have enough to fly properly.
Neutered Demons are called vacuum and are useful for keeping coffee
warm. An
excess of neutered demons can cause breathing difficulties and should
have a
government health warning attached.
Research into demon I.Q.s shows lift demons have no comprehension
whatsoever of
what a downwind turn is.



Real NASA Wonks Discuss Lift Demons in Drag; and Stalling.
Mary Shafer ) explains lift:
--the real, intuitively-obvious-even-to-the-lay-person explanation of
lift.
People, lift is caused by lift demons. These little, invisible demons
hold on to
the leading and trailing edges of the aircraft and lift it into the air
by
flapping their wings (so, in a reductionist sense, lift is actually
caused by
feathers). Some of the demons are a little confused and they hold on
backwards,
causing drag.
The reason that planes stall at high alpha is that the leading edge
demons get
scared and let go when they can't see the ground anymore.
Lift demons have good taste and don't like to look at ugly aircraft, so
they
hold on backwards on ugly planes. That's why gliders have so much lift
and so
little drag and why F-4s have lots of drag.
John Wolter ) asked: What I would like is a
simple
*intuitive* explanation of what causes lift on a lift demon's wing.
(Here we go
again... ;-) )
Mary Shafer ) replied: Feathers. The
multiple
filaments on feathers trap the air molecules and they struggle to
escape, which
causes the action-reaction that we call lift. Bat wings don't have
feathers but
they're hairy and that works just about as well (air molecules are a
little
claustrophobic).



Once too often bitten milking demons for research, Dave Santos
) kindly tackles annoying questions by lay-people.
Can Lift Demons be held securely?
Stupid question. The little monsters are trapped in bags, for balloon or
airship
use, but escape given any opportunity. Instead of captivity, winged
aircraft are
designed to entice the demons to visit. This is not easy since they
abandon
common aircraft on very weak pretexts. For example, lift demons enjoy
engine
roar and go elsewhere when this noise stops.
Birds are so lucky. They just waggle their wings to signal a desire to
fly and
the demons eagerly bear them aloft (Penguins, an exception, are
associated with
ice, which lift demons hate. See [Grahm] (above). Other flightless birds
are
overweight, a condition despised by lift demons (see [Grahm]
("porkies")), and
[Santos] (below)). Note that bird feathers are merely ornaments evolved
to
attract demons, whose own "feathers" are the true source of lift
[Shafer]
(above).
True enough, lift demons are held by cables or chain, as in elevators
and
hoists, and in pillars and walls, by applied weight, but such abuse
ruins them
for flight (ordinary stairs cage lift demons such that, conditions
permitting,
they are heard to groan underfoot).



How Do Lift Demons Get Away WithDefying Gravity?
Lift demons are the ******* offspring of "Gravity Wells", who tolerate
the
defiant demons without acknowledging them. The rest of us risk "falling"
afoul
of these vengeful G wells, except those who flee fast enough (popularly
usage:
Escape Velocity) and far enough to also defy Gravity (slang-
"weightlessness").
Lift demons try to drop anything heavy, out of deep resentment.



What about the Sound Barrier?
What about it? Dumbest question yet... Under proper conditions, lift
demons
penetrate either sound or unsound barriers.



Tibetan-
mkha' rgyu'i yi dwags - air-dwelling hungry ghost / preta, hungry ghost
living in the air
mkha' la rgyu ba'i yi dwags - the pretas living in the air. Coming
Soon: Lift Demons and the FAA.



DRAFT// Grant Proposal- Just 8 million dollars is requested for the
formal study
of Lift by field experiment, and over the Internet (from Tahiti!). With
jet
travel and modern communications, Tahiti is no longer a paradigm
obstacle. It is
anticipated that native lift demons, as explored with state-of-the-art
frizbees,
kites, hang-gliders, and yachts, will display a high Q factor.
Phase I (5 yr. min) will result in a completed Abstract of Phase II, a
proposal
for increased funding.

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired

[Blanche]

Hartwig Flamm > wrote:
>Mark Oliver wrote:
>
>> The current theory of flight is based upon the Bernoulli's Principal, the
>
>No it's not!
>Do not stress old Bernoulli. His findings are restricted to the flowing
>media only. You can use the _some_ of his laws to find the forces caused by
>the air on the structure of the airplane.
>In fact the "real" cause for an airplane to stay up is inertia and friction
>of the air.


Gee, I always thought it was money and magic...

Is there any way we can introduce Dark Energy and Dark Matter into
this?

(*snorfle*)

[Apa]

Gee, I better start ground school again.

I always thought lift demons were actually pushing the Earth from underneath
the airplanes when you pointed the empennage downward. (Although it might be
still the case here in Canada. We are a weird bunch up here, anyways...)



