[Fwd: Re: What happened to Jay?]

[Ross]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: What happened to Jay?
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:50:09 GMT
From: Mike <nospam @ aol.com>
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting,misc.kids.tantrums
Followup-To: misc.kids.tantrums
References: >
>
>
> >

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "GetALifeMike" > wrote in message
> ...
>> What is it like living each day of your pathetic
>> life as a Narcissistic Prick with a Napoleon
>> complex Mike?
>
> You and mike need to take at least half of the blame for yourselves.

Half the blame for what, Jim? Running off Jay?

Try explaining that one.

For posting too many off topic posts kinda like this entire thread? Jay
posted more off topic than on topic and fanned those flames as much as
anyone.

For being argumentative? Jay was the king of the non sequitur.

For being abrasive? Hmmm, Jay would never do that, would he?

Jay left because he wanted to make some kind of pathetic statement. What
that statement was is anyone's guess. Wherever he is now, he will do the
same after a few months. He gets off over trying to paint himself as some
type of victim. ****ing and moaning is his nature, kinda like you. He's
just a bit better at it.

So just trying explaining just precisely what I am to blame for, if you
can.
Jay was a whiney little girl that ****ed and moaned when he didn't get his
way and finally stomped off in the childish manner that has always defined
him. The NG is far better off without him. The only problem was not
all of
his fanboyz followed, unfortunately. So no matter how many times you want
to proclaim this NG is dead, much to your chagrin people are still posting
about aviation instead of how Jr is not ****ing his pants anymore. So do
tell me how I am to "blame" for breaking up Jay's private little tea party.
I'll be glad to do more of it.





>
> Get a life? Pot, Kettle, Black.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

This is not the Jay I know.

I do not remember the one you describe.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Nov 14, 11:41*am, Ross > wrote:
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: What happened to Jay?
> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:50:09 GMT
> From: Mike <nospam @ aol.com>
>
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting,misc.kids.tantrums
> Followup-To: misc.kids.tantrums
> References: >
> >
> >
> > >
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in ...
>
> > "GetALifeMike" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> What is it like living each day of your pathetic
> >> life as a Narcissistic Prick with a Napoleon
> >> complex Mike?
>
> > You and mike need to take at least half of the blame for yourselves.
>
> Half the blame for what, Jim? *Running off Jay?
>
> Try explaining that one.
>
> For posting too many off topic posts kinda like this entire thread? *Jay
> posted more off topic than on topic and fanned those flames as much as
> anyone.
>
> For being argumentative? *Jay was the king of the non sequitur.
>
> For being abrasive? *Hmmm, Jay would never do that, would he?
>
> Jay left because he wanted to make some kind of pathetic statement. *What
> that statement was is anyone's guess. *Wherever he is now, he will do the
> same after a few months. *He gets off over trying to paint himself as some
> type of victim. *****ing and moaning is his nature, kinda like you. *He's
> just a bit better at it.
>
> So just trying explaining just precisely what I am to blame for, if you
> can.
> Jay was a whiney little girl that ****ed and moaned when he didn't get his
> way and finally stomped off in the childish manner that has always defined
> him. *The NG is far better off without him. *The only problem was not
> all of
> his fanboyz followed, unfortunately. *So no matter how many times you want
> to proclaim this NG is dead, much to your chagrin people are still posting
> about aviation instead of how Jr is not ****ing his pants anymore. *So do
> tell me how I am to "blame" for breaking up Jay's private little tea party.
> I'll be glad to do more of it.
>
> > Get a life? *Pot, Kettle, Black.
> > --
> > Jim in NC
>
> This is not the Jay I know.
>
> I do not remember the one you describe.
>
> --
>
> Regards, Ross
> C-172F 180HP
> KSWI

FWIW, I don't remember him that way either.

[Mike]

"Ross" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: What happened to Jay?
> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:50:09 GMT
> From: Mike <nospam @ aol.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting,misc.kids.tantrums
> Followup-To: misc.kids.tantrums
> References: >
> >
> > >
> >
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "GetALifeMike" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> What is it like living each day of your pathetic
>>> life as a Narcissistic Prick with a Napoleon
>>> complex Mike?
>>
>> You and mike need to take at least half of the blame for yourselves.
>
> Half the blame for what, Jim? Running off Jay?
>
> Try explaining that one.
>
> For posting too many off topic posts kinda like this entire thread? Jay
> posted more off topic than on topic and fanned those flames as much as
> anyone.
>
> For being argumentative? Jay was the king of the non sequitur.
>
> For being abrasive? Hmmm, Jay would never do that, would he?
>
> Jay left because he wanted to make some kind of pathetic statement. What
> that statement was is anyone's guess. Wherever he is now, he will do the
> same after a few months. He gets off over trying to paint himself as some
> type of victim. ****ing and moaning is his nature, kinda like you. He's
> just a bit better at it.
>
> So just trying explaining just precisely what I am to blame for, if you
> can.
> Jay was a whiney little girl that ****ed and moaned when he didn't get his
> way and finally stomped off in the childish manner that has always defined
> him. The NG is far better off without him. The only problem was not all
> of
> his fanboyz followed, unfortunately. So no matter how many times you want
> to proclaim this NG is dead, much to your chagrin people are still posting
> about aviation instead of how Jr is not ****ing his pants anymore. So do
> tell me how I am to "blame" for breaking up Jay's private little tea
> party.
> I'll be glad to do more of it.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Get a life? Pot, Kettle, Black.
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>>
>
> This is not the Jay I know.
>
> I do not remember the one you describe.

Perhaps this will refresh your memory....

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/browse_thread/thread/5d4815aaa01dc934/da7b458e981a8573

[Mike]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> On Nov 14, 11:41 am, Ross > wrote:
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: What happened to Jay?
> > Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:50:09 GMT
> > From: Mike <nospam @ aol.com>
> >
> > Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting,misc.kids.tantrums
> > Followup-To: misc.kids.tantrums
> > References: >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> >
> > "Morgans" > wrote in
> > ...
> >
> > > "GetALifeMike" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> What is it like living each day of your pathetic
> > >> life as a Narcissistic Prick with a Napoleon
> > >> complex Mike?
> >
> > > You and mike need to take at least half of the blame for yourselves.
> >
> > Half the blame for what, Jim? Running off Jay?
> >
> > Try explaining that one.
> >
> > For posting too many off topic posts kinda like this entire thread? Jay
> > posted more off topic than on topic and fanned those flames as much as
> > anyone.
> >
> > For being argumentative? Jay was the king of the non sequitur.
> >
> > For being abrasive? Hmmm, Jay would never do that, would he?
> >
> > Jay left because he wanted to make some kind of pathetic statement. What
> > that statement was is anyone's guess. Wherever he is now, he will do the
> > same after a few months. He gets off over trying to paint himself as
> > some
> > type of victim. ****ing and moaning is his nature, kinda like you. He's
> > just a bit better at it.
> >
> > So just trying explaining just precisely what I am to blame for, if you
> > can.
> > Jay was a whiney little girl that ****ed and moaned when he didn't get
> > his
> > way and finally stomped off in the childish manner that has always
> > defined
> > him. The NG is far better off without him. The only problem was not
> > all of
> > his fanboyz followed, unfortunately. So no matter how many times you
> > want
> > to proclaim this NG is dead, much to your chagrin people are still
> > posting
> > about aviation instead of how Jr is not ****ing his pants anymore. So do
> > tell me how I am to "blame" for breaking up Jay's private little tea
> > party.
> > I'll be glad to do more of it.
> >
> > > Get a life? Pot, Kettle, Black.
> > > --
> > > Jim in NC
> >
> > This is not the Jay I know.
> >
> > I do not remember the one you describe.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Regards, Ross
> > C-172F 180HP
> > KSWI
>
> FWIW, I don't remember him that way either.

Well, I can't explain why you don't, Dudley. The fact is, Jay was abrasive,
he was argumentative, he did frequently contribute to OT subjects, and
before he left, he ****ed and moaned incessantly about what the NG "had
become". Perhaps you didn't notice because you have spent all this time
generally authoring meaningful posts and not engaging in much of the back
and forth about what a NG should nor should not be, and in that regard you
have been one of the more level headed posters here.

I equate people who **** and moan about a usenet NG to those who **** and
moan about the moderation on a moderated forum. The value of usenet is
anyone can contribute anything they want without any censorship. Jay left
because he couldn't deal with that reality. One thing you can say about Jay
was he finally did actually leave, even if it was after weeks of ****ing and
moaning. Some other posters here simply want to continue to **** and moan
ad nauseum.

I can almost guarantee that Jay will eventually be back. He always
shamelessly promoting his business, and as that business falls off, he'll
come back. If you notice, even though he promise to remove his beloved
"Rogue's Gallery", it's still there on his website just where it always was.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Ross" > wrote

> This is not the Jay I know.
>
> I do not remember the one you describe.

Nope. Private ****ing matches between the poster you responded to and
other immature posters has far more to do with destroying harmony within the
group than one social introvert that insists simming is superior could ever
do.

Jay's only major fault is that he loved talking about aviation, and
sometimes other issues of life dear to him, too much.
--
Jim in NC

[Mike]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ross" > wrote
>
>> This is not the Jay I know.
>>
>> I do not remember the one you describe.
>
> Nope. Private ****ing matches between the poster you responded to and
> other immature posters has far more to do with destroying harmony within
> the group than one social introvert that insists simming is superior could
> ever do.

If that were indeed true, you are truly more pathetic than you realize and
you have much bigger problems you should be concerned with.

> Jay's only major fault is that he loved talking about aviation, and
> sometimes other issues of life dear to him, too much.

That was far from Jay's only major fault.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Nov 14, 4:40*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Ross" > wrote
>
> > This is not the Jay I know.
>
> > I do not remember the one you describe.
>
> *Nope. *Private ****ing matches between the poster you responded to and
> other immature posters has far more to do with destroying harmony within the
> group than one social introvert that insists simming is superior could ever
> do.
>
> Jay's only major fault is that he loved talking about aviation, and
> sometimes other issues of life dear to him, too much.
> --
> Jim in NC

I agree. Jay is guilty of nothing more than loving aviation and taking
huge pride in both his business and his family.
He posted aggressively on these subjects and attracted a cadre of
dissenters. It happens on Usenet as both you and I are well aware.
Jay took much pleasure in inviting people from this forum who he
thought were friends rather than adversaries to his hotel for a party
each year before Oshkosh. It was an annual event and he and Mary
expended much effort in making it fun for everyone who attended.
I have never seen Jay's posting about his hotel, or his discussing his
web site as his spamming of the forum.
I see his decision to leave here as unfortunate both for him AND for
the forum; for Jay, as he left a group he genuinely liked, and for the
forum, because what happened here should never have happened. Once it
started, it became a self fulfilling on going action and reaction that
was destined to end badly, which is exactly how it ended.
Dudley Henriques

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Ross" > wrote in message
...

No, Jay left simply because of Buttlipps relentless hounding.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote in message
...

Bull**** Mikey Mouth, you just disagreed with him like everyone else you
target.

You're the classic 2 year old. If you don't get your way, you try to make
everyone miserable.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote in message
...
| "Morgans" > wrote in message
| ...
| >
| > "Ross" > wrote
| >
| >> This is not the Jay I know.
| >>
| >> I do not remember the one you describe.
| >
| > Nope. Private ****ing matches between the poster you responded to and
| > other immature posters has far more to do with destroying harmony within
| > the group than one social introvert that insists simming is superior
could
| > ever do.
|
| If that were indeed true, you are truly more pathetic than you realize and
| you have much bigger problems you should be concerned with.
|
| > Jay's only major fault is that he loved talking about aviation, and
| > sometimes other issues of life dear to him, too much.
|
| That was far from Jay's only major fault.
|
|

Yeah, like a moron like you is qualified to judge anyone!

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...

I agree. Jay is guilty of nothing more than loving aviation and taking
huge pride in both his business and his family.
He posted aggressively on these subjects and attracted a cadre of
dissenters. It happens on Usenet as both you and I are well aware.
Jay took much pleasure in inviting people from this forum who he
thought were friends rather than adversaries to his hotel for a party
each year before Oshkosh. It was an annual event and he and Mary
expended much effort in making it fun for everyone who attended.
I have never seen Jay's posting about his hotel, or his discussing his
web site as his spamming of the forum.
I see his decision to leave here as unfortunate both for him AND for
the forum; for Jay, as he left a group he genuinely liked, and for the
forum, because what happened here should never have happened. Once it
started, it became a self fulfilling on going action and reaction that
was destined to end badly, which is exactly how it ended.
Dudley Henriques

---------------------------------------------------------------------

There is nothing self fulfilling about some ******* child like your friend
Buttlipps, hounding someone's every post until they leave. It's just a 2
year old's method of moderating the group.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Nov 15, 2:12*pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> I agree. Jay is guilty of nothing more than loving aviation and taking
> huge pride in both his business and his family.
> He posted aggressively on these subjects and attracted a cadre of
> dissenters. It happens on Usenet as both you and I are well aware.
> Jay took much pleasure in inviting people from this forum who he
> thought were friends rather than adversaries to his hotel for a party
> each year before Oshkosh. It was an annual event and he and Mary
> expended much effort in making it fun for everyone who attended.
> I have never seen Jay's posting about his hotel, or his discussing his
> web site as his spamming of the forum.
> I see his decision to leave here as unfortunate both for him AND for
> the forum; for Jay, as he left a group he genuinely liked, and for the
> forum, because what happened here should never have happened. Once it
> started, it became a self fulfilling on going action and reaction that
> was destined to end badly, which is exactly how it ended.
> Dudley Henriques
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> There is nothing self fulfilling about some ******* child like your friend
> Buttlipps, hounding someone's every post until they leave. It's just a 2
> year old's method of moderating the group.

As you seem prone to misjudge most everything else, you have seriously
misjudged my so called "relationship" with Bertie the Bunyip. Sorry to
disappoint you, but Berttie and I are a completely "neutral"
relationship on this forum. If you have some reference you can post to
disavow this comment, please feel free to post it below.
You're "problem" lies elsewhere my friend, but that isn't what it's
all about anyway is it now? :-))
DH

[Bear Bottoms[_4_]]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:23:35 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:

> On Nov 15, 2:12*pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> I agree. Jay is guilty of nothing more than loving aviation and taking
>> huge pride in both his business and his family.
>> He posted aggressively on these subjects and attracted a cadre of
>> dissenters. It happens on Usenet as both you and I are well aware.
>> Jay took much pleasure in inviting people from this forum who he
>> thought were friends rather than adversaries to his hotel for a party
>> each year before Oshkosh. It was an annual event and he and Mary
>> expended much effort in making it fun for everyone who attended.
>> I have never seen Jay's posting about his hotel, or his discussing his
>> web site as his spamming of the forum.
>> I see his decision to leave here as unfortunate both for him AND for
>> the forum; for Jay, as he left a group he genuinely liked, and for the
>> forum, because what happened here should never have happened. Once it
>> started, it became a self fulfilling on going action and reaction that
>> was destined to end badly, which is exactly how it ended.
>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> There is nothing self fulfilling about some ******* child like your friend
>> Buttlipps, hounding someone's every post until they leave. It's just a 2
>> year old's method of moderating the group.
>
> As you seem prone to misjudge most everything else, you have seriously
> misjudged my so called "relationship" with Bertie the Bunyip. Sorry to
> disappoint you, but Berttie and I are a completely "neutral"
> relationship on this forum. If you have some reference you can post to
> disavow this comment, please feel free to post it below.
> You're "problem" lies elsewhere my friend, but that isn't what it's
> all about anyway is it now? :-))
> DH

He's a denigrator, a troll, killfile him with News Proxy, I have the
filters.
--
Bear Bottoms
website: http://bearware.com

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
On Nov 15, 2:12 pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> I agree. Jay is guilty of nothing more than loving aviation and taking
> huge pride in both his business and his family.
> He posted aggressively on these subjects and attracted a cadre of
> dissenters. It happens on Usenet as both you and I are well aware.
> Jay took much pleasure in inviting people from this forum who he
> thought were friends rather than adversaries to his hotel for a party
> each year before Oshkosh. It was an annual event and he and Mary
> expended much effort in making it fun for everyone who attended.
> I have never seen Jay's posting about his hotel, or his discussing his
> web site as his spamming of the forum.
> I see his decision to leave here as unfortunate both for him AND for
> the forum; for Jay, as he left a group he genuinely liked, and for the
> forum, because what happened here should never have happened. Once it
> started, it became a self fulfilling on going action and reaction that
> was destined to end badly, which is exactly how it ended.
> Dudley Henriques
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> There is nothing self fulfilling about some ******* child like your friend
> Buttlipps, hounding someone's every post until they leave. It's just a 2
> year old's method of moderating the group.

As you seem prone to misjudge most everything else, you have seriously
misjudged my so called "relationship" with Bertie the Bunyip. Sorry to
disappoint you, but Berttie and I are a completely "neutral"
relationship on this forum. If you have some reference you can post to
disavow this comment, please feel free to post it below.
You're "problem" lies elsewhere my friend, but that isn't what it's
all about anyway is it now? :-))
DH

-------------------------------------------------------------

Bull**** again. You relationship with Buttlipps is well documented for
anyone that has followed this forum, or wants to do a search.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Nov 15, 2:30*pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Nov 15, 2:12 pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> ....
>
> > I agree. Jay is guilty of nothing more than loving aviation and taking
> > huge pride in both his business and his family.
> > He posted aggressively on these subjects and attracted a cadre of
> > dissenters. It happens on Usenet as both you and I are well aware.
> > Jay took much pleasure in inviting people from this forum who he
> > thought were friends rather than adversaries to his hotel for a party
> > each year before Oshkosh. It was an annual event and he and Mary
> > expended much effort in making it fun for everyone who attended.
> > I have never seen Jay's posting about his hotel, or his discussing his
> > web site as his spamming of the forum.
> > I see his decision to leave here as unfortunate both for him AND for
> > the forum; for Jay, as he left a group he genuinely liked, and for the
> > forum, because what happened here should never have happened. Once it
> > started, it became a self fulfilling on going action and reaction that
> > was destined to end badly, which is exactly how it ended.
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > There is nothing self fulfilling about some ******* child like your friend
> > Buttlipps, hounding someone's every post until they leave. It's just a 2
> > year old's method of moderating the group.
>
> As you seem prone to misjudge most everything else, you have seriously
> misjudged my so called "relationship" with Bertie the Bunyip. Sorry to
> disappoint you, but Berttie and I are a completely "neutral"
> relationship on this forum. If you have some reference you can post to
> disavow this comment, please feel free to post it below.
> You're "problem" lies elsewhere my friend, but that isn't what it's
> all about anyway is it now? :-))
> DH
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Bull**** again. You relationship with Buttlipps is well documented for
> anyone that has followed this forum, or wants to do a search.

How bout YOU doing that search and posting the results. I have nothing
for or against Bertie. He does his thing and I do mine. We don't
necessarily like or hate each other. Now YOU go search and find just
ONE post....just ONE post, where I have joined Bertie in attacking
someone, belittling someone, or even hassling someone, and we'll ALL
see once and for all just who has all the bull **** around here.
Go get um Maxie! Now's your chance!!!! Show the world about how
Bertie and I are such "buddies" on this forum.
Or are we simply to see one more of your constant bull**** posts
saying that something about someone is true but with no backup to
substantiate it? :-))
DH

[Bear Bottoms[_4_]]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:30:41 -0600, Maxwell wrote:

> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Nov 15, 2:12 pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> I agree. Jay is guilty of nothing more than loving aviation and taking
>> huge pride in both his business and his family.
>> He posted aggressively on these subjects and attracted a cadre of
>> dissenters. It happens on Usenet as both you and I are well aware.
>> Jay took much pleasure in inviting people from this forum who he
>> thought were friends rather than adversaries to his hotel for a party
>> each year before Oshkosh. It was an annual event and he and Mary
>> expended much effort in making it fun for everyone who attended.
>> I have never seen Jay's posting about his hotel, or his discussing his
>> web site as his spamming of the forum.
>> I see his decision to leave here as unfortunate both for him AND for
>> the forum; for Jay, as he left a group he genuinely liked, and for the
>> forum, because what happened here should never have happened. Once it
>> started, it became a self fulfilling on going action and reaction that
>> was destined to end badly, which is exactly how it ended.
>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> There is nothing self fulfilling about some ******* child like your friend
>> Buttlipps, hounding someone's every post until they leave. It's just a 2
>> year old's method of moderating the group.
>
> As you seem prone to misjudge most everything else, you have seriously
> misjudged my so called "relationship" with Bertie the Bunyip. Sorry to
> disappoint you, but Berttie and I are a completely "neutral"
> relationship on this forum. If you have some reference you can post to
> disavow this comment, please feel free to post it below.
> You're "problem" lies elsewhere my friend, but that isn't what it's
> all about anyway is it now? :-))
> DH
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Bull**** again. You relationship with Buttlipps is well documented for
> anyone that has followed this forum, or wants to do a search.

I have no relationship with Dudley. My name is not Buttlips, it is Bear
Bottoms.

Period.
--
Bear "Cocaine 4 Kids" Bottoms; Google Me!
Freeware Website http://bewareofbearware.info

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Nov 15, 2:25*pm, Bear Bottoms > wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:23:35 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > On Nov 15, 2:12*pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
> >> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> ....
>
> >> I agree. Jay is guilty of nothing more than loving aviation and taking
> >> huge pride in both his business and his family.
> >> He posted aggressively on these subjects and attracted a cadre of
> >> dissenters. It happens on Usenet as both you and I are well aware.
> >> Jay took much pleasure in inviting people from this forum who he
> >> thought were friends rather than adversaries to his hotel for a party
> >> each year before Oshkosh. It was an annual event and he and Mary
> >> expended much effort in making it fun for everyone who attended.
> >> I have never seen Jay's posting about his hotel, or his discussing his
> >> web site as his spamming of the forum.
> >> I see his decision to leave here as unfortunate both for him AND for
> >> the forum; for Jay, as he left a group he genuinely liked, and for the
> >> forum, because what happened here should never have happened. Once it
> >> started, it became a self fulfilling on going action and reaction that
> >> was destined to end badly, which is exactly how it ended.
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >> There is nothing self fulfilling about some ******* child like your friend
> >> Buttlipps, hounding someone's every post until they leave. It's just a 2
> >> year old's method of moderating the group.
>
> > As you seem prone to misjudge most everything else, you have seriously
> > misjudged my so called "relationship" with Bertie the Bunyip. Sorry to
> > disappoint you, but Berttie and I are a completely "neutral"
> > relationship on this forum. If you have some reference you can post to
> > disavow this comment, please feel free to post it below.
> > You're "problem" lies elsewhere my friend, but that isn't what it's
> > all about anyway is it now? :-))
> > DH
>
> He's a denigrator, a troll, killfile him with News Proxy, I have the
> filters.
> --
> Bear Bottoms
> website:http://bearware.com

Hi Bear;

Ole' Maxwell and I go way back. He like to under post me in a constant
attempt to generate some fun for himself. No biggie. I know both him
and his antics well. :-))
DH

[Bear Bottoms[_4_]]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:49:06 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:

> On Nov 15, 2:30*pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>> On Nov 15, 2:12 pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>
...
>>
>>> I agree. Jay is guilty of nothing more than loving aviation and taking
>>> huge pride in both his business and his family.
>>> He posted aggressively on these subjects and attracted a cadre of
>>> dissenters. It happens on Usenet as both you and I are well aware.
>>> Jay took much pleasure in inviting people from this forum who he
>>> thought were friends rather than adversaries to his hotel for a party
>>> each year before Oshkosh. It was an annual event and he and Mary
>>> expended much effort in making it fun for everyone who attended.
>>> I have never seen Jay's posting about his hotel, or his discussing his
>>> web site as his spamming of the forum.
>>> I see his decision to leave here as unfortunate both for him AND for
>>> the forum; for Jay, as he left a group he genuinely liked, and for the
>>> forum, because what happened here should never have happened. Once it
>>> started, it became a self fulfilling on going action and reaction that
>>> was destined to end badly, which is exactly how it ended.
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>> There is nothing self fulfilling about some ******* child like your friend
>>> Buttlipps, hounding someone's every post until they leave. It's just a 2
>>> year old's method of moderating the group.
>>
>> As you seem prone to misjudge most everything else, you have seriously
>> misjudged my so called "relationship" with Bertie the Bunyip. Sorry to
>> disappoint you, but Berttie and I are a completely "neutral"
>> relationship on this forum. If you have some reference you can post to
>> disavow this comment, please feel free to post it below.
>> You're "problem" lies elsewhere my friend, but that isn't what it's
>> all about anyway is it now? :-))
>> DH
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Bull**** again. You relationship with Buttlipps is well documented for
>> anyone that has followed this forum, or wants to do a search.
>
> How bout YOU doing that search and posting the results. I have nothing
> for or against Bertie. He does his thing and I do mine. We don't
> necessarily like or hate each other. Now YOU go search and find just
> ONE post....just ONE post, where I have joined Bertie in attacking
> someone, belittling someone, or even hassling someone, and we'll ALL
> see once and for all just who has all the bull **** around here.
> Go get um Maxie! Now's your chance!!!! Show the world about how
> Bertie and I are such "buddies" on this forum.
> Or are we simply to see one more of your constant bull**** posts
> saying that something about someone is true but with no backup to
> substantiate it? :-))
> DH

