Apology re mxsmanic [Archive]

Le Chaud Lapin

February 12th 08, 11:19 PM

On Feb 11, 11:42*pm, terry > wrote:
> sometime ago I criticised *pilots on this group about the harsh way
> they were treating one mxsmanic. *It seemed to me at the time to be a
> bunch of egotistical pilots snubbing their nose at someone who was
> genuinely interested in finding out about aviation, but didnt have the
> wherewithall financially or intellectually to actually participate in
> the real thing. *No matter what your profession is, it always seemed
> to me that promoting that profession in a good light to others was
> part of what being a professional is all about. It has always been my
> approach. *I have now come to understand what a complete waste of time
> trying to help this person is. I have never in all my life come across
> an individual with an attitude like this. If any of you regulars
> actually remember me for those comments, I unreservedly apologise.
> Terry
> PPL Downunder

I haven't communicated enough with Mxsmanic enough to judge him,
though I strongly disagree with his "action under wing only"
philosphy, if he still believes that.

In any case, your old point-of-view and your new point-of view are not
mutually-exclusive.

Whether Mxsmanic is a kook, I have still found a few of the regulars
in this group to be somewhat ogrish. It's almost as if they feel that
having a pilot's license gives them the right to abuse those who do
not.

I posted an article a while back about backwash causing lift, because
I was genuinely interested in exploring the topic, and the explanation
given in my student handbook conflicted with basic Newtonian physics,
and tried to start a discussion, and the ad-hominen attacks were
almost immediate:

http://tinyurl.com/34tfeq

It was as if the pilots in this group were not ready to hear that what
they had learned for X years might be wrong, even though one
individual posted a link from NASA saying that at conventional wisdom
might be wrong. I also did a bit of research myself and discovered
that there are *many* university researchers in aero/astro who do
*not* agree that theory of flight is a settled issue, contrary to what
some of the pilots in here were claiming. Also, a couple of famous
pilots who have written books also agreed that much of the
conventional wisdom is wrong. The more I looked, the more I saw
disagreement in academia, while many people here were saying "it's
well-understood, leave it alone!" There were posters stepping in only
to say something rude, then leave. I was a bit suprised to be
honest. It completely changed my image of the pilot, though I guess
that's to be expected, since until starting flight school and coming
to this group, my only "experience" had been on the way to my seat,
passing a captain or FO who would smile by default to all passengers.
Of course, this group is not representative of the pilot community (or
is it?).

When you have so many esteemed institutions and individuals offering
alternative explanations, what's wrong with a bit of disucssion? It
can't hurt...and even if what's put forth turns out the be wrong, the
person who is wrong might learn something. There also might be lurkers
who learn from reading the posts.

I guess the most important thing that I learned is that a pilot's
group might not the best place on USENET to broach taboo subjects on
the theory of flight.

Whatever the reason planes fly, there is no excuse for being rude if
the person you are being rude toward has not been rude to you, IMO.
There is always the option to simply ignore the person whom you don't
agree with.

-Le Chaud Lapin-
[student pilot, very much interested in theory of flight]

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 12th 08, 11:38 PM

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> On Feb 11, 11:42 pm, terry > wrote:
>> sometime ago I criticised pilots on this group about the harsh way
>> they were treating one mxsmanic. It seemed to me at the time to be a
>> bunch of egotistical pilots snubbing their nose at someone who was
>> genuinely interested in finding out about aviation, but didnt have the
>> wherewithall financially or intellectually to actually participate in
>> the real thing. No matter what your profession is, it always seemed
>> to me that promoting that profession in a good light to others was
>> part of what being a professional is all about. It has always been my
>> approach. I have now come to understand what a complete waste of time
>> trying to help this person is. I have never in all my life come across
>> an individual with an attitude like this. If any of you regulars
>> actually remember me for those comments, I unreservedly apologise.
>> Terry
>> PPL Downunder
>
> I haven't communicated enough with Mxsmanic enough to judge him,
> though I strongly disagree with his "action under wing only"
> philosphy, if he still believes that.
>
> In any case, your old point-of-view and your new point-of view are not
> mutually-exclusive.
>
> Whether Mxsmanic is a kook, I have still found a few of the regulars
> in this group to be somewhat ogrish. It's almost as if they feel that
> having a pilot's license gives them the right to abuse those who do
> not.
>
> I posted an article a while back about backwash causing lift, because
> I was genuinely interested in exploring the topic, and the explanation
> given in my student handbook conflicted with basic Newtonian physics,
> and tried to start a discussion, and the ad-hominen attacks were
> almost immediate:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/34tfeq
>
> It was as if the pilots in this group were not ready to hear that what
> they had learned for X years might be wrong, even though one
> individual posted a link from NASA saying that at conventional wisdom
> might be wrong. I also did a bit of research myself and discovered
> that there are *many* university researchers in aero/astro who do
> *not* agree that theory of flight is a settled issue, contrary to what
> some of the pilots in here were claiming. Also, a couple of famous
> pilots who have written books also agreed that much of the
> conventional wisdom is wrong. The more I looked, the more I saw
> disagreement in academia, while many people here were saying "it's
> well-understood, leave it alone!" There were posters stepping in only
> to say something rude, then leave. I was a bit suprised to be
> honest. It completely changed my image of the pilot, though I guess
> that's to be expected, since until starting flight school and coming
> to this group, my only "experience" had been on the way to my seat,
> passing a captain or FO who would smile by default to all passengers.
> Of course, this group is not representative of the pilot community (or
> is it?).
>
> When you have so many esteemed institutions and individuals offering
> alternative explanations, what's wrong with a bit of disucssion? It
> can't hurt...and even if what's put forth turns out the be wrong, the
> person who is wrong might learn something. There also might be lurkers
> who learn from reading the posts.
>
> I guess the most important thing that I learned is that a pilot's
> group might not the best place on USENET to broach taboo subjects on
> the theory of flight.
>
> Whatever the reason planes fly, there is no excuse for being rude if
> the person you are being rude toward has not been rude to you, IMO.
> There is always the option to simply ignore the person whom you don't
> agree with.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-
> [student pilot, very much interested in theory of flight]

You are correct in that there are incorrect theories of lift in play,
but totally incorrect in any assumption that these incorrect theories
are not so well known as to be considered at this point in time 101 by
any good flight instructor.and indeed, any well trained pilot.
For you to appear here and state that pilots generally are unaware of
these issues is disingenuous to a fault and totally untrue.
There are basically 3 incorrect theories of lift and they are the equal
transit theory, the "venturi" theory, and the reaction theory concerning
the underside of the wing.
Both Bernoulli and Newton are in themselves complete explanations of
lift as both occur at the same instant in time on the surface generating
lift and one can not physically be present without the other.
Each can be used to explain lift, and good CFI's present lift explaining
how both interact.

This information as I said is basic to all good pilots and CFI's.

--
Dudley Henriques

Le Chaud Lapin

February 13th 08, 12:00 AM

On Feb 12, 5:38*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> You are correct in that there are incorrect theories of lift in play,
> but totally incorrect in any assumption that these incorrect theories
> are not so well known as to be considered at this point in time 101 by
> any good flight instructor.and indeed, any well trained pilot.
> For you to appear here and state that pilots generally are unaware of
> these issues is disingenuous *to a fault and totally untrue.

Hmm...the NASA site and a few other sites I found a few months ago
seemed to imply that incorrect theories of flight were still popular,
even among pilots. But of course, I cannot know.

> There are basically 3 incorrect theories of lift and they are the equal
> transit theory, the "venturi" theory, and the reaction theory concerning
> the underside of the wing.
> Both Bernoulli and Newton are in themselves complete explanations of
> lift as both occur at the same instant in time on the surface generating
> lift and one can not physically be present without the other.
> Each can be used to explain lift, and good CFI's present lift explaining
> how both interact.
>
> This information as I said is basic to all good pilots and CFI's.

Well, this response could have saved us a lot of typing in my OP on
backwash long ago.

Also...my Jeppesen "Private Pilot" "Guided Flight Discovery" book was
published in 2007, and what is written in it contradicts what is
written on the NASA site. And what is written at two promiment aero/
astro texts in the USA contradicts what is written on the NASA site.
And what my own flight instructor told me in ground school contradicts
what my physics book says.

I did consider the possibility that pilots who teach/write these books
know that some of what is being taught/written is not accurate, but,
in the interest of matriculating and moving the student quickly
through flight learning, they simply repeat what was said in early
days of flight.

Being an engineer, I would rather have had a disclaimer, something
like, "There is still much debate on this issue....but this is what we
know or think we know.."