"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> ...
>> How does this comport with the theory of lift gnomes? As everyone knows,
>> lift gnomes reside on the upper surface of the wing (which ever side is
>> "up" at the moment) and derive nourishment from exhaust gases. When
>> throttle is added, the gnomes get stronger and lift the airplane into the
>> air...the reverse is true when power is reduced. Which side of the
>> airfoil is "up" is immaterial.
>>
>> Most maneuvers can be explained by the lift gnome theory.
>>
>> Bob Gardner
>
> In addition...............from a fine friend of mine in engineering at
> NASA
> "
> The Emerging Science of Lift Demons
> Abstract- Advanced formal study of Lift has become respectable as its
> radical
> tenets undergo controlled experimental confirmation. As in other difficult
> fields, theorists rely on gut intuition, finding beauty in simplicity, in
> formulating grant proposals.
>
>
>
> Introduction to Lift Demons
> Ariel: "...I come
> To answer thy best pleasure; be't to fly,
> To swim, to dive into the fire, to ride
> On the curled clouds, to thy strong bidding task
> Ariel and all his quality." [SHKSPR]Graham E. Laucht
> > posted the following helpful
> overview of Lift-
> [Discussion Thread] Discuss "the hump on top of the wing that produces
> lift" ...
> Definitely Lift Demons, they wait unseen near the downwind end of the
> runway and
> hop on for the ride dismounting again on landing ready for the next plane.
> That's why taking off from the other end (looking into the big end of the
> windsock) can be tricky.
> It's also why air traffic control regulates arrivals and departures
> especially
> in areas where there is a lack of lift demons. Like at large international
> airports where the supply of them and baggage carts is limited.
> They are very sensitive to poor pilotage and can easily fall off the wing
> if a
> pilot lifts the nose too much whilst going slowly. A slightly roughened
> surfaces
> helps them to stay on longer.
> Originally discovered and bred in captivity by a certain Mr Bernoulli
> which
> accounts for why early attempts at manned flight were often so
> unsuccessful.
> Being air breathing creatures they are not found at very high altitudes,
> they
> don't like it much when the wings are icy or dirty which seems fair
> enough.
> Male demons outnumber females by approximately three to one and are
> predominantly found on the mainwing topsides whilst the females, which can
> only
> push, are found on the underside of wings and tailplanes. The males find
> it
> fairly easy to "pull" the females due to the imbalance in numbers. A
> favourite
> area for congregating males is near the wing's hump where the view is
> often
> better. Known scientifically as humping. Humping can be controlled by the
> pilot
> by raising and lowering flags at the wing ends to signify the end he would
> like
> them to pull hardest. The female of the species being on the undersides
> are
> often kept in the dark especially about the cost impact of aviation.
> Demons are
> sexually very active and have it away near the wing tips. Demon spawn can
> sometimes be seen streaming off the tips in a conical cocoon.
> Kitbuilders generally find enough in the box for the first flight, however
> builders of porkies might not have enough to fly properly.
> Neutered Demons are called vacuum and are useful for keeping coffee warm.
> An
> excess of neutered demons can cause breathing difficulties and should have
> a
> government health warning attached.
> Research into demon I.Q.s shows lift demons have no comprehension
> whatsoever of
> what a downwind turn is.
>
>
>
> Real NASA Wonks Discuss Lift Demons in Drag; and Stalling.
> Mary Shafer ) explains lift:
> --the real, intuitively-obvious-even-to-the-lay-person explanation of
> lift.
> People, lift is caused by lift demons. These little, invisible demons hold
> on to
> the leading and trailing edges of the aircraft and lift it into the air by
> flapping their wings (so, in a reductionist sense, lift is actually caused
> by
> feathers). Some of the demons are a little confused and they hold on
> backwards,
> causing drag.
> The reason that planes stall at high alpha is that the leading edge demons
> get
> scared and let go when they can't see the ground anymore.
> Lift demons have good taste and don't like to look at ugly aircraft, so
> they
> hold on backwards on ugly planes. That's why gliders have so much lift and
> so
> little drag and why F-4s have lots of drag.
> John Wolter ) asked: What I would like is a
> simple
> *intuitive* explanation of what causes lift on a lift demon's wing. (Here
> we go
> again... ;-) )
> Mary Shafer ) replied: Feathers. The multiple
> filaments on feathers trap the air molecules and they struggle to escape,
> which
> causes the action-reaction that we call lift. Bat wings don't have
> feathers but
> they're hairy and that works just about as well (air molecules are a
> little
> claustrophobic).
>
>
>
> Once too often bitten milking demons for research, Dave Santos
> ) kindly tackles annoying questions by lay-people.
> Can Lift Demons be held securely?
> Stupid question. The little monsters are trapped in bags, for balloon or
> airship
> use, but escape given any opportunity. Instead of captivity, winged
> aircraft are
> designed to entice the demons to visit. This is not easy since they
> abandon
> common aircraft on very weak pretexts. For example, lift demons enjoy
> engine
> roar and go elsewhere when this noise stops.
> Birds are so lucky. They just waggle their wings to signal a desire to fly
> and
> the demons eagerly bear them aloft (Penguins, an exception, are associated
> with
> ice, which lift demons hate. See [Grahm] (above). Other flightless birds
> are
> overweight, a condition despised by lift demons (see [Grahm] ("porkies")),
> and
> [Santos] (below)). Note that bird feathers are merely ornaments evolved to
> attract demons, whose own "feathers" are the true source of lift [Shafer]
> (above).
> True enough, lift demons are held by cables or chain, as in elevators and
> hoists, and in pillars and walls, by applied weight, but such abuse ruins
> them
> for flight (ordinary stairs cage lift demons such that, conditions
> permitting,
> they are heard to groan underfoot).
>
>
>
> How Do Lift Demons Get Away WithDefying Gravity?
> Lift demons are the ******* offspring of "Gravity Wells", who tolerate the
> defiant demons without acknowledging them. The rest of us risk "falling"
> afoul
> of these vengeful G wells, except those who flee fast enough (popularly
> usage:
> Escape Velocity) and far enough to also defy Gravity (slang-
> "weightlessness").
> Lift demons try to drop anything heavy, out of deep resentment.
>
>
>
> What about the Sound Barrier?
> What about it? Dumbest question yet... Under proper conditions, lift
> demons
> penetrate either sound or unsound barriers.
>
>
>
> Tibetan-
> mkha' rgyu'i yi dwags - air-dwelling hungry ghost / preta, hungry ghost
> living in the air
> mkha' la rgyu ba'i yi dwags - the pretas living in the air. Coming
> Soon: Lift Demons and the FAA.
>
>
>
> DRAFT// Grant Proposal- Just 8 million dollars is requested for the formal
> study
> of Lift by field experiment, and over the Internet (from Tahiti!). With
> jet
> travel and modern communications, Tahiti is no longer a paradigm obstacle.
> It is
> anticipated that native lift demons, as explored with state-of-the-art
> frizbees,
> kites, hang-gliders, and yachts, will display a high Q factor.
> Phase I (5 yr. min) will result in a completed Abstract of Phase II, a
> proposal
> for increased funding.
>
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired
>
>

[Malcolm Teas]

"Mark Oliver" > wrote in message >...
> The current theory of flight is based upon the Bernoulli's Principal, the
> pressure of a fluid (liquid or gas) decreases at points where the speed of
> the fluid increases. The airfoil is designed to increase the velocity of
> the airflow above its surface, thereby decreasing pressure above the
> airfoil. Simultaneously, the impact of the air on the lower surface of the
> airfoil increases the pressure below. This combination of pressure decrease
> above and increase below produces lift. Pressure is reduced due to the
> smaller space the air has above the wing than below. Air cannot go through
> the wing, so it must push around it. The surface air molecules push between
> the wing and outer layers of air. Due to the bump of the airfoil, the space
> is smaller and the molecules must go faster.
>
>
> THIS HAS A MAJOR PROBLEM - specifically inverted flight. The current theory
> of flight utilizing the Bernoulli's Principal is only applicable to normal
> level flight. However, we know and observe that inverted flight is
> possible. Thus, the Bernoulli's Principal is no longer applicable to
> inverted flight, so there must be another theory that supports flight, be it
> level or inverted.
>
>
> The new theory of flight is based upon the new theory of Gravitational
> Vector Force (released Sept 2004). Utilizing Newton's laws that equal
> opposite force is generated at right angles, be it applied at once or
> successively, and if the angle is oblique (slanted) a new force is
> generated. Then inverted flight is possible as force is always generated at
> right angles, and this is towards the ground in all cases. The net
> difference between the initial velocity and resistance force generated at
> the leading edge at right angles (downwards) creates a new force called
> Gravitational Vector Force, and it travels in the opposite direction
> (upwards) to maintain balance, impacting the bottom of the wing. The wing
> becomes less efficient in inverted flight due to the design of the airfoil,
> however it is still possible.
>
> This new theory of flight also supports the following;
> 1) the new force manifests at a faster rate than initial velocity, hence the
> wing becomes more efficient at faster speeds
> 2) As you extend spoilers and flaps at the leading and trailing edges, the
> bottom of the wing now becomes "cupped" like a satellite dish, and able to
> capture more Gravitational Vector Force, creating more lift
>
> You may read more about this new theory at www.threexd.com

I'll probably skip reading it, thanks. Ah, where to start?

One observation.: If "cupping like a satellite dish" helps to increase
the gravitational vector force, then why don't you build an airplane
with a satellite dish shape instead of wings and see if it flies?
Might be a good test for you... I'll stand well clear on the ground
if you please. I don't think you'll get above the runway, but I want
to avoid being near a ground accident.

Bernoulli's theory is an expression of constant energy. The air
stream has pressure and velocity, if the velocity increases, the
pressure decreases unless you do something to add energy to the
airstream. Note that the increased pressure on the bottom of the wing
is less contributory than the decreased pressure on top, unless you're
at a high angle of attack.

Bernoulli is one way to describe what happens to the air passing over
and below a wing. For a more complete description see an aeronautical
textbook. I like "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators", available from
ASA and other providers. Also the online book "See How It Flies" has
a good description at http://www.av8n.com/how/.

Basically, the wing works by pushing down a large volume of air. The
equal and opposite reaction pushes the plane up. That's the simple
version and to my own mind a much better and less confusing starting
place than Bernoulli.

And, I probably wasted my time replying to this in any case.

-Malcolm Teas

[Roger Long]

I know what you mean. I spend a lot more time over in the Cessna Pilot's
Association forums now. They have a bouncer to keep the riff raff and the
low wingers out </:) (twins are OK).

When I scan the messages now, I mostly look for the names first.

--

Roger Long



"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Roger Long" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Here I am, popping up as usual whenever lift is mentioned. Dudley's
>> saying right now, "Uh, oh, here we go again."
>
>
> Actually, I'm finding this type of thing less and less worth the effort it
> takes to post to it as time goes by. There might be others out here that
> feel the same way as well....I don't know or even care any longer.
> The Usenet experience in general has lost much of it's appeal for me , and
> the plain simple truth of it is that I just don't give much of a damn any
> more. :-))
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired
>
>

[g n p]

"Gary G" > wrote in message
...
> How about the force one one side ****ers the force (gravity) on the other.
> Turning an airfoil upside down doesn't violate Bernoulli.
> You just change teh angle of attack to componesate.
>
> However, I wish it were new - wouldn't that be fun to discuss?
> Imagine all of those smart wing and airfoil designers who would
> feel stupid that they missed this all along!
>
> I hear Nobel Prize! Better yet, Bluelight Special!



