OK- you tell me why it works -using wind tunnel data .
Believe it ot not you don't need tunnel data to make something work.
Lots of stuff that was designed by wind tunnel research turned out to be a flop.
NOT because of the tunnel - simply because real world use shows up flaws that paper work and controlled enviroments don't/ can't / never will.
Tunnels beat guesswork - I am not a fool.
I never alluded to any explanation of why the stuff works - simply that it does work-
You have to do actual hands on stuff , eventually .
Where are you going to get a tunnel which runs at 10 mph airflow ?
I guess they exist - I don't kno who uses em tho -
You really don't think light weight broadens usable CG range?
Lower loadings = lower angles of attack needed to provide same amount of lift.
So the craft can maneuver at lower angles of attack and will recover to lower angles of attack that is, recover from departure conditions (stalled ) much more readily.
This is not a true statement?
Take any powered plane - fly it - now add weight - keeping speed the same - and see if you can't find the same effect.
eventually it will stall and never take off.
Dick,
In this post, you say that 'you never alluded to any explanation of why the stuff works', but just a couple posts ago you said: "I do try to explain why my stuff works".
I don't think that low wing loading broadens the stable CG range. I have already said that it may broaden the usable CG range by making an unstable or barely stable plane flyable, due simply to the lower airspeed at which it can fly. However, your statement with which I took issue originally, and still do, is that "if a plane is light enough, CG doesn't matter". That is a different statement, and is particularly unaccaptable in a beginners' guide to aerodynamics.
Flying at a lower angle of attack does not give a broader usable range of CG locations. Nor is recovery from stall what stability is about. Is that your explanation?
banktoturn