Don't feed the troll. It lowers you. Affects your character. what you
have left.
--
Bear Bottoms
website: http://bearware.com

[Bear Bottoms[_4_]]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:55:17 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:

> On Nov 15, 2:25*pm, Bear Bottoms > wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:23:35 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>> On Nov 15, 2:12*pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>
...
>>
>>>> I agree. Jay is guilty of nothing more than loving aviation and taking
>>>> huge pride in both his business and his family.
>>>> He posted aggressively on these subjects and attracted a cadre of
>>>> dissenters. It happens on Usenet as both you and I are well aware.
>>>> Jay took much pleasure in inviting people from this forum who he
>>>> thought were friends rather than adversaries to his hotel for a party
>>>> each year before Oshkosh. It was an annual event and he and Mary
>>>> expended much effort in making it fun for everyone who attended.
>>>> I have never seen Jay's posting about his hotel, or his discussing his
>>>> web site as his spamming of the forum.
>>>> I see his decision to leave here as unfortunate both for him AND for
>>>> the forum; for Jay, as he left a group he genuinely liked, and for the
>>>> forum, because what happened here should never have happened. Once it
>>>> started, it became a self fulfilling on going action and reaction that
>>>> was destined to end badly, which is exactly how it ended.
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>>> There is nothing self fulfilling about some ******* child like your friend
>>>> Buttlipps, hounding someone's every post until they leave. It's just a 2
>>>> year old's method of moderating the group.
>>
>>> As you seem prone to misjudge most everything else, you have seriously
>>> misjudged my so called "relationship" with Bertie the Bunyip. Sorry to
>>> disappoint you, but Berttie and I are a completely "neutral"
>>> relationship on this forum. If you have some reference you can post to
>>> disavow this comment, please feel free to post it below.
>>> You're "problem" lies elsewhere my friend, but that isn't what it's
>>> all about anyway is it now? :-))
>>> DH
>>
>> He's a denigrator, a troll, killfile him with News Proxy, I have the
>> filters.
>> --
>> Bear Bottoms
>> website:http://bearware.com
>
> Hi Bear;
>
> Ole' Maxwell and I go way back. He like to under post me in a constant
> attempt to generate some fun for himself. No biggie. I know both him
> and his antics well. :-))
> DH

Don't lower yourself. Alright, I can see you mean well. Then keep your
present state of affairs. I will support.
--
Bear Bottoms
website: http://bearware.com

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Nov 15, 2:56*pm, Bear Bottoms > wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:49:06 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > On Nov 15, 2:30*pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
> >> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> ....
> >> On Nov 15, 2:12 pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
>
> >>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> ....
>
> >>> I agree. Jay is guilty of nothing more than loving aviation and taking
> >>> huge pride in both his business and his family.
> >>> He posted aggressively on these subjects and attracted a cadre of
> >>> dissenters. It happens on Usenet as both you and I are well aware.
> >>> Jay took much pleasure in inviting people from this forum who he
> >>> thought were friends rather than adversaries to his hotel for a party
> >>> each year before Oshkosh. It was an annual event and he and Mary
> >>> expended much effort in making it fun for everyone who attended.
> >>> I have never seen Jay's posting about his hotel, or his discussing his
> >>> web site as his spamming of the forum.
> >>> I see his decision to leave here as unfortunate both for him AND for
> >>> the forum; for Jay, as he left a group he genuinely liked, and for the
> >>> forum, because what happened here should never have happened. Once it
> >>> started, it became a self fulfilling on going action and reaction that
> >>> was destined to end badly, which is exactly how it ended.
> >>> Dudley Henriques
>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >>> There is nothing self fulfilling about some ******* child like your friend
> >>> Buttlipps, hounding someone's every post until they leave. It's just a 2
> >>> year old's method of moderating the group.
>
> >> As you seem prone to misjudge most everything else, you have seriously
> >> misjudged my so called "relationship" with Bertie the Bunyip. Sorry to
> >> disappoint you, but Berttie and I are a completely "neutral"
> >> relationship on this forum. If you have some reference you can post to
> >> disavow this comment, please feel free to post it below.
> >> You're "problem" lies elsewhere my friend, but that isn't what it's
> >> all about anyway is it now? :-))
> >> DH
>
> >> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >> Bull**** again. You relationship with Buttlipps is well documented for
> >> anyone that has followed this forum, or wants to do a search.
>
> > How bout YOU doing that search and posting the results. I have nothing
> > for or against Bertie. He does his thing and I do mine. We don't
> > necessarily like or hate each other. Now YOU go search and find just
> > ONE post....just ONE post, where I have joined Bertie in attacking
> > someone, belittling someone, or even hassling someone, and we'll ALL
> > see once and for all just who has all the bull **** around here.
> > Go get um Maxie! *Now's your chance!!!! Show the world about how
> > Bertie and I are such "buddies" on this forum.
> > Or are we simply to see one more of your constant bull**** posts
> > saying that something about someone is true but with no backup to
> > substantiate it? :-))
> > DH
>
> Don't feed the troll. It lowers you. Affects your character. what you
> have left.
> --
> Bear Bottoms
> website:http://bearware.com

You'll find I post as I see fit, as I'm sure you do as well, and don't
bother yourself with my character. It's just fine.

[a[_3_]]

On Nov 15, 2:05*pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
> "Ross" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> No, Jay left simply because of Buttlipps relentless hounding.

Well, I've posted more than a few aviation related comments here, and
you and others captured them with your insistant 'gotta have the last
byte' crap. It was boring, this forum has substantially lost me.

[alvey]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 12:10:18 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:



Psst. You're replying to a spoofer. It's not the real nutbag.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Nov 15, 3:42*pm, alvey > wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 12:10:18 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
> Psst. You're replying to a spoofer. It's not the real nutbag.

Just practicing my typing :-)

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bear Bottoms" > wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:30:41 -0600, Maxwell wrote:
|
| > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
| > ...
| > On Nov 15, 2:12 pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
| >> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
| >>
| >>
...
| >>
| >> I agree. Jay is guilty of nothing more than loving aviation and taking
| >> huge pride in both his business and his family.
| >> He posted aggressively on these subjects and attracted a cadre of
| >> dissenters. It happens on Usenet as both you and I are well aware.
| >> Jay took much pleasure in inviting people from this forum who he
| >> thought were friends rather than adversaries to his hotel for a party
| >> each year before Oshkosh. It was an annual event and he and Mary
| >> expended much effort in making it fun for everyone who attended.
| >> I have never seen Jay's posting about his hotel, or his discussing his
| >> web site as his spamming of the forum.
| >> I see his decision to leave here as unfortunate both for him AND for
| >> the forum; for Jay, as he left a group he genuinely liked, and for the
| >> forum, because what happened here should never have happened. Once it
| >> started, it became a self fulfilling on going action and reaction that
| >> was destined to end badly, which is exactly how it ended.
| >> Dudley Henriques
| >>
| >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
| >>
| >> There is nothing self fulfilling about some ******* child like your
friend
| >> Buttlipps, hounding someone's every post until they leave. It's just a
2
| >> year old's method of moderating the group.
| >
| > As you seem prone to misjudge most everything else, you have seriously
| > misjudged my so called "relationship" with Bertie the Bunyip. Sorry to
| > disappoint you, but Berttie and I are a completely "neutral"
| > relationship on this forum. If you have some reference you can post to
| > disavow this comment, please feel free to post it below.
| > You're "problem" lies elsewhere my friend, but that isn't what it's
| > all about anyway is it now? :-))
| > DH
| >
| > -------------------------------------------------------------
| >
| > Bull**** again. You relationship with Buttlipps is well documented for
| > anyone that has followed this forum, or wants to do a search.
|
| I have no relationship with Dudley. My name is not Buttlips, it is Bear
| Bottoms.
|
| Period.
| --

I wasn't talking about you, and unless you are a wolf in sheep's clothing, I
know nothing about you.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Nov 15, 4:11*pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
> "Bear Bottoms" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> | On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:30:41 -0600, Maxwell wrote:
> |
> | > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> | ....
> | > On Nov 15, 2:12 pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
> | >> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> | >>
> | ...
> | >>
> | >> I agree. Jay is guilty of nothing more than loving aviation and taking
> | >> huge pride in both his business and his family.
> | >> He posted aggressively on these subjects and attracted a cadre of
> | >> dissenters. It happens on Usenet as both you and I are well aware.
> | >> Jay took much pleasure in inviting people from this forum who he
> | >> thought were friends rather than adversaries to his hotel for a party
> | >> each year before Oshkosh. It was an annual event and he and Mary
> | >> expended much effort in making it fun for everyone who attended.
> | >> I have never seen Jay's posting about his hotel, or his discussing his
> | >> web site as his spamming of the forum.
> | >> I see his decision to leave here as unfortunate both for him AND for
> | >> the forum; for Jay, as he left a group he genuinely liked, and for the
> | >> forum, because what happened here should never have happened. Once it
> | >> started, it became a self fulfilling on going action and reaction that
> | >> was destined to end badly, which is exactly how it ended.
> | >> Dudley Henriques
> | >>
> | >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> | >>
> | >> There is nothing self fulfilling about some ******* child like your
> friend
> | >> Buttlipps, hounding someone's every post until they leave. It's just a
> 2
> | >> year old's method of moderating the group.
> | >
> | > As you seem prone to misjudge most everything else, you have seriously
> | > misjudged my so called "relationship" with Bertie the Bunyip. Sorry to
> | > disappoint you, but Berttie and I are a completely "neutral"
> | > relationship on this forum. If you have some reference you can post to
> | > disavow this comment, please feel free to post it below.
> | > You're "problem" lies elsewhere my friend, but that isn't what it's
> | > all about anyway is it now? :-))
> | > DH
> | >
> | > -------------------------------------------------------------
> | >
> | > Bull**** again. You relationship with Buttlipps is well documented for
> | > anyone that has followed this forum, or wants to do a search.
> |
> | I have no relationship with Dudley. My name is not Buttlips, it is Bear
> | Bottoms.
> |
> | Period.
> | --
>
> I wasn't talking about you, and unless you are a wolf in sheep's clothing, I
> know nothing about you.

Almost too much to "Bear" isn't it Maxie? :-)))

[Bear Bottoms[_4_]]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 12:54:39 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:

> On Nov 15, 3:42*pm, alvey > wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 12:10:18 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>
>> Psst. You're replying to a spoofer. It's not the real nutbag.
>
> Just practicing my typing :-)

Glad I could be of service. :)
--
Bear Bottoms
website: http://bearware.com

[Bear Bottoms[_4_]]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 15:11:48 -0600, Maxwell wrote:

> "Bear Bottoms" > wrote in message
> ...
>| On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:30:41 -0600, Maxwell wrote:
>|
>|> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>|> ...
>|> On Nov 15, 2:12 pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
>|>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>|>>
>|>>
> ...
>|>>
>|>> I agree. Jay is guilty of nothing more than loving aviation and taking
>|>> huge pride in both his business and his family.
>|>> He posted aggressively on these subjects and attracted a cadre of
>|>> dissenters. It happens on Usenet as both you and I are well aware.
>|>> Jay took much pleasure in inviting people from this forum who he
>|>> thought were friends rather than adversaries to his hotel for a party
>|>> each year before Oshkosh. It was an annual event and he and Mary
>|>> expended much effort in making it fun for everyone who attended.
>|>> I have never seen Jay's posting about his hotel, or his discussing his
>|>> web site as his spamming of the forum.
>|>> I see his decision to leave here as unfortunate both for him AND for
>|>> the forum; for Jay, as he left a group he genuinely liked, and for the
>|>> forum, because what happened here should never have happened. Once it
>|>> started, it became a self fulfilling on going action and reaction that
>|>> was destined to end badly, which is exactly how it ended.
>|>> Dudley Henriques
>|>>
>|>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>|>>
>|>> There is nothing self fulfilling about some ******* child like your
> friend
>|>> Buttlipps, hounding someone's every post until they leave. It's just a
> 2
>|>> year old's method of moderating the group.
>|>
>|> As you seem prone to misjudge most everything else, you have seriously
>|> misjudged my so called "relationship" with Bertie the Bunyip. Sorry to
>|> disappoint you, but Berttie and I are a completely "neutral"
>|> relationship on this forum. If you have some reference you can post to
>|> disavow this comment, please feel free to post it below.
>|> You're "problem" lies elsewhere my friend, but that isn't what it's
>|> all about anyway is it now? :-))
>|> DH
>|>
>|> -------------------------------------------------------------
>|>
>|> Bull**** again. You relationship with Buttlipps is well documented for
>|> anyone that has followed this forum, or wants to do a search.
>|
>| I have no relationship with Dudley. My name is not Buttlips, it is Bear
>| Bottoms.
>|
>| Period.
>| --
>
> I wasn't talking about you, and unless you are a wolf in sheep's clothing, I
> know nothing about you.

So you're the great Anthony Atlieski? Big deal. Sim off. I fly the real
things.
--
Bear Bottoms
website: http://bearware.com

[Bear Bottoms[_4_]]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:26:03 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:

> On Nov 15, 4:11*pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
>> "Bear Bottoms" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>| On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:30:41 -0600, Maxwell wrote:
>>|
>>| > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>| ...
>>| > On Nov 15, 2:12 pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
>>| >> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>| >>
>>| ...
>>| >>
>>| >> I agree. Jay is guilty of nothing more than loving aviation and taking
>>| >> huge pride in both his business and his family.
>>| >> He posted aggressively on these subjects and attracted a cadre of
>>| >> dissenters. It happens on Usenet as both you and I are well aware.
>>| >> Jay took much pleasure in inviting people from this forum who he
>>| >> thought were friends rather than adversaries to his hotel for a party
>>| >> each year before Oshkosh. It was an annual event and he and Mary
>>| >> expended much effort in making it fun for everyone who attended.
>>| >> I have never seen Jay's posting about his hotel, or his discussing his
>>| >> web site as his spamming of the forum.
>>| >> I see his decision to leave here as unfortunate both for him AND for
>>| >> the forum; for Jay, as he left a group he genuinely liked, and for the
>>| >> forum, because what happened here should never have happened. Once it
>>| >> started, it became a self fulfilling on going action and reaction that
>>| >> was destined to end badly, which is exactly how it ended.
>>| >> Dudley Henriques
>>| >>
>>| >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>| >>
>>| >> There is nothing self fulfilling about some ******* child like your
>> friend
>>| >> Buttlipps, hounding someone's every post until they leave. It's just a
>> 2
>>| >> year old's method of moderating the group.
>>| >
>>| > As you seem prone to misjudge most everything else, you have seriously
>>| > misjudged my so called "relationship" with Bertie the Bunyip. Sorry to
>>| > disappoint you, but Berttie and I are a completely "neutral"
>>| > relationship on this forum. If you have some reference you can post to
>>| > disavow this comment, please feel free to post it below.
>>| > You're "problem" lies elsewhere my friend, but that isn't what it's
>>| > all about anyway is it now? :-))
>>| > DH
>>| >
>>| > -------------------------------------------------------------
>>| >
>>| > Bull**** again. You relationship with Buttlipps is well documented for
>>| > anyone that has followed this forum, or wants to do a search.
>>|
>>| I have no relationship with Dudley. My name is not Buttlips, it is Bear
>>| Bottoms.
>>|
>>| Period.
>>| --
>>
>> I wasn't talking about you, and unless you are a wolf in sheep's clothing, I
>> know nothing about you.
>
> Almost too much to "Bear" isn't it Maxie? :-)))

LOL! The Great Warrior Dudley Dewright Henriques, now talking troll.
Query this.

A canard wing and a main wing (on a Cozy IV) reverse the rules of
decolage (compared to a Cessna 150x). Yes?
--
Bear Bottoms
website: http://bearware.com

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Nov 15, 4:36*pm, Bear Bottoms > wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:26:03 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > On Nov 15, 4:11*pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
> >> "Bear Bottoms" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> >>| On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:30:41 -0600, Maxwell wrote:
> >>|
> >>| > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> >>| ...
> >>| > On Nov 15, 2:12 pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
> >>| >> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> >>| >>
> >>| ...
> >>| >>
> >>| >> I agree. Jay is guilty of nothing more than loving aviation and taking
> >>| >> huge pride in both his business and his family.
> >>| >> He posted aggressively on these subjects and attracted a cadre of
> >>| >> dissenters. It happens on Usenet as both you and I are well aware.
> >>| >> Jay took much pleasure in inviting people from this forum who he
> >>| >> thought were friends rather than adversaries to his hotel for a party
> >>| >> each year before Oshkosh. It was an annual event and he and Mary
> >>| >> expended much effort in making it fun for everyone who attended.
> >>| >> I have never seen Jay's posting about his hotel, or his discussing his
> >>| >> web site as his spamming of the forum.
> >>| >> I see his decision to leave here as unfortunate both for him AND for
> >>| >> the forum; for Jay, as he left a group he genuinely liked, and for the
> >>| >> forum, because what happened here should never have happened. Once it
> >>| >> started, it became a self fulfilling on going action and reaction that
> >>| >> was destined to end badly, which is exactly how it ended.
> >>| >> Dudley Henriques
> >>| >>
> >>| >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>| >>
> >>| >> There is nothing self fulfilling about some ******* child like your
> >> friend
> >>| >> Buttlipps, hounding someone's every post until they leave. It's just a
> >> 2
> >>| >> year old's method of moderating the group.
> >>| >
> >>| > As you seem prone to misjudge most everything else, you have seriously
> >>| > misjudged my so called "relationship" with Bertie the Bunyip. Sorry to
> >>| > disappoint you, but Berttie and I are a completely "neutral"
> >>| > relationship on this forum. If you have some reference you can post to
> >>| > disavow this comment, please feel free to post it below.
> >>| > You're "problem" lies elsewhere my friend, but that isn't what it's
> >>| > all about anyway is it now? :-))
> >>| > DH
> >>| >
> >>| > -------------------------------------------------------------
> >>| >
> >>| > Bull**** again. You relationship with Buttlipps is well documented for
> >>| > anyone that has followed this forum, or wants to do a search.
> >>|
> >>| I have no relationship with Dudley. My name is not Buttlips, it is Bear
> >>| Bottoms.
> >>|
> >>| Period.
> >>| --
>
> >> I wasn't talking about you, and unless you are a wolf in sheep's clothing, I
> >> know nothing about you.
>
> > Almost too much to "Bear" isn't it Maxie? :-)))
>
> LOL! The Great Warrior Dudley Dewright Henriques, now talking troll.
> Query this.
>
> A canard wing and a main wing (on a Cozy IV) reverse the rules of
> decolage (compared to a Cessna 150x). Yes? *
> --
> Bear Bottoms
> website:http://bearware.com

If you are asking me if the angles of incidence between the tail and
wing combination and canard and wing combination on the Cozy are
different on each type I'll refer you to Nat Puffer. I don't like
being grilled by people who by the fact they are grilling me think I
don't know the answer to their question.
Thank you

[Bear Bottoms[_4_]]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:34:08 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:

>> LOL! The Great Warrior Dudley Dewright Henriques, now talking troll.
>> Query this.
>>
>> A canard wing and a main wing (on a Cozy IV) reverse the rules of
>> decolage (compared to a Cessna 150x). Yes? *
>> --
>> Bear Bottoms
>> website:http://bearware.com
>
> If you are asking me if the angles of incidence between the tail and
> wing combination and canard and wing combination on the Cozy are
> different on each type I'll refer you to Nat Puffer.

I'm asking whether or not you understand the rules of decalage as they
apply to a pusher. Do they operate on the same principles of decalage as
they do in a Cessna? Or not?

> I don't like
> being grilled by people who by the fact they are grilling me think I
> don't know the answer to their question.

I won't know if you know the answer until you answer it. Left my crystal
ball in Baton Rouge.
--
Bear Bottoms
website: http://bearware.com

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Nov 15, 8:08*pm, Bear Bottoms > wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:34:08 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> >> LOL! The Great Warrior Dudley Dewright Henriques, now talking troll.
> >> Query this.
>
> >> A canard wing and a main wing (on a Cozy IV) reverse the rules of
> >> decolage (compared to a Cessna 150x). Yes? *
> >> --
> >> Bear Bottoms
> >> website:http://bearware.com
>
> > If you are asking me if the angles of incidence between the tail and
> > wing combination and canard and wing combination on the Cozy are
> > different on each type I'll refer you to Nat Puffer.
>
> I'm asking whether or not you understand the rules of decalage as they
> apply to a pusher. Do they operate on the same principles of decalage as
> they do in a Cessna? Or not?
>
> > I don't like
> > being grilled by people who by the fact they are grilling me think I
> > don't know the answer to their question.
>
> I won't know if you know the answer until you answer it. Left my crystal
> ball in Baton Rouge.
> --
> Bear Bottoms
> website:http://bearware.com

You're missing my point. I don't give a rat's ass what you know and
what you don't know. I'm telling you I don't play these little games
with people named Bear Bottoms on Usenet.
Tell you what. You have my permission to assume I don't know the
answer to your "question". How's that? You want to discuss flying with
me, you email me back channel so I know who you are and why you want
the answer. THEN we'll talk. Until then, get lost!

[george]

On Nov 16, 2:08*pm, Bear Bottoms > wrote:

> Bear Bottoms
> website:http://bearware.com

I'd suggest if you really want to be taken seriously you'd not have a
broken webpage

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Nov 15, 11:02*pm, george > wrote:
> On Nov 16, 2:08*pm, Bear Bottoms > wrote:
>
> > Bear Bottoms
> > website:http://bearware.com
>
> I'd suggest if you really want to be taken seriously you'd not have a
> broken webpage

Found this gem in another thread.

Bear "Cocaine 4 Kids" Bottoms; Google Me!
Freeware Website http://bewareofbearware.info

I won't talk flying with idiots who feel the need to use the phrase
"cocaine 4 kids" in a sentence on an aviation forum.
My personal wish is that this moron takes his crap elsewhere.
Dudley Henriques

[Bear Bottoms[_4_]]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:45:34 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:

>>
>>> If you are asking me if the angles of incidence between the tail and
>>> wing combination and canard and wing combination on the Cozy are
>>> different on each type I'll refer you to Nat Puffer.
>>
>> I'm asking whether or not you understand the rules of decalage as they
>> apply to a pusher. Do they operate on the same principles of decalage as
>> they do in a Cessna? Or not?
>>
>>> I don't like
>>> being grilled by people who by the fact they are grilling me think I
>>> don't know the answer to their question.
>>
>> I won't know if you know the answer until you answer it. Left my crystal
>> ball in Baton Rouge.
>> --
>> Bear Bottoms
>> website:http://bearware.com
>
> You're missing my point. I don't give a rat's ass what you know and
> what you don't know. I'm telling you I don't play these little games
> with people named Bear Bottoms on Usenet.

My life is an open book. You cannot deny. I have more evidence of who I
am and what I have piloted than you. This upsets you. Too tough.

> Tell you what. You have my permission to assume I don't know the
> answer to your "question". How's that?

I don't need your permission to see that you don't know the answer.
Prove me wrong. I can be wrong.

> You want to discuss flying with
> me, you email me back channel so I know who you are and why you want
> the answer. THEN we'll talk. Until then, get lost!

My life is all over the Internet. You, I don't see or know much about.
Back channels are for hiders. I don't hide.
--
Bear Bottoms
website: http://bearware.com

[Bear Bottoms[_4_]]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 20:02:22 -0800 (PST), george wrote:

> On Nov 16, 2:08*pm, Bear Bottoms > wrote:
>
>> Bear Bottoms
>> website:http://bearware.com
>
> I'd suggest if you really want to be taken seriously you'd not have a
> broken webpage

Try this.

http://emporium.turnpike.net/P/ProRev/bottoms.htm
--
Bear Bottoms
website: http://bearware.com

[Bear Bottoms[_4_]]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 20:34:50 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:

> I won't talk flying with idiots who feel the need to use the phrase
> "cocaine 4 kids" in a sentence on an aviation forum.
> My personal wish is that this moron takes his crap elsewhere.
> Dudley Henriques

You may wish. Denigrators and those who live on their past
pseudo-glories do. I am real, anyone can find me, who I am, where I have
piloted.

You are slim known. And an evader.

I see others have you as an evader, one who talks the talk but walks
like a crab.
--
Bear Bottoms
website: http://bearware.com

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 20:02:22 -0800 (PST), george wrote:

> On Nov 16, 2:08*pm, Bear Bottoms > wrote:
>
>> Bear Bottoms
>> website:http://bearware.com
>
> I'd suggest if you really want to be taken seriously you'd not have a
> broken webpage

Pay no attention, george, I will smite this reptile once and for all!

