Some caveats for people new to aviation and to this group

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

Every now and then we get a contentious, obnoxious know-it-all who in fact
has only rudimentary knowledge of aviation. Past examples include the Fish
Who Must Not Be Named, AcroBat, Skyloon, and others. There is at least one
such haunting the aviation groups even now. The current guy is small potatoes
compared to some of the previous ones.

These people are not friends of aviation. They have no idea what they are
talking about. They freely give advice that may be dangerous. They do not
care if they kill somebody else and in fact they probably hope they do.

Beware of anyone who continually posts advice or information that runs
counter to what the vast majority of seasoned pilots and flight instructors
here have to say. Yes, the rest of us can be wrong and we all have our
disagreements, but if someone stands out as continually disagreeing with
people who actually fly, he is not your friend. He is trying to kill you.
Treat him accordingly.

[Jay Beckman]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
e.com...
> Every now and then we get a contentious, obnoxious know-it-all who in fact
> has only rudimentary knowledge of aviation.

<Snip Cold Hard Truth>

Very well said CJ...very well said.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[Montblack]

("C J Campbell" wrote)
> Every now and then we get a contentious, obnoxious know-it-all who in fact
> has only rudimentary knowledge of aviation.


In my defense I'd like to state, um, ...er, well, you see... <sweating>

Hey everybody. Mormie converted over to Cannibalism while he was out in the
jungle. Pass it on.


Mont-blackened
Or was that Catholicism? Either way, Feast Days are in his future :-)

[kontiki]

Montblack wrote:
> ("C J Campbell" wrote)
>
>>Every now and then we get a contentious, obnoxious know-it-all who in fact
>>has only rudimentary knowledge of aviation.
>
>
>
> In my defense I'd like to state, um, ...er, well, you see... <sweating>
>

sure... airplanes with the biggest wings fly the best! Well, unless
sometimes they get flapped faster, or have powerful electric flaps...
or bigger fans on the front, or on the wings. Of course if there are
TWO pilots they can pedal faster so that adds bank angle. :^)

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 01:14:48 -0800, Montblack wrote
(in article >):

> ("C J Campbell" wrote)
>> Every now and then we get a contentious, obnoxious know-it-all who in fact
>> has only rudimentary knowledge of aviation.
>
>
> In my defense I'd like to state, um, ...er, well, you see... <sweating>
>
> Hey everybody. Mormie converted over to Cannibalism while he was out in the
> jungle. Pass it on.

A gross exaggeration. Headhunters do not eat their victims.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 00:38:58 -0800, Jay Beckman wrote
(in article >):

> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> e.com...
>> Every now and then we get a contentious, obnoxious know-it-all who in fact
>> has only rudimentary knowledge of aviation.
>
> <Snip Cold Hard Truth>
>
> Very well said CJ...very well said.

It is not just the occasional troll. In the years I have been following the
aviation groups, I have seen people posting here from mental hospitals,
prisons, radical hate groups, and just about everywhere else.

What people need to be reminded of is that any advice they receive here might
be coming from some rather, um, special people.

[[email protected]]

> A gross exaggeration. Headhunters do not eat their victims.

According to research I've compiled it would appear that they do in
part consume their victims, hence they would eat their victims...
please state the relative sources that you have showing they do not...
if you are honest you will agree with me, if you're not continue to
believe in whatever it is you believe that I don't believe in... so on
and so forth interapax.

Does the above remind you of anyone?

[[email protected]]

> A gross exaggeration. Headhunters do not eat their victims.

According to research I've compiled it would appear that they do in
part consume their victims, hence they would eat their victims...
please state the relative sources that you have showing they do not...
if you are honest you will agree with me, if you're not continue to
believe in whatever it is you believe that I don't believe in... so on
and so forth interapax, amen.

Does the above remind you of anyone?