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 13th 08, 12:51 AM

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> On Feb 12, 5:38 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> You are correct in that there are incorrect theories of lift in play,
>> but totally incorrect in any assumption that these incorrect theories
>> are not so well known as to be considered at this point in time 101 by
>> any good flight instructor.and indeed, any well trained pilot.
>> For you to appear here and state that pilots generally are unaware of
>> these issues is disingenuous to a fault and totally untrue.
>
> Hmm...the NASA site and a few other sites I found a few months ago
> seemed to imply that incorrect theories of flight were still popular,
> even among pilots. But of course, I cannot know.
>
>> There are basically 3 incorrect theories of lift and they are the equal
>> transit theory, the "venturi" theory, and the reaction theory concerning
>> the underside of the wing.
>> Both Bernoulli and Newton are in themselves complete explanations of
>> lift as both occur at the same instant in time on the surface generating
>> lift and one can not physically be present without the other.
>> Each can be used to explain lift, and good CFI's present lift explaining
>> how both interact.
>>
>> This information as I said is basic to all good pilots and CFI's.
>
> Well, this response could have saved us a lot of typing in my OP on
> backwash long ago.
>
> Also...my Jeppesen "Private Pilot" "Guided Flight Discovery" book was
> published in 2007, and what is written in it contradicts what is
> written on the NASA site. And what is written at two promiment aero/
> astro texts in the USA contradicts what is written on the NASA site.
> And what my own flight instructor told me in ground school contradicts
> what my physics book says.
>
> I did consider the possibility that pilots who teach/write these books
> know that some of what is being taught/written is not accurate, but,
> in the interest of matriculating and moving the student quickly
> through flight learning, they simply repeat what was said in early
> days of flight.
>
> Being an engineer, I would rather have had a disclaimer, something
> like, "There is still much debate on this issue....but this is what we
> know or think we know.."
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

As I said, and said correctly, there are basically 3 incorrect theories
of lift out here and these are well known and corrected daily by any
good CFI or pilot.
Addressing your issue specifically, there are ALSO a considerable amount
of both CFI's and pilots who teach correct theory incorrectly, which can
cause even more confusion.
Contrary to what you have implied by your assertions here, I have found
the pilots and instructors on these forums to generally be quite aware
of the incorrect lift issues and more than willing (Google is your
friend on this) to engage those like yourself who have questions.
There are always a few "hold overs" from the old incorrect days on any
public forum, but to state that this condition is anything close to
systemic is a huge stretch.

There is nothing wrong with presenting a question that contradicts some
of what has been written about lift, but doing so as a challenge to
pilots everywhere will ruffle a few feathers every time.
There are many fine pilots out here who don't have engineering degrees.
I can assure you these people are anything but stupid.
If you are a student and as well a knowledgeable engineer, that can show
in your questions without being challenging or demeaning.
To reiterate, there are text books still in print that offer incorrect
information on this issue, but the main cause of confusion lies in
another direction. The books are being corrected every day, and not all
of them are wrong by a long shot.
The real "issue" on the subject of lift lies in the basic misconceptions
of a few, not in the ignorance of the general flying community as you
have incorrectly insinuated.

--
Dudley Henriques

Le Chaud Lapin

February 13th 08, 01:47 AM

On Feb 12, 6:51*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> > On Feb 12, 5:38 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> You are correct in that there are incorrect theories of lift in play,
> >> but totally incorrect in any assumption that these incorrect theories
> >> are not so well known as to be considered at this point in time 101 by
> >> any good flight instructor.and indeed, any well trained pilot.
> >> For you to appear here and state that pilots generally are unaware of
> >> these issues is disingenuous *to a fault and totally untrue.
>
> > Hmm...the NASA site and a few other sites I found a few months ago
> > seemed to imply that incorrect theories of flight were still popular,
> > even among pilots. But of course, I cannot know.
>
> >> There are basically 3 incorrect theories of lift and they are the equal
> >> transit theory, the "venturi" theory, and the reaction theory concerning
> >> the underside of the wing.
> >> Both Bernoulli and Newton are in themselves complete explanations of
> >> lift as both occur at the same instant in time on the surface generating
> >> lift and one can not physically be present without the other.
> >> Each can be used to explain lift, and good CFI's present lift explaining
> >> how both interact.
>
> >> This information as I said is basic to all good pilots and CFI's.
>
> > Well, this response could have saved us a lot of typing in my OP on
> > backwash long ago.
>
> > Also...my Jeppesen "Private Pilot" "Guided Flight Discovery" book was
> > published in 2007, and what is written in it contradicts what is
> > written on the NASA site. *And what is written at two promiment aero/
> > astro texts in the USA contradicts what is written on the NASA site.
> > And what my own flight instructor told me in ground school contradicts
> > what my physics book says.
>
> > I did consider the possibility that pilots who teach/write these books
> > know that some of what is being taught/written is not accurate, but,
> > in the interest of matriculating and moving the student quickly
> > through flight learning, they simply repeat what was said in early
> > days of flight.
>
> > Being an engineer, I would rather have had a disclaimer, something
> > like, "There is still much debate on this issue....but this is what we
> > know or think we know.."
>
> > -Le Chaud Lapin-
>
> As I said, and said correctly, there are basically 3 incorrect theories
> of lift out here and these are well known and corrected daily by any
> good CFI or pilot.
> Addressing your issue specifically, there are ALSO a considerable amount
> of both CFI's and pilots who teach correct theory incorrectly, which can
> cause even more confusion.
> Contrary to what you have implied by your assertions here, I have found
> the pilots and instructors on these forums to generally be quite aware
> of the incorrect lift issues and more than willing (Google is your
> friend on this) to engage those like yourself who have questions.
> There are always a few "hold overs" from the old incorrect days on any
> public forum, but to state that this condition is anything close to
> systemic is a huge stretch.
>
> There is nothing wrong with presenting a question that contradicts some
> of what has been written about lift, but doing so as a challenge to
> pilots everywhere will ruffle a few feathers every time.
> There are many fine pilots out here who don't have engineering degrees.
> I can assure you these people are anything but stupid.
> If you are a student and as well a knowledgeable engineer, that can show
> in your questions without being challenging or demeaning.
> To reiterate, there are text books still in print that offer incorrect
> information on this issue, but the main cause of confusion lies in
> another direction. The books are being corrected every day, and not all
> of them are wrong by a long shot.
> The real "issue" on the subject of lift lies in the basic misconceptions
> of a few, not in the ignorance of the general flying community as you
> have incorrectly insinuated.

This is plain wrong.

In fact, my estimation of what pilots knew was far greater both before
ground school and before I made my post and before I read the Barry
Schiff's book.

I know that there are some pilots who understand system dynamics very
well. I saw a presentation on TV about blue angles, and for maybe 200
milliseconds, on the blackboard, I saw a transfer function, H(s),
something that you cannot appreciate without understanding complex
analysis. So I was impressed indeed.

That was *before* my experience with average pilots. The best
experience I had in talking to a real pilot was the person who runs
the local control tower. We had engaging conversation about feasibilty
of Moller's car. I also had a few conversations with the owner of my
pilot school, and of course, my instructor.

Those are real world pilot's I have met.

If you would read the responses to my OP about backward, you'd see
that not only was there was a lot of "you're wrong, the book is right"
responses. This was not a few of the responders, it was more than
50%. You call that a few?

In any case, what this is about is not whether I am right about lift
or not, because I conceded in my OP that I have no idea, as I only
recently started thinking about. This is more about the attitude that
immediately resulted from broaching a legitimate technical question.

I want to reemphasize that I was not "challenging" any pilots. I was
mainly concerned with the physics. If anyones feathers got ruffled,
it was probably because they decided that they did not like what was
being written.

If someone were to come to "my" groups, in EE or software, and
challenge, say, where charge lies on a capacitor or whether AVL trees
are better than binary trees, my feathers certainly would not be
ruffled.

After all, it's just talk.

[Actually, you've almost affirmed what I suspected initially, that
some pilot's felt that questioning the theory was a direct challenge
to their knowledge. I certainly hope this wasn't the motivation for
the responses I receieved.]