[John Corliss]

Maxwell wrote:
> "Bear Bottoms" > wrote in message
> ...
> | On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:30:41 -0600, Maxwell wrote:
> |
> | > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> | > ...
> | > On Nov 15, 2:12 pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
> | >> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> | >>
> | >>
> ...
> | >>
> | >> I agree. Jay is guilty of nothing more than loving aviation and taking
> | >> huge pride in both his business and his family.
> | >> He posted aggressively on these subjects and attracted a cadre of
> | >> dissenters. It happens on Usenet as both you and I are well aware.
> | >> Jay took much pleasure in inviting people from this forum who he
> | >> thought were friends rather than adversaries to his hotel for a party
> | >> each year before Oshkosh. It was an annual event and he and Mary
> | >> expended much effort in making it fun for everyone who attended.
> | >> I have never seen Jay's posting about his hotel, or his discussing his
> | >> web site as his spamming of the forum.
> | >> I see his decision to leave here as unfortunate both for him AND for
> | >> the forum; for Jay, as he left a group he genuinely liked, and for the
> | >> forum, because what happened here should never have happened. Once it
> | >> started, it became a self fulfilling on going action and reaction that
> | >> was destined to end badly, which is exactly how it ended.
> | >> Dudley Henriques
> | >>
> | >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> | >>
> | >> There is nothing self fulfilling about some ******* child like your
> friend
> | >> Buttlipps, hounding someone's every post until they leave. It's just a
> 2
> | >> year old's method of moderating the group.
> | >
> | > As you seem prone to misjudge most everything else, you have seriously
> | > misjudged my so called "relationship" with Bertie the Bunyip. Sorry to
> | > disappoint you, but Berttie and I are a completely "neutral"
> | > relationship on this forum. If you have some reference you can post to
> | > disavow this comment, please feel free to post it below.
> | > You're "problem" lies elsewhere my friend, but that isn't what it's
> | > all about anyway is it now? :-))
> | > DH
> | >
> | > -------------------------------------------------------------
> | >
> | > Bull**** again. You relationship with Buttlipps is well documented for
> | > anyone that has followed this forum, or wants to do a search.
> |
> | I have no relationship with Dudley. My name is not Buttlips, it is Bear
> | Bottoms.
> |
> | Period.
> | --
>
> I wasn't talking about you, and unless you are a wolf in sheep's clothing, I
> know nothing about you.

You're being trolled by somebody pretending to be Bear Bottoms. Look at
the headers.

--
John Corliss BS206. I use nFilter to filter all Google Groups posts
because of Googlespam. Because x-private.org and aioe.org are being
abused by somebody to spoof regulars in this group, I'm filtering all
messages from those services as well. No ad, cd, commercial, cripple,
demo, dotnet, nag, share, spy, time-limited, trial or web wares OR warez
for me, please.

[More_Flaps]

On Nov 16, 2:08*pm, Bear Bottoms > wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:34:08 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> >> LOL! The Great Warrior Dudley Dewright Henriques, now talking troll.
> >> Query this.
>
> >> A canard wing and a main wing (on a Cozy IV) reverse the rules of
> >> decolage (compared to a Cessna 150x). Yes? *
> >> --
> >> Bear Bottoms
> >> website:http://bearware.com
>
> > If you are asking me if the angles of incidence between the tail and
> > wing combination and canard and wing combination on the Cozy are
> > different on each type I'll refer you to Nat Puffer.
>
> I'm asking whether or not you understand the rules of decalage as they
> apply to a pusher. Do they operate on the same principles of decalage as
> they do in a Cessna? Or not?
>

Is the question about aerodynamic or geoemetric decalage?

LOL

Cheers

[ACF correspondent]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 01:06:47 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 20:02:22 -0800 (PST), george wrote:
>
>> On Nov 16, 2:08*pm, Bear Bottoms > wrote:
>>
>>> Bear Bottoms
>>> website:http://bearware.com
>>
>> I'd suggest if you really want to be taken seriously you'd not have a
>> broken webpage
>
>Pay no attention, george, I will smite this reptile once and for all!


To Dudley Henriques.

ACF has endured Bear Bottoms for about 3 years. It tried to get rid of
him but he won't go.

If you or your friends can manage that it would be impressive. Many
will thank you.


.... ACF correspondent






--
reporting on ACF to keep the peace

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Nov 16, 1:06*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 20:02:22 -0800 (PST), george wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 2:08*pm, Bear Bottoms > wrote:
>
> >> Bear Bottoms
> >> website:http://bearware.com
>
> > I'd suggest if you really want to be taken seriously you'd not have a
> > broken webpage
>
> Pay no attention, george, I will smite this reptile once and for all!

The referenced post did not come from me.
Dudley Henriques

[george]

On Nov 16, 7:06*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 20:02:22 -0800 (PST), george wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 2:08*pm, Bear Bottoms > wrote:
>
> >> Bear Bottoms
> >> website:http://bearware.com
>
> > I'd suggest if you really want to be taken seriously you'd not have a
> > broken webpage
>
> Pay no attention, george, I will smite this reptile once and for all!

Not worth it Dudley.
Any-one who has a broken webpage in its sig has to be several
sandwiches short of a cut lunch

[Ari]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 03:54:07 -0800 (PST), More_Flaps wrote:

> On Nov 16, 2:08Â*pm, Bear Bottoms > wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:34:08 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>> LOL! The Great Warrior Dudley Dewright Henriques, now talking troll.
>>>> Query this.
>>
>>>> A canard wing and a main wing (on a Cozy IV) reverse the rules of
>>>> decolage (compared to a Cessna 150x). Yes? Â*
>>>> --
>>>> Bear Bottoms
>>>> website:http://bearware.com
>>
>>> If you are asking me if the angles of incidence between the tail and
>>> wing combination and canard and wing combination on the Cozy are
>>> different on each type I'll refer you to Nat Puffer.
>>
>> I'm asking whether or not you understand the rules of decalage as they
>> apply to a pusher. Do they operate on the same principles of decalage as
>> they do in a Cessna? Or not?
>>
>
> Is the question about aerodynamic or geoemetric decalage?
>
> LOL
>
> Cheers

I assume Using?

D aircraft drag
L aircraft lift
W total aircraft weight
W0 empty aircraft weight
Wp payload weight
V flight speed
S reference area (wing area)
b wing span
AR wing aspect ratio
CL aircraft lift coefficient
CD aircraft drag coefficient
CDA0 drag area of non-wing components
T propeller thrust
Tc thrust coefficient
Pprop propulsive thrust power ( ≡ T V )
Pshaft motor shaft power
R propeller radius
ηprop propeller efficiency
ηv profile efficiency (viscous loss)
ηi Froude efficiency (inviscid loss)
Re chord Reynolds number
câ„“ wing-airfoil profile lift coefficient
cd wing-airfoil profile drag coefficient
� air density
--
Meet Ari!
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh

[Donavan Jeffrey Hammond-Hammond]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 01:06:47 -0500, Dudley Henriques wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 20:02:22 -0800 (PST), george wrote:
>
>> On Nov 16, 2:08*pm, Bear Bottoms > wrote:
>>
>>> Bear Bottoms
>>> website:http://bearware.com
>>
>> I'd suggest if you really want to be taken seriously you'd not have a
>> broken webpage
>
> Pay no attention, george, I will smite this reptile once and for all!

Go gettem, Dudley!!

<I can see the cavalry of Canuckie mounts just like a dream>

[Ari]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 00:31:18 -0800, John Corliss wrote:

> Maxwell wrote:
>> "Bear Bottoms" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>| On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:30:41 -0600, Maxwell wrote:
>>|
>>| > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>| > ...
>>| > On Nov 15, 2:12 pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
>>| >> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>| >>
>>| >>
>> ...
>>| >>
>>| >> I agree. Jay is guilty of nothing more than loving aviation and taking
>>| >> huge pride in both his business and his family.
>>| >> He posted aggressively on these subjects and attracted a cadre of
>>| >> dissenters. It happens on Usenet as both you and I are well aware.
>>| >> Jay took much pleasure in inviting people from this forum who he
>>| >> thought were friends rather than adversaries to his hotel for a party
>>| >> each year before Oshkosh. It was an annual event and he and Mary
>>| >> expended much effort in making it fun for everyone who attended.
>>| >> I have never seen Jay's posting about his hotel, or his discussing his
>>| >> web site as his spamming of the forum.
>>| >> I see his decision to leave here as unfortunate both for him AND for
>>| >> the forum; for Jay, as he left a group he genuinely liked, and for the
>>| >> forum, because what happened here should never have happened. Once it
>>| >> started, it became a self fulfilling on going action and reaction that
>>| >> was destined to end badly, which is exactly how it ended.
>>| >> Dudley Henriques
>>| >>
>>| >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>| >>
>>| >> There is nothing self fulfilling about some ******* child like your
>> friend
>>| >> Buttlipps, hounding someone's every post until they leave. It's just a
>> 2
>>| >> year old's method of moderating the group.
>>| >
>>| > As you seem prone to misjudge most everything else, you have seriously
>>| > misjudged my so called "relationship" with Bertie the Bunyip. Sorry to
>>| > disappoint you, but Berttie and I are a completely "neutral"
>>| > relationship on this forum. If you have some reference you can post to
>>| > disavow this comment, please feel free to post it below.
>>| > You're "problem" lies elsewhere my friend, but that isn't what it's
>>| > all about anyway is it now? :-))
>>| > DH
>>| >
>>| > -------------------------------------------------------------
>>| >
>>| > Bull**** again. You relationship with Buttlipps is well documented for
>>| > anyone that has followed this forum, or wants to do a search.
>>|
>>| I have no relationship with Dudley. My name is not Buttlips, it is Bear
>>| Bottoms.
>>|
>>| Period.
>>| --
>>
>> I wasn't talking about you, and unless you are a wolf in sheep's clothing, I
>> know nothing about you.
>
> You're being trolled by somebody pretending to be Bear Bottoms. Look at
> the headers.

You're being addressed by ACF's local bully and headcase, John Corliss,
see below.

================================================== ========

"Look, you jerk, why don't you grow up and leave this group alone? I
can tell you this though, it's only a matter of time before I stomp
your ass into a wet paste. Think about it, loser.

The "new and improved" John Corliss on ACF on 11.03.08 wrote:

"MF, you had better back off. I will come after you and this is no
****. You don't want to **** with me. You have been warned."

"With all seriousness, I just want you to know that anybody who does
something to me would be in line for retribution with *extreme
prejudice* and without the slightest hesitation. I don't stop until I
get what I want when I'm motivated to be on the trail of anybody who
stalks me. You see, I have, in reserve, my own tactics for getting back
at people, and many connections with people who will do things for me
(and I for them.)"

LOL!!!
--
Meet Ari!
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh

[Ari]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 01:06:47 -0500, Dudley Henriques wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 20:02:22 -0800 (PST), george wrote:
>
>> On Nov 16, 2:08*pm, Bear Bottoms > wrote:
>>
>>> Bear Bottoms
>>> website:http://bearware.com
>>
>> I'd suggest if you really want to be taken seriously you'd not have a
>> broken webpage
>
> Pay no attention, george, I will smite this reptile once and for all!

Ever flown a pusher, a Velocity in particular, henriques? No? Then STFU.
--
Meet Ari!
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Nov 16, 2:28*pm, george > wrote:
> On Nov 16, 7:06*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 20:02:22 -0800 (PST), george wrote:
> > > On Nov 16, 2:08*pm, Bear Bottoms > wrote:
>
> > >> Bear Bottoms
> > >> website:http://bearware.com
>
> > > I'd suggest if you really want to be taken seriously you'd not have a
> > > broken webpage
>
> > Pay no attention, george, I will smite this reptile once and for all!
>
> Not worth it Dudley.
> Any-one who has a broken webpage in its sig has to be several
> sandwiches short of a cut lunch

The 'pay no attention" post wasn't mine but shows as mine.
Interesting!!!
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Nov 16, 2:35*pm, Donavan Jeffrey Hammond-Hammond
> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 01:06:47 -0500, Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 20:02:22 -0800 (PST), george wrote:
>
> >> On Nov 16, 2:08*pm, Bear Bottoms > wrote:
>
> >>> Bear Bottoms
> >>> website:http://bearware.com
>
> >> I'd suggest if you really want to be taken seriously you'd not have a
> >> broken webpage
>
> > Pay no attention, george, I will smite this reptile once and for all!
>
> Go gettem, Dudley!!
>
> <I can see the cavalry of Canuckie mounts just like a dream>

This wasn't written by me. Don't know how it got here but it wasn't my
hand that wrote this sentence.
DH

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Nov 16, 2:54*pm, Ari >
wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 01:06:47 -0500, Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 20:02:22 -0800 (PST), george wrote:
>
> >> On Nov 16, 2:08*pm, Bear Bottoms > wrote:
>
> >>> Bear Bottoms
> >>> website:http://bearware.com
>
> >> I'd suggest if you really want to be taken seriously you'd not have a
> >> broken webpage
>
> > Pay no attention, george, I will smite this reptile once and for all!
>
> Ever flown a pusher, a Velocity in particular, henriques? No? Then STFU.
> --
> Meet Ari!http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh

You are dealing with a statement made by someone else. I don't use
words like "smite" :-)
....and yes, I've flown a pusher, but not the Cozy or a Rutan design.
DH

[Mike]

"Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote in message
> ...
>
> Bull**** Mikey Mouth, you just disagreed with him like everyone else you
> target.
>
> You're the classic 2 year old. If you don't get your way, you try to make
> everyone miserable.

Is this just another typical bout of your unintentional stupidity, Maxie, or
were you trying to actually go somewhere with this incoherent nonsense?
Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, Okie.

[Mike]

"Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote in message
> ...
> | "Morgans" > wrote in message
> | ...
> | >
> | > "Ross" > wrote
> | >
> | >> This is not the Jay I know.
> | >>
> | >> I do not remember the one you describe.
> | >
> | > Nope. Private ****ing matches between the poster you responded to and
> | > other immature posters has far more to do with destroying harmony
> within
> | > the group than one social introvert that insists simming is superior
> could
> | > ever do.
> |
> | If that were indeed true, you are truly more pathetic than you realize
> and
> | you have much bigger problems you should be concerned with.
> |
> | > Jay's only major fault is that he loved talking about aviation, and
> | > sometimes other issues of life dear to him, too much.
> |
> | That was far from Jay's only major fault.
> |
> |
>
> Yeah, like a moron like you is qualified to judge anyone!

....sez the pot....

[Mike]

"Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Nov 15, 2:12 pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> I agree. Jay is guilty of nothing more than loving aviation and taking
>> huge pride in both his business and his family.
>> He posted aggressively on these subjects and attracted a cadre of
>> dissenters. It happens on Usenet as both you and I are well aware.
>> Jay took much pleasure in inviting people from this forum who he
>> thought were friends rather than adversaries to his hotel for a party
>> each year before Oshkosh. It was an annual event and he and Mary
>> expended much effort in making it fun for everyone who attended.
>> I have never seen Jay's posting about his hotel, or his discussing his
>> web site as his spamming of the forum.
>> I see his decision to leave here as unfortunate both for him AND for
>> the forum; for Jay, as he left a group he genuinely liked, and for the
>> forum, because what happened here should never have happened. Once it
>> started, it became a self fulfilling on going action and reaction that
>> was destined to end badly, which is exactly how it ended.
>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> There is nothing self fulfilling about some ******* child like your
>> friend
>> Buttlipps, hounding someone's every post until they leave. It's just a 2
>> year old's method of moderating the group.
>
> As you seem prone to misjudge most everything else, you have seriously
> misjudged my so called "relationship" with Bertie the Bunyip. Sorry to
> disappoint you, but Berttie and I are a completely "neutral"
> relationship on this forum. If you have some reference you can post to
> disavow this comment, please feel free to post it below.
> You're "problem" lies elsewhere my friend, but that isn't what it's
> all about anyway is it now? :-))
> DH
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Bull**** again. You relationship with Buttlipps is well documented for
> anyone that has followed this forum, or wants to do a search.

Then post it for all to see, Maxie. Or is a slack jaw Okie like you too
stupid to figure out how?

[Mike]

"Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in message
...
>
> "Ross" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> No, Jay left simply because of Buttlipps relentless hounding.

If that's true, then why are you still here, Maxie?

Ya didn't think that far ahead, did ya? Ah but there I go accusing you of
thinking again. I really give you much more credit than you deserve, Okie.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote in message
...
| "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in message
| ...
| >
| > "Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote in message
| > ...
| >
| > Bull**** Mikey Mouth, you just disagreed with him like everyone else you
| > target.
| >
| > You're the classic 2 year old. If you don't get your way, you try to
make
| > everyone miserable.
|
| Is this just another typical bout of your unintentional stupidity, Maxie,
or
| were you trying to actually go somewhere with this incoherent nonsense?
| Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, Okie.
|

Thanks for a current example to support my statement.

[Mike]

"Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote in message
> ...
> | "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in message
> | ...
> | >
> | > "Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote in message
> | > ...
> | >
> | > Bull**** Mikey Mouth, you just disagreed with him like everyone else
> you
> | > target.
> | >
> | > You're the classic 2 year old. If you don't get your way, you try to
> make
> | > everyone miserable.
> |
> | Is this just another typical bout of your unintentional stupidity,
> Maxie,
> or
> | were you trying to actually go somewhere with this incoherent nonsense?
> | Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, Okie.
> |
>
> Thanks for a current example to support my statement.

No problem. I always enjoy pointing out exactly what type of slack jaw rube
you really are. No thanks are required. Just keep being you.

[Ari]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:45:53 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:

> On Nov 16, 2:54*pm, Ari >
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 01:06:47 -0500, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 20:02:22 -0800 (PST), george wrote:
>>
>>>> On Nov 16, 2:08*pm, Bear Bottoms > wrote:
>>
>>>>> Bear Bottoms
>>>>> website:http://bearware.com
>>
>>>> I'd suggest if you really want to be taken seriously you'd not have a
>>>> broken webpage
>>
>>> Pay no attention, george, I will smite this reptile once and for all!
>>
>> Ever flown a pusher, a Velocity in particular, henriques? No? Then STFU.
>> --
>> Meet Ari!http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh
>
> You are dealing with a statement made by someone else. I don't use
> words like "smite" :-)
> ...and yes, I've flown a pusher, but not the Cozy or a Rutan design.
> DH

Then STFU about canards.
--
Meet Ari!
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Nov 16, 9:13*pm, Ari >
wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:45:53 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 2:54 pm, Ari >
> > wrote:
> >> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 01:06:47 -0500, Dudley Henriques wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 20:02:22 -0800 (PST), george wrote:
>
> >>>> On Nov 16, 2:08 pm, Bear Bottoms > wrote:
>
> >>>>> Bear Bottoms
> >>>>> website:http://bearware.com
>
> >>>> I'd suggest if you really want to be taken seriously you'd not have a
> >>>> broken webpage
>
> >>> Pay no attention, george, I will smite this reptile once and for all!
>
> >> Ever flown a pusher, a Velocity in particular, henriques? No? Then STFU.
> >> --
> >> Meet Ari!http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh
>
> > You are dealing with a statement made by someone else. I don't use
> > words like "smite" :-)
> > ...and yes, I've flown a pusher, but not the Cozy or a Rutan design.
> > DH
>
> Then STFU about canards.
> --
> Meet Ari!http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh

You REALLY are a ****ing nitwit aren't you? :-))

[Ari]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:25:55 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:

> On Nov 16, 9:13*pm, Ari >
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:45:53 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>> On Nov 16, 2:54 pm, Ari >
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 01:06:47 -0500, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 20:02:22 -0800 (PST), george wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Nov 16, 2:08 pm, Bear Bottoms > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Bear Bottoms
>>>>>>> website:http://bearware.com
>>
>>>>>> I'd suggest if you really want to be taken seriously you'd not have a
>>>>>> broken webpage
>>
>>>>> Pay no attention, george, I will smite this reptile once and for all!
>>
>>>> Ever flown a pusher, a Velocity in particular, henriques? No? Then STFU.
>>>> --
>>>> Meet Ari!http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh
>>
>>> You are dealing with a statement made by someone else. I don't use
>>> words like "smite" :-)
>>> ...and yes, I've flown a pusher, but not the Cozy or a Rutan design.
>>> DH
>>
>> Then STFU about canards.
>> --
>> Meet Ari!http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh
>
> You REALLY are a ****ing nitwit aren't you? :-))

If your chest puffed out any farther, you's explode your heart, like I
said, STFU about canards or answer the question Bottoms proposed

To wit:

"I'm asking whether or not you understand the rules of decalage as they
apply to a pusher. Do they operate on the same principles of decalage as
they do in a Cessna? Or not?"

If/when you guess wrong, no worries, I'll be right here to pick your ass
up and set you straight.
--
Meet Ari!
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Nov 16, 10:09*pm, Ari >
wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:25:55 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 9:13*pm, Ari >
> > wrote:
> >> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:45:53 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> >>> On Nov 16, 2:54 pm, Ari >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 01:06:47 -0500, Dudley Henriques wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 20:02:22 -0800 (PST), george wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Nov 16, 2:08 pm, Bear Bottoms > wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Bear Bottoms
> >>>>>>> website:http://bearware.com
>
> >>>>>> I'd suggest if you really want to be taken seriously you'd not have a
> >>>>>> broken webpage
>
> >>>>> Pay no attention, george, I will smite this reptile once and for all!
>
> >>>> Ever flown a pusher, a Velocity in particular, henriques? No? Then STFU.
> >>>> --
> >>>> Meet Ari!http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh
>
> >>> You are dealing with a statement made by someone else. I don't use
> >>> words like "smite" :-)
> >>> ...and yes, I've flown a pusher, but not the Cozy or a Rutan design.
> >>> DH
>
> >> Then STFU about canards.
> >> --
> >> Meet Ari!http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh
>
> > You REALLY are a ****ing nitwit aren't you? :-))
>
> If your chest puffed out any farther, you's explode your heart, like I
> said, STFU about canards or answer the question Bottoms proposed
>
> To wit:
>
> "I'm asking whether or not you understand the rules of decalage as they
> apply to a pusher. Do they operate on the same principles of decalage as
> they do in a Cessna? Or not?"
>
> If/when you guess wrong, no worries, I'll be right here to pick your ass
> up and set you straight.
> --
> Meet Ari!http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh

Why sure you will Maxie. We all know that already. :-))

[Ari]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:24:55 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:

>> If your chest puffed out any farther, you's explode your heart, like I
>> said, STFU about canards or answer the question Bottoms proposed
>>
>> To wit:
>>
>> "I'm asking whether or not you understand the rules of decalage as they
>> apply to a pusher. Do they operate on the same principles of decalage as
>> they do in a Cessna? Or not?"
>>
>> If/when you guess wrong, no worries, I'll be right here to pick your ass
>> up and set you straight.
>> --
>> Meet Ari!http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh
>
> Why sure you will Maxie. We all know that already. :-))

Let's get this straight, Duds. Maxie/Maqxwell/Mx or whomever is your
troll X to bear. My posting history (Ari Silverstein) is years on.

http://tinyurl.com/62bdpz and that's just alt.privacy.

Contact me at anytime you have the ballz.

Soooooo, you want to skip out on the decalage? Now back to calling you
out. I'm asking whether or not you understand the rules of decalage as
they apply to a pusher. Do they operate on the same principles of
decalage as they do in a Cessna? Or not?"
--
Meet Ari!
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh

[Bear Bottoms[_4_]]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 02:03:01 -0500, Ari wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:24:55 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>>> If your chest puffed out any farther, you's explode your heart, like I
>>> said, STFU about canards or answer the question Bottoms proposed
>>>
>>> To wit:
>>>
>>> "I'm asking whether or not you understand the rules of decalage as they
>>> apply to a pusher. Do they operate on the same principles of decalage as
>>> they do in a Cessna? Or not?"
>>>
>>> If/when you guess wrong, no worries, I'll be right here to pick your ass
>>> up and set you straight.
>>> --
>>> Meet Ari!http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh
>>
>> Why sure you will Maxie. We all know that already. :-))
>
> Let's get this straight, Duds. Maxie/Maqxwell/Mx or whomever is your
> troll X to bear. My posting history (Ari Silverstein) is years on.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/62bdpz and that's just alt.privacy.
>
> Contact me at anytime you have the ballz.
>
> Soooooo, you want to skip out on the decalage? Now back to calling you
> out. I'm asking whether or not you understand the rules of decalage as
> they apply to a pusher. Do they operate on the same principles of
> decalage as they do in a Cessna? Or not?"

He is a recreational pilot. No wars, no real hard times, fun in the sun
roll about acro. A denigrator and a big shot.... with no shot
--
Bear Bottoms
website: http://bearware.com

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Nov 17, 2:03*am, Ari >
wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:24:55 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> >> If your chest puffed out any farther, you's explode your heart, like I
> >> said, STFU about canards or answer the question Bottoms proposed
>
> >> To wit:
>
> >> "I'm asking whether or not you understand the rules of decalage as they
> >> apply to a pusher. Do they operate on the same principles of decalage as
> >> they do in a Cessna? Or not?"
>
> >> If/when you guess wrong, no worries, I'll be right here to pick your ass
> >> up and set you straight.
> >> --
> >> Meet Ari!http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh
>
> > Why sure you will Maxie. *We all know that already. :-))
>
> Let's get this straight, Duds. Maxie/Maqxwell/Mx or whomever is your
> troll X to bear. My posting history (Ari Silverstein) is years on.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/62bdpzand that's just alt.privacy.
>
> Contact me at anytime you have the ballz.
>
> Soooooo, you want to skip out on the decalage? Now back to calling you
> out. I'm asking whether or not you understand the rules of decalage as
> they apply to a pusher. Do they operate on the same principles of
> decalage as they do in a Cessna? Or not?"
> --
> Meet Ari!http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh

I'm curious about something. Do idiots like you actually believe that
people who ignore these Usenet "challenges" people like you put out
here supposedly to embarrass them are proving to the world that they
don't know the answers to your questions?
Seriously.......I've always wondered how your minds work? You actually
believe that if you throw out some "gauntlet" and it's refused, that
this constitutes irrefutable proof on two levels...the first being
that YOU know the answer, and secondly that the person refusing to
answer the question does NOT?
Interesting.......sophomoric perhaps, but interesting.
Let's see how YOU do in this idiotic format shall we?