Better yet: Ig prize for shure...................

[Dudley Henriques]

"Apa" > wrote in message
...
> Gee, I better start ground school again.
>
> I always thought lift demons were actually pushing the Earth from
> underneath the airplanes when you pointed the empennage downward.
> (Although it might be still the case here in Canada. We are a weird
> bunch up here, anyways...)

Hesitation point rolls are a lot of fun for a pilot watching lift
demons. It's an absolute riot to watch them scramble off the wings and
onto the fuselage then back again as the roll progresses. The most I've
ever been able to disturb them this way was 16.
Australian lift demons can't seem to figure out which side of the wing
to climb onto when they're here in the states, but they get even when
ours opt for an outback vacation on their time shares.
:-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired

[Dudley Henriques]

"Roger Long" > wrote in message
.. .
>I know what you mean. I spend a lot more time over in the Cessna
>Pilot's Association forums now. They have a bouncer to keep the riff
>raff and the low wingers out </:) (twins are OK).
>
> When I scan the messages now, I mostly look for the names first.
>
> --
>
> Roger Long

I can actually forecast with some degree of certainty exactly what the
tone of a particular post under mine will be regardless of the subject,
before I open the post, simply by seeing the name on it.
Many of these, I pass on without opening them simply based on that one
single boring degree of predictability.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired

[Dudley Henriques]

"Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in
message ...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: "Mark Oliver" >
>
>>The new theory of flight is based upon the new theory of Gravitational
>>Vector Force (released Sept 2004)
>
> Sounds like another variation of the old "Static Gravity" BS that was
> being
> promoted 20 years ago by a guy named Tidmarsh. If my memory is
> correct.
>
> Damn, Isn't it amazing the crap that gets stored in long term memory.

Well..........if only you computer guys hadn't invented long term
memory............... :-))))))

Dudley

[lance smith]

"Gary G" > wrote in message
> I hear Nobel Prize! Better yet, Bluelight Special!


it's more like "clean-up on isle 10"...

-lance smith

[Roger Long]

Well now, I really have to ask. Did you correctly predict the tone of my
first post in this thread just from seeing my name?

--

Roger Long



"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Roger Long" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>I know what you mean. I spend a lot more time over in the Cessna Pilot's
>>Association forums now. They have a bouncer to keep the riff raff and the
>>low wingers out </:) (twins are OK).
>>
>> When I scan the messages now, I mostly look for the names first.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Roger Long
>
> I can actually forecast with some degree of certainty exactly what the
> tone of a particular post under mine will be regardless of the subject,
> before I open the post, simply by seeing the name on it.
> Many of these, I pass on without opening them simply based on that one
> single boring degree of predictability.
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired
>
>
>
>
>

[Dudley Henriques]

"Roger Long" > wrote in message
.. .
> Well now, I really have to ask. Did you correctly predict the tone of
> my first post in this thread just from seeing my name?
>
> --
>
> Roger Long

I view you as being an intelligent poster who might like to spar a bit
once in awhile perhaps. Nothing extraordinarily negative or
confrontational as far as I can determine. You have never posted
anything vitriolic or derogatory to me that I can remember or would have
made a difference to me had you done so. I would imagine you probably
view me in the usual Usenet way and wouldn't lose a moment's sleep if I
crashed and burned tomorrow.
Typical Usenet posters, you and me......not friends......not enemies.
Not anything! Never could be.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired

[Roger Long]

> I would imagine you probably view me in the usual Usenet way and wouldn't
> lose a moment's sleep if I crashed and burned tomorrow.
> Typical Usenet posters, you and me......not friends......not enemies.

Not at all! I've greatly enjoyed the wisdom and experience you bring to
this group and your presence in it is one of my biggest reasons for check it
every day. I'm sure I am not the only one that would feel the poorer if you
decided to drop out. As for crashing and burning, I don't even want to
thing about it.

Fly safe.

--

Roger Long

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
> Where do these guys COME from????? :-))))

Seems to me the junior high schools just don't give them enough homework.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
>
> Why do *I* end up with the lazy alien, I'd like to know.

Be content -- mine likes to play the maracas.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Roger Long" > wrote in message
. ..
>> I would imagine you probably view me in the usual Usenet way and
>> wouldn't lose a moment's sleep if I crashed and burned tomorrow.
>> Typical Usenet posters, you and me......not friends......not enemies.
>
> Not at all! I've greatly enjoyed the wisdom and experience you bring
> to this group and your presence in it is one of my biggest reasons for
> check it every day. I'm sure I am not the only one that would feel
> the poorer if you decided to drop out. As for crashing and burning, I
> don't even want to thing about it.

Thank you for the kind thought, which I'm fairly certain will probably
be negated by someone else before the thread dies out, but thank you
anyway.
:-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired

[Dean Wilkinson]

"Gary G" > wrote in message >...
> How about the force one one side ****ers the force (gravity) on the other.
> Turning an airfoil upside down doesn't violate Bernoulli.
> You just change teh angle of attack to componesate.

Gee, if a golfer is someone who golfs, what would a ****er be?

[C Kingsbury]

"Mark Oliver" > wrote in message
. ..

> THIS HAS A MAJOR PROBLEM - specifically inverted flight. The current
theory
> of flight utilizing the Bernoulli's Principal is only applicable to normal
> level flight.

That's what Bernoulli's Superintendent is for. He takes care of all the
really tough situations.

Pedantically,
-cwk.

[George]

Andrew Gideon > wrote in message e.com>...
> Roger Long wrote:
>
> > The web
> > site for this theory does just as much of a dis-service to the aliens
> > (they aren't really aliens because they are actually right next to us and
> > have been her all along) as the popular lift explanations do to Bernoulli
> > and Newton.
> >
>
> Wait...are you suggesting that it's the aliens lifting our aircraft? That
> would explain so much!
>
> Why do *I* end up with the lazy alien, I'd like to know.
>
You are going to have to get friendly with the Big Pink Sky Pixies.
They are replacing the old lift fairies who were all very good back in
the last century... :-))

[Casey Wilson]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Andrew Gideon wrote:
> >
> > Why do *I* end up with the lazy alien, I'd like to know.
>
> Be content -- mine likes to play the maracas.
>

Hmmmph! Mine tries to play the control cables like a violin.

[Dean Wilkinson]

Mark,

Nice job, your troll post has snagged a lot of responses... very effective post.

[Brenor Brophy]

While the general aviation community is for the most part unaware of the
vital role played by Lift Demons, the FAA has for a long time taken them
into consideration when formulating Federal Aviation Regulations. In fact,
understanding the needs and wants of Lift Demons greatly helps in
understanding many of the rules that the FAA has introduced over the years
(which otherwise make little sense to the average pilot).

For example as it turns out there are two types of Lift Demons. Bird Demons
and Bat Demons. Bat Demons are blind because they evolved along side bats in
caves, they also have sticky feet which help them to grip onto the more
slippery wings of bats. Now, when man first took to the skies, it was on the
wings of bird demons (Seagull demons to be exact in Kittyhawk). However,
before long some bright sparks decided that unlike birds man would fly his
airplanes inside clouds (not something that birds usually do - I mean have
you ever seen a bird inside a cloud ?). Straight away there was a problem.
Bird Demons need to be able to see where they are going and when they can't
see they get scared and quickly jump off the plane - causing unfortunate
accidents. Should you every fly into a cloud by mistake - quickly start a
180 degree turn to get out of it before the Lift Demons panic. However,
before long a solution was found, Bat Demons, being blind didn't panic
inside a cloud, they didn't need to see in order to keep the lift working.
As a bonus, their sticky feet helped them grip wet slippery wings which is
common when inside a cloud. However, there are not very many Bat Demons (at
least compared to Bird Demons) so you need to make sure some Bat Demons are
waiting for your plane at the runway before you take off if you are planning
on flying into a cloud. The FAA realized this and created the Air Traffic
Control system to facilitate the timely coordination of Bat Demons and
planes. And that is why FAR 91.173 exists

Sec. 91.173

ATC clearance and flight plan required.

