95tequesta,

I am sometimes a bit argumentative, a fault that I struggle with. For some reason, I seem to be having that problem today, in particular.

I think I see the apparent contradiction you were referring to, but it is not really a contradiction. There is a difference between saying that CG location does not matter for a light plane, and saying that a slow plane may be flyable even if it is unstable. CG location DOES matter, at any wing loading, in the sense that it can determine whether the plane is stable or not. The fact that one could decide to fly a very slow plane with an unstable location of the CG does not in any way contradict this. In particular, one would not want to send the message to a beginner that stability, and hence CG location, does not matter. If Dick had made the observation that a sufficiently light plane could fly slowly enough to be controllable despite static instability, I would not have taken issue.

Your comment about the faster wing generating, or attempting to generate, more lift is not relevant to the topic of CG placement's effect on stability. I read all the small words.

It's interesting that you accuse me of not questioning theories or opinions, while the cause of this little exchange is the fact that I questioned Dick's. Is it only well established, proven theories that I should question?

banktoturn