Consider the following;
An F14 at 420 KCAS, 15K, in a level turn at military. As the g is
increased, drag increases as it's square. At about 5.5g, induced
drag has increased by a factor of 25. At this point, T-D=0 and
Ps=0. If g is decreased the F14 will WHAT? . If we pull
harder, WHAT WILL HAPPEN?

Fun isn't it? :-)))

Dudley Henriques

[Ari]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:38:35 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:

> On Nov 17, 2:03*am, Ari >
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:24:55 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>> If your chest puffed out any farther, you's explode your heart, like I
>>>> said, STFU about canards or answer the question Bottoms proposed
>>
>>>> To wit:
>>
>>>> "I'm asking whether or not you understand the rules of decalage as they
>>>> apply to a pusher. Do they operate on the same principles of decalage as
>>>> they do in a Cessna? Or not?"
>>
>>>> If/when you guess wrong, no worries, I'll be right here to pick your ass
>>>> up and set you straight.
>>>> --
>>>> Meet Ari!http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh
>>
>>> Why sure you will Maxie. *We all know that already. :-))
>>
>> Let's get this straight, Duds. Maxie/Maqxwell/Mx or whomever is your
>> troll X to bear. My posting history (Ari Silverstein) is years on.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/62bdpzand that's just alt.privacy.
>>
>> Contact me at anytime you have the ballz.
>>
>> Soooooo, you want to skip out on the decalage? Now back to calling you
>> out. I'm asking whether or not you understand the rules of decalage as
>> they apply to a pusher. Do they operate on the same principles of
>> decalage as they do in a Cessna? Or not?"
>> --
>> Meet Ari!http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh
>
> I'm curious about something.

Ooook, let's try something simpler.

Extending the flaps while the engine is at high power, this would be:

1) appropriate
2) Something you did for years
3) Idiocy

I can get simpler if you want.
--
Meet Ari!
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh

[Payton Byrd]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:38:35 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:

> On Nov 17, 2:03*am, Ari >
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:24:55 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>> If your chest puffed out any farther, you's explode your heart, like I
>>>> said, STFU about canards or answer the question Bottoms proposed
>>
>>>> To wit:
>>
>>>> "I'm asking whether or not you understand the rules of decalage as they
>>>> apply to a pusher. Do they operate on the same principles of decalage as
>>>> they do in a Cessna? Or not?"
>>
>>>> If/when you guess wrong, no worries, I'll be right here to pick your ass
>>>> up and set you straight.
>>>> --
>>>> Meet Ari!http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh
>>
>>> Why sure you will Maxie. *We all know that already. :-))
>>
>> Let's get this straight, Duds. Maxie/Maqxwell/Mx or whomever is your
>> troll X to bear. My posting history (Ari Silverstein) is years on.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/62bdpzand that's just alt.privacy.
>>
>> Contact me at anytime you have the ballz.
>>
>> Soooooo, you want to skip out on the decalage? Now back to calling you
>> out. I'm asking whether or not you understand the rules of decalage as
>> they apply to a pusher. Do they operate on the same principles of
>> decalage as they do in a Cessna? Or not?"
>> --
>> Meet Ari!http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh
>
> I'm curious about something. Do idiots like you actually believe that
> people who ignore these Usenet "challenges" people like you put out
> here supposedly to embarrass them are proving to the world that they
> don't know the answers to your questions?

Proof-pudding

> Seriously.......I've always wondered how your minds work? You actually
> believe that if you throw out some "gauntlet" and it's refused, that
> this constitutes irrefutable proof on two levels...the first being
> that YOU know the answer, and secondly that the person refusing to
> answer the question does NOT?

Proof-pudding

> Interesting.......sophomoric perhaps, but interesting.
> Let's see how YOU do in this idiotic format shall we?
>
> Consider the following;
> An F14 at 420 KCAS, 15K, in a level turn at military. As the g is
> increased, drag increases as it's square. At about 5.5g, induced
> drag has increased by a factor of 25.

Incorrect.

Next?



--
They say your heroes reflect the quantity and fullness of your life. I
have three, hummingbird, Bear Botttoms
and Me.Here, the Triumvirate. Alas, now measured by said axiom, I
have no life <sigh>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Nov 17, 9:57*am, Payton Byrd
> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:38:35 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > On Nov 17, 2:03 am, Ari >
> > wrote:
> >> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:24:55 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> >>>> If your chest puffed out any farther, you's explode your heart, like I
> >>>> said, STFU about canards or answer the question Bottoms proposed
>
> >>>> To wit:
>
> >>>> "I'm asking whether or not you understand the rules of decalage as they
> >>>> apply to a pusher. Do they operate on the same principles of decalage as
> >>>> they do in a Cessna? Or not?"
>
> >>>> If/when you guess wrong, no worries, I'll be right here to pick your ass
> >>>> up and set you straight.
> >>>> --
> >>>> Meet Ari!http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh
>
> >>> Why sure you will Maxie. We all know that already. :-))
>
> >> Let's get this straight, Duds. Maxie/Maqxwell/Mx or whomever is your
> >> troll X to bear. My posting history (Ari Silverstein) is years on.
>
> >>http://tinyurl.com/62bdpzandthat's just alt.privacy.
>
> >> Contact me at anytime you have the ballz.
>
> >> Soooooo, you want to skip out on the decalage? Now back to calling you
> >> out. I'm asking whether or not you understand the rules of decalage as
> >> they apply to a pusher. Do they operate on the same principles of
> >> decalage as they do in a Cessna? Or not?"
> >> --
> >> Meet Ari!http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh
>
> > I'm curious about something. Do idiots like you actually believe that
> > people who ignore these Usenet "challenges" people like you put out
> > here supposedly to embarrass them are proving to the world that they
> > don't know the answers to your questions?
>
> Proof-pudding
>
> > Seriously.......I've always wondered how your minds work? You actually
> > believe that if you throw out some "gauntlet" and it's refused, that
> > this constitutes irrefutable proof on two levels...the first being
> > that YOU know the answer, and secondly that the person refusing to
> > answer the question does NOT?
>
> Proof-pudding
>
> > Interesting.......sophomoric perhaps, but interesting.
> > Let's see how YOU do in this idiotic format shall we?
>
> > Consider the following;
> > An F14 at 420 KCAS, 15K, in a level turn at military. As the g is
> > increased, drag increases as it's square. At about 5.5g, induced
> > drag has increased by a factor of 25.
>
> Incorrect.
>
> Next?

Thank you. Exactly the expected response. Now since you have said this
is an incorrect statement and it is in fact correct, you are now asked
to post a "corrected" answer so everyone with a 3rd grade education
can see how right you are :-))

Fun isn't it?
Dudley Henriques

[Little Luke]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:38:35 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:

> Ps=0.

Nope. Sorry, this value doesn't change. Next time, don't be disingenous,
you supplied, oh, half opf the necessary variables to even form a decent
question.

See, I flew them, you didn't.

Luv,

LL
--
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6glxm9

[Gezellig]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:02:09 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:

> On Nov 17, 9:57*am, Payton Byrd
> > wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:38:35 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>> On Nov 17, 2:03 am, Ari >
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:24:55 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>>> If your chest puffed out any farther, you's explode your heart, like I
>>>>>> said, STFU about canards or answer the question Bottoms proposed
>>
>>>>>> To wit:
>>
>>>>>> "I'm asking whether or not you understand the rules of decalage as they
>>>>>> apply to a pusher. Do they operate on the same principles of decalage as
>>>>>> they do in a Cessna? Or not?"
>>
>>>>>> If/when you guess wrong, no worries, I'll be right here to pick your ass
>>>>>> up and set you straight.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Meet Ari!http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh
>>
>>>>> Why sure you will Maxie. We all know that already. :-))
>>
>>>> Let's get this straight, Duds. Maxie/Maqxwell/Mx or whomever is your
>>>> troll X to bear. My posting history (Ari Silverstein) is years on.
>>
>>>>http://tinyurl.com/62bdpzandthat's just alt.privacy.
>>
>>>> Contact me at anytime you have the ballz.
>>
>>>> Soooooo, you want to skip out on the decalage? Now back to calling you
>>>> out. I'm asking whether or not you understand the rules of decalage as
>>>> they apply to a pusher. Do they operate on the same principles of
>>>> decalage as they do in a Cessna? Or not?"
>>>> --
>>>> Meet Ari!http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh
>>
>>> I'm curious about something. Do idiots like you actually believe that
>>> people who ignore these Usenet "challenges" people like you put out
>>> here supposedly to embarrass them are proving to the world that they
>>> don't know the answers to your questions?
>>
>> Proof-pudding
>>
>>> Seriously.......I've always wondered how your minds work? You actually
>>> believe that if you throw out some "gauntlet" and it's refused, that
>>> this constitutes irrefutable proof on two levels...the first being
>>> that YOU know the answer, and secondly that the person refusing to
>>> answer the question does NOT?
>>
>> Proof-pudding
>>
>>> Interesting.......sophomoric perhaps, but interesting.
>>> Let's see how YOU do in this idiotic format shall we?
>>
>>> Consider the following;
>>> An F14 at 420 KCAS, 15K, in a level turn at military. As the g is
>>> increased, drag increases as it's square. At about 5.5g, induced
>>> drag has increased by a factor of 25.
>>
>> Incorrect.
>>
>> Next?
>
> Thank you. Exactly the expected response. Now since you have said this
> is an incorrect statement and it is in fact correct, you are now asked
> to post a "corrected" answer so everyone with a 3rd grade education
> can see how right you are :-))
>
> Fun isn't it?
> Dudley Henriques

Dudley, is it really necessary for you to go outside the rec.aviation
groups in order to pull new trolls in?

Seriously?

[Payton Byrd]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:02:09 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:

>>> Consider the following;
>>> An F14 at 420 KCAS, 15K, in a level turn at military. As the g is
>>> increased, drag increases as it's square. At about 5.5g, induced
>>> drag has increased by a factor of 25.
>>
>> Incorrect.
>>
>> Next?
>
> Thank you. Exactly the expected response. Now since you have said this
> is an incorrect statement and it is in fact correct, you are now asked
> to post a "corrected" answer so everyone with a 3rd grade education
> can see how right you are :-))
>
> Fun isn't it?
> Dudley Henriques

5.5 squared does not equal 25 regardless of what drag (induced, etc) you
care to blither on about.

Fun, isn't it?
--
They say your heroes reflect the quantity and fullness of your life. I
have three, hummingbird, Bear Botttoms
and Me.Here, the Triumvirate. Alas, now measured by said axiom, I
have no life <sigh>

[Ari]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:21:47 -0500, Gezellig wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:02:09 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> On Nov 17, 9:57*am, Payton Byrd
>> > wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:38:35 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>> On Nov 17, 2:03 am, Ari >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:24:55 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>>>> If your chest puffed out any farther, you's explode your heart, like I
>>>>>>> said, STFU about canards or answer the question Bottoms proposed
>>>
>>>>>>> To wit:
>>>
>>>>>>> "I'm asking whether or not you understand the rules of decalage as they
>>>>>>> apply to a pusher. Do they operate on the same principles of decalage as
>>>>>>> they do in a Cessna? Or not?"
>>>
>>>>>>> If/when you guess wrong, no worries, I'll be right here to pick your ass
>>>>>>> up and set you straight.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Meet Ari!http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh
>>>
>>>>>> Why sure you will Maxie. We all know that already. :-))
>>>
>>>>> Let's get this straight, Duds. Maxie/Maqxwell/Mx or whomever is your
>>>>> troll X to bear. My posting history (Ari Silverstein) is years on.
>>>
>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/62bdpzandthat's just alt.privacy.
>>>
>>>>> Contact me at anytime you have the ballz.
>>>
>>>>> Soooooo, you want to skip out on the decalage? Now back to calling you
>>>>> out. I'm asking whether or not you understand the rules of decalage as
>>>>> they apply to a pusher. Do they operate on the same principles of
>>>>> decalage as they do in a Cessna? Or not?"
>>>>> --
>>>>> Meet Ari!http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh
>>>
>>>> I'm curious about something. Do idiots like you actually believe that
>>>> people who ignore these Usenet "challenges" people like you put out
>>>> here supposedly to embarrass them are proving to the world that they
>>>> don't know the answers to your questions?
>>>
>>> Proof-pudding
>>>
>>>> Seriously.......I've always wondered how your minds work? You actually
>>>> believe that if you throw out some "gauntlet" and it's refused, that
>>>> this constitutes irrefutable proof on two levels...the first being
>>>> that YOU know the answer, and secondly that the person refusing to
>>>> answer the question does NOT?
>>>
>>> Proof-pudding
>>>
>>>> Interesting.......sophomoric perhaps, but interesting.
>>>> Let's see how YOU do in this idiotic format shall we?
>>>
>>>> Consider the following;
>>>> An F14 at 420 KCAS, 15K, in a level turn at military. As the g is
>>>> increased, drag increases as it's square. At about 5.5g, induced
>>>> drag has increased by a factor of 25.
>>>
>>> Incorrect.
>>>
>>> Next?
>>
>> Thank you. Exactly the expected response. Now since you have said this
>> is an incorrect statement and it is in fact correct, you are now asked
>> to post a "corrected" answer so everyone with a 3rd grade education
>> can see how right you are :-))
>>
>> Fun isn't it?
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Dudley, is it really necessary for you to go outside the rec.aviation
> groups in order to pull new trolls in?
>
> Seriously?

Old, bored, washed-up...what else has he got to do?
--
Meet Ari!
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Nov 17, 10:23*am, Payton Byrd
> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:02:09 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> >>> Consider the following;
> >>> An F14 at 420 KCAS, 15K, in a level turn at military. As the g is
> >>> increased, drag increases as it's square. At about 5.5g, induced
> >>> drag has increased by a factor of 25.
>
> >> Incorrect.
>
> >> Next?
>
> > Thank you. Exactly the expected response. Now since you have said this
> > is an incorrect statement and it is in fact correct, you are now asked
> > to post a "corrected" answer so everyone with a 3rd grade education
> > can see how right you are :-))
>
> > Fun isn't it?
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> 5.5 squared does not equal 25 regardless of what drag (induced, etc) you
> care to blither on about.
>
> Fun, isn't it?
> --
> They say your heroes reflect the quantity and fullness of your life. I
> have three, hummingbird, Bear Botttoms
> and Me.Here, the Triumvirate. Alas, now measured by said axiom, I
> have no life <sigh>

You missed the term "increasing" I'm afraid. 5.5 squared is 30.5,
which is fine for pure math, but not fine for a turning F14 with a
linear expanding g profile.
The 25 figure as stated in the assumption is correct within the
problem.

Fun isn't it?

[Payton Byrd]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:25:11 -0500, Ari wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:21:47 -0500, Gezellig wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:02:09 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 17, 9:57*am, Payton Byrd
>>> > wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:38:35 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 17, 2:03 am, Ari >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:24:55 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>>>>> If your chest puffed out any farther, you's explode your heart, like I
>>>>>>>> said, STFU about canards or answer the question Bottoms proposed
>>>>
>>>>>>>> To wit:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> "I'm asking whether or not you understand the rules of decalage as they
>>>>>>>> apply to a pusher. Do they operate on the same principles of decalage as
>>>>>>>> they do in a Cessna? Or not?"
>>>>
>>>>>>>> If/when you guess wrong, no worries, I'll be right here to pick your ass
>>>>>>>> up and set you straight.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Meet Ari!http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh
>>>>
>>>>>>> Why sure you will Maxie. We all know that already. :-))
>>>>
>>>>>> Let's get this straight, Duds. Maxie/Maqxwell/Mx or whomever is your
>>>>>> troll X to bear. My posting history (Ari Silverstein) is years on.
>>>>
>>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/62bdpzandthat's just alt.privacy.
>>>>
>>>>>> Contact me at anytime you have the ballz.
>>>>
>>>>>> Soooooo, you want to skip out on the decalage? Now back to calling you
>>>>>> out. I'm asking whether or not you understand the rules of decalage as
>>>>>> they apply to a pusher. Do they operate on the same principles of
>>>>>> decalage as they do in a Cessna? Or not?"
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Meet Ari!http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh
>>>>
>>>>> I'm curious about something. Do idiots like you actually believe that
>>>>> people who ignore these Usenet "challenges" people like you put out
>>>>> here supposedly to embarrass them are proving to the world that they
>>>>> don't know the answers to your questions?
>>>>
>>>> Proof-pudding
>>>>
>>>>> Seriously.......I've always wondered how your minds work? You actually
>>>>> believe that if you throw out some "gauntlet" and it's refused, that
>>>>> this constitutes irrefutable proof on two levels...the first being
>>>>> that YOU know the answer, and secondly that the person refusing to
>>>>> answer the question does NOT?
>>>>
>>>> Proof-pudding
>>>>
>>>>> Interesting.......sophomoric perhaps, but interesting.
>>>>> Let's see how YOU do in this idiotic format shall we?
>>>>
>>>>> Consider the following;
>>>>> An F14 at 420 KCAS, 15K, in a level turn at military. As the g is
>>>>> increased, drag increases as it's square. At about 5.5g, induced
>>>>> drag has increased by a factor of 25.
>>>>
>>>> Incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> Next?
>>>
>>> Thank you. Exactly the expected response. Now since you have said this
>>> is an incorrect statement and it is in fact correct, you are now asked
>>> to post a "corrected" answer so everyone with a 3rd grade education
>>> can see how right you are :-))
>>>
>>> Fun isn't it?
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> Dudley, is it really necessary for you to go outside the rec.aviation
>> groups in order to pull new trolls in?
>>
>> Seriously?
>
> Old, bored, washed-up...what else has he got to do?

Waking up from a coma can really throw some hard truths at you.
--
They say your heroes reflect the quantity and fullness of your life. I
have three, hummingbird, Bear Botttoms
and Me.Here, the Triumvirate. Alas, now measured by said axiom, I
have no life <sigh>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Nov 17, 10:21*am, Gezellig > wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:02:09 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > On Nov 17, 9:57*am, Payton Byrd
> > > wrote:
> >> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:38:35 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> >>> On Nov 17, 2:03 am, Ari >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:24:55 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> >>>>>> If your chest puffed out any farther, you's explode your heart, like I
> >>>>>> said, STFU about canards or answer the question Bottoms proposed
>
> >>>>>> To wit:
>
> >>>>>> "I'm asking whether or not you understand the rules of decalage as they
> >>>>>> apply to a pusher. Do they operate on the same principles of decalage as
> >>>>>> they do in a Cessna? Or not?"
>
> >>>>>> If/when you guess wrong, no worries, I'll be right here to pick your ass
> >>>>>> up and set you straight.
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Meet Ari!http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh
>
> >>>>> Why sure you will Maxie. We all know that already. :-))
>
> >>>> Let's get this straight, Duds. Maxie/Maqxwell/Mx or whomever is your
> >>>> troll X to bear. My posting history (Ari Silverstein) is years on.
>
> >>>>http://tinyurl.com/62bdpzandthat'sjust alt.privacy.
>
> >>>> Contact me at anytime you have the ballz.
>
> >>>> Soooooo, you want to skip out on the decalage? Now back to calling you
> >>>> out. I'm asking whether or not you understand the rules of decalage as
> >>>> they apply to a pusher. Do they operate on the same principles of
> >>>> decalage as they do in a Cessna? Or not?"
> >>>> --
> >>>> Meet Ari!http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh
>
> >>> I'm curious about something. Do idiots like you actually believe that
> >>> people who ignore these Usenet "challenges" people like you put out
> >>> here supposedly to embarrass them are proving to the world that they
> >>> don't know the answers to your questions?
>
> >> Proof-pudding
>
> >>> Seriously.......I've always wondered how your minds work? You actually
> >>> believe that if you throw out some "gauntlet" and it's refused, that
> >>> this constitutes irrefutable proof on two levels...the first being
> >>> that YOU know the answer, and secondly that the person refusing to
> >>> answer the question does NOT?
>
> >> Proof-pudding
>
> >>> Interesting.......sophomoric perhaps, but interesting.
> >>> Let's see how YOU do in this idiotic format shall we?
>
> >>> Consider the following;
> >>> An F14 at 420 KCAS, 15K, in a level turn at military. As the g is
> >>> increased, drag increases as it's square. At about 5.5g, induced
> >>> drag has increased by a factor of 25.
>
> >> Incorrect.
>
> >> Next?
>
> > Thank you. Exactly the expected response. Now since you have said this
> > is an incorrect statement and it is in fact correct, you are now asked
> > to post a "corrected" answer so everyone with a 3rd grade education
> > can see how right you are :-))
>
> > Fun isn't it?
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> Dudley, is it really necessary for you to go outside the rec.aviation
> groups in order to pull new trolls in?
>
> Seriously?

I take it you are referencing the cross posting? These idiots were
here LONG before they discovered me, so go shout at someone else.

[Payton Byrd]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:30:03 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:

> On Nov 17, 10:23*am, Payton Byrd
> > wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:02:09 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>> Consider the following;
>>>>> An F14 at 420 KCAS, 15K, in a level turn at military. As the g is
>>>>> increased, drag increases as it's square. At about 5.5g, induced
>>>>> drag has increased by a factor of 25.
>>
>>>> Incorrect.
>>
>>>> Next?
>>
>>> Thank you. Exactly the expected response. Now since you have said this
>>> is an incorrect statement and it is in fact correct, you are now asked
>>> to post a "corrected" answer so everyone with a 3rd grade education
>>> can see how right you are :-))
>>
>>> Fun isn't it?
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> 5.5 squared does not equal 25 regardless of what drag (induced, etc) you
>> care to blither on about.
>>
>> Fun, isn't it?
>> --
>> They say your heroes reflect the quantity and fullness of your life. I
>> have three, hummingbird, Bear Botttoms
>> and Me.Here, the Triumvirate. Alas, now measured by said axiom, I
>> have no life <sigh>
>
> You missed the term "increasing" I'm afraid. 5.5 squared is 30.5,
> which is fine for pure math, but not fine for a turning F14 with a
> linear expanding g profile.
> The 25 figure as stated in the assumption is correct within the
> problem.

Call me when any calculator squares 5.5 to get 25.

Thanks for playing.
--
http://www.bushflash.com/idiot.html

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Nov 17, 10:21*am, Gezellig > wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:02:09 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > On Nov 17, 9:57*am, Payton Byrd
> > > wrote:
> >> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:38:35 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> >>> On Nov 17, 2:03 am, Ari >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:24:55 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> >>>>>> If your chest puffed out any farther, you's explode your heart, like I
> >>>>>> said, STFU about canards or answer the question Bottoms proposed
>
> >>>>>> To wit:
>
> >>>>>> "I'm asking whether or not you understand the rules of decalage as they
> >>>>>> apply to a pusher. Do they operate on the same principles of decalage as
> >>>>>> they do in a Cessna? Or not?"
>
> >>>>>> If/when you guess wrong, no worries, I'll be right here to pick your ass
> >>>>>> up and set you straight.
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Meet Ari!http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh
>
> >>>>> Why sure you will Maxie. We all know that already. :-))
>
> >>>> Let's get this straight, Duds. Maxie/Maqxwell/Mx or whomever is your
> >>>> troll X to bear. My posting history (Ari Silverstein) is years on.
>
> >>>>http://tinyurl.com/62bdpzandthat'sjust alt.privacy.
>
> >>>> Contact me at anytime you have the ballz.
>
> >>>> Soooooo, you want to skip out on the decalage? Now back to calling you
> >>>> out. I'm asking whether or not you understand the rules of decalage as
> >>>> they apply to a pusher. Do they operate on the same principles of
> >>>> decalage as they do in a Cessna? Or not?"
> >>>> --
> >>>> Meet Ari!http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh
>
> >>> I'm curious about something. Do idiots like you actually believe that
> >>> people who ignore these Usenet "challenges" people like you put out
> >>> here supposedly to embarrass them are proving to the world that they
> >>> don't know the answers to your questions?
>
> >> Proof-pudding
>
> >>> Seriously.......I've always wondered how your minds work? You actually
> >>> believe that if you throw out some "gauntlet" and it's refused, that
> >>> this constitutes irrefutable proof on two levels...the first being
> >>> that YOU know the answer, and secondly that the person refusing to
> >>> answer the question does NOT?
>
> >> Proof-pudding
>
> >>> Interesting.......sophomoric perhaps, but interesting.
> >>> Let's see how YOU do in this idiotic format shall we?
>
> >>> Consider the following;
> >>> An F14 at 420 KCAS, 15K, in a level turn at military. As the g is
> >>> increased, drag increases as it's square. At about 5.5g, induced
> >>> drag has increased by a factor of 25.
>
> >> Incorrect.
>
> >> Next?
>
> > Thank you. Exactly the expected response. Now since you have said this
> > is an incorrect statement and it is in fact correct, you are now asked
> > to post a "corrected" answer so everyone with a 3rd grade education
> > can see how right you are :-))
>
> > Fun isn't it?
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> Dudley, is it really necessary for you to go outside the rec.aviation
> groups in order to pull new trolls in?
>
> Seriously?