No person may operate an aircraft in controlled airspace under IFR unless
that person has--
(a) Filed an IFR flight plan; and
(b) Received an appropriate ATC clearance.

You see, when you file an IFR flight plan the flight service station
computer sends a message to the nearest colony of Bat Demons telling them
where and when they will be needed. Actually, the demons we all know that
live inside computers can communicate directly with their demon brothers -
so the Bat demons don't need their own computers. The Bat Demons don't
always turn up on time, which is why you can't actually take-off until ATC
sees the Bat Demons arrive and issue your IFR release. Sometimes, when the
weather is really bad and lots of planes want to fly in the clouds, there
are not enough Bat Demons to go around and you have to wait a long time on
the ground for some to arrive.

It all starts to make sense when you think about it. Bird Demons don't even
like getting close to clouds. That is why you always have to ask ATC for
Special VFR, this gives them a chance to call up at least a few Bat Demons,
to keep all the other Demons calm as you fly close too the (but not in) the
clouds. Class bravo airspace has so many big jets flying with lots of Bat
Demons that there is always a few extra around which lets you get closer to
the clouds as well.

[Cub Driver]

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:22:30 GMT, "OtisWinslow"
> wrote:

>Bernoulli sucks. The wing lifts because air pushes on one side
>and not the other.

That's what I told my flight instructor, but he did not seem
impressed.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

[Pat]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message et>...
> "Roger Long" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >> I would imagine you probably view me in the usual Usenet way and
> >> wouldn't lose a moment's sleep if I crashed and burned tomorrow.
> >> Typical Usenet posters, you and me......not friends......not enemies.
> >
> > Not at all! I've greatly enjoyed the wisdom and experience you bring
> > to this group and your presence in it is one of my biggest reasons for
> > check it every day. I'm sure I am not the only one that would feel
> > the poorer if you decided to drop out. As for crashing and burning, I
> > don't even want to thing about it.
>
> Thank you for the kind thought, which I'm fairly certain will probably
> be negated by someone else before the thread dies out, but thank you
> anyway.
> :-)
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired


Dudley,

I too would be most upset to find that you had crashed and burned...
Unlsess of course, Iwan Bogels got it on video and I could entertain
myself with the fiery spectacle of your demise!

[Dudley Henriques]

"Pat" > wrote in message
om...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> et>...
>> "Roger Long" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> >> I would imagine you probably view me in the usual Usenet way and
>> >> wouldn't lose a moment's sleep if I crashed and burned tomorrow.
>> >> Typical Usenet posters, you and me......not friends......not
>> >> enemies.
>> >
>> > Not at all! I've greatly enjoyed the wisdom and experience you
>> > bring
>> > to this group and your presence in it is one of my biggest reasons
>> > for
>> > check it every day. I'm sure I am not the only one that would feel
>> > the poorer if you decided to drop out. As for crashing and
>> > burning, I
>> > don't even want to thing about it.
>>
>> Thank you for the kind thought, which I'm fairly certain will
>> probably
>> be negated by someone else before the thread dies out, but thank you
>> anyway.
>> :-)
>> Dudley Henriques
>> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>> Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired
>
>
> Dudley,
>
> I too would be most upset to find that you had crashed and burned...
> Unlsess of course, Iwan Bogels got it on video and I could entertain
> myself with the fiery spectacle of your demise!

If your post was meant tongue in cheek, be advised I don't know you and
you don't know me well enough to say something like this to me. If you
meant it the other way, go f**k yourself!
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 15:31:39 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote in
et>::

>If you meant it the other way, go f**k yourself!

Have you ever thought about running for Vice President? :-)

[Andrew Gideon]

Cub Driver wrote:

>
> That's what I told my flight instructor, but he did not seem
> impressed.
>

I think my instructor and I came to the conclusion that my airplane didn't
have lift; it had scare. The way I flew, the Earth just naturally pulled
away from me.

- Andrew

[David CL Francis]

On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 at 21:21:26 in message
et>, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:
>
>"Apa" > wrote in message
...
>> Gee, I better start ground school again.
>>
>> I always thought lift demons were actually pushing the Earth from
>> underneath the airplanes when you pointed the empennage downward.
>> (Although it might be still the case here in Canada. We are a weird
>> bunch up here, anyways...)
>
>Hesitation point rolls are a lot of fun for a pilot watching lift
>demons. It's an absolute riot to watch them scramble off the wings and
>onto the fuselage then back again as the roll progresses. The most I've
>ever been able to disturb them this way was 16.
>Australian lift demons can't seem to figure out which side of the wing
>to climb onto when they're here in the states, but they get even when
>ours opt for an outback vacation on their time shares.

I actually wrote something almost serious about this amazing 'new'
theory, but most posters have dealt with it so much better that I shall
leave it as a draft.

I love the lift demons, although my aerodynamics lecturer did not give
me a good grounding in them I am afraid. Next time Dudley you must tell
me more. Are they related to the RAF's Gremlins? They were good and
bad. The good ones helped hold badly damaged aircraft together until
after they landed in WW2.

--
David CL Francis

[Dudley Henriques]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 15:31:39 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote in
> et>::
>
>>If you meant it the other way, go f**k yourself!
>
> Have you ever thought about running for Vice President? :-)

If you think that post was appropriate, you can ditto!

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 23:05:21 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote in
. net>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 15:31:39 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
>> > wrote in
>> et>::
>>
>>>If you meant it the other way, go f**k yourself!
>>
>> Have you ever thought about running for Vice President? :-)
>
>If you think that post was appropriate, you can ditto!

I see what you mean. You aren't before the US Senate like Cheney was.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 23:05:21 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote in
> . net>::
>
>>
>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 15:31:39 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
>>> > wrote in
>>> et>::
>>>
>>>>If you meant it the other way, go f**k yourself!
>>>
>>> Have you ever thought about running for Vice President? :-)
>>
>>If you think that post was appropriate, you can ditto!
>
> I see what you mean. You aren't before the US Senate like Cheney was.

Don't mean to be confrontational if I don't have to be, but you'll have
to forgive me, I have no idea what we are talking about here. That is I
know what I"M talking about , but the gist of your comment is just too
ambiguous for me to nail down. Perhaps if you could be a bit more
specific? I don't believe you and I have ever discussed anything
meaningful pertaining to aviation have we? I see the sometimes one liner
or two from you with some kind of non aviation remark like this one, but
seldom anything else.
Am I missing something here? Is this comment of yours some kind of
dig....or perhaps something "inside" for someone known only to you to
pick up on?
Do me a favor. Try saying it straight out and without the ambiguity.
I'll deal with it at that point if it's reasonable.
Thank you
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired

[Dudley Henriques]

Hi David;

The RAF Gremlins I think were the brainchild of Roald Dahl, who wrote a
book featuring them in the early forties I think. I remember an artist
painting for the book showing the little buggers climbing all over a
Spitfire.
Bader loved the gremlins. DB blamed everything on them including
whispering in Keith Park's left ear while he was sleeping that "big
wings were good policy for fighter command! :-)
.. He even nicknamed one of the Germans at Colditz after them.
I'd say the Gremlins are pretty much in the same league as the lift
demons, but I think their work was a bit more mischievous!! :-)
Dudley