[Matt Barrow]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
e.com...
>>> Every now and then we get a contentious, obnoxious know-it-all who in
>>> fact
>>> has only rudimentary knowledge of aviation.
>>
>> <Snip Cold Hard Truth>

> It is not just the occasional troll. In the years I have been following
> the
> aviation groups, I have seen people posting here from mental hospitals,
> prisons, radical hate groups, and just about everywhere else.

Saloons?

[Matt Barrow]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>> A gross exaggeration. Headhunters do not eat their victims.
>
> According to research I've compiled it would appear that they do in
> part consume their victims, hence they would eat their victims...
> please state the relative sources that you have showing they do not...
> if you are honest you will agree with me, if you're not continue to
> believe in whatever it is you believe that I don't believe in... so on
> and so forth interapax.
>
> Does the above remind you of anyone?

Sure... my in-laws!

[Dudley Henriques]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>> A gross exaggeration. Headhunters do not eat their victims.
>
> According to research I've compiled it would appear that they do in
> part consume their victims, hence they would eat their victims...
> please state the relative sources that you have showing they do not...
> if you are honest you will agree with me, if you're not continue to
> believe in whatever it is you believe that I don't believe in... so on
> and so forth interapax.
>
> Does the above remind you of anyone?


Sounds like it might be part of a tutorial written on what to expect on
Usenet :-)

Dudley Henriques

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 09:57:27 -0800, Matt Barrow wrote
(in article >):

>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> e.com...
>>>> Every now and then we get a contentious, obnoxious know-it-all who in
>>>> fact
>>>> has only rudimentary knowledge of aviation.
>>>
>>> <Snip Cold Hard Truth>
>
>> It is not just the occasional troll. In the years I have been following
>> the
>> aviation groups, I have seen people posting here from mental hospitals,
>> prisons, radical hate groups, and just about everywhere else.
>
> Saloons?
>
>

Well, yeah. But we tolerate Jay Honeck.

[Bob Fry]

With remarkably few changes from the original post I offer the
following:

Every now and then we get a contentious, obnoxious know-it-all who in
fact has only rudimentary knowledge of politics and leadership. Past
examples include Andrew Johnson, Warren G. Harding, and others. There
is one such haunting the office even now. The current guy is the worst
compared to some of the previous ones.

These presidents are not friends of America. They have no idea what they are
talking about. They freely give advice that may be dangerous. They do not
care if they kill somebody else and in fact they probably hope they do.

Beware of anyone who continually offers advice or information that
runs counter to what the vast majority of citizens and statesmen have
to say. Yes, the rest of us can be wrong and we all have our
disagreements, but if someone stands out as continually disagreeing
with people who actually have experience, he is not your friend. He is
trying to kill you. Treat him accordingly.

--
Instead of studying for finals, what about just going to the Bahamas
and catching some rays? Maybe you'll flunk, but you might have flunked
anyway; that's my point.
- Jack Handey

[george]

Jay Beckman wrote:

> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> e.com...
> > Every now and then we get a contentious, obnoxious know-it-all who in fact
> > has only rudimentary knowledge of aviation.
>
> <Snip Cold Hard Truth>
>
> Very well said CJ...very well said.

An recent example is one poster (in another group) who claimed to be a
'naval aviator' in Vietnam and later flew privately.
His knowledge of aerodynamics was such that he 'knew' heavy aircraft
couldn't fly at low altitudes because the low pressure area under the
wing would suck the aircraft straight into the ground..
So there you go ground effect is an invention of those lift fairies :-)

Message exerpts to keep you smiling

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
Al... has no one informed you that you can't fly a jumbo jet at max
speed
anywhere near the ground? There's a rather large lift vacuum
underneath
that would pull it immediately into the ground.

Claim 1
David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
It's not difficult at all to understand... but having been a Marine
Aviator
during Viet Nam and a pilot in more recent times, I have somehwat of
a grip on the way an aircraft functions and a definite knowledge of the
numbers and types of parts that sinplt do NOT disintegrate.

