"JR Weiss" wrote in message
news
"Douglas Eagleson" wrote...
If you can go to the edge of the envelope and stall safely you can
beat
nonstallable aircraft. It is an exact stall issue, not flight, but
stall.
NO!!! That is still utter nonsense!
I did generalize about canards. It is allowed because they have a
characteristic of their centers of gravity.
The NO!! does not make sense to me. WHy does a person fly at the edge of
the envelope? If you are in a bad place in the envelope you can not do
anything but loose the aircraft.
One more time... You are attempting to generalize to ALL canard airplanes
a performance parameter that is [maybe] specific to a specific design. We
cannot even assume your performance assessment is correct for any specific
design, because most of it is utter nonsense.
I point out that inverted stall is a SAFE place in a canard and NOT safe
in rear stabilizer aircraft. SO you claim my point is nonsense. Why not
just say what you only allude to, "inverted stalls in rear stabilizer
fighters are safe."
Your point is nonsense simply because it makes no sense whatsoever! You
claim that a recoverable inverted stall is a "safe place" in a dogfight,
but there is NO REASON any pilot would want to be in an inverted stall in
a dogfight! That is even beyond your [false] baseline assumption that all
canard aircraft are equal.
I do not allude to that statement about rear stabilizer fighters anywhere.
The ONLY thing I might "allude to" is that inverted stalls in SOME
fighters may be recoverable. Again, it is a SPECIFIC DESIGN performance
factor!
JR, you are wasting time and electrons arguing with a psychotic bot.