"David CL Francis" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 at 21:21:26 in message
> et>, Dudley
> Henriques > wrote:
>>
>>"Apa" > wrote in message
...
>>> Gee, I better start ground school again.
>>>
>>> I always thought lift demons were actually pushing the Earth from
>>> underneath the airplanes when you pointed the empennage downward.
>>> (Although it might be still the case here in Canada. We are a weird
>>> bunch up here, anyways...)
>>
>>Hesitation point rolls are a lot of fun for a pilot watching lift
>>demons. It's an absolute riot to watch them scramble off the wings and
>>onto the fuselage then back again as the roll progresses. The most
>>I've
>>ever been able to disturb them this way was 16.
>>Australian lift demons can't seem to figure out which side of the wing
>>to climb onto when they're here in the states, but they get even when
>>ours opt for an outback vacation on their time shares.
>
> I actually wrote something almost serious about this amazing 'new'
> theory, but most posters have dealt with it so much better that I
> shall leave it as a draft.
>
> I love the lift demons, although my aerodynamics lecturer did not give
> me a good grounding in them I am afraid. Next time Dudley you must
> tell me more. Are they related to the RAF's Gremlins? They were good
> and bad. The good ones helped hold badly damaged aircraft together
> until after they landed in WW2.
>
> --
> David CL Francis

[Pat]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message et>...
> "Pat" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> > et>...
> >> "Roger Long" > wrote in message
> >> . ..
> >> >> I would imagine you probably view me in the usual Usenet way and
> >> >> wouldn't lose a moment's sleep if I crashed and burned tomorrow.
> >> >> Typical Usenet posters, you and me......not friends......not
> >> >> enemies.
> >> >
> >> > Not at all! I've greatly enjoyed the wisdom and experience you
> >> > bring
> >> > to this group and your presence in it is one of my biggest reasons
> >> > for
> >> > check it every day. I'm sure I am not the only one that would feel
> >> > the poorer if you decided to drop out. As for crashing and
> >> > burning, I
> >> > don't even want to thing about it.
> >>
> >> Thank you for the kind thought, which I'm fairly certain will
> >> probably
> >> be negated by someone else before the thread dies out, but thank you
> >> anyway.
> >> :-)
> >> Dudley Henriques
> >> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> >> Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired
> >
> >
> > Dudley,
> >
> > I too would be most upset to find that you had crashed and burned...
> > Unlsess of course, Iwan Bogels got it on video and I could entertain
> > myself with the fiery spectacle of your demise!
>
> If your post was meant tongue in cheek, be advised I don't know you and
> you don't know me well enough to say something like this to me. If you
> meant it the other way, go f**k yourself!
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired



Dudley,

It was meant tongue in cheek. Thought it was obvious, but I guess I
should have put in a JK or :o).

Anyway, sorry you didn't see the humor. I don't know you and you
don't know me... Pretty much the same deal with 99% of the
individuals on these net newsgroups. If we can only joke around with
individuals we personally know and are close to, then these groups are
going to become quite dull...

Sorry again are sense of humor doesn't mesh. Fly safe.

-Pat

[Larry Dighera]

On 7 Oct 2004 06:33:31 -0700, (Pat) wrote
in >::

> If we can only joke around with
>individuals we personally know and are close to, then these groups are
>going to become quite dull...

The rec.aviation.piloting newsgroup is meant to be INFORMATIVE not
comedic. Read the charter.

[Andrew Gideon]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On 7 Oct 2004 06:33:31 -0700, (Pat) wrote
> in >::
>
>> If we can only joke around with
>>individuals we personally know and are close to, then these groups are
>>going to become quite dull...
>
> The rec.aviation.piloting newsgroup is meant to be INFORMATIVE not
> comedic. Read the charter.

He's right. My lift alien explained this to me the other day.

- Andrew

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
> I'd say the Gremlins are pretty much in the same league as the lift
> demons, but I think their work was a bit more mischievous!! :-)

One of the British pilots said that the Gremlins were little imps who "got behind the
panel, disconnected the 'gear-up' warning, and then moved the undercart lever back to
up when you were nicely established on final. After the dust settled down, they
reconnected the warning, jumped up on top of the panel, stuck their tongues out at
you, and left you to explain the mess to your C.O."

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Pat" > wrote in message
om...

>> > I too would be most upset to find that you had crashed and
>> > burned...
>> > Unlsess of course, Iwan Bogels got it on video and I could
>> > entertain
>> > myself with the fiery spectacle of your demise!
>>
>> If your post was meant tongue in cheek, be advised I don't know you
>> and
>> you don't know me well enough to say something like this to me. If
>> you
>> meant it the other way, go f**k yourself!
>> Dudley Henriques
>> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>> Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired
>
>
>
> Dudley,
>
> It was meant tongue in cheek. Thought it was obvious, but I guess I
> should have put in a JK or :o).
>
> Anyway, sorry you didn't see the humor. I don't know you and you
> don't know me... Pretty much the same deal with 99% of the
> individuals on these net newsgroups. If we can only joke around with
> individuals we personally know and are close to, then these groups are
> going to become quite dull...
>
> Sorry again are sense of humor doesn't mesh. Fly safe.
>
> -Pat

Are you so absolutely stupid you don't realize I just went through an
entire thread on this newsgroup with an idiot who have videos of a
personal friend of mine dying in a crash featured on his web site from a
link that beckons the viewer with the phrase "cool stuff"....this same
moron trying to sell this in public as a "flight safety service?"
Are you so GD stupid you don't realize that pilots coming from a
background like mine don't find this kind of thing amusing?
I'll say one thing for you. You're on the right newsgroup. Are you
perhaps the moron from "piloting" who wrote to me wishing that both me
and my entire family should die in a crash because I had the f*****g
audacity to tell him that critical angle of attack is the common
denominator for stall and not airspeed?
Even if you're not this person, I'm sure you will find no end of people
here who think this is real funny.
I'll tell you what's amusing. It's amusing that this specific newsgroup
seems to be the only newsgroup of all the aviation newsgroups to which I
belong and am known, where something like this would be considered as
"humorous" by anyone.
Do me a favor whoever you are. Killfile me so we don't have to bother
with each other's "humor" any more.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired

[BeaglePig]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
ink.net:

>
> "Pat" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>> > I too would be most upset to find that you had crashed and
>>> > burned...
>>> > Unlsess of course, Iwan Bogels got it on video and I could
>>> > entertain
>>> > myself with the fiery spectacle of your demise!
>>>
>>> If your post was meant tongue in cheek, be advised I don't know you
>>> and
>>> you don't know me well enough to say something like this to me. If
>>> you
>>> meant it the other way, go f**k yourself!
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>>> Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired
>>
>>
>>
>> Dudley,
>>
>> It was meant tongue in cheek. Thought it was obvious, but I guess I
>> should have put in a JK or :o).
>>
>> Anyway, sorry you didn't see the humor. I don't know you and you
>> don't know me... Pretty much the same deal with 99% of the
>> individuals on these net newsgroups. If we can only joke around with
>> individuals we personally know and are close to, then these groups
>> are going to become quite dull...
>>
>> Sorry again are sense of humor doesn't mesh. Fly safe.
>>
>> -Pat
>
> Are you so absolutely stupid you don't realize I just went through an
> entire thread on this newsgroup with an idiot who have videos of a
> personal friend of mine dying in a crash featured on his web site from
> a link that beckons the viewer with the phrase "cool stuff"....this
> same moron trying to sell this in public as a "flight safety service?"
> Are you so GD stupid you don't realize that pilots coming from a
> background like mine don't find this kind of thing amusing?
> I'll say one thing for you. You're on the right newsgroup. Are you
> perhaps the moron from "piloting" who wrote to me wishing that both me
> and my entire family should die in a crash because I had the f*****g
> audacity to tell him that critical angle of attack is the common
> denominator for stall and not airspeed?
> Even if you're not this person, I'm sure you will find no end of
> people here who think this is real funny.
> I'll tell you what's amusing. It's amusing that this specific
> newsgroup seems to be the only newsgroup of all the aviation
> newsgroups to which I belong and am known, where something like this
> would be considered as "humorous" by anyone.
> Do me a favor whoever you are. Killfile me so we don't have to bother
> with each other's "humor" any more.
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired
>
>

You take yourself WAY to seriously...

WAY too seriously....

Take some deep breaths.