Let me give you some friendly advice. You post crap like this to me or
anyone else on Usenet and all you do is create one more person who
marks you as the same idiot you have just attempted to mark them; net
result is no further meaningful contact between you such as will be
the case now here with me.
Usenet is Usenet. You take it as it exists at any moment in time or
you get out. It's that simple. The only other option is to become a
constant "bitch" and complain and preach to others as you are doing
here.
If you do this, you use as much bandwidth as the people you are
"correcting" and the result of these "corrections" are almost always
counter productive to your intent.
I suggest that you do what millions of others who frequent these
forums do when it comes to this kind of thing. Just suck it up and
shut your mouth. On Usenet, nobody cares what you think. Nobody cares
what I think. It's a cesspool.
If you died today, no one would really care. If I died today, no one
would really care. Your "friends" would put in a small post that reads
something like "God speed. He will be missed", and your enemies would
post something like "Thank God that Son-of-a-bitch is dead. He was an
opinionated rotten ******* who thought he knew everything. I'm glad
he's gone". It's just Usenet old buddy, and that's the way it is!
These forums long ago became what they are now, so if you come across
posting from me, or anyone else around here that ****es you off, just
filter out these people. Posting like you just did to me is a totally
useless waste of time; yours for writing it; mine for answering it as
I just did; and others who read it.
Just take my name Dudley Henriques, and create a killfile and you're
all done.
Now on the other hand, if you want to join the ranks of those who post
these endless off topic posts on Usenet (and this is indeed one of
those) then just join up as you have just done. But be advised that
all you have done is join the ranks.
Welcome aboard! Now if you want to continue asking me stupid questions
like you just did prompting this answer, be my guest, but I can tell
you up front, anything useful both of us might have gained from
exchanging dialog with each other will go right down the ole Usenet
toilet.
I hope this is clear enough for you.
Dudley Henriques

[Mike]

"Gezellig" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:02:09 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> On Nov 17, 9:57 am, Payton Byrd
>> > wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:38:35 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>> On Nov 17, 2:03 am, Ari >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:24:55 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>>>> If your chest puffed out any farther, you's explode your heart, like
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> said, STFU about canards or answer the question Bottoms proposed
>>>
>>>>>>> To wit:
>>>
>>>>>>> "I'm asking whether or not you understand the rules of decalage as
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> apply to a pusher. Do they operate on the same principles of
>>>>>>> decalage as
>>>>>>> they do in a Cessna? Or not?"
>>>
>>>>>>> If/when you guess wrong, no worries, I'll be right here to pick your
>>>>>>> ass
>>>>>>> up and set you straight.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Meet Ari!http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh
>>>
>>>>>> Why sure you will Maxie. We all know that already. :-))
>>>
>>>>> Let's get this straight, Duds. Maxie/Maqxwell/Mx or whomever is your
>>>>> troll X to bear. My posting history (Ari Silverstein) is years on.
>>>
>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/62bdpzandthat's just alt.privacy.
>>>
>>>>> Contact me at anytime you have the ballz.
>>>
>>>>> Soooooo, you want to skip out on the decalage? Now back to calling you
>>>>> out. I'm asking whether or not you understand the rules of decalage as
>>>>> they apply to a pusher. Do they operate on the same principles of
>>>>> decalage as they do in a Cessna? Or not?"
>>>>> --
>>>>> Meet Ari!http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh
>>>
>>>> I'm curious about something. Do idiots like you actually believe that
>>>> people who ignore these Usenet "challenges" people like you put out
>>>> here supposedly to embarrass them are proving to the world that they
>>>> don't know the answers to your questions?
>>>
>>> Proof-pudding
>>>
>>>> Seriously.......I've always wondered how your minds work? You actually
>>>> believe that if you throw out some "gauntlet" and it's refused, that
>>>> this constitutes irrefutable proof on two levels...the first being
>>>> that YOU know the answer, and secondly that the person refusing to
>>>> answer the question does NOT?
>>>
>>> Proof-pudding
>>>
>>>> Interesting.......sophomoric perhaps, but interesting.
>>>> Let's see how YOU do in this idiotic format shall we?
>>>
>>>> Consider the following;
>>>> An F14 at 420 KCAS, 15K, in a level turn at military. As the g is
>>>> increased, drag increases as it's square. At about 5.5g, induced
>>>> drag has increased by a factor of 25.
>>>
>>> Incorrect.
>>>
>>> Next?
>>
>> Thank you. Exactly the expected response. Now since you have said this
>> is an incorrect statement and it is in fact correct, you are now asked
>> to post a "corrected" answer so everyone with a 3rd grade education
>> can see how right you are :-))
>>
>> Fun isn't it?
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Dudley, is it really necessary for you to go outside the rec.aviation
> groups in order to pull new trolls in?
>
> Seriously?

He wasn't the one who originally crossposted this thread and is no more
guilty of what you allege than you are, Einstein.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Nov 17, 10:19*am, Little Luke >
wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:38:35 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > Ps=0.
>
> Nope. Sorry, this value doesn't change. Next time, don't be disingenous,
> you supplied, oh, half opf the necessary variables to even form a decent
> question.
>
> See, I flew them, you didn't.
>
> Luv,
>
> LL
> --http://preview.tinyurl.com/6glxm9

Actually as it happens I did have a few hours in the Turkey. Strike
Aircraft Test Directorate at Pax River. Wanna compare photographs and
documentation perhaps? I'm always glad to meet someone from the
community.
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Nov 16, 6:54*am, More_Flaps > wrote:
> On Nov 16, 2:08*pm, Bear Bottoms > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:34:08 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > >> LOL! The Great Warrior Dudley Dewright Henriques, now talking troll.
> > >> Query this.
>
> > >> A canard wing and a main wing (on a Cozy IV) reverse the rules of
> > >> decolage (compared to a Cessna 150x). Yes? *
> > >> --
> > >> Bear Bottoms
> > >> website:http://bearware.com
>
> > > If you are asking me if the angles of incidence between the tail and
> > > wing combination and canard and wing combination on the Cozy are
> > > different on each type I'll refer you to Nat Puffer.
>
> > I'm asking whether or not you understand the rules of decalage as they
> > apply to a pusher. Do they operate on the same principles of decalage as
> > they do in a Cessna? Or not?
>
> Is the question about aerodynamic or geoemetric decalage?
>
> LOL
>
> Cheers

Believe it or not it's a viable question as he asked it. I just don't
like the way it was asked :-))
Dudley

[Little Luke]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 08:04:27 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:

> On Nov 17, 10:19*am, Little Luke >
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:38:35 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>> Ps=0.
>>
>> Nope. Sorry, this value doesn't change. Next time, don't be disingenous,
>> you supplied, oh, half opf the necessary variables to even form a decent
>> question.
>>
>> See, I flew them, you didn't.
>>
>> Luv,
>>
>> LL
>> --http://preview.tinyurl.com/6glxm9
>
> Actually as it happens I did have a few hours in the Turkey. Strike
> Aircraft Test Directorate at Pax River. Wanna compare photographs and
> documentation perhaps? I'm always glad to meet someone from the
> community.
> Dudley Henriques

What do you call a cow masturbating?

Beef stroganoff.
--
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6glxm9

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Nov 17, 11:22*am, Little Luke >
wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 08:04:27 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > On Nov 17, 10:19 am, Little Luke >
> > wrote:
> >> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:38:35 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> >>> Ps=0.
>
> >> Nope. Sorry, this value doesn't change. Next time, don't be disingenous,
> >> you supplied, oh, half opf the necessary variables to even form a decent
> >> question.
>
> >> See, I flew them, you didn't.
>
> >> Luv,
>
> >> LL
> >> --http://preview.tinyurl.com/6glxm9
>
> > Actually as it happens I did have a few hours in the Turkey. Strike
> > Aircraft Test Directorate at Pax River. Wanna compare photographs and
> > documentation perhaps? I'm always glad to meet someone from the
> > community.
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> What do you call a cow masturbating?
>
> Beef stroganoff.
> --http://preview.tinyurl.com/6glxm9

I thought so.
DH

[Little Luke]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 08:24:51 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:

> On Nov 17, 11:22*am, Little Luke >
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 08:04:27 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>> On Nov 17, 10:19 am, Little Luke >
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:38:35 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>> Ps=0.
>>
>>>> Nope. Sorry, this value doesn't change. Next time, don't be disingenous,
>>>> you supplied, oh, half opf the necessary variables to even form a decent
>>>> question.
>>
>>>> See, I flew them, you didn't.
>>
>>>> Luv,
>>
>>>> LL
>>>> --http://preview.tinyurl.com/6glxm9
>>
>>> Actually as it happens I did have a few hours in the Turkey. Strike
>>> Aircraft Test Directorate at Pax River. Wanna compare photographs and
>>> documentation perhaps? I'm always glad to meet someone from the
>>> community.
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> What do you call a cow masturbating?
>>
>> Beef stroganoff.
>> --http://preview.tinyurl.com/6glxm9
>
> I thought so.
> DH

When you went for your Check In physical, and they told you to count to
three (when they checked your prostate), did you start at
100..99..98...?
--
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6glxm9

[Payton Byrd]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:29:01 -0500, Little Luke wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 08:24:51 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> On Nov 17, 11:22*am, Little Luke >
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 08:04:27 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>> On Nov 17, 10:19 am, Little Luke >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:38:35 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>>> Ps=0.
>>>
>>>>> Nope. Sorry, this value doesn't change. Next time, don't be disingenous,
>>>>> you supplied, oh, half opf the necessary variables to even form a decent
>>>>> question.
>>>
>>>>> See, I flew them, you didn't.
>>>
>>>>> Luv,
>>>
>>>>> LL
>>>>> --http://preview.tinyurl.com/6glxm9
>>>
>>>> Actually as it happens I did have a few hours in the Turkey. Strike
>>>> Aircraft Test Directorate at Pax River. Wanna compare photographs and
>>>> documentation perhaps? I'm always glad to meet someone from the
>>>> community.
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>
>>> What do you call a cow masturbating?
>>>
>>> Beef stroganoff.
>>> --http://preview.tinyurl.com/6glxm9
>>
>> I thought so.
>> DH
>
> When you went for your Check In physical, and they told you to count to
> three (when they checked your prostate), did you start at
> 100..99..98...?

Guy walked into a bar.

It hurt.
--
They say your heroes reflect the quantity and fullness of your life. I
have three, hummingbird, Bear Botttoms
and Me.Here, the Triumvirate. Alas, now measured by said axiom, I
have no life <sigh>

[Mohamed Elshayal]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:30:30 -0500, Payton Byrd wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:29:01 -0500, Little Luke wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 08:24:51 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 17, 11:22*am, Little Luke >
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 08:04:27 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 17, 10:19 am, Little Luke >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:38:35 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>>>> Ps=0.
>>>>
>>>>>> Nope. Sorry, this value doesn't change. Next time, don't be disingenous,
>>>>>> you supplied, oh, half opf the necessary variables to even form a decent
>>>>>> question.
>>>>
>>>>>> See, I flew them, you didn't.
>>>>
>>>>>> Luv,
>>>>
>>>>>> LL
>>>>>> --http://preview.tinyurl.com/6glxm9
>>>>
>>>>> Actually as it happens I did have a few hours in the Turkey. Strike
>>>>> Aircraft Test Directorate at Pax River. Wanna compare photographs and
>>>>> documentation perhaps? I'm always glad to meet someone from the
>>>>> community.
>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>
>>>> What do you call a cow masturbating?
>>>>
>>>> Beef stroganoff.
>>>> --http://preview.tinyurl.com/6glxm9
>>>
>>> I thought so.
>>> DH
>>
>> When you went for your Check In physical, and they told you to count to
>> three (when they checked your prostate), did you start at
>> 100..99..98...?
>
> Guy walked into a bar.
>
> It hurt.
Freind, not so!

http://www.digitalfuntown.com/videos/129
--
Never fun to make of someone who speaks English with brokenness.
It means another language is freind!

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
news:ba43dfe8-1d16-4e26-9f05-
I take it you are referencing the cross posting? These idiots were
here LONG before they discovered me, so go shout at someone else.

--------------------------------------

The cross posting and related idiots are all thanks to your kissing kousin
Bertie.

While you, Stealth, Viperdoc, Rich Ahrens, Robert M Gary, Frank Olsen, Peter
Dohm, romeomike, Andy Hawkins, gatt, and many other were activly encouraging
his nonsense - his cross posting was advertising this group to the entire
kook world.

You are all reaping exactly what you have sowed. A fitting end to all your
egos and nonsense.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
news:d69f5927-791b-404c-89df-

Major blather snipped before being read ->

No, when you abuse people you do not know, YOU create your own destiny.
Enjoy it, your own behavior has earned it.

Until you, and your ilk, learn to make room for everyone's opinion, you will
be the breeder of trolls.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
On Nov 17, 11:22 am, Little Luke >
wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 08:04:27 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > On Nov 17, 10:19 am, Little Luke >
> > wrote:
> >> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:38:35 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> >>> Ps=0.
>
> >> Nope. Sorry, this value doesn't change. Next time, don't be
> >> disingenous,
> >> you supplied, oh, half opf the necessary variables to even form a
> >> decent
> >> question.
>
> >> See, I flew them, you didn't.
>
> >> Luv,
>
> >> LL
> >> --http://preview.tinyurl.com/6glxm9
>
> > Actually as it happens I did have a few hours in the Turkey. Strike
> > Aircraft Test Directorate at Pax River. Wanna compare photographs and
> > documentation perhaps? I'm always glad to meet someone from the
> > community.
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> What do you call a cow masturbating?
>
> Beef stroganoff.
> --http://preview.tinyurl.com/6glxm9

I thought so.
DH
--------------------------------

You always "thought so", Double Humper.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
On Nov 16, 6:54 am, More_Flaps > wrote:
> On Nov 16, 2:08 pm, Bear Bottoms > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:34:08 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > >> LOL! The Great Warrior Dudley Dewright Henriques, now talking troll.
> > >> Query this.
>
> > >> A canard wing and a main wing (on a Cozy IV) reverse the rules of
> > >> decolage (compared to a Cessna 150x). Yes?
> > >> --
> > >> Bear Bottoms
> > >> website:http://bearware.com
>
> > > If you are asking me if the angles of incidence between the tail and
> > > wing combination and canard and wing combination on the Cozy are
> > > different on each type I'll refer you to Nat Puffer.
>
> > I'm asking whether or not you understand the rules of decalage as they
> > apply to a pusher. Do they operate on the same principles of decalage as
> > they do in a Cessna? Or not?
>
> Is the question about aerodynamic or geoemetric decalage?
>
> LOL
>
> Cheers

Believe it or not it's a viable question as he asked it. I just don't
like the way it was asked :-))
Dudley

--------------------------------

You don't like the way anyone does anything, unless they kiss your ass
first.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Nov 17, 11:50*am, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> news:ba43dfe8-1d16-4e26-9f05-
> I take it you are referencing the cross posting? These idiots were
> here LONG before they discovered me, so go shout at someone else.
>
> --------------------------------------
>
> The cross posting and related idiots are all thanks to your kissing kousin
> Bertie.
>
> While you, Stealth, Viperdoc, Rich Ahrens, Robert M Gary, Frank Olsen, Peter
> Dohm, romeomike, Andy Hawkins, gatt, and many other were activly encouraging
> his nonsense - his cross posting was advertising this group to the entire
> kook world.
>
> You are all reaping exactly what you have sowed. A fitting end to all your
> egos and nonsense.

Why hello Maxie. Still in the dark are you? Still thinking that Usenet
is as important to others, or I should specifically say to ME as it
is to you? I can't speak for anyone else, but as for me
personally..........
Sorry ole boy. Some of us out here have lives. We come here to play,
and for no other reason. Most of us have long ago discovered the uses
and uselessness of Usenet. Trust me; when serious talk is made in
aviation, it AIN'T made here on these forums :-)

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
On Nov 17, 11:50 am, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> news:ba43dfe8-1d16-4e26-9f05-
> I take it you are referencing the cross posting? These idiots were
> here LONG before they discovered me, so go shout at someone else.
>
> --------------------------------------
>
> The cross posting and related idiots are all thanks to your kissing kousin
> Bertie.
>
> While you, Stealth, Viperdoc, Rich Ahrens, Robert M Gary, Frank Olsen,
> Peter
> Dohm, romeomike, Andy Hawkins, gatt, and many other were activly
> encouraging
> his nonsense - his cross posting was advertising this group to the entire
> kook world.
>
> You are all reaping exactly what you have sowed. A fitting end to all your
> egos and nonsense.

Why hello Maxie. Still in the dark are you? Still thinking that Usenet
is as important to others, or I should specifically say to ME as it
is to you? I can't speak for anyone else, but as for me
personally..........
Sorry ole boy. Some of us out here have lives. We come here to play,
and for no other reason. Most of us have long ago discovered the uses
and uselessness of Usenet. Trust me; when serious talk is made in
aviation, it AIN'T made here on these forums :-)

------------------------------------------------------------

Can't you find some place else to masturbate.

The uselessnet was made so, by you and your ilk.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Nov 17, 11:53*am, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> news:d69f5927-791b-404c-89df-
>
> Major blather snipped before being read ->
>
> No, when you abuse people you do not know, YOU create your own destiny.
> Enjoy it, your own behavior has earned it.
>
> Until you, and your ilk, learn to make room for everyone's opinion, you will
> be the breeder of trolls.

So tell us Maxie, and I mean in some aviation sense that is, what IS
your opinion on something related to
flying.........anything??????????? I can't recall you ever posting
anything as an aviation opinion that would spark genuine on topic and
respectful response. Please feel free to correct this if I'm mistaken
and post an example that
explains your premise so people can see how your aviation opinions
have been disrespected? SURELY you have an example of this unfortunate
behavior?????
Waiting.
DH

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> I'm curious about something. Do idiots like you actually believe that
> people who ignore these Usenet "challenges" people like you put out
> here supposedly to embarrass them are proving to the world that they
> don't know the answers to your questions?
> Seriously.......I've always wondered how your minds work? You actually
> believe that if you throw out some "gauntlet" and it's refused, that
> this constitutes irrefutable proof on two levels...the first being
> that YOU know the answer, and secondly that the person refusing to
> answer the question does NOT?

It happens to me regularly. People assume that if you don't answer, you don't
have the answer. Keep that in mind the next time someone asks me a question.

[Mike]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> On Nov 17, 11:53 am, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
> > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> >
> > news:d69f5927-791b-404c-89df-
> >
> > Major blather snipped before being read ->
> >
> > No, when you abuse people you do not know, YOU create your own destiny.
> > Enjoy it, your own behavior has earned it.
> >
> > Until you, and your ilk, learn to make room for everyone's opinion, you
> > will
> > be the breeder of trolls.
>
> So tell us Maxie, and I mean in some aviation sense that is, what IS
> your opinion on something related to
> flying.........anything??????????? I can't recall you ever posting
> anything as an aviation opinion that would spark genuine on topic and
> respectful response. Please feel free to correct this if I'm mistaken
> and post an example that
> explains your premise so people can see how your aviation opinions
> have been disrespected? SURELY you have an example of this unfortunate
> behavior?????
> Waiting.
> DH

Maxie has never been anything other than a wannabe. He may have tried to
post on topic at one time, but it was quickly revealed that he didn't know a
dog turd from beans about avaition. He's been nothing more than a pot
stirrer ever since, and not really even a good one at that.

[the real dgs]

On 11/17/2008 10:11 AM Mxsmanic ignored two million years of human
evolution to write:

> It happens to me regularly.

Really! You don't say! How 'bout that!

> People assume that if you don't answer, you don't
> have the answer.

Yes, you regularly assume that about others. You want examples?

> Keep that in mind the next time someone asks me a question.

No.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Nov 18, 7:14*am, Franklin <see_REPLY-TO_header> wrote:
> On Mon 17 Nov08 23:30, Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> >:
>
> > On Nov 17, 10:23*am, Payton Byrd
> > > wrote:
> >> [...]
>
> > You missed the term "increasing" I'm afraid. 5.5 squared is 30.5,
> > which is fine for pure math, but not fine for a turning F14 with a
> > linear expanding g profile.
> > The 25 figure as stated in the assumption is correct within the
> > problem.
>
> > Fun isn't it?
>
> Sir, please sir. The Ps value is far too low.

Good try but no cigar I'm afraid. No Ps value is possible for ANY
aircraft without the inclusion of altitude in the equation.
Ps can be positive or negative anywhere in the envelope not on the Ps=
0 line for the aircraft, BUT establishing that Ps value in any turn is
directly related to the altitude where the turn parameters are in
play.

I have no idea who you're trying to impress here, but you
unfortunately picked the wrong guy :-) The purpose of my work with the
Turkey was related to EM :-))
If you want to talk energy maneuverability be my guest.
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Nov 18, 7:14*am, Franklin <see_REPLY-TO_header> wrote:
> On Mon 17 Nov08 23:30, Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> >:
>
> > On Nov 17, 10:23*am, Payton Byrd
> > > wrote:
> >> [...]
>
> > You missed the term "increasing" I'm afraid. 5.5 squared is 30.5,
> > which is fine for pure math, but not fine for a turning F14 with a
> > linear expanding g profile.
> > The 25 figure as stated in the assumption is correct within the
> > problem.
>
> > Fun isn't it?
>
> Sir, please sir. The Ps value is far too low.

No Ps value for a turning aircraft is possible without an altitude
inclusion since the same g and a specific airspeed will produce a
different Ps at different altitudes for any turning aircraft.
Therefore a specific Ps value either positive, negative, or on the
Ps=0 line can't be assumed in the question since altitude was NOT
given.
Sorry, don't know why you are making such assumptions other than
trolling but....NO CIGAR!! :-)))

Dudley Henriques

[Little Luke]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 08:04:27 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:

> On Nov 17, 10:19*am, Little Luke >
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:38:35 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>> Ps=0.
>>
>> Nope. Sorry, this value doesn't change. Next time, don't be disingenous,
>> you supplied, oh, half opf the necessary variables to even form a decent
>> question.
>>
>> See, I flew them, you didn't.
>>
>> Luv,
>>
>> LL
>> --http://preview.tinyurl.com/6glxm9
>
> Actually as it happens I did have a few hours in the Turkey. Strike
> Aircraft Test Directorate at Pax River. Wanna compare photographs and
> documentation perhaps? I'm always glad to meet someone from the
> community.
> Dudley Henriques

Can't see my sig?
--
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6glxm9

[Payton Byrd]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:15:35 -0500, Little Luke wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 08:04:27 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> On Nov 17, 10:19*am, Little Luke >
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:38:35 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>> Ps=0.
>>>
>>> Nope. Sorry, this value doesn't change. Next time, don't be disingenous,
>>> you supplied, oh, half opf the necessary variables to even form a decent
>>> question.
>>>
>>> See, I flew them, you didn't.
>>>
>>> Luv,
>>>
>>> LL
>>> --http://preview.tinyurl.com/6glxm9
>>
>> Actually as it happens I did have a few hours in the Turkey. Strike
>> Aircraft Test Directorate at Pax River. Wanna compare photographs and
>> documentation perhaps? I'm always glad to meet someone from the
>> community.
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Can't see my sig?

Duds, here are two free newsreaders.

www.40tude.com
http://www.aplusfreeware.com/categories/internet/newsreaders.html

Here are two free Usenet providers.

www.motzarella.org
www.aioe.org

If you need help in configuring them ask. Takes five minutes tops

ITM, for God's sake, get into the modern world.
--
They say your heroes reflect the quantity and fullness of your life. I
have three, hummingbird, Bear Botttoms
and Me.Here, the Triumvirate. Alas, now measured by said axiom, I
have no life <sigh>

[Ari]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:21:35 -0500, Payton Byrd wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:15:35 -0500, Little Luke wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 08:04:27 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 17, 10:19*am, Little Luke >
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:38:35 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>> Ps=0.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. Sorry, this value doesn't change. Next time, don't be disingenous,
>>>> you supplied, oh, half opf the necessary variables to even form a decent
>>>> question.
>>>>
>>>> See, I flew them, you didn't.
>>>>
>>>> Luv,
>>>>
>>>> LL
>>>> --http://preview.tinyurl.com/6glxm9
>>>
>>> Actually as it happens I did have a few hours in the Turkey. Strike
>>> Aircraft Test Directorate at Pax River. Wanna compare photographs and
>>> documentation perhaps? I'm always glad to meet someone from the
>>> community.
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> Can't see my sig?
>
> Duds, here are two free newsreaders.
>
> www.40tude.com
> http://www.aplusfreeware.com/categories/internet/newsreaders.html
>
> Here are two free Usenet providers.
>
> www.motzarella.org
> www.aioe.org
>
> If you need help in configuring them ask. Takes five minutes tops
>
> ITM, for God's sake, get into the modern world.

