To continue to my discussion with Burt... ;-)

As noted in the previous thread, we all need to build an aerodynamic
model to inform our decision making process. I'd like to offer up some
notions that might make examining these models a little easier:

First, a model is only as good as its ability to predict outcomes
accurately.

Second, all models are flawed.

Third, a model for airmanship is only useful if it allows quick
reference and quick action.

Fourth, a good model does not purport to tell the truth.... that is the
realm of philosophy.

Fifth, an aviator's model will be very different from an engineer's
model; however, they should not vary in substance, only in application.

Sixth, because of the third point, it will be necessary to create a
system of simplified models. None of these models should conflict in
substance or application.

The object here is to agree that because all models are artficial
constructs, they are all flawed, and therefore, all open to
improvement. So the comment, "Your model is flawed..." should be
universally acceptable. "Of coruse it's flawed. It's a model." Then we
can get on with the business of whether a particular element can stand
improvement.

Let me introduce a last notion to help the discussion along. One model
that borders on axiomatic is F=ma. If a aircraft is subject to an
unbalanced force (Fnet does not equal zero), the aircraft will must
accelerate: that is, it must be changing its speed or direction. If a
force is acting on an aircraft it must accelerate. Try integrating that
with some of your models to see if they suffer.

(Yeah, I know... hurry up spring!)