Wait an hour after you write something to a newsgroup, then read again
before hitting send. It will do your nerves (not to mention your blood
pressure) a lot of good.

When conversing in newgroups, you're going to get all kinds of kooks,
it's to be expected. After following your severe over-reaction to
dreamed-up personal attacks I'm starting to think you could be one of
them, or perhaps just losing it a bit.

Go back and read all your posts pretending it wasn't you who sent them,
then tell me what you think of the guy who wrote them.

The fact is, your buddy's death was caught on film. It was probably on
TV several times. The video... IS "cool stuff" in that the definition
of "cool" in our society has come to mean: interesting, informative, and
yes even "entertaining." (Although the current Webster's defines the
slang definition as "excellent") Not the event itself, but the video of
the event...

You're going to have to get over this. Any guilt you may feel about the
incident (however unfounded) is something you'll have to deal with on
your own, and lashing out at others isn't going to help you.

Regards,

BeaglePig

[Dudley Henriques]

"BeaglePig" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
> ink.net:
>
>>
>> "Pat" > wrote in message
>> om...
>>
>>>> > I too would be most upset to find that you had crashed and
>>>> > burned...
>>>> > Unlsess of course, Iwan Bogels got it on video and I could
>>>> > entertain
>>>> > myself with the fiery spectacle of your demise!
>>>>
>>>> If your post was meant tongue in cheek, be advised I don't know you
>>>> and
>>>> you don't know me well enough to say something like this to me. If
>>>> you
>>>> meant it the other way, go f**k yourself!
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>>>> Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dudley,
>>>
>>> It was meant tongue in cheek. Thought it was obvious, but I guess I
>>> should have put in a JK or :o).
>>>
>>> Anyway, sorry you didn't see the humor. I don't know you and you
>>> don't know me... Pretty much the same deal with 99% of the
>>> individuals on these net newsgroups. If we can only joke around
>>> with
>>> individuals we personally know and are close to, then these groups
>>> are going to become quite dull...
>>>
>>> Sorry again are sense of humor doesn't mesh. Fly safe.
>>>
>>> -Pat
>>
>> Are you so absolutely stupid you don't realize I just went through an
>> entire thread on this newsgroup with an idiot who have videos of a
>> personal friend of mine dying in a crash featured on his web site
>> from
>> a link that beckons the viewer with the phrase "cool stuff"....this
>> same moron trying to sell this in public as a "flight safety
>> service?"
>> Are you so GD stupid you don't realize that pilots coming from a
>> background like mine don't find this kind of thing amusing?
>> I'll say one thing for you. You're on the right newsgroup. Are you
>> perhaps the moron from "piloting" who wrote to me wishing that both
>> me
>> and my entire family should die in a crash because I had the f*****g
>> audacity to tell him that critical angle of attack is the common
>> denominator for stall and not airspeed?
>> Even if you're not this person, I'm sure you will find no end of
>> people here who think this is real funny.
>> I'll tell you what's amusing. It's amusing that this specific
>> newsgroup seems to be the only newsgroup of all the aviation
>> newsgroups to which I belong and am known, where something like this
>> would be considered as "humorous" by anyone.
>> Do me a favor whoever you are. Killfile me so we don't have to bother
>> with each other's "humor" any more.
>> Dudley Henriques
>> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>> Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired
>>
>>
>
> You take yourself WAY to seriously...
>
> WAY too seriously....
>
> Take some deep breaths.
>
> Wait an hour after you write something to a newsgroup, then read again
> before hitting send. It will do your nerves (not to mention your
> blood
> pressure) a lot of good.
>
> When conversing in newgroups, you're going to get all kinds of kooks,
> it's to be expected. After following your severe over-reaction to
> dreamed-up personal attacks I'm starting to think you could be one of
> them, or perhaps just losing it a bit.
>
> Go back and read all your posts pretending it wasn't you who sent
> them,
> then tell me what you think of the guy who wrote them.
>
> The fact is, your buddy's death was caught on film. It was probably
> on
> TV several times. The video... IS "cool stuff" in that the definition
> of "cool" in our society has come to mean: interesting, informative,
> and
> yes even "entertaining." (Although the current Webster's defines the
> slang definition as "excellent") Not the event itself, but the video
> of
> the event...
>
> You're going to have to get over this. Any guilt you may feel about
> the
> incident (however unfounded) is something you'll have to deal with on
> your own, and lashing out at others isn't going to help you.
>
> Regards,
>
> BeaglePig

Hey...watta ya know......the group psychologist arrives!!! :-))

Listen up there Pig!
Not that it matters, but like most idiot amateur Usenet psychologists ,
you are misreading my intention. Let me straighten you out here
ole'buddy if I can.
I'm not angry. I'm disgusted! There's a huge difference. I'm merely
telling a few of you folks how I view some of you morons on "piloting".
By doing that, I don't intend to make friends of the idiots I'm
addressing . The good people around here that I'm NOT talking to won't
be responding to my post anyway. They already share my disgust and will
remain internet friends regardless of my telling the rest of you clowns
to go to hell.
Actually, for your edification, what I'm REALLY doing with a post like
the one you're answering now is separating the morons like you from the
worthwhile posters on this group. You see, there's a plan going on here,
but idiots like you never seem to catch on.
The objective here isn't to "lash out" as you say. I don't care enough
about the specific people I'm addressing to "lash out" at them. All I'm
doing here my friend is getting things all nice and tidy for the
upcoming year of posting.
Morons like you will respond as you've done already and possibly will
again. Perhaps not. Who gives a damn? :-)
Other morons will do their little "plonk" thing. Those worth knowing and
having an intelligent aviation dialog with will already know me and
what's going on and keep out of it.
In the end, I'll know who's worth me taking my time with and who to
avoid around here. With any luck at all, people like you will just
killfile me and I'll be done with you. Then, when everything settles
out, all that will be left will be those who understand aviation the way
I do, and everybody will be happy campers. I'll know who to spend time
posting to on this group and who to avoid around here, and if that means
that there's only one person on this entire newsgroup worth my time,
this little exercise will have been worthwhile for me.
Get it yet? :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired

[George]

Larry Dighera > wrote in message >...
> On 7 Oct 2004 06:33:31 -0700, (Pat) wrote
> in >::
>
> > If we can only joke around with
> >individuals we personally know and are close to, then these groups are
> >going to become quite dull...
>
> The rec.aviation.piloting newsgroup is meant to be INFORMATIVE not
> comedic. Read the charter.

All hail the humour impaired killjoys of the world...
May all your lift fairies/demons/pixies continue to support you

[BeaglePig]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
link.net:

<<<<<<previous conversation snipped>>>>

> Hey...watta ya know......the group psychologist arrives!!! :-))
>
> Listen up there Pig!
> Not that it matters, but like most idiot amateur Usenet psychologists
> , you are misreading my intention. Let me straighten you out here
> ole'buddy if I can.
> I'm not angry. I'm disgusted! There's a huge difference. I'm merely
> telling a few of you folks how I view some of you morons on
> "piloting". By doing that, I don't intend to make friends of the
> idiots I'm addressing . The good people around here that I'm NOT
> talking to won't be responding to my post anyway. They already share
> my disgust and will remain internet friends regardless of my telling
> the rest of you clowns to go to hell.
> Actually, for your edification, what I'm REALLY doing with a post like
> the one you're answering now is separating the morons like you from
> the worthwhile posters on this group. You see, there's a plan going on
> here, but idiots like you never seem to catch on.
> The objective here isn't to "lash out" as you say. I don't care enough
> about the specific people I'm addressing to "lash out" at them.


HA! .... looks like a "lashing" to me, I can "feel" your anger as I
read it.