Claim2
David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
One didn't have to be a military 'pilot' to fly the back seat of an
OV-10a Bronco
on flare missions to be considered an 'aviator'. Never jump to
conclusions...
but since you looked, maybe you could also look up ownership of N-5848A

and it's pilot's logs.

Note: we did and he isn't the registered owner. No big shock there
but do d search and read up on the piloting skills of the 'pilot'

Claim3
David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
the mere act of takeoff and achieving cruise altitude requires roughly
20%
of whatever fuel load was placed on the aircraft,

[john smith]

C J Campbell wrote:

>On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 09:57:27 -0800, Matt Barrow wrote
>(in article >):
>
>
>
>>"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
e.com...
>>
>>
>>>>>Every now and then we get a contentious, obnoxious know-it-all who in
>>>>>fact
>>>>>has only rudimentary knowledge of aviation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>><Snip Cold Hard Truth>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>It is not just the occasional troll. In the years I have been following
>>>the
>>>aviation groups, I have seen people posting here from mental hospitals,
>>>prisons, radical hate groups, and just about everywhere else.
>>>
>>>
>>Saloons?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>Well, yeah. But we tolerate Jay Honeck.
>
>
>
And lots of people from Kalifornia.

[Dudley Henriques]

Probably half the people posting on Usenet are not who they say they are or
haven't done the things they say they have done. Even if you ARE who you say
you are on Usenet, it's STILL incumbent on those reading what is written to
do their own research to separate fact from fiction.
Only a total fool takes Usenet at face value. Everything posted on Usenet is
questionable.
When you come to Usenet, you are well advised not to take it seriously. Your
concern for example about this poster being an imposter is simply Usenet 101
for the average reader out here and certainly not worth all the trouble you
are going to in "exposing" this person.
Learn to take Usenet for what it is and it will save you a lot of trouble.
On Usenet, nobody cares for these long drawn out "investigations" started by
some individual to "expose" somebody they are mad at, don't believe, or
dislike for some reason. It just takes up our bandwidth and is a total waste
of time .
If this guy is a phony, his posted information will disclose it soon enough
for those who know, and for the rest it doesn't matter anyway.
Hell, I've been posting on Usenet for years under my own name. There are
people out here who know me personally. Even with that, there is still no
absolute proof that what you are reading right now has been posted by me and
not someone else. Trust me on this one; it doesn't matter.
Typical Usenet example as follows;
I was underposted by an individual who wanted to tell the entire world that
I wasn't Dudley Henriques. He said he could prove that because he knew
Dudley Henriques personally and knew where he was.
My wife immediately sent him an email asking him to PLEASE go immediately
and ask the real Dudley Henriques if he liked to do yard work and if so,
would he consider coming home right away, since the imposter she had been
living with for 40 years absolutely hated to do yardwork!!.
That's Usenet my friend! Just take it as it is and enjoy it for WHAT it is.
Trying to change it is a lesson in futility
:-)))
Dudley Henriques (But is it
REALLY???????????????????????????????????????????? ?? :-)



"george" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Jay Beckman wrote:
>
>> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>> e.com...
>> > Every now and then we get a contentious, obnoxious know-it-all who in
>> > fact
>> > has only rudimentary knowledge of aviation.
>>
>> <Snip Cold Hard Truth>
>>
>> Very well said CJ...very well said.
>
> An recent example is one poster (in another group) who claimed to be a
> 'naval aviator' in Vietnam and later flew privately.
> His knowledge of aerodynamics was such that he 'knew' heavy aircraft
> couldn't fly at low altitudes because the low pressure area under the
> wing would suck the aircraft straight into the ground..
> So there you go ground effect is an invention of those lift fairies :-)
>
> Message exerpts to keep you smiling
>
> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
> Al... has no one informed you that you can't fly a jumbo jet at max
> speed
> anywhere near the ground? There's a rather large lift vacuum
> underneath
> that would pull it immediately into the ground.
>
> Claim 1
> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
> It's not difficult at all to understand... but having been a Marine
> Aviator
> during Viet Nam and a pilot in more recent times, I have somehwat of
> a grip on the way an aircraft functions and a definite knowledge of the
> numbers and types of parts that sinplt do NOT disintegrate.
>
> Claim2
> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
> One didn't have to be a military 'pilot' to fly the back seat of an
> OV-10a Bronco
> on flare missions to be considered an 'aviator'. Never jump to
> conclusions...
> but since you looked, maybe you could also look up ownership of N-5848A
>
> and it's pilot's logs.
>
> Note: we did and he isn't the registered owner. No big shock there
> but do d search and read up on the piloting skills of the 'pilot'
>
> Claim3
> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
> the mere act of takeoff and achieving cruise altitude requires roughly
> 20%
> of whatever fuel load was placed on the aircraft,
>