Showing our luv............
--
Meet Ari!
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Nov 18, 12:51*pm, Franklin <see_REPLY-TO_header> wrote:
> On Tue 18 Nov08 06:59, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 18, 7:14*am, Franklin <see_REPLY-TO_header> wrote:
> >> On Mon 17 Nov08 23:30, Dudley Henriques > wrote
> >> in <news:60ccd111-02f8-4eae-bb7a-582816c86b45
> >> @v22g2000pro.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> > On Nov 17, 10:23*am, Payton Byrd
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> [...]
>
> >> > You missed the term "increasing" I'm afraid. 5.5 squared is 30.5,
> >> > which is fine for pure math, but not fine for a turning F14 with
> >> > a linear expanding g profile.
> >> > The 25 figure as stated in the assumption is correct within the
> >> > problem.
>
> >> > Fun isn't it?
>
> >> Sir, please sir. The Ps value is far too low.
>
> > Good try but no cigar I'm afraid. No Ps value is possible for ANY
> > aircraft without the inclusion of altitude in the equation.
> > Ps can be positive or negative anywhere in the envelope not on the
> > Ps0 line for the aircraft, BUT establishing that Ps value in any
> > turn is directly related to the altitude where the turn parameters
> > are in play.
>
> I see that now. Ok. My mistake.
>
> > I have no idea who you're trying to impress here, but you
> > unfortunately picked the wrong guy :-) The purpose of my work with
> > the Turkey was related to EM :-))
>
> You asked a question. I thought I could answer it. I got it wrong but I'd
> like another go!
>
> You don't give altitude so I will assume it. *You made me re-examine
> where I went wrong with Ps. And look up some F-14 specs. Specific excess
> power Ps is delta energy with delta time. Accounting for induced drag
> which the question focuses on then (assumming weight is approx 55 klbs)
> at that state I say you would get acceleration.
>
> Going over the various possibilities it seemed (not entirely sure) that
> greater thrust should encounter even greater drag and so airspeed could
> fall. *Am I getting closer?
>
> > If you want to talk energy maneuverability be my guest.
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> That's for a John Boyd! What a maverick. I couldn't hope to match his
> stunts to highlight E-M.

Sorry for my offensive post. Things have been nuts around here lately
with all these characters and I thought you might be another one :-)

Yes, your second try is exactly right. In the example given, if the g
is decreased the Turkey will accelerate which is the answer to the
first question, and if the g is increased, airspeed will fall victim
to drag.

Another way to present the "problem" would be as follows, only this
time including the altitude which as you have correctly surmised,
gives us a Ps figure for the F14. In our example, the Turkey is at T-
D=0 which = Ps=0 or on the Ps equals zero line for the F14.

An F14 at 420 KCAS, 15K, in a level turn at military. As the g is
increased, drag increases as it's square. At about 5.5g, induced drag
has increased by a factor of 25. At this point, T-D=0 and Ps=0. If g
is decreased the F14 will accelerate. If we pull harder, airspeed will
drop off.

Thank you for explaining your post instead of reacting to my over
aggressive response to you.
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Nov 18, 12:51*pm, Franklin <see_REPLY-TO_header> wrote:
> On Tue 18 Nov08 06:59, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> That's for a John Boyd! What a maverick. I couldn't hope to match his
> stunts to highlight E-M.

I met John and knew him for a short time before he died. He was indeed
a no nonsense guy and probably one of the finest pure sticks I've
ever known if not THE best. His coffers were filled with the names of
the best fighter pilots in the world who he converted on from allowing
them a starting position at his six while flying the Hun. His on going
bet was 40 seconds, and to my knowledge he was never beaten nor has
his record ever been topped for conversion air to air 1V1.
I did a bit of research flying as a civilian in T38's that involved EM
while working on inertial coupling departure and John gave us a
beautiful photograph of my airplane in flight signed by him.
It hangs on our den wall.
Great guy, and along with E.T. Christie and Rutowski from Douglas,
probably some of the finest aviation minds of our time.

Dudley Henriques

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
On Nov 18, 12:51 pm, Franklin <see_REPLY-TO_header> wrote:
> On Tue 18 Nov08 06:59, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> That's for a John Boyd! What a maverick. I couldn't hope to match his
> stunts to highlight E-M.

I met John and knew him for a short time before he died. He was indeed
a no nonsense guy and probably one of the finest pure sticks I've
ever known if not THE best. His coffers were filled with the names of
the best fighter pilots in the world who he converted on from allowing
them a starting position at his six while flying the Hun. His on going
bet was 40 seconds, and to my knowledge he was never beaten nor has
his record ever been topped for conversion air to air 1V1.
I did a bit of research flying as a civilian in T38's that involved EM
while working on inertial coupling departure and John gave us a
beautiful photograph of my airplane in flight signed by him.
It hangs on our den wall.
Great guy, and along with E.T. Christie and Rutowski from Douglas,
probably some of the finest aviation minds of our time.

Dudley Henriques

---------------------------------------------------------------

What a dick head.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Nov 17, 9:43*pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Nov 18, 12:51 pm, Franklin <see_REPLY-TO_header> wrote:
>
> > On Tue 18 Nov08 06:59, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> > That's for a John Boyd! What a maverick. I couldn't hope to match his
> > stunts to highlight E-M.
>
> I met John and knew him for a short time before he died. He was indeed
> a no nonsense guy and probably one of the finest *pure sticks I've
> ever known if not THE best. His coffers were filled with the names of
> the best fighter pilots in the world who he converted on from allowing
> them a starting position at his six while flying the Hun. His on going
> bet was 40 seconds, and to my knowledge he was never beaten nor has
> his record ever been topped for conversion air to air 1V1.
> I did a bit of research flying as a civilian in T38's that involved EM
> while working on inertial coupling departure and John gave us a
> beautiful photograph of my airplane in flight signed by him.
> It hangs on our den wall.
> Great guy, and along with E.T. Christie and Rutowski from Douglas,
> probably some of the finest aviation minds of our time.
>
> Dudley Henriques
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> What a dick head.

Maxie, you really HAVE to get rid of that mirror of yours.

[Payton Byrd]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 01:51:53 +0800, Franklin wrote:

>> I have no idea who you're trying to impress here, but you
>> unfortunately picked the wrong guy :-) The purpose of my work with
>> the Turkey was related to EM :-))
>
> You asked a question. I thought I could answer it. I got it wrong but I'd
> like another go!
>
> You don't give altitude so I will assume it. You made me re-examine
> where I went wrong with Ps. And look up some F-14 specs. Specific excess
> power Ps is delta energy with delta time. Accounting for induced drag
> which the question focuses on then (assumming weight is approx 55 klbs)
> at that state I say you would get acceleration.
>
> Going over the various possibilities it seemed (not entirely sure) that
> greater thrust should encounter even greater drag and so airspeed could
> fall. Am I getting closer?

Unless energy management systems have been rewritten.
--
They say your heroes reflect the quantity and fullness of your life. I
have three, hummingbird, Bear Botttoms
and Me.Here, the Triumvirate. Alas, now measured by said axiom, I
have no life <sigh>

[Ari]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:20:33 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:

> On Nov 18, 12:51*pm, Franklin <see_REPLY-TO_header> wrote:
>> On Tue 18 Nov08 06:59, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 18, 7:14*am, Franklin <see_REPLY-TO_header> wrote:
>>>> On Mon 17 Nov08 23:30, Dudley Henriques > wrote
>>>> in <news:60ccd111-02f8-4eae-bb7a-582816c86b45
>>>> @v22g2000pro.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>>> > On Nov 17, 10:23*am, Payton Byrd
>>>> > > wrote:
>>>> >> [...]
>>
>>>> > You missed the term "increasing" I'm afraid. 5.5 squared is 30.5,
>>>> > which is fine for pure math, but not fine for a turning F14 with
>>>> > a linear expanding g profile.
>>>> > The 25 figure as stated in the assumption is correct within the
>>>> > problem.
>>
>>>> > Fun isn't it?
>>
>>>> Sir, please sir. The Ps value is far too low.
>>
>>> Good try but no cigar I'm afraid. No Ps value is possible for ANY
>>> aircraft without the inclusion of altitude in the equation.
>>> Ps can be positive or negative anywhere in the envelope not on the
>>> Ps0 line for the aircraft, BUT establishing that Ps value in any
>>> turn is directly related to the altitude where the turn parameters
>>> are in play.
>>
>> I see that now. Ok. My mistake.
>>
>>> I have no idea who you're trying to impress here, but you
>>> unfortunately picked the wrong guy :-) The purpose of my work with
>>> the Turkey was related to EM :-))
>>
>> You asked a question. I thought I could answer it. I got it wrong but I'd
>> like another go!
>>
>> You don't give altitude so I will assume it. *You made me re-examine
>> where I went wrong with Ps. And look up some F-14 specs. Specific excess
>> power Ps is delta energy with delta time. Accounting for induced drag
>> which the question focuses on then (assumming weight is approx 55 klbs)
>> at that state I say you would get acceleration.
>>
>> Going over the various possibilities it seemed (not entirely sure) that
>> greater thrust should encounter even greater drag and so airspeed could
>> fall. *Am I getting closer?
>>
>>> If you want to talk energy maneuverability be my guest.
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> That's for a John Boyd! What a maverick. I couldn't hope to match his
>> stunts to highlight E-M.
>
> Sorry for my offensive post. Things have been nuts around here lately
> with all these characters and I thought you might be another one :-)
>
> Yes, your second try is exactly right. In the example given, if the g
> is decreased the Turkey will accelerate which is the answer to the
> first question, and if the g is increased, airspeed will fall victim
> to drag.
>
> Another way to present the "problem" would be as follows, only this
> time including the altitude which as you have correctly surmised,
> gives us a Ps figure for the F14. In our example, the Turkey is at T-
> D=0 which = Ps=0 or on the Ps equals zero line for the F14.
>
> An F14 at 420 KCAS, 15K, in a level turn at military. As the g is
> increased, drag increases as it's square. At about 5.5g, induced drag
> has increased by a factor of 25. At this point, T-D=0 and Ps=0. If g
> is decreased the F14 will accelerate. If we pull harder, airspeed will
> drop off.
>
> Thank you for explaining your post instead of reacting to my over
> aggressive response to you.
> Dudley Henriques

Ben's a doll.

Really.
--
Meet Ari!
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh

[Little Luke]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:20:33 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:

> Another way to present the "problem" would be as follows, only this
> time including the altitude which as you have correctly surmised,
> gives us a Ps figure for the F14. In our example, the Turkey is at T-
> D=0 which = Ps=0 or on the Ps equals zero line for the F14.

That would help.

Like, a lot.
--
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6glxm9

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Nov 18, 2:11*pm, Franklin <see_REPLY-TO_header> wrote:
> On Tue 18 Nov08 10:28, Dudley Henriques > wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 18, 12:51 pm, Franklin <see_REPLY-TO_header> wrote:
> >> On Tue 18 Nov08 06:59, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> >> That's for a John Boyd! What a maverick. I couldn't hope to match
> >> his stunts to highlight E-M.
>
> > I met John and knew him for a short time before he died. He was
> > indeed a no nonsense guy and probably one of the finest *pure sticks
> > I've ever known if not THE best. His coffers were filled with the
> > names of the best fighter pilots in the world who he converted on
> > from allowing them a starting position at his six while flying the
> > Hun. His on going bet was 40 seconds, and to my knowledge he was
> > never beaten nor has his record ever been topped for conversion air
> > to air 1V1. I did a bit of research flying as a civilian in T38's
> > that involved EM while working on inertial coupling departure and
> > John gave us a beautiful photograph of my airplane in flight signed
> > by him. It hangs on our den wall. Great guy, and along with E.T.
> > Christie and Rutowski from Douglas, probably some of the finest
> > aviation minds of our time.
>
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> Highly regarded by his peers, it's a shame the top brass dragged their
> feet in praising John Boyd.
>
> I guess the top brass value compliance before competence. I guess they
> might have to behave like that to maintian order. Hard to forgive them
> for it though.

John did indeed have a "way" about him with superior officers. They
hated his guts but couldn't deny his work. That's a hard platform to
maintain. He's fortunately gotten his just due now with the AF.
DH

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Nov 18, 2:09*pm, Franklin <see_REPLY-TO_header> wrote:
> On Tue 18 Nov08 10:20, Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> <news:70dbc7c0-4e28-4e1b-8245-119e5428ec32
> @g17g2000prg.googlegroups.com
>
>
>
> >:
> > On Nov 18, 12:51*pm, Franklin <see_REPLY-TO_header> wrote:
> >> On Tue 18 Nov08 06:59, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> >> > On Nov 18, 7:14*am, Franklin <see_REPLY-TO_header> wrote:
> >> >> On Mon 17 Nov08 23:30, Dudley Henriques >
> >> >> wrote in <news:60ccd111-02f8-4eae-bb7a-582816c86b45
> >> >> @v22g2000pro.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> >> > On Nov 17, 10:23*am, Payton Byrd
> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> >> [...]
>
> >> >> > You missed the term "increasing" I'm afraid. 5.5 squared is
> >> >> > 30.5, which is fine for pure math, but not fine for a turning
> >> >> > F14 with a linear expanding g profile.
> >> >> > The 25 figure as stated in the assumption is correct within
> >> >> > the problem.
>
> >> >> > Fun isn't it?
>
> >> >> Sir, please sir. The Ps value is far too low.
>
> >> > Good try but no cigar I'm afraid. No Ps value is possible for ANY
> >> > aircraft without the inclusion of altitude in the equation.
> >> > Ps can be positive or negative anywhere in the envelope not on
> >> > the Ps0 line for the aircraft, BUT establishing that Ps value in
> >> > any turn is directly related to the altitude where the turn
> >> > parameters are in play.
>
> >> I see that now. Ok. My mistake.
>
> >> > I have no idea who you're trying to impress here, but you
> >> > unfortunately picked the wrong guy :-) The purpose of my work
> >> > with the Turkey was related to EM :-))
>
> >> You asked a question. I thought I could answer it. I got it wrong
> >> but I'd like another go!
>
> >> You don't give altitude so I will assume it. *You made me
> >> re-examine where I went wrong with Ps. And look up some F-14 specs.
> >> Specific excess power Ps is delta energy with delta time.
> >> Accounting for induced drag which the question focuses on then
> >> (assumming weight is approx 55 klbs) at that state I say you would
> >> get acceleration.
>
> >> Going over the various possibilities it seemed (not entirely sure)
> >> that greater thrust should encounter even greater drag and so
> >> airspeed could fall. *Am I getting closer?
>
> >> > If you want to talk energy maneuverability be my guest.
> >> > Dudley Henriques
>
> >> That's for a John Boyd! What a maverick. I couldn't hope to match
> >> his stunts to highlight E-M.
>
> > Sorry for my offensive post. Things have been nuts around here
> > lately with all these characters and I thought you might be another
> > one :-)
>
> > Yes, your second try is exactly right. In the example given, if the
> > g is decreased the Turkey will accelerate which is the answer to the
> > first question, and if the g is increased, airspeed will fall victim
> > to drag.
>
> > Another way to present the "problem" would be as follows, only this
> > time including the altitude which as you have correctly surmised,
> > gives us a Ps figure for the F14. In our example, the Turkey is at
> > T- D=0 which = Ps=0 or on the Ps equals zero line for the F14.
>
> > An F14 at 420 KCAS, 15K, in a level turn at military. As the g is
> > increased, drag increases as it's square. At about 5.5g, induced
> > drag has increased by a factor of 25. At this point, T-D=0 and Ps=0..
> > If g is decreased the F14 will accelerate. If we pull harder,
> > airspeed will drop off.
>
> > Thank you for explaining your post instead of reacting to my over
> > aggressive response to you.
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> DH, thanks for the explanation. *No problem with your hasty reaction.
> Ari can be a little hasty too. *Service leaves some with PTSD and
> others, like Ari, with sharpened responses.
>
> One should not seek to blame former combatants for a normal reaction
> to the abnormal circumstances they have dealt with. *Civilians devalue
> quick decisive responses because many who have never seen action learn
> to value politeness even if masks ineffectiveness.
>
> In the past, Ari has given me texts on aircraft dynamics and answered
> a lot of my technical questions. It's where most of my A.D. theory
> comes from. *He's a good guy. *Just ignore his direct manner because
> those same reflexes are what make him good in a crisis.
>
> I looked you up. You have quite a background in E-M.
>
> Franklin

With all the fuss that's going on in the forum these days I'm not
quite sure who Ari is or why he posts under me in such an aggressive
manner. I've just assumed he was one more of the trolls attacking me
each day or even the same one with a different handle.
As the founder of a service organization I have a great deal of
personal respect for any vet. Perhaps whatever it was that angered him
will work itself out.
I'll give it a shot anyway, on your authority :-)
Dudley Henriques

[Ari]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:54:34 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:


>> In the past, Ari has given me texts on aircraft dynamics and answered
>> a lot of my technical questions. It's where most of my A.D. theory
>> comes from. *He's a good guy. *Just ignore his direct manner because
>> those same reflexes are what make him good in a crisis.
>>
>> I looked you up. You have quite a background in E-M.
>>
>> Franklin


> With all the fuss that's going on in the forum these days I'm not
> quite sure who Ari is or why he posts under me in such an aggressive
> manner. I've just assumed he was one more of the trolls attacking me
> each day or even the same one with a different handle.
> As the founder of a service organization I have a great deal of
> personal respect for any vet. Perhaps whatever it was that angered him
> will work itself out.
> I'll give it a shot anyway, on your authority :-)
> Dudley Henriques

Back up there Doodley, you're the one who claimed I was one of your
resident trollwits:


> Why sure you will Maxie. We all know that already. :-))

I answered:

"Let's get this straight, Duds. Maxie/Maqxwell/Mx or whomever is your
troll X to bear. My posting history (Ari Silverstein) is years on.

http://tinyurl.com/62bdpz and that's just alt.privacy.

Contact me at anytime you have the ballz.

Soooooo, you want to skip out on the decalage? Now back to calling you
out. I'm asking whether or not you understand the rules of decalage as
they apply to a pusher. Do they operate on the same principles of
decalage as they do in a Cessna? Or not?"

I'm me, you're wrong and the decalage question remains unanswered.
--
Meet Ari!
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Nov 17, 11:07*pm, Ari >
wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:54:34 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> >> In the past, Ari has given me texts on aircraft dynamics and answered
> >> a lot of my technical questions. It's where most of my A.D. theory
> >> comes from. He's a good guy. Just ignore his direct manner because
> >> those same reflexes are what make him good in a crisis.
>
> >> I looked you up. You have quite a background in E-M.
>
> >> Franklin
> > With all the fuss that's going on in the forum these days I'm not
> > quite sure who Ari is or why he posts under me in such an aggressive
> > manner. I've just assumed he was one more of the trolls attacking me
> > each day or even the same one with a different handle.
> > As the founder of a service organization I have a great deal of
> > personal respect for any vet. Perhaps whatever it was that angered him
> > will work itself out.
> > I'll give it a shot anyway, on your authority :-)
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> Back up there Doodley, you're the one who claimed I was one of your
> resident trollwits:
>
> > Why sure you will Maxie. *We all know that already. :-))
>
> I answered:
>
> "Let's get this straight, Duds. Maxie/Maqxwell/Mx or whomever is your
> troll X to bear. My posting history (Ari Silverstein) is years on.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/62bdpzand that's just alt.privacy.
>
> Contact me at anytime you have the ballz.
>
> Soooooo, you want to skip out on the decalage? Now back to calling you
> out. I'm asking whether or not you understand the rules of decalage as
> they apply to a pusher. Do they operate on the same principles of
> decalage as they do in a Cessna? Or not?"
>
> I'm me, you're wrong and the decalage question remains unanswered.
> --
> Meet Ari!http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh

You're right I did. If I was mistaken I'm sorry. If I was right, you
can chalk up one for your side :-)
Anyway, let's assume I was wrong and give it another shot.
I'm a bit jumpy these days with all the idiots roaming around here. If
you're ligit, you will know exactly what I mean.
Let's taxi back to the beginning of the runway and try things on for
size again shall we? Perhaps we;ll have better luck this
time.............and don't call me Doodley. My father called me that
and it almost ended up a damn call sign!
Dudley

[Ari]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 03:11:31 +0800, Franklin wrote:

> Highly regarded by his peers, it's a shame the top brass dragged their
> feet in praising John Boyd.

****, warped conceptions to hear Boyd's swooners he invented energy
fighter tactics and was personally responsible for the F-1Xs.
Knew little about energy tactics, energy fighting. Show me his initials
on blueprints F1Xs.

He never fired in enemy combat. The rhetoric about pilots that were
allegedly involved in everything aviation-related is historical
bull****. Contributions, goodie. The rest.....

Pffffffffft,
--
Meet Ari!
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh

[Ari]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 03:09:17 +0800, Franklin wrote:

> In the past, Ari has given me texts on aircraft dynamics and answered
> a lot of my technical questions. It's where most of my A.D. theory
> comes from. He's a good guy. Just ignore his direct manner because
> those same reflexes are what make him good in a crisis.

Something you have to do to get to the "bottoms" of things, right Ben?
--
Meet Ari!
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh

[Payton Byrd]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 03:20:12 +0800, Franklin wrote:

> On Tue 18 Nov08 11:04, Payton Byrd
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 01:51:53 +0800, Franklin wrote:
>>
>>>> I have no idea who you're trying to impress here, but you
>>>> unfortunately picked the wrong guy :-) The purpose of my work with
>>>> the Turkey was related to EM :-))
>>>
>>> You asked a question. I thought I could answer it. I got it wrong
>>> but I'd like another go!
>>>
>>> You don't give altitude so I will assume it. You made me
>>> re-examine where I went wrong with Ps. And look up some F-14 specs.
>>> Specific excess power Ps is delta energy with delta time.
>>> Accounting for induced drag which the question focuses on then
>>> (assumming weight is approx 55 klbs) at that state I say you would
>>> get acceleration.
>>>
>>> Going over the various possibilities it seemed (not entirely sure)
>>> that greater thrust should encounter even greater drag and so
>>> airspeed could fall. Am I getting closer?
>>
>> Unless energy management systems have been rewritten.
>
> Heh! Sorry if I wasn't clear.
>
> When I wrote "encounter even greater drag" I wan't referring to the
> increase in drag as the F-14 accelerated.
>
> I was saying that it the increase in drag for this motion could be
> greater than the increase in thrust which caused the motion. IYSWIM.

My bad, I was agreeing (in broad principle, Frank).
--
They say your heroes reflect the quantity and fullness of your life. I
have three, hummingbird, Bear Botttoms
and Me.Here, the Triumvirate. Alas, now measured by said axiom, I
have no life <sigh>

[Ari]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:12:14 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:

> On Nov 17, 11:07*pm, Ari >
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:54:34 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>> In the past, Ari has given me texts on aircraft dynamics and answered
>>>> a lot of my technical questions. It's where most of my A.D. theory
>>>> comes from. He's a good guy. Just ignore his direct manner because
>>>> those same reflexes are what make him good in a crisis.
>>
>>>> I looked you up. You have quite a background in E-M.
>>
>>>> Franklin
>>> With all the fuss that's going on in the forum these days I'm not
>>> quite sure who Ari is or why he posts under me in such an aggressive
>>> manner. I've just assumed he was one more of the trolls attacking me
>>> each day or even the same one with a different handle.
>>> As the founder of a service organization I have a great deal of
>>> personal respect for any vet. Perhaps whatever it was that angered him
>>> will work itself out.
>>> I'll give it a shot anyway, on your authority :-)
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> Back up there Doodley, you're the one who claimed I was one of your
>> resident trollwits:
>>
>>> Why sure you will Maxie. *We all know that already. :-))
>>
>> I answered:
>>
>> "Let's get this straight, Duds. Maxie/Maqxwell/Mx or whomever is your
>> troll X to bear. My posting history (Ari Silverstein) is years on.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/62bdpzand that's just alt.privacy.
>>
>> Contact me at anytime you have the ballz.
>>
>> Soooooo, you want to skip out on the decalage? Now back to calling you
>> out. I'm asking whether or not you understand the rules of decalage as
>> they apply to a pusher. Do they operate on the same principles of
>> decalage as they do in a Cessna? Or not?"
>>
>> I'm me, you're wrong and the decalage question remains unanswered.
>> --
>> Meet Ari!http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh
>
> You're right I did. If I was mistaken I'm sorry. If I was right, you
> can chalk up one for your side :-)
> Anyway, let's assume I was wrong and give it another shot.
> I'm a bit jumpy these days with all the idiots roaming around here. If
> you're ligit, you will know exactly what I mean.
> Let's taxi back to the beginning of the runway and try things on for
> size again shall we? Perhaps we;ll have better luck this
> time.............and don't call me Doodley. My father called me that
> and it almost ended up a damn call sign!
> Dudley

Aw, garsh, I think you're a sweetie!
--
Meet Ari!
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh

[Payton Byrd]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:18:54 -0500, Ari wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 03:09:17 +0800, Franklin wrote:
>
>> In the past, Ari has given me texts on aircraft dynamics and answered
>> a lot of my technical questions. It's where most of my A.D. theory
>> comes from. He's a good guy. Just ignore his direct manner because
>> those same reflexes are what make him good in a crisis.
>
> Something you have to do to get to the "bottoms" of things, right Ben?