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 13th 08, 01:50 AM

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> On Feb 12, 6:51 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
>>> On Feb 12, 5:38 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> You are correct in that there are incorrect theories of lift in play,
>>>> but totally incorrect in any assumption that these incorrect theories
>>>> are not so well known as to be considered at this point in time 101 by
>>>> any good flight instructor.and indeed, any well trained pilot.
>>>> For you to appear here and state that pilots generally are unaware of
>>>> these issues is disingenuous to a fault and totally untrue.
>>> Hmm...the NASA site and a few other sites I found a few months ago
>>> seemed to imply that incorrect theories of flight were still popular,
>>> even among pilots. But of course, I cannot know.
>>>> There are basically 3 incorrect theories of lift and they are the equal
>>>> transit theory, the "venturi" theory, and the reaction theory concerning
>>>> the underside of the wing.
>>>> Both Bernoulli and Newton are in themselves complete explanations of
>>>> lift as both occur at the same instant in time on the surface generating
>>>> lift and one can not physically be present without the other.
>>>> Each can be used to explain lift, and good CFI's present lift explaining
>>>> how both interact.
>>>> This information as I said is basic to all good pilots and CFI's.
>>> Well, this response could have saved us a lot of typing in my OP on
>>> backwash long ago.
>>> Also...my Jeppesen "Private Pilot" "Guided Flight Discovery" book was
>>> published in 2007, and what is written in it contradicts what is
>>> written on the NASA site. And what is written at two promiment aero/
>>> astro texts in the USA contradicts what is written on the NASA site.
>>> And what my own flight instructor told me in ground school contradicts
>>> what my physics book says.
>>> I did consider the possibility that pilots who teach/write these books
>>> know that some of what is being taught/written is not accurate, but,
>>> in the interest of matriculating and moving the student quickly
>>> through flight learning, they simply repeat what was said in early
>>> days of flight.
>>> Being an engineer, I would rather have had a disclaimer, something
>>> like, "There is still much debate on this issue....but this is what we
>>> know or think we know.."
>>> -Le Chaud Lapin-
>> As I said, and said correctly, there are basically 3 incorrect theories
>> of lift out here and these are well known and corrected daily by any
>> good CFI or pilot.
>> Addressing your issue specifically, there are ALSO a considerable amount
>> of both CFI's and pilots who teach correct theory incorrectly, which can
>> cause even more confusion.
>> Contrary to what you have implied by your assertions here, I have found
>> the pilots and instructors on these forums to generally be quite aware
>> of the incorrect lift issues and more than willing (Google is your
>> friend on this) to engage those like yourself who have questions.
>> There are always a few "hold overs" from the old incorrect days on any
>> public forum, but to state that this condition is anything close to
>> systemic is a huge stretch.
>>
>> There is nothing wrong with presenting a question that contradicts some
>> of what has been written about lift, but doing so as a challenge to
>> pilots everywhere will ruffle a few feathers every time.
>> There are many fine pilots out here who don't have engineering degrees.
>> I can assure you these people are anything but stupid.
>> If you are a student and as well a knowledgeable engineer, that can show
>> in your questions without being challenging or demeaning.
>> To reiterate, there are text books still in print that offer incorrect
>> information on this issue, but the main cause of confusion lies in
>> another direction. The books are being corrected every day, and not all
>> of them are wrong by a long shot.
>> The real "issue" on the subject of lift lies in the basic misconceptions
>> of a few, not in the ignorance of the general flying community as you
>> have incorrectly insinuated.
>
> This is plain wrong.
>
> In fact, my estimation of what pilots knew was far greater both before
> ground school and before I made my post and before I read the Barry
> Schiff's book.
>
> I know that there are some pilots who understand system dynamics very
> well. I saw a presentation on TV about blue angles, and for maybe 200
> milliseconds, on the blackboard, I saw a transfer function, H(s),
> something that you cannot appreciate without understanding complex
> analysis. So I was impressed indeed.
>
> That was *before* my experience with average pilots. The best
> experience I had in talking to a real pilot was the person who runs
> the local control tower. We had engaging conversation about feasibilty
> of Moller's car. I also had a few conversations with the owner of my
> pilot school, and of course, my instructor.
>
> Those are real world pilot's I have met.
>
> If you would read the responses to my OP about backward, you'd see
> that not only was there was a lot of "you're wrong, the book is right"
> responses. This was not a few of the responders, it was more than
> 50%. You call that a few?
>
> In any case, what this is about is not whether I am right about lift
> or not, because I conceded in my OP that I have no idea, as I only
> recently started thinking about. This is more about the attitude that
> immediately resulted from broaching a legitimate technical question.
>
> I want to reemphasize that I was not "challenging" any pilots. I was
> mainly concerned with the physics. If anyones feathers got ruffled,
> it was probably because they decided that they did not like what was
> being written.
>
> If someone were to come to "my" groups, in EE or software, and
> challenge, say, where charge lies on a capacitor or whether AVL trees
> are better than binary trees, my feathers certainly would not be
> ruffled.
>
> After all, it's just talk.
>
> [Actually, you've almost affirmed what I suspected initially, that
> some pilot's felt that questioning the theory was a direct challenge
> to their knowledge. I certainly hope this wasn't the motivation for
> the responses I receieved.]
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

No problem.
Have a nice day, and best to you.

--
Dudley Henriques

terry

February 13th 08, 03:22 AM

On Feb 13, 10:19*am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Feb 11, 11:42*pm, terry > wrote:
snip
>
>>
> When you have so many esteemed institutions and individuals offering
> alternative explanations, what's wrong with a bit of disucssion? It
> can't hurt...and even if what's put forth turns out the be wrong, the
> person who is wrong might learn something. There also might be lurkers
> who learn from reading the posts.
>
> I guess the most important thing that I learned is that a pilot's
> group might not the best place on USENET to broach taboo subjects on
> the theory of flight.
>
> Whatever the reason planes fly, there is no excuse for being rude if
> the person you are being rude toward has not been rude to you, IMO.
> There is always the option to simply ignore the person whom you don't
> agree with.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-
> [student pilot, very much interested in theory of flight]

Claude , this is not about who is right or wrong its more about the
way people behave. I love an intellectual debate myself , but good
manners dictate that if you are going to challenge someones point of
view, then be prepared to be challenged back, and graciously
acknowldege if you have been proved to be wrong or perhaps even thank
the other participant if you have learned something from them. Mxs
has undoubted interest in aviation. This forum has given him access
to a wealth of experience at zero cost to him. His continual failure
to show any respect , let alone appreciation for those that have tried
to help him is what has irritated so many people on this group. You
might like to go back and follow the why aircraft taxi thread and the
interactions between Msx and myself and you might understand what I
mean about his attitude. I certainly never started out to be rude,
on the contrary I was trying to be helpful in pointing out his
incorrect understanding of the gas laws. I would never ignore
someone simply because I dont agree with them. If I did that I wouldnt
have a friend in the world! but I will ignore people with whom it is
impossible to have an intelligent debate with.
I cant recall being involved with your lift theory thread. The fact is
that a pilot ( at least a private pilot anyway ) really doesnt need
to know whether its Benoulli or Newton at work. What he really needs
to understand is the concept of angle of attack and the need to keep
his wings clean. If you have studied lift theory in detail you
probably know more about it than a lot of pilots, including myself
Good Luck wtih your Flying
Terry

Mxsmanic

February 13th 08, 03:37 AM

Le Chaud Lapin writes:

> In fact, my estimation of what pilots knew was far greater both before
> ground school and before I made my post and before I read the Barry
> Schiff's book.

Pilots know about as much about aerodynamics as TV show directors know about
television engineering. They know what they need to know to fly in most
situations. Going beyond that is not necessary and is difficult for many
students. You need to know about flight and lift in detail to design
aircraft, but you don't need to know all the detail just to fly.

Le Chaud Lapin

February 13th 08, 03:59 AM

On Feb 12, 9:22*pm, terry > wrote:
> Claude , this is not about who is right or wrong its more about the
> way people behave. I love an intellectual debate myself , but good
> manners dictate that if you are going to challenge someones point of
> view, *then be prepared to be challenged back, and graciously
> acknowldege if you have been proved to be wrong or perhaps even thank
> the other participant if you have learned something from them. *Mxs
> has undoubted interest in aviation. *This *forum has *given him access
> to a wealth of experience at zero cost to him. His continual failure
> to show any respect , let alone appreciation for those that have tried
> to help him is what has irritated so many people on this group. * You
> might like to go back and follow the why aircraft taxi thread and the
> interactions between Msx and myself *and you might understand what I
> mean about his attitude. * *I certainly never started out to be rude,
> on the contrary I was trying to be helpful in pointing out his
> incorrect understanding of the gas laws. * *I would never ignore
> someone simply because I dont agree with them. If I did that I wouldnt
> have a friend in the world! *but I will ignore people with whom it is
> impossible to have an intelligent debate with.
> I cant recall being involved with your lift theory thread. The fact is
> that a pilot ( at least a private pilot *anyway ) really doesnt need
> to know whether its Benoulli or Newton at work. What he really needs
> to understand is the concept of angle of attack and the need to keep
> his wings clean. *If you have studied lift theory in detail you
> probably know more about it than a lot of *pilots, including myself
> Good Luck wtih your Flying

Grieft. If everyone here were 1/4 as polite as you....sigh. :)

Thx,

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Jon Woellhaf

February 13th 08, 06:55 AM

"Le Chaud Lapin" > opined that many pilots have an
incorrect understanding of the physics of lift.