[Don Tuite]

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 15:10:07 -0500, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

.. . .
>Typical Usenet example as follows;
>I was underposted by an individual who wanted to tell the entire world that
>I wasn't Dudley Henriques. He said he could prove that because he knew
>Dudley Henriques personally and knew where he was.
>My wife immediately sent him an email asking him to PLEASE go immediately
>and ask the real Dudley Henriques if he liked to do yard work and if so,
>would he consider coming home right away, since the imposter she had been
>living with for 40 years absolutely hated to do yardwork!!.

Y'know, that's what's good about Usenet. It offers win-win situations
for everybody.

Don

[Dudley Henriques]

"Don Tuite" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 15:10:07 -0500, "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote:
>
> . . .
>>Typical Usenet example as follows;
>>I was underposted by an individual who wanted to tell the entire world
>>that
>>I wasn't Dudley Henriques. He said he could prove that because he knew
>>Dudley Henriques personally and knew where he was.
>>My wife immediately sent him an email asking him to PLEASE go immediately
>>and ask the real Dudley Henriques if he liked to do yard work and if so,
>>would he consider coming home right away, since the imposter she had been
>>living with for 40 years absolutely hated to do yardwork!!.
>
> Y'know, that's what's good about Usenet. It offers win-win situations
> for everybody.
>
> Don

"ain't it the truth" :-)

DH

[Peter Dohm]

> Probably half the people posting on Usenet are not who they say they are
or
> haven't done the things they say they have done. Even if you ARE who you
say
> you are on Usenet, it's STILL incumbent on those reading what is written
to
> do their own research to separate fact from fiction.
> Only a total fool takes Usenet at face value. Everything posted on Usenet
is
> questionable.

Very true. At worst; it's entertainment, with no waiting for your favorite
program. At best, it contains information with a bibliography--or at least
a couple of new search arguments to further your search.

Peter

[george]

Education, grandmother, ova and a fair amount of suction.
For some reason aviation is a subject that kooks,wannabes and Walter
Mittys latch onto..
Why?
I have no idea. perhaps with all the accumulated wisdom you have you
might like to pass on the reasons ?
If you want to fly or learn to fly there are hundreds (even thousands)
of instructors waiting out there for you to walk through the doors.
Why just pass over a posters claims when you know that they are
seriously in error ?

The most useless things in aviation are;
fuel in the bowser
runway behind you
and altitude above you

[Dudley Henriques]

"george" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>
>
> Education, grandmother, ova and a fair amount of suction.

Sounds profound, but I have no idea why :-)


> For some reason aviation is a subject that kooks,wannabes and Walter
> Mittys latch onto..
> Why?

It's the nature of man that he's excited by adventure. It's also the nature
of man that not all men are adventurers.


> I have no idea. perhaps with all the accumulated wisdom you have you
> might like to pass on the reasons ?

I don't play well with veiled sarcasam, and I've already stated a cornacopia
of "reasons" :-)


> If you want to fly or learn to fly there are hundreds (even thousands)
> of instructors waiting out there for you to walk through the doors.