Bottoms?

Bottoms?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
--
They say your heroes reflect the quantity and fullness of your life. I
have three, hummingbird, Bear Botttoms
and Me.Here, the Triumvirate. Alas, now measured by said axiom, I
have no life <sigh>

[Payton Byrd]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:18:01 -0500, Ari wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 03:11:31 +0800, Franklin wrote:
>
>> Highly regarded by his peers, it's a shame the top brass dragged their
>> feet in praising John Boyd.
>
> ****, warped conceptions to hear Boyd's swooners he invented energy
> fighter tactics and was personally responsible for the F-1Xs.
> Knew little about energy tactics, energy fighting. Show me his initials
> on blueprints F1Xs.
>
> He never fired in enemy combat. The rhetoric about pilots that were
> allegedly involved in everything aviation-related is historical
> bull****. Contributions, goodie. The rest.....
>
> Pffffffffft,

Looks like Dudley went nighty-night
--
They say your heroes reflect the quantity and fullness of your life. I
have three, hummingbird, Bear Botttoms
and Me.Here, the Triumvirate. Alas, now measured by said axiom, I
have no life <sigh>

[Little Luke]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 01:15:36 -0500, Payton Byrd wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:18:01 -0500, Ari wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 03:11:31 +0800, Franklin wrote:
>>
>>> Highly regarded by his peers, it's a shame the top brass dragged their
>>> feet in praising John Boyd.
>>
>> ****, warped conceptions to hear Boyd's swooners he invented energy
>> fighter tactics and was personally responsible for the F-1Xs.
>> Knew little about energy tactics, energy fighting. Show me his initials
>> on blueprints F1Xs.
>>
>> He never fired in enemy combat. The rhetoric about pilots that were
>> allegedly involved in everything aviation-related is historical
>> bull****. Contributions, goodie. The rest.....
>>
>> Pffffffffft,
>
> Looks like Dudley went nighty-night

Age-induced sleep.
--
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6glxm9

[Franklin[_4_]]

On Mon 17 Nov08 23:30, Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>:

> On Nov 17, 10:23*am, Payton Byrd
> > wrote:
>> [...]
>
> You missed the term "increasing" I'm afraid. 5.5 squared is 30.5,
> which is fine for pure math, but not fine for a turning F14 with a
> linear expanding g profile.
> The 25 figure as stated in the assumption is correct within the
> problem.
>
> Fun isn't it?
>

Sir, please sir. The Ps value is far too low.

[More_Flaps]

On Nov 18, 3:20*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> On Nov 18, 12:51*pm, Franklin <see_REPLY-TO_header> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue 18 Nov08 06:59, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 18, 7:14*am, Franklin <see_REPLY-TO_header> wrote:
> > >> On Mon 17 Nov08 23:30, Dudley Henriques > wrote
> > >> in <news:60ccd111-02f8-4eae-bb7a-582816c86b45
> > >> @v22g2000pro.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > >> > On Nov 17, 10:23*am, Payton Byrd
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> >> [...]
>
> > >> > You missed the term "increasing" I'm afraid. 5.5 squared is 30.5,
> > >> > which is fine for pure math, but not fine for a turning F14 with
> > >> > a linear expanding g profile.
> > >> > The 25 figure as stated in the assumption is correct within the
> > >> > problem.
>
> > >> > Fun isn't it?
>
> > >> Sir, please sir. The Ps value is far too low.
>
> > > Good try but no cigar I'm afraid. No Ps value is possible for ANY
> > > aircraft without the inclusion of altitude in the equation.
> > > Ps can be positive or negative anywhere in the envelope not on the
> > > Ps0 line for the aircraft, BUT establishing that Ps value in any
> > > turn is directly related to the altitude where the turn parameters
> > > are in play.
>
> > I see that now. Ok. My mistake.
>
> > > I have no idea who you're trying to impress here, but you
> > > unfortunately picked the wrong guy :-) The purpose of my work with
> > > the Turkey was related to EM :-))
>
> > You asked a question. I thought I could answer it. I got it wrong but I'd
> > like another go!
>
> > You don't give altitude so I will assume it. *You made me re-examine
> > where I went wrong with Ps. And look up some F-14 specs. Specific excess
> > power Ps is delta energy with delta time. Accounting for induced drag
> > which the question focuses on then (assumming weight is approx 55 klbs)
> > at that state I say you would get acceleration.
>
> > Going over the various possibilities it seemed (not entirely sure) that
> > greater thrust should encounter even greater drag and so airspeed could
> > fall. *Am I getting closer?
>
> > > If you want to talk energy maneuverability be my guest.
> > > Dudley Henriques
>
> > That's for a John Boyd! What a maverick. I couldn't hope to match his
> > stunts to highlight E-M.
>
> Sorry for my offensive post. Things have been nuts around here lately
> with all these characters and I thought you might be another one :-)
>
> Yes, your second try is exactly right. In the example given, if the g
> is decreased the Turkey will accelerate which is the answer to the
> first question, and if the g is increased, airspeed will fall victim
> to drag.
>
> Another way to present the "problem" would be as follows, only this
> time including the altitude which as you have correctly surmised,
> gives us a Ps figure for the F14. In our example, the Turkey is at T-
> D=0 which = Ps=0 or on the Ps equals zero line for the F14.
>
> An F14 at 420 KCAS, 15K, in a level turn at military. As the g is
> increased, drag increases as it's square. At about 5.5g, induced drag
> has increased by a factor of 25. At this point, T-D=0 and Ps=0. If g
> is decreased the F14 will accelerate. If we pull harder, airspeed will
> drop off.
>
> Thank you for explaining your post instead of reacting to my over
> aggressive response to you.
> Dudley Henriques

Is there ever a time when pulling more g does not rob airspeed? I've
not experienced any case where more g does not take energy...

Cheers

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Nov 18, 8:54*am, More_Flaps > wrote:
> On Nov 18, 3:20*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 18, 12:51*pm, Franklin <see_REPLY-TO_header> wrote:
>
> > > On Tue 18 Nov08 06:59, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 18, 7:14*am, Franklin <see_REPLY-TO_header> wrote:
> > > >> On Mon 17 Nov08 23:30, Dudley Henriques > wrote
> > > >> in <news:60ccd111-02f8-4eae-bb7a-582816c86b45
> > > >> @v22g2000pro.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > > >> > On Nov 17, 10:23*am, Payton Byrd
> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> >> [...]
>
> > > >> > You missed the term "increasing" I'm afraid. 5.5 squared is 30.5,
> > > >> > which is fine for pure math, but not fine for a turning F14 with
> > > >> > a linear expanding g profile.
> > > >> > The 25 figure as stated in the assumption is correct within the
> > > >> > problem.
>
> > > >> > Fun isn't it?
>
> > > >> Sir, please sir. The Ps value is far too low.
>
> > > > Good try but no cigar I'm afraid. No Ps value is possible for ANY
> > > > aircraft without the inclusion of altitude in the equation.
> > > > Ps can be positive or negative anywhere in the envelope not on the
> > > > Ps0 line for the aircraft, BUT establishing that Ps value in any
> > > > turn is directly related to the altitude where the turn parameters
> > > > are in play.
>
> > > I see that now. Ok. My mistake.
>
> > > > I have no idea who you're trying to impress here, but you
> > > > unfortunately picked the wrong guy :-) The purpose of my work with
> > > > the Turkey was related to EM :-))
>
> > > You asked a question. I thought I could answer it. I got it wrong but I'd
> > > like another go!
>
> > > You don't give altitude so I will assume it. *You made me re-examine
> > > where I went wrong with Ps. And look up some F-14 specs. Specific excess
> > > power Ps is delta energy with delta time. Accounting for induced drag
> > > which the question focuses on then (assumming weight is approx 55 klbs)
> > > at that state I say you would get acceleration.
>
> > > Going over the various possibilities it seemed (not entirely sure) that
> > > greater thrust should encounter even greater drag and so airspeed could
> > > fall. *Am I getting closer?
>
> > > > If you want to talk energy maneuverability be my guest.
> > > > Dudley Henriques
>
> > > That's for a John Boyd! What a maverick. I couldn't hope to match his
> > > stunts to highlight E-M.
>
> > Sorry for my offensive post. Things have been nuts around here lately
> > with all these characters and I thought you might be another one :-)
>
> > Yes, your second try is exactly right. In the example given, if the g
> > is decreased the Turkey will accelerate which is the answer to the
> > first question, and if the g is increased, airspeed will fall victim
> > to drag.
>
> > Another way to present the "problem" would be as follows, only this
> > time including the altitude which as you have correctly surmised,
> > gives us a Ps figure for the F14. In our example, the Turkey is at T-
> > D=0 which = Ps=0 or on the Ps equals zero line for the F14.
>
> > An F14 at 420 KCAS, 15K, in a level turn at military. As the g is
> > increased, drag increases as it's square. At about 5.5g, induced drag
> > has increased by a factor of 25. At this point, T-D=0 and Ps=0. If g
> > is decreased the F14 will accelerate. If we pull harder, airspeed will
> > drop off.
>
> > Thank you for explaining your post instead of reacting to my over
> > aggressive response to you.
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> Is there ever a time when pulling more g does not rob airspeed? I've
> not experienced any case where more g does not take energy...
>
> Cheers

The ability to pull g will produce a lot of things including turn rate
and radius depending on where the aircraft is in relation to it's
specific excess power available. You will lose airspeed to g as
induced drag increases, so an energy loss as you have indicated.
Thrust is the equalizer if available. The combination of all these
factors determines where the aircraft is at any moment in three
dimensional space. Create positive g and counter that with thrust and
you have a positive Ps and the ability to accelerate, turn or climb in
that area of your envelope. Create g that can't be countered by thrust
and you do indeed lose airspeed. The turn you are generating drags the
aircraft back toward it's neutral Ps=0 line for those conditions and
any g generated beyond that point will result in a negative Ps. With
negative energy rate being generated, something has to give. That will
usually be altitude.
Dudley Henriques

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
news:f188c124-e34b-4816-939e->
> Is there ever a time when pulling more g does not rob airspeed? I've
> not experienced any case where more g does not take energy...
>
> Cheers

The ability to pull g will produce a lot of things including turn rate
and radius depending on where the aircraft is in relation to it's
specific excess power available. You will lose airspeed to g as
induced drag increases, so an energy loss as you have indicated.
Thrust is the equalizer if available. The combination of all these
factors determines where the aircraft is at any moment in three
dimensional space. Create positive g and counter that with thrust and
you have a positive Ps and the ability to accelerate, turn or climb in
that area of your envelope. Create g that can't be countered by thrust
and you do indeed lose airspeed. The turn you are generating drags the
aircraft back toward it's neutral Ps=0 line for those conditions and
any g generated beyond that point will result in a negative Ps. With
negative energy rate being generated, something has to give. That will
usually be altitude.
Dudley Henriques

------------------------------------

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt! The correct answer was No, Hemingway.

[Little Luke]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 05:54:02 -0800 (PST), More_Flaps wrote:

> Is there ever a time when pulling more g does not rob airspeed? I've
> not experienced any case where more g does not take energy...

They are inversely related (through inducted drag)
--
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6glxm9

[Ari]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:58:26 GMT, Franklin wrote:

> On Tue 18 Nov08 04:18, Ari >
> wrote in >:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 03:09:17 +0800, Franklin wrote:
>>
>>> In the past, Ari has given me texts on aircraft dynamics and answered
>>> a lot of my technical questions. It's where most of my A.D. theory
>>> comes from. He's a good guy. Just ignore his direct manner because
>>> those same reflexes are what make him good in a crisis.
>>
>> Something you have to do to get to the "bottoms" of things, right Ben?
>
> Hi Ari-el, I figured DH hadn't understood your background so I filled in
> a bit of it. Hope you don't mind.

Nooooooooo, not a bit, Ben.

> Hey, you know I'm a nice guy. Don't like trouble unless it's deserved.
> Making cocaine runs and watching others go down to save your skin merits
> a decent punch up.

I'd say do to Bottoms absence that he got something of that, yes.

> A couple of misunderstood posts, well, they just
> aren't worth it.

Nope, sure not.
--
Meet Ari!
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh

[Little Luke]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:44:48 GMT, Franklin wrote:

> On Tue 18 Nov08 06:16, Little Luke >
> wrote in >:
>
>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 01:15:36 -0500, Payton Byrd wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:18:01 -0500, Ari wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 03:11:31 +0800, Franklin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Highly regarded by his peers, it's a shame the top brass dragged
>>>>> their feet in praising John Boyd.
>>>>
>>>> ****, warped conceptions to hear Boyd's swooners he invented
>>>> energy fighter tactics and was personally responsible for the
>>>> F-1Xs. Knew little about energy tactics, energy fighting. Show me
>>>> his initials on blueprints F1Xs.
>>>>
>>>> He never fired in enemy combat. The rhetoric about pilots that
>>>> were allegedly involved in everything aviation-related is
>>>> historical bull****. Contributions, goodie. The rest.....
>>>>
>>>> Pffffffffft,
>>>
>>> Looks like Dudley went nighty-night
>>
>> Age-induced sleep.
>
> Hey fellas, I'm trying to cool the temperature around here. Let's take
> a break for some beers.

Old warfighters rise early, Not to worry.
--
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6glxm9

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Nov 18, 10:41*am, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> news:f188c124-e34b-4816-939e->
>
> > Is there ever a time when pulling more g does not rob airspeed? I've
> > not experienced any case where more g does not take energy...
>
> > Cheers
>
> The ability to pull g will produce a lot of things including turn rate
> and radius depending on where the aircraft is in relation to it's
> specific excess power available. You will lose airspeed to g as
> induced drag increases, so an energy loss as you have indicated.
> Thrust is the equalizer if available. *The combination of all these
> factors determines where the aircraft is at any moment in three
> dimensional space. Create positive g and counter that with thrust and
> you have a positive Ps and the ability to accelerate, turn or climb in
> that area of your envelope. Create g that can't be countered by thrust
> and you do indeed lose airspeed. The turn you are generating drags the
> aircraft back toward it's neutral Ps=0 line for those conditions and
> any g generated beyond that point will result in a negative Ps. With
> negative energy rate being generated, something has to give. That will
> usually be altitude.
> Dudley Henriques
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt! The correct answer was No, Hemingway.

I'm sure it would be, at your level of understanding.
Tell me Maxie,will you EVER have anything useful to contribute other
than this constant display of ignorance?

[Franklin[_4_]]

On Tue 18 Nov08 06:59, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> On Nov 18, 7:14*am, Franklin <see_REPLY-TO_header> wrote:
>> On Mon 17 Nov08 23:30, Dudley Henriques > wrote
>> in <news:60ccd111-02f8-4eae-bb7a-582816c86b45
>> @v22g2000pro.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> > On Nov 17, 10:23*am, Payton Byrd
>> > > wrote:
>> >> [...]
>>
>> > You missed the term "increasing" I'm afraid. 5.5 squared is 30.5,
>> > which is fine for pure math, but not fine for a turning F14 with
>> > a linear expanding g profile.
>> > The 25 figure as stated in the assumption is correct within the
>> > problem.
>>
>> > Fun isn't it?
>>
>> Sir, please sir. The Ps value is far too low.
>
> Good try but no cigar I'm afraid. No Ps value is possible for ANY
> aircraft without the inclusion of altitude in the equation.
> Ps can be positive or negative anywhere in the envelope not on the
> Ps0 line for the aircraft, BUT establishing that Ps value in any
> turn is directly related to the altitude where the turn parameters
> are in play.

I see that now. Ok. My mistake.

> I have no idea who you're trying to impress here, but you
> unfortunately picked the wrong guy :-) The purpose of my work with
> the Turkey was related to EM :-))

You asked a question. I thought I could answer it. I got it wrong but I'd
like another go!

You don't give altitude so I will assume it. You made me re-examine
where I went wrong with Ps. And look up some F-14 specs. Specific excess
power Ps is delta energy with delta time. Accounting for induced drag
which the question focuses on then (assumming weight is approx 55 klbs)
at that state I say you would get acceleration.

Going over the various possibilities it seemed (not entirely sure) that
greater thrust should encounter even greater drag and so airspeed could
fall. Am I getting closer?

> If you want to talk energy maneuverability be my guest.
> Dudley Henriques

That's for a John Boyd! What a maverick. I couldn't hope to match his
stunts to highlight E-M.

[Franklin[_4_]]

On Tue 18 Nov08 10:20, Dudley Henriques > wrote in
<news:70dbc7c0-4e28-4e1b-8245-119e5428ec32
@g17g2000prg.googlegroups.com
>:

> On Nov 18, 12:51*pm, Franklin <see_REPLY-TO_header> wrote:
>> On Tue 18 Nov08 06:59, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 18, 7:14*am, Franklin <see_REPLY-TO_header> wrote:
>> >> On Mon 17 Nov08 23:30, Dudley Henriques >
>> >> wrote in <news:60ccd111-02f8-4eae-bb7a-582816c86b45
>> >> @v22g2000pro.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >> > On Nov 17, 10:23*am, Payton Byrd
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> >> [...]
>>
>> >> > You missed the term "increasing" I'm afraid. 5.5 squared is
>> >> > 30.5, which is fine for pure math, but not fine for a turning
>> >> > F14 with a linear expanding g profile.
>> >> > The 25 figure as stated in the assumption is correct within
>> >> > the problem.
>>
>> >> > Fun isn't it?
>>
>> >> Sir, please sir. The Ps value is far too low.
>>
>> > Good try but no cigar I'm afraid. No Ps value is possible for ANY
>> > aircraft without the inclusion of altitude in the equation.
>> > Ps can be positive or negative anywhere in the envelope not on
>> > the Ps0 line for the aircraft, BUT establishing that Ps value in
>> > any turn is directly related to the altitude where the turn
>> > parameters are in play.
>>
>> I see that now. Ok. My mistake.
>>
>> > I have no idea who you're trying to impress here, but you
>> > unfortunately picked the wrong guy :-) The purpose of my work
>> > with the Turkey was related to EM :-))
>>
>> You asked a question. I thought I could answer it. I got it wrong
>> but I'd like another go!
>>
>> You don't give altitude so I will assume it. *You made me
>> re-examine where I went wrong with Ps. And look up some F-14 specs.
>> Specific excess power Ps is delta energy with delta time.
>> Accounting for induced drag which the question focuses on then
>> (assumming weight is approx 55 klbs) at that state I say you would
>> get acceleration.
>>
>> Going over the various possibilities it seemed (not entirely sure)
>> that greater thrust should encounter even greater drag and so
>> airspeed could fall. *Am I getting closer?
>>
>> > If you want to talk energy maneuverability be my guest.
>> > Dudley Henriques
>>
>> That's for a John Boyd! What a maverick. I couldn't hope to match
>> his stunts to highlight E-M.
>
> Sorry for my offensive post. Things have been nuts around here
> lately with all these characters and I thought you might be another
> one :-)
>
> Yes, your second try is exactly right. In the example given, if the
> g is decreased the Turkey will accelerate which is the answer to the
> first question, and if the g is increased, airspeed will fall victim
> to drag.
>
> Another way to present the "problem" would be as follows, only this
> time including the altitude which as you have correctly surmised,
> gives us a Ps figure for the F14. In our example, the Turkey is at
> T- D=0 which = Ps=0 or on the Ps equals zero line for the F14.
>
> An F14 at 420 KCAS, 15K, in a level turn at military. As the g is
> increased, drag increases as it's square. At about 5.5g, induced
> drag has increased by a factor of 25. At this point, T-D=0 and Ps=0.
> If g is decreased the F14 will accelerate. If we pull harder,
> airspeed will drop off.
>
> Thank you for explaining your post instead of reacting to my over
> aggressive response to you.
> Dudley Henriques


DH, thanks for the explanation. No problem with your hasty reaction.
Ari can be a little hasty too. Service leaves some with PTSD and
others, like Ari, with sharpened responses.

One should not seek to blame former combatants for a normal reaction
to the abnormal circumstances they have dealt with. Civilians devalue
quick decisive responses because many who have never seen action learn
to value politeness even if masks ineffectiveness.

In the past, Ari has given me texts on aircraft dynamics and answered
a lot of my technical questions. It's where most of my A.D. theory
comes from. He's a good guy. Just ignore his direct manner because
those same reflexes are what make him good in a crisis.

I looked you up. You have quite a background in E-M.

Franklin

[Franklin[_4_]]

On Tue 18 Nov08 10:28, Dudley Henriques > wrote
>
> On Nov 18, 12:51*pm, Franklin <see_REPLY-TO_header> wrote:
>> On Tue 18 Nov08 06:59, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> That's for a John Boyd! What a maverick. I couldn't hope to match
>> his stunts to highlight E-M.
>
> I met John and knew him for a short time before he died. He was
> indeed a no nonsense guy and probably one of the finest pure sticks
> I've ever known if not THE best. His coffers were filled with the
> names of the best fighter pilots in the world who he converted on
> from allowing them a starting position at his six while flying the
> Hun. His on going bet was 40 seconds, and to my knowledge he was
> never beaten nor has his record ever been topped for conversion air
> to air 1V1. I did a bit of research flying as a civilian in T38's
> that involved EM while working on inertial coupling departure and
> John gave us a beautiful photograph of my airplane in flight signed
> by him. It hangs on our den wall. Great guy, and along with E.T.
> Christie and Rutowski from Douglas, probably some of the finest
> aviation minds of our time.
>
> Dudley Henriques


Highly regarded by his peers, it's a shame the top brass dragged their
feet in praising John Boyd.

I guess the top brass value compliance before competence. I guess they
might have to behave like that to maintian order. Hard to forgive them
for it though.

[Franklin[_4_]]

On Tue 18 Nov08 11:04, Payton Byrd
> wrote in
>:

> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 01:51:53 +0800, Franklin wrote:
>
>>> I have no idea who you're trying to impress here, but you
>>> unfortunately picked the wrong guy :-) The purpose of my work with
>>> the Turkey was related to EM :-))
>>
>> You asked a question. I thought I could answer it. I got it wrong
>> but I'd like another go!
>>
>> You don't give altitude so I will assume it. You made me
>> re-examine where I went wrong with Ps. And look up some F-14 specs.
>> Specific excess power Ps is delta energy with delta time.
>> Accounting for induced drag which the question focuses on then
>> (assumming weight is approx 55 klbs) at that state I say you would
>> get acceleration.
>>
>> Going over the various possibilities it seemed (not entirely sure)
>> that greater thrust should encounter even greater drag and so
>> airspeed could fall. Am I getting closer?
>
> Unless energy management systems have been rewritten.

Heh! Sorry if I wasn't clear.

When I wrote "encounter even greater drag" I wan't referring to the
increase in drag as the F-14 accelerated.

I was saying that it the increase in drag for this motion could be
greater than the increase in thrust which caused the motion. IYSWIM.

[Franklin[_4_]]

On Tue 18 Nov08 11:04, Ari
> wrote in
>:

> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:20:33 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> On Nov 18, 12:51*pm, Franklin <see_REPLY-TO_header> wrote:
>>> On Tue 18 Nov08 06:59, Dudley Henriques >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Nov 18, 7:14*am, Franklin <see_REPLY-TO_header> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon 17 Nov08 23:30, Dudley Henriques >
>>>>> wrote in <news:60ccd111-02f8-4eae-bb7a-582816c86b45
>>>>> @v22g2000pro.googlegroups.com>:
>>>
>>>>> > On Nov 17, 10:23*am, Payton Byrd
>>>>> > > wrote:
>>>>> >> [...]
>>>
>>>>> > You missed the term "increasing" I'm afraid. 5.5 squared is
>>>>> > 30.5, which is fine for pure math, but not fine for a turning
>>>>> > F14 with a linear expanding g profile.
>>>>> > The 25 figure as stated in the assumption is correct within
>>>>> > the problem.
>>>
>>>>> > Fun isn't it?
>>>
>>>>> Sir, please sir. The Ps value is far too low.
>>>
>>>> Good try but no cigar I'm afraid. No Ps value is possible for ANY
>>>> aircraft without the inclusion of altitude in the equation.
>>>> Ps can be positive or negative anywhere in the envelope not on
>>>> the Ps0 line for the aircraft, BUT establishing that Ps value in
>>>> any turn is directly related to the altitude where the turn
>>>> parameters are in play.
>>>
>>> I see that now. Ok. My mistake.
>>>
>>>> I have no idea who you're trying to impress here, but you
>>>> unfortunately picked the wrong guy :-) The purpose of my work
>>>> with the Turkey was related to EM :-))
>>>
>>> You asked a question. I thought I could answer it. I got it wrong
>>> but I'd like another go!
>>>
>>> You don't give altitude so I will assume it. *You made me
>>> re-examine where I went wrong with Ps. And look up some F-14
>>> specs. Specific excess power Ps is delta energy with delta time.
>>> Accounting for induced drag which the question focuses on then
>>> (assumming weight is approx 55 klbs) at that state I say you would
>>> get acceleration.
>>>
>>> Going over the various possibilities it seemed (not entirely sure)
>>> that greater thrust should encounter even greater drag and so
>>> airspeed could fall. *Am I getting closer?
>>>
>>>> If you want to talk energy maneuverability be my guest.
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>
>>> That's for a John Boyd! What a maverick. I couldn't hope to match
>>> his stunts to highlight E-M.
>>
>> Sorry for my offensive post. Things have been nuts around here
>> lately with all these characters and I thought you might be another
>> one :-)
>>
>> Yes, your second try is exactly right. In the example given, if the
>> g is decreased the Turkey will accelerate which is the answer to
>> the first question, and if the g is increased, airspeed will fall
>> victim to drag.
>>
>> Another way to present the "problem" would be as follows, only this
>> time including the altitude which as you have correctly surmised,
>> gives us a Ps figure for the F14. In our example, the Turkey is at
>> T- D=0 which = Ps=0 or on the Ps equals zero line for the F14.
>>
>> An F14 at 420 KCAS, 15K, in a level turn at military. As the g is
>> increased, drag increases as it's square. At about 5.5g, induced
>> drag has increased by a factor of 25. At this point, T-D=0 and
>> Ps=0. If g is decreased the F14 will accelerate. If we pull harder,
>> airspeed will drop off.
>>
>> Thank you for explaining your post instead of reacting to my over
>> aggressive response to you.
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Ben's a doll.
>
> Really.