Speaking from my own somewhat limited experience, all my instructors and
most pilots I have spoken to about the subject do, indeed, have an incorrect
understanding of the physics of lift.

At Oshkosh last year, one of the exhibitors had a program to simulate
airplane aerodynamics. I asked the two guys who were sitting there if either
of them was an aerodynamicist. One of them said, "I am," in a light
German-sounding accent. I said to him, "Newton or Bernoulli?" "What do you
mean?" "You know -- lift." "It is all Newton. Bernoulli has nothing to do
with it!" How can you argue with a German aerodynamicist?! <g>

Jon

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 13th 08, 11:47 AM

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin writes:
>
>> In fact, my estimation of what pilots knew was far greater both before
>> ground school and before I made my post and before I read the Barry
>> Schiff's book.
>
> Pilots know about as much about aerodynamics as TV show directors know about
> television engineering. They know what they need to know to fly in most
> situations. Going beyond that is not necessary and is difficult for many
> students. You need to know about flight and lift in detail to design
> aircraft, but you don't need to know all the detail just to fly.

I'll notify the Naval Test Pilot School immediately. They'll need this
important revelation :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

terry

February 13th 08, 12:09 PM

On Feb 13, 2:40*pm, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Le Chaud Lapin >
>
> >I haven't communicated enough with Mxsmanic enough to judge him,
> >though I strongly disagree with his "action under wing only"
> >philosphy, if he still believes that.
>
> Why don't you just look in the mirror and ask him?

Are you implying Le Chaud and Mxs are the same person? I find that
very hard to believe. Totally different attitude.
Terry

William Hung[_2_]

February 13th 08, 02:57 PM

On Feb 12, 12:41*pm, AJ > wrote:
> Terry, welcome to the club! *Apology not necessary since you conducted
> yourself as a gentleman while learning what everyone else here
> learned, and in the same manner -- the hard way.
>
> Next week we'll show you the secret handshake.
>
> AJ

So, I have been participating for a little while now, when will I be
initiated?

Wil

Mxsmanic

February 13th 08, 03:04 PM

Dudley Henriques writes:

> I'll notify the Naval Test Pilot School immediately. They'll need this
> important revelation :-)

They should already know.

Mxsmanic

February 13th 08, 03:07 PM

terry writes:

> Are you implying Le Chaud and Mxs are the same person? I find that
> very hard to believe. Totally different attitude.

Many people simplify their perception of others by categorizing everyone as
"one of us" or "one of them." Since they may have trouble understanding
viewpoints other than their own, very often they confuse the identities of
those with whom they disagree (in the latter group) and assimilate them all
into a single sort of metaperson or bogeyman. It may also console them to
think that only one person is behind all the personalities with whom they
disagree, since the alternative would be to acknowledge that there are more
such people than they might like to believe.

Bertie the Bunyip

February 13th 08, 04:33 PM

On 12 Feb, 23:19, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Feb 11, 11:42*pm, terry > wrote:
>
> > sometime ago I criticised *pilots on this group about the harsh way
> > they were treating one mxsmanic. *It seemed to me at the time to be a
> > bunch of egotistical pilots snubbing their nose at someone who was
> > genuinely interested in finding out about aviation, but didnt have the
> > wherewithall financially or intellectually to actually participate in
> > the real thing. *No matter what your profession is, it always seemed
> > to me that promoting that profession in a good light to others was
> > part of what being a professional is all about. It has always been my
> > approach. *I have now come to understand what a complete waste of time
> > trying to help this person is. I have never in all my life come across
> > an individual with an attitude like this. If any of you regulars
> > actually remember me for those comments, I unreservedly apologise.
> > Terry
> > PPL Downunder
>
> I haven't communicated enough with Mxsmanic enough to judge him,
> though I strongly disagree with his "action under wing only"
> philosphy, if he still believes that.
>
> In any case, your old point-of-view and your new point-of view are not
> mutually-exclusive.
>
> Whether Mxsmanic is a kook, I have still found a few of the regulars
> in this group to be somewhat ogrish. *It's almost as if they feel that
> having a pilot's license gives them the right to abuse those who do
> not.
>
> I posted an article a while back about backwash causing lift, because
> I was genuinely interested in exploring the topic, and the explanation
> given in my student handbook conflicted with basic Newtonian physics,
> and tried to start a discussion, and the ad-hominen attacks were
> almost immediate:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/34tfeq
>
> It was as if the pilots in this group were not ready to hear that what
> they had learned for X years might be wrong, even though one
> individual posted a link from NASA saying that at conventional wisdom
> might be wrong. *I also did a bit of research myself and discovered
> that there are *many* university researchers in aero/astro who do
> *not* agree that theory of flight is a settled issue, contrary to what
> some of the pilots in here were claiming. Also, a couple of famous
> pilots who have written books also agreed that much of the
> conventional wisdom is wrong. *The more I looked, the more I saw
> disagreement in academia, while many people here were saying "it's
> well-understood, leave it alone!" There were posters stepping in only
> to say something rude, then leave. *I was a bit suprised to be
> honest. *It completely changed my image of the pilot, though I guess
> that's to be expected, since until starting flight school and coming
> to this group, my only "experience" had been on the way to my seat,
> passing a captain or FO who would smile by default to all passengers.
> Of course, this group is not representative of the pilot community (or
> is it?).
>
> When you have so many esteemed institutions and individuals offering
> alternative explanations, what's wrong with a bit of disucssion? It
> can't hurt...and even if what's put forth turns out the be wrong, the
> person who is wrong might learn something. There also might be lurkers
> who learn from reading the posts.
>
> I guess the most important thing that I learned is that a pilot's
> group might not the best place on USENET to broach taboo subjects on
> the theory of flight.
>
> Whatever the reason planes fly, there is no excuse for being rude if
> the person you are being rude toward has not been rude to you, IMO.
> There is always the option to simply ignore the person whom you don't
> agree with.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-
> [student pilot, very much interested in theory of flight]

No, you aren't. You are an Anthony clone intersted in the smae things
he is.

Bertie the Ogre

Bertie the Bunyip

February 13th 08, 04:34 PM

On 13 Feb, 15:07, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> terry writes:
> > Are you implying Le Chaud and Mxs are the same person? *I find that
> > very hard to believe. *Totally different attitude.
>
> Many people simplify their perception of others by categorizing everyone as
> "one of us" or "one of them." *

What, like you do with your "tree house club"

I couldn't care less if the guy has a licence or not. Just ask the FO
I just had.

Bertie

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 13th 08, 07:09 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> I'll notify the Naval Test Pilot School immediately. They'll need this
>> important revelation :-)
>
> They should already know.

Trust me, the Naval Test Pilot School knows all it needs to know and so
do I.

--
Dudley Henriques

terry

February 13th 08, 07:52 PM

On Feb 14, 3:34*am, Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:
> On 13 Feb, 15:07, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > terry writes:
> > > Are you implying Le Chaud and Mxs are the same person? *I find that
> > > very hard to believe. *Totally different attitude.
>
> > Many people simplify their perception of others by categorizing everyone as
> > "one of us" or "one of them." *
>
> What, like you do with your "tree house club"
>
> I couldn't care less if the guy has a licence or not. Just ask the FO
> I just had.
>
Whaaaaaat? you had an FO without a license? Geez, I got pulled up
in the run up area by a CFI and asked to shut down immediately and
vacate the aircraft - cos I didnt have my piece of paper physically on
me. He knew I had a license but the rules say you have to have it with
you in the aircraft, and of course you are less likely to crash if
you have it wtih you .

terry

February 13th 08, 08:05 PM

On Feb 14, 6:09*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > Dudley Henriques writes:
>
> >> I'll notify the Naval Test Pilot School immediately. They'll need this
> >> important revelation :-)
>
> > They should already know.
>
> Trust me, the Naval Test Pilot School knows all it needs to know and so
> do I.