Yes I know. I'm one of them :-)


> Why just pass over a posters claims when you know that they are
> seriously in error ?

As a flight instructor, I will naturally "correct" any "error" in a post
that I determine might be harmful to someone. This however applies to flight
safety. I should also add that even my "correction" should be considered and
researched to competent authority for verification by all who read it on
Usenet.
You on the other hand, are attempting to deal with a person's authenticity
on Usenet, which is a total waste of time and NOT related in any way to
flight safety. You are of course free to do this, as I am free to tell you
it's a waste of time. See.....that's Usenet! Nobody wins. :-))

Dudley Henriques

[Thomas Borchert]

George,

> a rather large lift vacuum
> underneath
>

Really good!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Dudley Henriques]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
news:jMTnh.20095$_X.12406@bigfe9...
>> Probably half the people posting on Usenet are not who they say they are
> or
>> haven't done the things they say they have done. Even if you ARE who you
> say
>> you are on Usenet, it's STILL incumbent on those reading what is written
> to
>> do their own research to separate fact from fiction.
>> Only a total fool takes Usenet at face value. Everything posted on Usenet
> is
>> questionable.
>
> Very true. At worst; it's entertainment, with no waiting for your
> favorite
> program. At best, it contains information with a bibliography--or at
> least
> a couple of new search arguments to further your search.
>
> Peter

I always tell people when I post something I feel is of importance
concerning flight safety on Usenet;
"Please feel free to take this post to competent authority for verification
".
Then, after years of posting comment and information, if that information is
factual and accurate, the number of people who actually take your posts to
check them out might diminish a bit :-)
Dudley Henriques

[Chris W]

C J Campbell wrote:

> Beware of anyone who continually posts advice or information that runs
> counter to what the vast majority of seasoned pilots and flight instructors
> here have to say.

Anyone that has to be told that, shouldn't be at the controls of an
airplane, or any mechanical devise.


--
Chris W
KE5GIX

"Protect your digital freedom and privacy, eliminate DRM,
learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm"

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com

[Chris W]

Bob Fry wrote:

> Every now and then we get a contentious, obnoxious know-it-all . . .

Every now and then we also get morons that can't read and or comprehend
the subject of the thread, or even the name of the group.


--
Chris W
KE5GIX

"Protect your digital freedom and privacy, eliminate DRM,
learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm"

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com

[george]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> George,
>
> > a rather large lift vacuum
> > underneath
> >
>
> Really good!
>

Yeah Dud appears to have missed that wee gem...

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 15:03:42 -0800, Chris W wrote
(in article >):

> C J Campbell wrote:
>
>> Beware of anyone who continually posts advice or information that runs
>> counter to what the vast majority of seasoned pilots and flight instructors
>> here have to say.
>
> Anyone that has to be told that, shouldn't be at the controls of an
> airplane, or any mechanical devise.
>
>
>

Maybe not, but I have become a pessimist.

[Dudley Henriques]

"george" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>
>> George,
>>
>> > a rather large lift vacuum
>> > underneath
>> >
>>
>> Really good!
>>
>
> Yeah Dud appears to have missed that wee gem...
>

Missed what?

DH

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "DH" == Dudley Henriques > writes:

DH> Probably half the people posting on Usenet are not who they
DH> say they are or haven't done the things they say they have
DH> done.

All of the people you meet in your life carry a facade they present to
the world, including the guy or gal in the mirror. Surely part of
growing up is learning that, and then learning your response to it.

--
A child af five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child
of five.
Groucho Marx

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "CW" == Chris W <Chris> writes:

CW> Bob Fry wrote:
>> Every now and then we get a contentious, obnoxious know-it-all
>> . . .

CW> Every now and then we also get morons that can't read and or
CW> comprehend the subject of the thread, or even the name of the
CW> group.

Every now and then? Damn near every other post is off topic in
r.a.p.