> All I'm doing here my friend is getting things all nice and tidy for
> the upcoming year of posting.
> Morons like you will respond as you've done already and possibly will
> again. Perhaps not. Who gives a damn? :-)
> Other morons will do their little "plonk" thing. Those worth knowing
> and having an intelligent aviation dialog with will already know me
> and what's going on and keep out of it.
> In the end, I'll know who's worth me taking my time with and who to
> avoid around here. With any luck at all, people like you will just
> killfile me and I'll be done with you. Then, when everything settles
> out, all that will be left will be those who understand aviation the
> way I do, and everybody will be happy campers. I'll know who to spend
> time posting to on this group and who to avoid around here, and if
> that means that there's only one person on this entire newsgroup worth
> my time, this little exercise will have been worthwhile for me.
> Get it yet? :-)
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired
>

But seriously, did you type that and wait an hour, then re-read before
sending.... doubtfull <grin>.

BeaglePig... (former member of the Silent Majority of Lurkers (SML))

(Lurk mode back on)

[Dudley Henriques]

"BeaglePig" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
> link.net:
>
> <<<<<<previous conversation snipped>>>>
>
>> Hey...watta ya know......the group psychologist arrives!!! :-))
>>
>> Listen up there Pig!
>> Not that it matters, but like most idiot amateur Usenet psychologists
>> , you are misreading my intention. Let me straighten you out here
>> ole'buddy if I can.
>> I'm not angry. I'm disgusted! There's a huge difference. I'm merely
>> telling a few of you folks how I view some of you morons on
>> "piloting". By doing that, I don't intend to make friends of the
>> idiots I'm addressing . The good people around here that I'm NOT
>> talking to won't be responding to my post anyway. They already share
>> my disgust and will remain internet friends regardless of my telling
>> the rest of you clowns to go to hell.
>> Actually, for your edification, what I'm REALLY doing with a post
>> like
>> the one you're answering now is separating the morons like you from
>> the worthwhile posters on this group. You see, there's a plan going
>> on
>> here, but idiots like you never seem to catch on.
>> The objective here isn't to "lash out" as you say. I don't care
>> enough
>> about the specific people I'm addressing to "lash out" at them.
>
>
> HA! .... looks like a "lashing" to me, I can "feel" your anger as I
> read it.
>
>
>> All I'm doing here my friend is getting things all nice and tidy for
>> the upcoming year of posting.
>> Morons like you will respond as you've done already and possibly will
>> again. Perhaps not. Who gives a damn? :-)
>> Other morons will do their little "plonk" thing. Those worth knowing
>> and having an intelligent aviation dialog with will already know me
>> and what's going on and keep out of it.
>> In the end, I'll know who's worth me taking my time with and who to
>> avoid around here. With any luck at all, people like you will just
>> killfile me and I'll be done with you. Then, when everything settles
>> out, all that will be left will be those who understand aviation the
>> way I do, and everybody will be happy campers. I'll know who to spend
>> time posting to on this group and who to avoid around here, and if
>> that means that there's only one person on this entire newsgroup
>> worth
>> my time, this little exercise will have been worthwhile for me.
>> Get it yet? :-)
>> Dudley Henriques
>> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>> Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired
>>
>
> But seriously, did you type that and wait an hour, then re-read before
> sending.... doubtfull <grin>.
>
> BeaglePig... (former member of the Silent Majority of Lurkers (SML))
>
> (Lurk mode back on)
>
Trust me BP, I'm giving you the straight skinny on this FWIW.
Believe me, after attending 32 funerals through fifty years of close
association with the low altitude demonstration community, including our
friends on the jet teams from several continents whom we have buried,
I'm not all that sensitive to these issues on the anger side of the
equation. I think I know the score on these issues, both crash video and
Usenet.
I'm just tired of having to separate the idiots from the good folks
around this particular newsgroup, and I've decided to take the gloves
off for awhile and sort out the chaff.
Like you have correctly said, there are all kinds of people on Usenet.
Most of the people on this group are fine and decent folks...yes, even
some of them who watch crash videos of friends of mine going in. These
people are different from the idiots out here however. They'll watch the
video, but don't feel the need to lecture someone like me, a pilot who
survived this extremely dangerous environment. If they want to discuss
it with me, they'll ASK....not tell!! Problem is, I've been wasting a
lot of my time posting to some people who don't deserve that time, and
it's these people, not the decent folks that my rather "direct" posting
style is geared to.
I've decided that in the future on Usenet, although I can't control
people who will post to me, I CAN control people to whom I will post and
share information.
So you see old buddy, that's all it is..........a sorting out process so
to speak......a thinning out of the unwashed as they say, from the
people I consider worth the sharing of my time, my effort, and my
experience......nothing more sinister than that.
All the direct language from me is simply to let specific posters know
how I feel about them in the hope they won't bother posting to me again.
Of course they can still do that, but at least they will be forewarned
that I am no longer a friendly response....completely hostile to them.
You would be surprised how effective this technique has been for me. I'd
estimate that I've gotten rid of at least 30% of the morons out here for
initial posting to me. Those idiots who persist I can either take on or
pass over, but at least I'm not having to open and read as many moronic
posts as I did before I adopted this tactic.
So you see, it might not be the best plan in the universe, and perhaps
you would be doing it differently, but it's working just fine for me.
Those who hate my guts are leaving...at least enough of them to make it
worth while. What's left are intelligent and decent posters with whom I
can and will have meaningful dialog for years to come. :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired

[Pat]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message et>...
> "Pat" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> >> > I too would be most upset to find that you had crashed and
> >> > burned...
> >> > Unlsess of course, Iwan Bogels got it on video and I could
> >> > entertain
> >> > myself with the fiery spectacle of your demise!
> >>
> >> If your post was meant tongue in cheek, be advised I don't know you
> >> and
> >> you don't know me well enough to say something like this to me. If
> >> you
> >> meant it the other way, go f**k yourself!
> >> Dudley Henriques
> >> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> >> Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired
> >
> >
> >
> > Dudley,
> >
> > It was meant tongue in cheek. Thought it was obvious, but I guess I
> > should have put in a JK or :o).
> >
> > Anyway, sorry you didn't see the humor. I don't know you and you
> > don't know me... Pretty much the same deal with 99% of the
> > individuals on these net newsgroups. If we can only joke around with
> > individuals we personally know and are close to, then these groups are
> > going to become quite dull...
> >
> > Sorry again are sense of humor doesn't mesh. Fly safe.
> >
> > -Pat
>
> Are you so absolutely stupid you don't realize I just went through an
> entire thread on this newsgroup with an idiot who have videos of a
> personal friend of mine dying in a crash featured on his web site from a
> link that beckons the viewer with the phrase "cool stuff"....this same
> moron trying to sell this in public as a "flight safety service?"
> Are you so GD stupid you don't realize that pilots coming from a
> background like mine don't find this kind of thing amusing?
> I'll say one thing for you. You're on the right newsgroup. Are you
> perhaps the moron from "piloting" who wrote to me wishing that both me
> and my entire family should die in a crash because I had the f*****g
> audacity to tell him that critical angle of attack is the common
> denominator for stall and not airspeed?
> Even if you're not this person, I'm sure you will find no end of people
> here who think this is real funny.
> I'll tell you what's amusing. It's amusing that this specific newsgroup
> seems to be the only newsgroup of all the aviation newsgroups to which I
> belong and am known, where something like this would be considered as
> "humorous" by anyone.
> Do me a favor whoever you are. Killfile me so we don't have to bother
> with each other's "humor" any more.
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired



Dudley,

My "Iwan Bogels" reference was meant as a "dig" at him (and his
website)... It wasn't meant to offend anyone other than Iwan. I'm
sorry that didn't come accross in my post.

I don't plan to killfile you. Despite the fact that our sense of
humor doesn't mesh, I still find many of your posts informative and
even entertaining. I'll continue to read as many as I can, as your
aviation experience is most definitely greater than mine is (and will
ever be). Again, sorry for the misunderstanding. For now, I'll
continue to read and shut up! :)

-Pat

[Dudley Henriques]

"Pat" > wrote in message
m...