Then how come they dont know they should be driving boats , not
planes :<)
Terry

Mxsmanic

February 13th 08, 08:05 PM

Dudley Henriques writes:

> Trust me, the Naval Test Pilot School knows all it needs to know and so
> do I.

You've already said that "they'll need this revelation." Now you are saying
the opposite. Which statement is true?

Darkwing

February 13th 08, 08:08 PM

"terry" > wrote in message
...
On Feb 14, 3:34 am, Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:
> On 13 Feb, 15:07, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > terry writes:
> > > Are you implying Le Chaud and Mxs are the same person? I find that
> > > very hard to believe. Totally different attitude.
>
> > Many people simplify their perception of others by categorizing everyone
> > as
> > "one of us" or "one of them."
>
> What, like you do with your "tree house club"
>
> I couldn't care less if the guy has a licence or not. Just ask the FO
> I just had.
>
>Whaaaaaat? you had an FO without a license? Geez, I got pulled up
>in the run up area by a CFI and asked to shut down immediately and
>vacate the aircraft - cos I didnt have my piece of paper physically on
>me. He knew I had a license but the rules say you have to have it with
>you in the aircraft, and of course you are less likely to crash if
>you have it wtih you .
>

That CFI sounds like a fun easy going guy.

[email protected]

February 13th 08, 08:45 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:

> > Trust me, the Naval Test Pilot School knows all it needs to know and so
> > do I.

> You've already said that "they'll need this revelation." Now you are saying
> the opposite. Which statement is true?

Get a dictionary and look up the word "satire".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

terry

February 13th 08, 08:48 PM

On Feb 14, 2:07*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> terry writes:
> > Are you implying Le Chaud and Mxs are the same person? *I find that
> > very hard to believe. *Totally different attitude.
>
> Many people simplify their perception of others by categorizing everyone as
> "one of us" or "one of them." *Since they may have trouble understanding
> viewpoints other than their own, very often they confuse the identities of
> those with whom they disagree (in the latter group) and assimilate them all
> into a single sort of metaperson or bogeyman. *It may also console them to
> think that only one person is behind all the personalities with whom they
> disagree, since the alternative would be to acknowledge that there are more
> such people than they might like to believe.

So you are a psychologist too? is there a rec.psychology group? I am
sure they would love to hear from you.
You need to learn the difference between viewpoints and facts. You
can have different viewpoints on whether god exists, you cant have
different view points on what 1+1 equals, well I suspose you could but
you are going to annoy a hell of a lot of people and make yourself
look pretty silly in the process.
Terry

Darkwing

February 13th 08, 08:57 PM

> wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> > Trust me, the Naval Test Pilot School knows all it needs to know and so
>> > do I.
>
>> You've already said that "they'll need this revelation." Now you are
>> saying
>> the opposite. Which statement is true?
>
> Get a dictionary and look up the word "satire".
>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Then MX needs to pick up a thesaurus and look up douche bag.

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 13th 08, 09:20 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Trust me, the Naval Test Pilot School knows all it needs to know and so
>> do I.
>
> You've already said that "they'll need this revelation." Now you are saying
> the opposite. Which statement is true?

You're kidding ? No one could be this uninformed on the subtleties of
Usenet sarcasm :-))
And here I've always thought you were familiar with the "dark side".
:-))

--
Dudley Henriques

romeomike

February 13th 08, 09:47 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Trust me, the Naval Test Pilot School knows all it needs to know and so
>> do I.
>
> You've already said that "they'll need this revelation." Now you are saying
> the opposite. Which statement is true?

This short post from Mx should prove that he really is a troll and not
just some maladjusted, asocial innocent dube interested in aviation, as
some here seem to think.

Mxsmanic

February 13th 08, 09:48 PM

writes:

> Get a dictionary and look up the word "satire".

I see no sign of satire here.

Mxsmanic

February 13th 08, 09:49 PM

terry writes:

> So you are a psychologist too?

One need not be a psychologist to see the obvious.

Benjamin Dover

February 13th 08, 09:59 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Get a dictionary and look up the word "satire".
>
> I see no sign of satire here.

Proof of inferior intelligence.

ManhattanMan

February 13th 08, 10:31 PM

romeomike wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>
>>> Trust me, the Naval Test Pilot School knows all it needs to know
>>> and so do I.
>>
>> You've already said that "they'll need this revelation." Now you
>> are saying the opposite. Which statement is true?
>
> This short post from Mx should prove that he really is a troll and not
> just some maladjusted, asocial innocent dube interested in aviation,
> as some here seem to think.

Personally, I've always thought mx as a conceited, arrogant, nacissistic,
neurotic, pious, prick = acronym - CANNPP.

But, that's just MHO, which I respect.......

george

February 13th 08, 10:59 PM

On Feb 14, 10:49 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> terry writes:
> > So you are a psychologist too?
>
> One need not be a psychologist to see the obvious.

Mxsmanics pushing his IQ up into the mid single digit range and doing
a poor job of cut and paste

Mxsmanic

February 13th 08, 10:59 PM

Benjamin Dover writes:

> Proof of inferior intelligence.

How so?

Rich Ahrens[_2_]

February 13th 08, 11:16 PM

ManhattanMan wrote:
> romeomike wrote:
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>>
>>>> Trust me, the Naval Test Pilot School knows all it needs to know
>>>> and so do I.
>>> You've already said that "they'll need this revelation." Now you
>>> are saying the opposite. Which statement is true?
>> This short post from Mx should prove that he really is a troll and not
>> just some maladjusted, asocial innocent dube interested in aviation,
>> as some here seem to think.
>
> Personally, I've always thought mx as a conceited, arrogant, nacissistic,
> neurotic, pious, prick = acronym - CANNPP.
>
> But, that's just MHO, which I respect.......

Nah, he's more like the poster boy for Aspergers.

dgs[_3_]

February 13th 08, 11:26 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:

> How so?

You're an idiot. HTH. HAND.

[email protected]

February 13th 08, 11:35 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Get a dictionary and look up the word "satire".

> I see no sign of satire here.

Gee, what a surprise.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[email protected]

February 13th 08, 11:35 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Benjamin Dover writes:

> > Proof of inferior intelligence.

> How so?

Inability to recognize satire.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[email protected]

February 13th 08, 11:35 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> terry writes:

> > So you are a psychologist too?

> One need not be a psychologist to see the obvious.

Like obvious satire?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic

February 14th 08, 12:42 AM

writes:

> Inability to recognize satire.

Is that a function of intelligence, or acquired and shared knowledge bases?

dgs[_3_]

February 14th 08, 12:45 AM

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Is that a function of intelligence, or acquired and shared knowledge bases?

This is a newsgroup for discussion of aviation and piloting. What does
your question have to do with aviation and piloting?

Mxsmanic

February 14th 08, 01:01 AM

dgs writes:

> This is a newsgroup for discussion of aviation and piloting. What does
> your question have to do with aviation and piloting?

Slightly more than the isolated statement "You're an idiot," that you made in
your previous post.

[email protected]

February 14th 08, 01:35 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Inability to recognize satire.

> Is that a function of intelligence, or acquired and shared knowledge bases?

Social development.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 14th 08, 02:21 AM

terry > wrote in
:

> On Feb 14, 3:34*am, Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>> On 13 Feb, 15:07, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>
>> > terry writes:
>> > > Are you implying Le Chaud and Mxs are the same person? *I find
>> > > that very hard to believe. *Totally different attitude.
>>
>> > Many people simplify their perception of others by categorizing
>> > everyone
> as
>> > "one of us" or "one of them." *
>>
>> What, like you do with your "tree house club"
>>
>> I couldn't care less if the guy has a licence or not. Just ask the FO
>> I just had.
>>
> Whaaaaaat? you had an FO without a license?

Nope. He was suggesting that guys with licences are given an easy time!

Geez, I got pulled up
> in the run up area by a CFI and asked to shut down immediately and
> vacate the aircraft - cos I didnt have my piece of paper physically on
> me. He knew I had a license but the rules say you have to have it with
> you in the aircraft, and of course you are less likely to crash if
> you have it wtih you .

Probably true!