You see! I didn't forget all the theory you showed me.

[fudgee logic]

"Franklin" <see_REPLY-TO_header> wrote in message
...
> On Tue 18 Nov08 10:20, Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> <news:70dbc7c0-4e28-4e1b-8245-119e5428ec32
> @g17g2000prg.googlegroups.com
>>:
>
>> On Nov 18, 12:51 pm, Franklin <see_REPLY-TO_header> wrote:
>>> On Tue 18 Nov08 06:59, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Nov 18, 7:14 am, Franklin <see_REPLY-TO_header> wrote:
>>> >> On Mon 17 Nov08 23:30, Dudley Henriques >
>>> >> wrote in <news:60ccd111-02f8-4eae-bb7a-582816c86b45
>>> >> @v22g2000pro.googlegroups.com>:
>>>
>>> >> > On Nov 17, 10:23 am, Payton Byrd
>>> >> > > wrote:
>>> >> >> [...]
>>>
>>> >> > You missed the term "increasing" I'm afraid. 5.5 squared is
>>> >> > 30.5, which is fine for pure math, but not fine for a turning
>>> >> > F14 with a linear expanding g profile.
>>> >> > The 25 figure as stated in the assumption is correct within
>>> >> > the problem.
>>>
>>> >> > Fun isn't it?
>>>
>>> >> Sir, please sir. The Ps value is far too low.
>>>
>>> > Good try but no cigar I'm afraid. No Ps value is possible for ANY
>>> > aircraft without the inclusion of altitude in the equation.
>>> > Ps can be positive or negative anywhere in the envelope not on
>>> > the Ps0 line for the aircraft, BUT establishing that Ps value in
>>> > any turn is directly related to the altitude where the turn
>>> > parameters are in play.
>>>
>>> I see that now. Ok. My mistake.
>>>
>>> > I have no idea who you're trying to impress here, but you
>>> > unfortunately picked the wrong guy :-) The purpose of my work
>>> > with the Turkey was related to EM :-))
>>>
>>> You asked a question. I thought I could answer it. I got it wrong
>>> but I'd like another go!
>>>
>>> You don't give altitude so I will assume it. You made me
>>> re-examine where I went wrong with Ps. And look up some F-14 specs.
>>> Specific excess power Ps is delta energy with delta time.
>>> Accounting for induced drag which the question focuses on then
>>> (assumming weight is approx 55 klbs) at that state I say you would
>>> get acceleration.
>>>
>>> Going over the various possibilities it seemed (not entirely sure)
>>> that greater thrust should encounter even greater drag and so
>>> airspeed could fall. Am I getting closer?
>>>
>>> > If you want to talk energy maneuverability be my guest.
>>> > Dudley Henriques
>>>
>>> That's for a John Boyd! What a maverick. I couldn't hope to match
>>> his stunts to highlight E-M.
>>
>> Sorry for my offensive post. Things have been nuts around here
>> lately with all these characters and I thought you might be another
>> one :-)
>>
>> Yes, your second try is exactly right. In the example given, if the
>> g is decreased the Turkey will accelerate which is the answer to the
>> first question, and if the g is increased, airspeed will fall victim
>> to drag.
>>
>> Another way to present the "problem" would be as follows, only this
>> time including the altitude which as you have correctly surmised,
>> gives us a Ps figure for the F14. In our example, the Turkey is at
>> T- D=0 which = Ps=0 or on the Ps equals zero line for the F14.
>>
>> An F14 at 420 KCAS, 15K, in a level turn at military. As the g is
>> increased, drag increases as it's square. At about 5.5g, induced
>> drag has increased by a factor of 25. At this point, T-D=0 and Ps=0.
>> If g is decreased the F14 will accelerate. If we pull harder,
>> airspeed will drop off.
>>
>> Thank you for explaining your post instead of reacting to my over
>> aggressive response to you.
>> Dudley Henriques
>
>
> DH, thanks for the explanation. No problem with your hasty reaction.
> Ari can be a little hasty too. Service leaves some with PTSD and
> others, like Ari, with sharpened responses.
>
> One should not seek to blame former combatants for a normal reaction
> to the abnormal circumstances they have dealt with. Civilians devalue
> quick decisive responses because many who have never seen action learn
> to value politeness even if masks ineffectiveness.
>
> In the past, Ari has given me texts on aircraft dynamics and answered
> a lot of my technical questions. It's where most of my A.D. theory
> comes from. He's a good guy. Just ignore his direct manner because
> those same reflexes are what make him good in a crisis.

I am in a financial crisis. What good is he to me?

>
> I looked you up. You have quite a background in E-M.
>
> Franklin
>

[Payton Byrd]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:28:46 -0000, fudgee logic wrote:

>> In the past, Ari has given me texts on aircraft dynamics and answered
>> a lot of my technical questions. It's where most of my A.D. theory
>> comes from. He's a good guy. Just ignore his direct manner because
>> those same reflexes are what make him good in a crisis.
>
> I am in a financial crisis. What good is he to me?

He's a Jew with lotsa money.
--
They say your heroes reflect the quantity and fullness of your life. I
have three, hummingbird, Bear Botttoms
and Me.Here, the Triumvirate. Alas, now measured by said axiom, I
have no life <sigh>

[Franklin[_4_]]

On Tue 18 Nov08 06:16, Little Luke >
wrote in >:

> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 01:15:36 -0500, Payton Byrd wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:18:01 -0500, Ari wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 03:11:31 +0800, Franklin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Highly regarded by his peers, it's a shame the top brass dragged
>>>> their feet in praising John Boyd.
>>>
>>> ****, warped conceptions to hear Boyd's swooners he invented
>>> energy fighter tactics and was personally responsible for the
>>> F-1Xs. Knew little about energy tactics, energy fighting. Show me
>>> his initials on blueprints F1Xs.
>>>
>>> He never fired in enemy combat. The rhetoric about pilots that
>>> were allegedly involved in everything aviation-related is
>>> historical bull****. Contributions, goodie. The rest.....
>>>
>>> Pffffffffft,
>>
>> Looks like Dudley went nighty-night
>
> Age-induced sleep.


Hey fellas, I'm trying to cool the temperature around here. Let's take
a break for some beers.

[Franklin[_4_]]

On Tue 18 Nov08 04:18, Ari >
wrote in >:

> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 03:09:17 +0800, Franklin wrote:
>
>> In the past, Ari has given me texts on aircraft dynamics and answered
>> a lot of my technical questions. It's where most of my A.D. theory
>> comes from. He's a good guy. Just ignore his direct manner because
>> those same reflexes are what make him good in a crisis.
>
> Something you have to do to get to the "bottoms" of things, right Ben?


Hi Ari-el, I figured DH hadn't understood your background so I filled in
a bit of it. Hope you don't mind.

Hey, you know I'm a nice guy. Don't like trouble unless it's deserved.
Making cocaine runs and watching others go down to save your skin merits
a decent punch up. A couple of misunderstood posts, well, they just
aren't worth it.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

"Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in
:

>
> "Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote in message
> ...
>
> Bull**** Mikey Mouth, you just disagreed with him like everyone else
> you target.
>
> You're the classic 2 year old. If you don't get your way, you try to
> make everyone miserable.
>


Pretty easy to make you miserable kookie boi.



Oh wait, you like be swatted.

My bad





Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

"Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote in
:

> "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> Bull**** Mikey Mouth, you just disagreed with him like everyone else
>> you target.
>>
>> You're the classic 2 year old. If you don't get your way, you try to
>> make everyone miserable.
>
> Is this just another typical bout of your unintentional stupidity,
> Maxie, or were you trying to actually go somewhere with this
> incoherent nonsense? Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through
> life, Okie.
>

You're wrong,. if your'e an Okie, it;s the only way.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Ross" > wrote
>
>> This is not the Jay I know.
>>
>> I do not remember the one you describe.
>
> Nope. Private ****ing matches between the poster you responded to
> and
> other immature posters has far more to do with destroying harmony
> within the group than one social introvert that insists simming is
> superior could ever do.
>
> Jay's only major fault is that he loved talking about aviation, and
> sometimes other issues of life dear to him, too much.


No he din't you fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

"Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in
:

>
> "Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote in message
> ...
>| "Morgans" > wrote in message
>| ...
>| >
>| > "Ross" > wrote
>| >
>| >> This is not the Jay I know.
>| >>
>| >> I do not remember the one you describe.
>| >
>| > Nope. Private ****ing matches between the poster you responded to
>| > and other immature posters has far more to do with destroying
>| > harmony within the group than one social introvert that insists
>| > simming is superior
> could
>| > ever do.
>|
>| If that were indeed true, you are truly more pathetic than you
>| realize and you have much bigger problems you should be concerned
>| with.
>|
>| > Jay's only major fault is that he loved talking about aviation, and
>| > sometimes other issues of life dear to him, too much.
>|
>| That was far from Jay's only major fault.
>|
>|
>
> Yeah, like a moron like you is qualified to judge anyone!


God I love usenet.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

"Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in
:

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> news:54c910f1-83f9-4cfc-ac0f-fbbffcb04286
@a26g2000prf.googlegroups.com.
> ..
>
> I agree. Jay is guilty of nothing more than loving aviation and taking
> huge pride in both his business and his family.
> He posted aggressively on these subjects and attracted a cadre of
> dissenters. It happens on Usenet as both you and I are well aware.
> Jay took much pleasure in inviting people from this forum who he
> thought were friends rather than adversaries to his hotel for a party
> each year before Oshkosh. It was an annual event and he and Mary
> expended much effort in making it fun for everyone who attended.
> I have never seen Jay's posting about his hotel, or his discussing his
> web site as his spamming of the forum.
> I see his decision to leave here as unfortunate both for him AND for
> the forum; for Jay, as he left a group he genuinely liked, and for the
> forum, because what happened here should never have happened. Once it
> started, it became a self fulfilling on going action and reaction that
> was destined to end badly, which is exactly how it ended.
> Dudley Henriques
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> There is nothing self fulfilling about some ******* child like your
> friend Buttlipps, hounding someone's every post until they leave. It's
> just a 2 year old's method of moderating the group.
>

moi?
Moderate?


Surely you jest?

Bertie
>
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

Bear Bottoms > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:23:35 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> On Nov 15, 2:12*pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:54c910f1-83f9-4cfc-ac0f-fbbffcb04286
@a26g2000prf.googlegroups.co
>>> m...
>>>
>>> I agree. Jay is guilty of nothing more than loving aviation and
>>> taking huge pride in both his business and his family.
>>> He posted aggressively on these subjects and attracted a cadre of
>>> dissenters. It happens on Usenet as both you and I are well aware.
>>> Jay took much pleasure in inviting people from this forum who he
>>> thought were friends rather than adversaries to his hotel for a
>>> party each year before Oshkosh. It was an annual event and he and
>>> Mary expended much effort in making it fun for everyone who
>>> attended. I have never seen Jay's posting about his hotel, or his
>>> discussing his web site as his spamming of the forum.
>>> I see his decision to leave here as unfortunate both for him AND for
>>> the forum; for Jay, as he left a group he genuinely liked, and for
>>> the forum, because what happened here should never have happened.
>>> Once it started, it became a self fulfilling on going action and
>>> reaction that was destined to end badly, which is exactly how it
>>> ended. Dudley Henriques
>>>
>>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> There is nothing self fulfilling about some ******* child like your
>>> friend Buttlipps, hounding someone's every post until they leave.
>>> It's just a 2 year old's method of moderating the group.
>>
>> As you seem prone to misjudge most everything else, you have
>> seriously misjudged my so called "relationship" with Bertie the
>> Bunyip. Sorry to disappoint you, but Berttie and I are a completely
>> "neutral" relationship on this forum. If you have some reference you
>> can post to disavow this comment, please feel free to post it below.
>> You're "problem" lies elsewhere my friend, but that isn't what it's
>> all about anyway is it now? :-))
>> DH
>
> He's a denigrator, a troll, killfile him with News Proxy, I have the
> filters.



Good boi.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

"Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in
:

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> news:e67e5203-6b4b-4994-a821-
..
> . On Nov 15, 2:12 pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>
>> news:54c910f1-83f9-4cfc-ac0f-fbbffcb04286
@a26g2000prf.googlegroups.com
>> ...
>>
>> I agree. Jay is guilty of nothing more than loving aviation and
>> taking huge pride in both his business and his family.
>> He posted aggressively on these subjects and attracted a cadre of
>> dissenters. It happens on Usenet as both you and I are well aware.
>> Jay took much pleasure in inviting people from this forum who he
>> thought were friends rather than adversaries to his hotel for a party
>> each year before Oshkosh. It was an annual event and he and Mary
>> expended much effort in making it fun for everyone who attended.
>> I have never seen Jay's posting about his hotel, or his discussing
>> his web site as his spamming of the forum.
>> I see his decision to leave here as unfortunate both for him AND for
>> the forum; for Jay, as he left a group he genuinely liked, and for
>> the forum, because what happened here should never have happened.
>> Once it started, it became a self fulfilling on going action and
>> reaction that was destined to end badly, which is exactly how it
>> ended. Dudley Henriques
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> There is nothing self fulfilling about some ******* child like your
>> friend Buttlipps, hounding someone's every post until they leave.
>> It's just a 2 year old's method of moderating the group.
>
> As you seem prone to misjudge most everything else, you have seriously
> misjudged my so called "relationship" with Bertie the Bunyip. Sorry to
> disappoint you, but Berttie and I are a completely "neutral"
> relationship on this forum. If you have some reference you can post to
> disavow this comment, please feel free to post it below.
> You're "problem" lies elsewhere my friend, but that isn't what it's
> all about anyway is it now? :-))
> DH
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Bull**** again. You relationship with Buttlipps is well documented for
> anyone that has followed this forum, or wants to do a search.



Really?



Why don' tyou document it?

Can't



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

"Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in
:

>
> "Bear Bottoms" > wrote in message
> ...
>| On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:30:41 -0600, Maxwell wrote:
>|
>| > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>| > news:e67e5203-6b4b-4994-a821-

>| > m... On Nov 15, 2:12 pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
>| >> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>| >>
>| >>
> news:54c910f1-83f9-4cfc-ac0f-fbbffcb04286
@a26g2000prf.googlegroups.com.
> ..
>| >>
>| >> I agree. Jay is guilty of nothing more than loving aviation and
>| >> taking huge pride in both his business and his family.
>| >> He posted aggressively on these subjects and attracted a cadre of
>| >> dissenters. It happens on Usenet as both you and I are well aware.
>| >> Jay took much pleasure in inviting people from this forum who he
>| >> thought were friends rather than adversaries to his hotel for a
>| >> party each year before Oshkosh. It was an annual event and he and
>| >> Mary expended much effort in making it fun for everyone who
>| >> attended. I have never seen Jay's posting about his hotel, or his
>| >> discussing his web site as his spamming of the forum.
>| >> I see his decision to leave here as unfortunate both for him AND
>| >> for the forum; for Jay, as he left a group he genuinely liked, and
>| >> for the forum, because what happened here should never have
>| >> happened. Once it started, it became a self fulfilling on going
>| >> action and reaction that was destined to end badly, which is
>| >> exactly how it ended. Dudley Henriques
>| >>
>| >>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>| >> --
>| >>
>| >> There is nothing self fulfilling about some ******* child like
>| >> your
> friend
>| >> Buttlipps, hounding someone's every post until they leave. It's
>| >> just a
> 2
>| >> year old's method of moderating the group.
>| >
>| > As you seem prone to misjudge most everything else, you have
>| > seriously misjudged my so called "relationship" with Bertie the
>| > Bunyip. Sorry to disappoint you, but Berttie and I are a completely
>| > "neutral" relationship on this forum. If you have some reference
>| > you can post to disavow this comment, please feel free to post it
>| > below. You're "problem" lies elsewhere my friend, but that isn't
>| > what it's all about anyway is it now? :-))
>| > DH
>| >
>| > -------------------------------------------------------------
>| >
>| > Bull**** again. You relationship with Buttlipps is well documented
>| > for anyone that has followed this forum, or wants to do a search.
>|
>| I have no relationship with Dudley. My name is not Buttlips, it is
>| Bear Bottoms.
>|
>| Period.
>| --
>
> I wasn't talking about you, and unless you are a wolf in sheep's
> clothing, I know nothing about you.
>

You know abou twolf in sheep's clothing ?

i've heard about this fetish, but never met anyone into it before.




Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

Bear Bottoms > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:26:03 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> On Nov 15, 4:11*pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
>>> "Bear Bottoms" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> ...
>>>| On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:30:41 -0600, Maxwell wrote:
>>>|
>>>| > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>| >news:e67e5203-6b4b-4994-a821-

>>>| >om...
>>>| > On Nov 15, 2:12 pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
>>>| >> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>| >>
>>>| >>news:54c910f1-83f9-4cfc-ac0f-fbbffcb04286
@a26g2000prf.googlegroups
>>>| >>.com...
>>>| >>
>>>| >> I agree. Jay is guilty of nothing more than loving aviation and
>>>| >> taking huge pride in both his business and his family.
>>>| >> He posted aggressively on these subjects and attracted a cadre
>>>| >> of dissenters. It happens on Usenet as both you and I are well
>>>| >> aware. Jay took much pleasure in inviting people from this forum
>>>| >> who he thought were friends rather than adversaries to his hotel
>>>| >> for a party each year before Oshkosh. It was an annual event and
>>>| >> he and Mary expended much effort in making it fun for everyone
>>>| >> who attended. I have never seen Jay's posting about his hotel,
>>>| >> or his discussing his web site as his spamming of the forum.
>>>| >> I see his decision to leave here as unfortunate both for him AND
>>>| >> for the forum; for Jay, as he left a group he genuinely liked,
>>>| >> and for the forum, because what happened here should never have
>>>| >> happened. Once it started, it became a self fulfilling on going
>>>| >> action and reaction that was destined to end badly, which is
>>>| >> exactly how it ended. Dudley Henriques
>>>| >>
>>>| >>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>| >> ----
>>>| >>
>>>| >> There is nothing self fulfilling about some ******* child like
>>>| >> your
>>> friend
>>>| >> Buttlipps, hounding someone's every post until they leave. It's
>>>| >> just a
>>> 2
>>>| >> year old's method of moderating the group.
>>>| >
>>>| > As you seem prone to misjudge most everything else, you have
>>>| > seriously misjudged my so called "relationship" with Bertie the
>>>| > Bunyip. Sorry to disappoint you, but Berttie and I are a
>>>| > completely "neutral" relationship on this forum. If you have some
>>>| > reference you can post to disavow this comment, please feel free
>>>| > to post it below. You're "problem" lies elsewhere my friend, but
>>>| > that isn't what it's all about anyway is it now? :-))
>>>| > DH
>>>| >
>>>| > -------------------------------------------------------------
>>>| >
>>>| > Bull**** again. You relationship with Buttlipps is well
>>>| > documented for anyone that has followed this forum, or wants to
>>>| > do a search.
>>>|
>>>| I have no relationship with Dudley. My name is not Buttlips, it is
>>>| Bear Bottoms.
>>>|
>>>| Period.
>>>| --
>>>
>>> I wasn't talking about you, and unless you are a wolf in sheep's
>>> clothing, I know nothing about you.
>>
>> Almost too much to "Bear" isn't it Maxie? :-)))
>
> LOL! The Great Warrior Dudley Dewright Henriques, now talking troll.
> Query this.
>
> A canard wing and a main wing (on a Cozy IV) reverse the rules of
> decolage (compared to a Cessna 150x). Yes?


There are no rules of decalage. the designer arranges it to suit the
application. On most 'conventional' aircraft, the incidence of the stab
is lower than that of the wing, and I'm presuing this is what you are
talking about, but that is not always the case. It depends on the
aircraft and the aerodynamic center.
There are airplanes with a negative wing incindence and a postive stab
incidence. Technically they're tandem wing airplanes, but they look
farily conventional in most respects. The CG would be well aft on the
wing. A lot of early Belriots have a severe aft CG, but there have been
many airplanse like this over the years. Lots of Free flight model
airplanes have a lifting stab as well. The stab is usually very large,
often 50% of the wing area or more. The idea is to make the stab do some
of the work instead of putting in the negative column .There's a
tradeoff, these airplanes would have a fairly small speed range and
wouldn't have the same maneuverability as a conventioanl airplane.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

"Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in
:

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> news:bab4ac56-0218-4a5f-8814-11d455fd66b1
@g17g2000prg.googlegroups.com.
> .. On Nov 16, 6:54 am, More_Flaps > wrote:
>> On Nov 16, 2:08 pm, Bear Bottoms > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:34:08 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> > >> LOL! The Great Warrior Dudley Dewright Henriques, now talking
>> > >> troll. Query this.
>>
>> > >> A canard wing and a main wing (on a Cozy IV) reverse the rules
>> > >> of decolage (compared to a Cessna 150x). Yes?
>> > >> --
>> > >> Bear Bottoms
>> > >> website:http://bearware.com
>>
>> > > If you are asking me if the angles of incidence between the tail
>> > > and wing combination and canard and wing combination on the Cozy
>> > > are different on each type I'll refer you to Nat Puffer.
>>
>> > I'm asking whether or not you understand the rules of decalage as
>> > they apply to a pusher. Do they operate on the same principles of
>> > decalage as they do in a Cessna? Or not?
>>
>> Is the question about aerodynamic or geoemetric decalage?
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> Cheers
>
> Believe it or not it's a viable question as he asked it. I just don't
> like the way it was asked :-))
> Dudley
>
> --------------------------------
>
> You don't like the way anyone does anything, unless they kiss your ass
> first.
>

You can kiss mine, i'm out of TP and i don't want to ruin my new tighty
whiteys



Bertie
>
>

[Tech Support]

I've flown a pusher. Have you? Don't sound like in ur crazy posts.

Big John (now the lurker due to the nuts on RAP)
************************************************** *****************

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 14:54:33 -0500, Ari
> wrote:

>On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 01:06:47 -0500, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 20:02:22 -0800 (PST), george wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 16, 2:08*pm, Bear Bottoms > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bear Bottoms
>>>> website:http://bearware.com
>>>
>>> I'd suggest if you really want to be taken seriously you'd not have a
>>> broken webpage
>>
>> Pay no attention, george, I will smite this reptile once and for all!
>
>Ever flown a pusher, a Velocity in particular, henriques? No? Then STFU.

[Ari]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:28:13 -0600, Tech Support wrote:

> I've flown a pusher. Have you? Don't sound like in ur crazy posts.
>
> Big John (now the lurker due to the nuts on RAP)
> ************************************************** *****************
>
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 14:54:33 -0500, Ari
> > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 01:06:47 -0500, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 20:02:22 -0800 (PST), george wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Nov 16, 2:08*pm, Bear Bottoms > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bear Bottoms
>>>>> website:http://bearware.com
>>>>
>>>> I'd suggest if you really want to be taken seriously you'd not have a
>>>> broken webpage
>>>
>>> Pay no attention, george, I will smite this reptile once and for all!
>>
>>Ever flown a pusher, a Velocity in particular, henriques? No? Then STFU.

Own one.
--
Meet Ari!
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> I'm curious about something. Do idiots like you actually believe that
>> people who ignore these Usenet "challenges" people like you put out
>> here supposedly to embarrass them are proving to the world that they
>> don't know the answers to your questions?
>> Seriously.......I've always wondered how your minds work? You
>> actually believe that if you throw out some "gauntlet" and it's
>> refused, that this constitutes irrefutable proof on two levels...the
>> first being that YOU know the answer, and secondly that the person
>> refusing to answer the question does NOT?
>
> It happens to me regularly. People assume that if you don't answer,
> you don't have the answer. Keep that in mind the next time someone
> asks me a question.
>


'kay.

What happened to you to make you such a fjukkwit?


Bertie