> Dudley,
>
> My "Iwan Bogels" reference was meant as a "dig" at him (and his
> website)... It wasn't meant to offend anyone other than Iwan. I'm
> sorry that didn't come accross in my post.
>
> I don't plan to killfile you. Despite the fact that our sense of
> humor doesn't mesh, I still find many of your posts informative and
> even entertaining. I'll continue to read as many as I can, as your
> aviation experience is most definitely greater than mine is (and will
> ever be). Again, sorry for the misunderstanding. For now, I'll
> continue to read and shut up! :)
>
> -Pat

I'm sorry Pat. It's quite obvious you didn't mean it the way I took it.
It's just that the way you put it to me without a smiley, especially
right after that mess of last week, my natural reaction was to include
you in the small group of loonies who have been tracking me on this
group and have been baiting me about the video issue.

Please accept my sincere apologies for my misread of your post and by
all means feel free to post to me anytime. I'll be honored to have a
dialog with you.
All the best, and thank you for the patient head's up!
Dudley

[Morgans]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>
> I'm sorry Pat. It's quite obvious you didn't mean it the way I took it.
> It's just that the way you put it to me without a smiley, especially
> right after that mess of last week, my natural reaction was to include
> you in the small group of loonies who have been tracking me on this
> group and have been baiting me about the video issue.
>
> Please accept my sincere apologies for my misread of your post and by
> all means feel free to post to me anytime. I'll be honored to have a
> dialog with you.
> All the best, and thank you for the patient head's up!
> Dudley
>
I think that in your rush to weed out your persecutors, you are including a
great many others who share your views against Irwin's videos. The other's
advise to think before flying off the handle, is well said, and would have
made the heads up in this case unnecessary.

I believe if you looked into my pasts posts, you would find I am not a
"loon", and am generally good natured. I say this in all possible
friendliness. Try not to be so paranoid.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.774 / Virus Database: 521 - Release Date: 10/7/2004

[Dudley Henriques]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>>
>> I'm sorry Pat. It's quite obvious you didn't mean it the way I took
>> it.
>> It's just that the way you put it to me without a smiley, especially
>> right after that mess of last week, my natural reaction was to
>> include
>> you in the small group of loonies who have been tracking me on this
>> group and have been baiting me about the video issue.
>>
>> Please accept my sincere apologies for my misread of your post and by
>> all means feel free to post to me anytime. I'll be honored to have a
>> dialog with you.
>> All the best, and thank you for the patient head's up!
>> Dudley
>>
> I think that in your rush to weed out your persecutors, you are
> including a
> great many others who share your views against Irwin's videos. The
> other's
> advise to think before flying off the handle, is well said, and would
> have
> made the heads up in this case unnecessary.
>
> I believe if you looked into my pasts posts, you would find I am not a
> "loon", and am generally good natured. I say this in all possible
> friendliness. Try not to be so paranoid.
> --
> Jim in NC

Sorry Morgans, but you're one of the poster children representing
exactly what I don't need around here. :-))))
In fact, your doing with this post exactly what you tried to do back in
the thread on videos. The simple truth is that people like you are more
interested in analyzing and "correcting" than in discussion on issues.
In case you need enlightening; here's your comment to me in the videos
thread. You inserted it as a third party post between myself and the
idiot I was dealing with for my own reasons, and in my own
way.....absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with you. You just wanted to
do back then exactly what your trying to do again here.

Morgans wrote;

"I had always thought you to be a bit sanctimonious, but I put up with
it for
the knowledge you brought. It just isn't worth it any longer.

Plonk. Sigh."
Jim in NC

So what you were telling me is that even though you thought I was
sanctimonious, which is quite obviously a negative trait, you "put up"
with me simply to get the information I was handing you for nothing. Now
THAT'S what I call real integrity there pal :-)
Tell you what. I can't stop you from posting to me, and I can't stop you
from sopping up any of that good ole' knowledge and experience you value
so highly from someone you think is "sanctimonious", but if you REALLY
want to be of service to me, don't post me bull**** like this, and just
keep my name "plonked" as you had it before, and everybody will be
happy! I wouldn't want you to have to suffer through any dialog with
someone you have always thought was sanctimonious now would I? :-)
Nope; don't need you "piloting" amateur psychologists. Go sell this crap
to someone else. Personally, I've had a belly full of you "Let me
straighten you out" types :-))))))))
Sorry, but no sale. Don't need you. Lurk as you wish, but I'll have
nothing to do with you if I can avoid you.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired

[Morgans]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote

Personally, I've had a belly full of you "Let me
> straighten you out" types

I see. Can't take a bit of constructive criticism, huh? I wish I was that
perfect already.

You'll get your wish. I'll not "bother" you again.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.774 / Virus Database: 521 - Release Date: 10/7/2004

[Morgans]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote

Personally, I've had a belly full of you "Let me
> straighten you out" types

I see. Can't take a bit of constructive criticism, huh? I wish I was that
perfect already.

You'll get your wish. I'll not "bother" you again.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.774 / Virus Database: 521 - Release Date: 10/7/2004

[Dudley Henriques]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>
> Personally, I've had a belly full of you "Let me
>> straighten you out" types
>
> I see. Can't take a bit of constructive criticism, huh? I wish I was
> that
> perfect already.
>
> You'll get your wish. I'll not "bother" you again.
> --
> Jim in NC

Hey...many thanks!!! I appreciate that a whole lot. :-))))

DH

[Dudley Henriques]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>
> Personally, I've had a belly full of you "Let me
>> straighten you out" types
>
> I see. Can't take a bit of constructive criticism, huh? I wish I was
> that
> perfect already.
>
> You'll get your wish. I'll not "bother" you again.
> --
> Jim in NC

Hey...many thanks!!! I appreciate that a whole lot. :-))))

DH

[Chris]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>>
>> Personally, I've had a belly full of you "Let me
>>> straighten you out" types
>>
>> I see. Can't take a bit of constructive criticism, huh? I wish I was
>> that
>> perfect already.
>>
>> You'll get your wish. I'll not "bother" you again.
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>
> Hey...many thanks!!! I appreciate that a whole lot. :-))))
>
> DH

Gee, hugs and kisses all around

[Chris]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>>
>> Personally, I've had a belly full of you "Let me
>>> straighten you out" types
>>
>> I see. Can't take a bit of constructive criticism, huh? I wish I was
>> that
>> perfect already.
>>
>> You'll get your wish. I'll not "bother" you again.
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>
> Hey...many thanks!!! I appreciate that a whole lot. :-))))
>
> DH

Gee, hugs and kisses all around

[Dudley Henriques]

"Chris" > wrote in message
...

> Gee, hugs and kisses all around

Perhaps a course in deductive reasoning would help?

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired

[Dudley Henriques]

"Chris" > wrote in message
...

> Gee, hugs and kisses all around

Perhaps a course in deductive reasoning would help?

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired

[George]

Andrew Gideon > wrote in message e.com>...
> Roger Long wrote:
>
> > The web
> > site for this theory does just as much of a dis-service to the aliens
> > (they aren't really aliens because they are actually right next to us and
> > have been her all along) as the popular lift explanations do to Bernoulli
> > and Newton.
> >
>
> Wait...are you suggesting that it's the aliens lifting our aircraft? That
> would explain so much!
>
> Why do *I* end up with the lazy alien, I'd like to know.
>
and density altitude is a myth. The higher you go the bigger they get
until theres not enough room on the wing for them. If its warm they
tend to sunbathe on the wing lessening the area and numbers of lift
fairies available :-)

[George]

Andrew Gideon > wrote in message e.com>...
> Roger Long wrote:
>
> > The web
> > site for this theory does just as much of a dis-service to the aliens
> > (they aren't really aliens because they are actually right next to us and
> > have been her all along) as the popular lift explanations do to Bernoulli
> > and Newton.
> >
>
> Wait...are you suggesting that it's the aliens lifting our aircraft? That
> would explain so much!
>
> Why do *I* end up with the lazy alien, I'd like to know.
>
and density altitude is a myth. The higher you go the bigger they get
until theres not enough room on the wing for them. If its warm they
tend to sunbathe on the wing lessening the area and numbers of lift
fairies available :-)