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 14th 08, 02:24 AM

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in
:

>
> "terry" > wrote in message
> news:905f62b3-f558-428f-a61a-
.
> .. On Feb 14, 3:34 am, Bertie the Bunyip
> > wrote:
>> On 13 Feb, 15:07, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>
>> > terry writes:
>> > > Are you implying Le Chaud and Mxs are the same person? I find
>> > > that very hard to believe. Totally different attitude.
>>
>> > Many people simplify their perception of others by categorizing
>> > everyone as
>> > "one of us" or "one of them."
>>
>> What, like you do with your "tree house club"
>>
>> I couldn't care less if the guy has a licence or not. Just ask the FO
>> I just had.
>>
>>Whaaaaaat? you had an FO without a license? Geez, I got pulled up
>>in the run up area by a CFI and asked to shut down immediately and
>>vacate the aircraft - cos I didnt have my piece of paper physically on
>>me. He knew I had a license but the rules say you have to have it with
>>you in the aircraft, and of course you are less likely to crash if
>>you have it wtih you .
>>
>
> That CFI sounds like a fun easy going guy.
>

If he didn't string him up on the windsock, he prolly was!

Bertie
>

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 14th 08, 02:25 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Benjamin Dover writes:
>
>> Proof of inferior intelligence.
>
> How so?
>

QED

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 14th 08, 02:26 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Inability to recognize satire.
>
> Is that a function of intelligence,

Yes.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 14th 08, 02:26 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> dgs writes:
>
>> This is a newsgroup for discussion of aviation and piloting. What
>> does your question have to do with aviation and piloting?
>
> Slightly more than the isolated statement "You're an idiot," that you
> made in your previous post.
>

Nope

bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 14th 08, 02:31 AM

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in news:973bd4de-18c9-40fd-
:

> On Feb 12, 5:38*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> You are correct in that there are incorrect theories of lift in play,
>> but totally incorrect in any assumption that these incorrect theories
>> are not so well known as to be considered at this point in time 101 by
>> any good flight instructor.and indeed, any well trained pilot.
>> For you to appear here and state that pilots generally are unaware of
>> these issues is disingenuous *to a fault and totally untrue.
>
> Hmm...the NASA site and a few other sites I found a few months ago
> seemed to imply that incorrect theories of flight were still popular,
> even among pilots. But of course, I cannot know.
>

And you never will.

bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 14th 08, 02:36 AM

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in
:

> On Feb 12, 6:51*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
>> > On Feb 12, 5:38 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> >> You are correct in that there are incorrect theories of lift in
>> >> play, but totally incorrect in any assumption that these incorrect
>> >> theories are not so well known as to be considered at this point
>> >> in time 101 by any good flight instructor.and indeed, any well
>> >> trained pilot. For you to appear here and state that pilots
>> >> generally are unaware of these issues is disingenuous *to a fault
>> >> and totally untrue.
>>
>> > Hmm...the NASA site and a few other sites I found a few months ago
>> > seemed to imply that incorrect theories of flight were still
>> > popular, even among pilots. But of course, I cannot know.
>>
>> >> There are basically 3 incorrect theories of lift and they are the
>> >> equal
>
>> >> transit theory, the "venturi" theory, and the reaction theory
>> >> concernin
> g
>> >> the underside of the wing.
>> >> Both Bernoulli and Newton are in themselves complete explanations
>> >> of lift as both occur at the same instant in time on the surface
>> >> generatin
> g
>> >> lift and one can not physically be present without the other.
>> >> Each can be used to explain lift, and good CFI's present lift
>> >> explainin
> g
>> >> how both interact.
>>
>> >> This information as I said is basic to all good pilots and CFI's.
>>
>> > Well, this response could have saved us a lot of typing in my OP on
>> > backwash long ago.
>>
>> > Also...my Jeppesen "Private Pilot" "Guided Flight Discovery" book
>> > was published in 2007, and what is written in it contradicts what
>> > is written on the NASA site. *And what is written at two promiment
>> > aero/ astro texts in the USA contradicts what is written on the
>> > NASA site. And what my own flight instructor told me in ground
>> > school contradicts what my physics book says.
>>
>> > I did consider the possibility that pilots who teach/write these
>> > books know that some of what is being taught/written is not
>> > accurate, but, in the interest of matriculating and moving the
>> > student quickly through flight learning, they simply repeat what
>> > was said in early days of flight.
>>
>> > Being an engineer, I would rather have had a disclaimer, something
>> > like, "There is still much debate on this issue....but this is what
>> > we know or think we know.."
>>
>> > -Le Chaud Lapin-
>>
>> As I said, and said correctly, there are basically 3 incorrect
>> theories of lift out here and these are well known and corrected
>> daily by any good CFI or pilot.
>> Addressing your issue specifically, there are ALSO a considerable
>> amount of both CFI's and pilots who teach correct theory incorrectly,
>> which can cause even more confusion.
>> Contrary to what you have implied by your assertions here, I have
>> found the pilots and instructors on these forums to generally be
>> quite aware of the incorrect lift issues and more than willing
>> (Google is your friend on this) to engage those like yourself who
>> have questions. There are always a few "hold overs" from the old
>> incorrect days on any public forum, but to state that this condition
>> is anything close to systemic is a huge stretch.
>>
>> There is nothing wrong with presenting a question that contradicts
>> some of what has been written about lift, but doing so as a challenge
>> to pilots everywhere will ruffle a few feathers every time.
>> There are many fine pilots out here who don't have engineering
>> degrees. I can assure you these people are anything but stupid.
>> If you are a student and as well a knowledgeable engineer, that can
>> show in your questions without being challenging or demeaning.
>> To reiterate, there are text books still in print that offer
>> incorrect information on this issue, but the main cause of confusion
>> lies in another direction. The books are being corrected every day,
>> and not all of them are wrong by a long shot.
>> The real "issue" on the subject of lift lies in the basic
>> misconceptions of a few, not in the ignorance of the general flying
>> community as you have incorrectly insinuated.
>
> This is plain wrong.

Oh yeah, you';re here to learn.

>
> In fact, my estimation of what pilots knew was far greater both before
> ground school and before I made my post and before I read the Barry
> Schiff's book.
>
> I know that there are some pilots who understand system dynamics very
> well. I saw a presentation on TV about blue angles, and for maybe 200
> milliseconds, on the blackboard, I saw a transfer function, H(s),
> something that you cannot appreciate without understanding complex
> analysis. So I was impressed indeed.
>
> That was *before* my experience with average pilots. The best
> experience I had in talking to a real pilot was the person who runs
> the local control tower. We had engaging conversation about feasibilty
> of Moller's car. I also had a few conversations with the owner of my
> pilot school, and of course, my instructor.
>
> Those are real world pilot's I have met.

Bull****.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 14th 08, 02:45 AM

terry > wrote in news:fdf9952c-2c3b-47a9-b577-
:

> sometime ago I criticised pilots on this group about the harsh way
> they were treating one mxsmanic. It seemed to me at the time to be a
> bunch of egotistical pilots snubbing their nose at someone who was
> genuinely interested in finding out about aviation, but didnt have the
> wherewithall financially or intellectually to actually participate in
> the real thing. No matter what your profession is, it always seemed
> to me that promoting that profession in a good light to others was
> part of what being a professional is all about. It has always been my
> approach. I have now come to understand what a complete waste of time
> trying to help this person is. I have never in all my life come across
> an individual with an attitude like this. If any of you regulars
> actually remember me for those comments, I unreservedly apologise.

No apologies neccesary. The unwitting defending him adds to the melee'....

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 14th 08, 02:46 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Le Chaud Lapin writes:
>
>> In fact, my estimation of what pilots knew was far greater both
>> before ground school and before I made my post and before I read the
>> Barry Schiff's book.
>
> Pilots know about as much about aerodynamics as TV show directors know
> about television engineering. They know what they need to know to fly
> in most situations. Going beyond that is not necessary and is
> difficult for many students. You need to know about flight and lift
> in detail to design aircraft, but you don't need to know all the
> detail just to fly.

Most here do and you know it you desperate little fjukkwit.

Bertie
>

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 14th 08, 02:47 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Trust me, the Naval Test Pilot School knows all it needs to know and
>> so do I.
>
> You've already said that "they'll need this revelation." Now you are
> saying the opposite. Which statement is true?
>

The one that says "Anthony is a fjukktard".

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 14th 08, 02:48 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Get a dictionary and look up the word "satire".
>
> I see no sign of satire here.
>

Of course you don't. You're not bright enough to have a sense of humor.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 14th 08, 02:49 AM

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>
>>> Trust me, the Naval Test Pilot School knows all it needs to know and
>>> so do I.
>>
>> You've already said that "they'll need this revelation." Now you are
>> saying the opposite. Which statement is true?
>
> You're kidding ? No one could be this uninformed on the subtleties of
> Usenet sarcasm :-))

Why not? He's unfamiliar with just about everything else!