--
In America you can go on the air and kid the politicians, and the
politicians can go on the air and kid the people.
Groucho Marx

[Jack Allison]

john smith wrote:
> And lots of people from Kalifornia.
>
Yes you do "john smith"...yes you do :-)


--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL-Instrument Airplane

"To become a Jedi knight, you must master a single force. To become
a private pilot you must strive to master four of them"
- Rod Machado

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[Peter Dohm]

>
> Maybe not, but I have become a pessimist.
>
That may be realated to excessive reading of r.a.s and r.a.p. :-))

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

> >
> > Thomas Borchert wrote:
> >
> >> George,
> >>
> >> > a rather large lift vacuum
> >> > underneath
> >> >
> >>
> >> Really good!
> >>
> >
> > Yeah Dud appears to have missed that wee gem...
> >
>
> Missed what?
>
> DH
>
>
Beats me.

(I thought that you summed it up rather well)

Peter

[Jay Honeck]

> > Saloons?
>
> Well, yeah. But we tolerate Jay Honeck.

Hey! I don't see a smiley there!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose[_1_]]

>>Well, yeah. But we tolerate Jay Honeck.
>
>
> Hey! I don't see a smiley there!

You want it to be a joke that we tolerate Jay Honeck?

:) if you want it.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
. ..
>> >
>> > Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> >
>> >> George,
>> >>
>> >> > a rather large lift vacuum
>> >> > underneath
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Really good!
>> >>
>> >
>> > Yeah Dud appears to have missed that wee gem...
>> >
>>
>> Missed what?
>>
>> DH
>>
>>
> Beats me.
>
> (I thought that you summed it up rather well)
>
> Peter

As far as I can see, I'm either savvy enough that I passed on commenting
about something I didn't feel was important enough to warrant any direct
attention, or I'm just plain stupid and missed something that this poster
has decided I should have commented on and didn't :-))
Dudley Henriques

[Stefan]

> C J Campbell wrote:
>
>> Beware of anyone who continually posts advice or information that runs
>> counter to what the vast majority of seasoned pilots and flight
>> instructors here have to say.

Careful: Every progress was done by people who ran counter of what the
vast majority of knowledgeble people said. I've read a lot of pretty
inaccurate information posted by seasoned pilots in this group.

Stefan

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Stefan > wrote:

> >> Beware of anyone who continually posts advice or information that runs
> >> counter to what the vast majority of seasoned pilots and flight
> >> instructors here have to say.
>
> Careful: Every progress was done by people who ran counter of what the
> vast majority of knowledgeble people said. I've read a lot of pretty
> inaccurate information posted by seasoned pilots in this group.

But not everything that runs counter to conventional wisdom/experience leads
to progress.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Stefan]

Bob Noel schrieb:

>> Careful: Every progress was done by people who ran counter of what the

> But not everything that runs counter to conventional wisdom/experience leads
> to progress.

Pretty obviously. I didn't mention the price which is payed by all those
who try something and fail.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 04:35:49 -0800, Stefan wrote
(in article >):

>> C J Campbell wrote:
>>
>>> Beware of anyone who continually posts advice or information that runs
>>> counter to what the vast majority of seasoned pilots and flight
>>> instructors here have to say.
>
> Careful: Every progress was done by people who ran counter of what the
> vast majority of knowledgeble people said. I've read a lot of pretty
> inaccurate information posted by seasoned pilots in this group.
>
> Stefan

For every Galileo there are a million crackpots. It is up to the Galileos of
the world to prove that they are right. If they can't do that, they are
crackpots. If you wanted to see if Galileo was right, all you had to do was
look through his telescope. All that Cayley had to do to prove his lift
equations was build a glider. That is the difference between pioneers and
crackpots. If you want to tell me that lift is caused by lift gremlins, you
better show me some gremlins.

[john smith]

Jack Allison wrote:

> john smith wrote:
>
>> And lots of people from Kalifornia.
>>
> Yes you do "john smith"...yes you do :-)

Sorry, I've been away from this thread. What was the question?