Bertie

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 14th 08, 03:18 AM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>>
>>>> Trust me, the Naval Test Pilot School knows all it needs to know and
>>>> so do I.
>>> You've already said that "they'll need this revelation." Now you are
>>> saying the opposite. Which statement is true?
>> You're kidding ? No one could be this uninformed on the subtleties of
>> Usenet sarcasm :-))
>
>
> Why not? He's unfamiliar with just about everything else!
>
> Bertie

He does make it hard to be nice to him doesn't he? :-))))

--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 14th 08, 01:35 PM

Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:_P-
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Trust me, the Naval Test Pilot School knows all it needs to know and
>>>>> so do I.
>>>> You've already said that "they'll need this revelation." Now you are
>>>> saying the opposite. Which statement is true?
>>> You're kidding ? No one could be this uninformed on the subtleties of
>>> Usenet sarcasm :-))
>>
>>
>> Why not? He's unfamiliar with just about everything else!
>>
>> Bertie
>
> He does make it hard to be nice to him doesn't he? :-))))
>

he certainly makes it easy to be mean, though!

Bertie

Tina

February 14th 08, 01:56 PM

Some dogs like to be kicked, but most are smarter than he whose handle
should not be typed..

On Feb 13, 10:18 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> > Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
> >> Mxsmanic wrote:
> >>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
> >>>> Trust me, the Naval Test Pilot School knows all it needs to know and
> >>>> so do I.
> >>> You've already said that "they'll need this revelation." Now you are
> >>> saying the opposite. Which statement is true?
> >> You're kidding ? No one could be this uninformed on the subtleties of
> >> Usenet sarcasm :-))
>
> > Why not? He's unfamiliar with just about everything else!
>
> > Bertie
>
> He does make it hard to be nice to him doesn't he? :-))))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Darkwing

February 14th 08, 03:17 PM

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
use.com...
> ManhattanMan wrote:
>> romeomike wrote:
>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Trust me, the Naval Test Pilot School knows all it needs to know
>>>>> and so do I.
>>>> You've already said that "they'll need this revelation." Now you
>>>> are saying the opposite. Which statement is true?
>>> This short post from Mx should prove that he really is a troll and not
>>> just some maladjusted, asocial innocent dube interested in aviation,
>>> as some here seem to think.
>>
>> Personally, I've always thought mx as a conceited, arrogant, nacissistic,
>> neurotic, pious, prick = acronym - CANNPP.
>>
>> But, that's just MHO, which I respect.......
>
> Nah, he's more like the poster boy for Aspergers.

I bet people with Aspergers would take offense to that!

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 14th 08, 03:23 PM

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in
:

>
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> use.com...
>> ManhattanMan wrote:
>>> romeomike wrote:
>>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Trust me, the Naval Test Pilot School knows all it needs to know
>>>>>> and so do I.
>>>>> You've already said that "they'll need this revelation." Now you
>>>>> are saying the opposite. Which statement is true?
>>>> This short post from Mx should prove that he really is a troll and
>>>> not just some maladjusted, asocial innocent dube interested in
>>>> aviation, as some here seem to think.
>>>
>>> Personally, I've always thought mx as a conceited, arrogant,
>>> nacissistic, neurotic, pious, prick = acronym - CANNPP.
>>>
>>> But, that's just MHO, which I respect.......
>>
>> Nah, he's more like the poster boy for Aspergers.
>
> I bet people with Aspergers would take offense to that!
>
>
>

I bet peope with Ass Burgers would take exception to that.

Bertie

Le Chaud Lapin

February 14th 08, 07:24 PM

On Feb 13, 4:10*pm, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
> From: terry >
>
> >Are you implying Le Chaud and Mxs are the same person?
>
> Exactly!
>
> > *I find that
> >very hard to believe. *Totally different attitude.
> >Terry
>
> The "two" get together and engage in a little "real pilots don't
> know ****" circle jerk. This usually happens when some new
> visitor to this group realizes that the perceived "abuse" against
> MX, isn't.
> I would guess that he needs to create an imaginary friend who doesn't
> think he's a total dip****.
> Then the "two" start discussing the persecution they recieve from "real"
> pilots.
>
> I think there are only two people on Earth who don't think MX is a moron.
> And they're BOTH MX.

See what I mean?

I have:

1. Never met or communicated with Nomen Nescio in any way before my OP
about Backwash Causes Lift?
2. Never made any derogatory comments about him [that i know of] in
this group or any other group.

If I am not mistaken, the vast majority of his posts been of the kind
you see here.

What I have been trying to figure out is from what derives his anger.

Usually a person starts off being angry first, then they start
attacking.

He started attacking from the very beginning.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Mxsmanic

February 14th 08, 07:48 PM

Le Chaud Lapin writes:

> What I have been trying to figure out is from what derives his anger.
>
> Usually a person starts off being angry first, then they start
> attacking.
>
> He started attacking from the very beginning.

For what it's worth, a minority of the population is naturally hostile.
Unfortunately, that minority seems to find venues like USENET particularly
well suited to the venting of its hostility, and thus becomes
disproportionately vocal and obvious here.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 14th 08, 07:53 PM

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in
:

> On Feb 13, 4:10*pm, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
>> From: terry >
>>
>> >Are you implying Le Chaud and Mxs are the same person?
>>
>> Exactly!
>>
>> > *I find that
>> >very hard to believe. *Totally different attitude.
>> >Terry
>>
>> The "two" get together and engage in a little "real pilots don't
>> know ****" circle jerk. This usually happens when some new
>> visitor to this group realizes that the perceived "abuse" against
>> MX, isn't.
>> I would guess that he needs to create an imaginary friend who doesn't
>> think he's a total dip****.
>> Then the "two" start discussing the persecution they recieve from
>> "real" pilots.
>>
>> I think there are only two people on Earth who don't think MX is a
>> moron. And they're BOTH MX.
>
> See what I mean?
>
> I have:
>
> 1. Never met or communicated with Nomen Nescio in any way before my OP
> about Backwash Causes Lift?
> 2. Never made any derogatory comments about him [that i know of] in
> this group or any other group.
>
> If I am not mistaken, the vast majority of his posts been of the kind
> you see here.
>
> What I have been trying to figure out is from what derives his anger.
>
> Usually a person starts off being angry first, then they start
> attacking.

I'm not angry.

Bertie

the warlock society

February 14th 08, 07:54 PM

Tina wrote:
> Some dogs like to be kicked, but most are smarter than he whose handle
> should not be typed..
>
>
>
> On Feb 13, 10:18 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> > > Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> > :
> >
> > >> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > >>> Dudley Henriques writes:
> >
> > >>>> Trust me, the Naval Test Pilot School knows all it needs to know and
> > >>>> so do I.
> > >>> You've already said that "they'll need this revelation." Now you are
> > >>> saying the opposite. Which statement is true?
> > >> You're kidding ? No one could be this uninformed on the subtleties of
> > >> Usenet sarcasm :-))
> >
> > > Why not? He's unfamiliar with just about everything else!
> >
> > > Bertie
> >
> > He does make it hard to be nice to him doesn't he? :-))))
> >
> > --
> > Dudley Henriques

I know a Neal Boortz fan when I see one! *high five*

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 14th 08, 08:14 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Le Chaud Lapin writes:
>
>> What I have been trying to figure out is from what derives his anger.
>>
>> Usually a person starts off being angry first, then they start
>> attacking.
>>
>> He started attacking from the very beginning.
>
> For what it's worth, a minority of the population is naturally
> hostile. Unfortunately, that minority seems to find venues like USENET
> particularly well suited to the venting of its hostility, and thus
> becomes disproportionately vocal and obvious here.

And of course there are the social misfits who nobody will have anythign to
do wiht RL ...

Bertie

dgs[_3_]

February 14th 08, 08:57 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:

> dgs writes:
>
>
>>This is a newsgroup for discussion of aviation and piloting. What does
>>your question have to do with aviation and piloting?
>
>
> Slightly more than the isolated statement "You're an idiot," that you made in
> your previous post.

You're still an idiot, but thanks for noticing. So, in other words,
because I posted something that has nothing to do with aviation and
flying, that means you should too. Good of you to make that clear.
You also, in your usual dishonest, cowardly manner, snipped all the
context out of the conversation. Why do you do this? ("To save
bandwidth" is a cowardly, lying loser's answer.)

Mxsmanic

February 15th 08, 02:22 AM

dgs writes:

> You're still an idiot, but thanks for noticing. So, in other words,
> because I posted something that has nothing to do with aviation and
> flying, that means you should too.

No, it means that it's rather obviously inconsistent to post something that is
dramatically off-topic and then criticize someone else for posting something
that is only slightly off-topic.

Mxsmanic

February 15th 08, 02:23 AM

Nomen Nescio writes:

> Kick a rock........It doesn't come back asking to be kicked, again.

True ... but who actually gets hurt when a rock is kicked?

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 15th 08, 02:40 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> dgs writes:
>
>> You're still an idiot, but thanks for noticing. So, in other words,
>> because I posted something that has nothing to do with aviation and
>> flying, that means you should too.
>
> No, it means that it's rather obviously inconsistent to post something
> that is dramatically off-topic and then criticize someone else for
> posting something that is only slightly off-topic.

You are an idiot.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 15th 08, 02:41 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> Kick a rock........It doesn't come back asking to be kicked, again.
>
> True ... but who actually gets hurt when a rock is kicked?

Depends on the rock.

Fjukkwit

Bertie

[email protected]

February 15th 08, 03:25 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Nomen Nescio writes:

> > Kick a rock........It doesn't come back asking to be kicked, again.

> True ... but who actually gets hurt when a rock is kicked?

He's saying you are dumber than a rock, and you just confirmed it.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic

February 15th 08, 04:32 AM

writes:

> He's saying you are dumber than a rock, and you just confirmed it.

That doesn't answer my question. If you kick a rock, does it hurt the rock,
or does it hurt you?

[email protected]

February 15th 08, 04:55 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > He's saying you are dumber than a rock, and you just confirmed it.

> That doesn't answer my question. If you kick a rock, does it hurt the rock,
> or does it hurt you?

47.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

d.g.s.

February 15th 08, 06:47 AM

On 2/14/2008 6:22 PM Mxsmanic ignored two million years of human
evolution to write:

> it's rather obviously inconsistent to post something that is
> dramatically off-topic and then criticize someone else for posting something
> that is only slightly off-topic.

And because someone else does, that means a hypocritical lying asshole
like you should also do it, right, ****bag?

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 15th 08, 01:02 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> He's saying you are dumber than a rock, and you just confirmed it.
>
> That doesn't answer my question. If you kick a rock, does it hurt the
> rock, or does it hurt you?
>

Since the rock is non-feeling, stupid beyond description, never leaves it's
room, can't walk, drive or fly and is incapable of understadning even the
simplest explanation the correct answer is, "who cares"

Bertie

george

February 15th 08, 07:46 PM

On Feb 16, 2:02 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> Since the rock is non-feeling, stupid beyond description, never leaves it's
> room, can't walk, drive or fly and is incapable of understadning even the
> simplest explanation the correct answer is, "who cares"
>
Which is why rational people kick rocks out of their path..
Why step over or around them ?
Not worth the time or bother

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 15th 08, 07:54 PM

george > wrote in
:

> On Feb 16, 2:02 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> Since the rock is non-feeling, stupid beyond description, never
>> leaves it's room, can't walk, drive or fly and is incapable of
>> understadning even the simplest explanation the correct answer is,
>> "who cares"
>>
> Which is why rational people kick rocks out of their path..
> Why step over or around them ?
> Not worth the time or bother
>

WHole industries have been built out of kicing things!

It's called sport..

Bertie

dgs[_3_]

February 15th 08, 10:45 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:

> it's rather obviously inconsistent to post something that is
> dramatically off-topic and then criticize someone else for posting something
> that is only slightly off-topic.

Really? Then why do you do it so much? And by the way - hang on for a
moment. Do you hear that? That's the sound of me not caring. Now
**** off. Hey, did you ever take care of that abscessed tooth you used
to whine about on your pathetic "Paris Journal" blog-that-wasn't-a-blog?

dgs[_3_]

February 15th 08, 10:48 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:

> That doesn't answer my question.

Tough ****, whiner-boi. Complain about it some more. You know you
will. Bark, bitch! Hey, love those comments on your web site, btw.
You just make friends everywhere you go, dontcha, you pathetic,
arrogant loser?

dgs[_3_]

February 15th 08, 10:49 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>
>>Kick a rock........It doesn't come back asking to be kicked, again.
>
>
> True ...

Thank you for admitting that you're stupider than a rock, idiot-boi.
Bark again, bitch!

Le Chaud Lapin

February 16th 08, 02:11 AM

On Feb 14, 5:10*pm, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
> From: Mxsmanic >
>
> >For what it's worth, a minority of the population is naturally hostile.
> >Unfortunately, that minority seems to find venues like USENET particularly
> >well suited to the venting of its hostility, and thus becomes
> >disproportionately vocal and obvious here.
>
> So, "terry".
> Is this enough evidence to prove my assertion?
>
> It pretty much progressed exactly as I said.
> Didn't it?

Why can't you accept the fact that you have been abusive to someone
you have never met?

That's what this is about. You're unnecessarily rude.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Peter Dohm

February 16th 08, 03:20 AM

"Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in message
...
On Feb 14, 5:10 pm, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
> From: Mxsmanic >
>
> >For what it's worth, a minority of the population is naturally hostile.
> >Unfortunately, that minority seems to find venues like USENET
> >particularly
> >well suited to the venting of its hostility, and thus becomes
> >disproportionately vocal and obvious here.
>
> So, "terry".
> Is this enough evidence to prove my assertion?
>
> It pretty much progressed exactly as I said.
> Didn't it?

Why can't you accept the fact that you have been abusive to someone
you have never met?

That's what this is about. You're unnecessarily rude.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

And what, pray tell, would "The Hot Rabbit" know about anything?

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 16th 08, 03:31 AM

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in
:

> On Feb 14, 5:10*pm, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
>> From: Mxsmanic >
>>
>> >For what it's worth, a minority of the population is naturally
>> >hostile. Unfortunately, that minority seems to find venues like
>> >USENET particularl
> y
>> >well suited to the venting of its hostility, and thus becomes
>> >disproportionately vocal and obvious here.
>>
>> So, "terry".
>> Is this enough evidence to prove my assertion?
>>
>> It pretty much progressed exactly as I said.
>> Didn't it?
>
> Why can't you accept the fact that you have been abusive to someone
> you have never met?
>
> That's what this is about. You're unnecessarily rude.
>

You deserved it.

Bertie

Le Chaud Lapin

February 16th 08, 04:09 AM

On Feb 15, 9:20*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> "Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in ...
> On Feb 14, 5:10 pm, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
>
> > From: Mxsmanic >
>
> > >For what it's worth, a minority of the population is naturally hostile.
> > >Unfortunately, that minority seems to find venues like USENET
> > >particularly
> > >well suited to the venting of its hostility, and thus becomes
> > >disproportionately vocal and obvious here.
>
> > So, "terry".
> > Is this enough evidence to prove my assertion?
>
> > It pretty much progressed exactly as I said.
> > Didn't it?
>
> Why can't you accept the fact that you have been abusive to someone
> you have never met?
>
> That's what this is about. *You're unnecessarily rude.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-
>
> And what, pray tell, would "The Hot Rabbit" know about anything?

Well I do know it is easy to vent anger against strangers on the
Internet. Anyone can do it. Just type while angry.

What I do not know is why Nomen Nescio, since I have never met him or
said anything to him or anything about him, chose to do that toward
me.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 16th 08, 05:03 AM

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in
:

> On Feb 15, 9:20*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>> "Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in
>> messagenews:855cb86e-6c40
> ...
>> On Feb 14, 5:10 pm, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
>>
>> > From: Mxsmanic >
>>
>> > >For what it's worth, a minority of the population is naturally
>> > >hostile.
>
>> > >Unfortunately, that minority seems to find venues like USENET
>> > >particularly
>> > >well suited to the venting of its hostility, and thus becomes
>> > >disproportionately vocal and obvious here.
>>
>> > So, "terry".
>> > Is this enough evidence to prove my assertion?
>>
>> > It pretty much progressed exactly as I said.
>> > Didn't it?
>>
>> Why can't you accept the fact that you have been abusive to someone
>> you have never met?
>>
>> That's what this is about. *You're unnecessarily rude.
>>
>> -Le Chaud Lapin-
>>
>> And what, pray tell, would "The Hot Rabbit" know about anything?
>
> Well I do know it is easy to vent anger against strangers on the
> Internet. Anyone can do it. Just type while angry.

You're mistaking anger for disdain.

>
> What I do not know is why Nomen Nescio, since I have never met him or
> said anything to him or anything about him, chose to do that toward
> me.
>

I'm gonna go with the disdain thing again.

Bertie