ORIGINAL: dick Hanson
Looks like I wounded your ego - sorry about that -
You did however take literally what I said about zero weight - and cg- 2-1 thrust etc..
I was simply trying to explain a concept; "it the weight is practically zero ,the cg really can be abused thru the use of power to correct attitude /direction/speed."
I distain laws of physics?
How do you know that?
My comment about abberations Read it again .
I was referring to the comment that "extreme flying is not flying in the classical sense! (made in early post by Master Duff--)
Aerodynamic flying--- what does that mean?
If it flys -it flies
If it is a craft which is a compromise made to do a specific task ( a 747) or a toy which flits wildly about for entertainment - what is the difference ?
both fly
Oh here is a project that a friend is working on - I did some of the structural work -and have flown it -- probably not worth mentioning in this column -anyway --
My ego??? That was a bit presumptuous
As far as taking literally the zero weight statement, you did write "zip", which to me means zero. You then stated a mathematical relationship between power (actually thrust) and weight that resulted in a "divide by zero" situation. Since this is a thread on aerodynamics, it pays to word one's statements carefully.
The above sentence about CG is a lot closer to reasonable than saying it doesn't matter for a light airplane. What might be even more accurate might be to say something
like, "As a given airplane lightens, the usable CG range increases", or something like that.
I read and re-read your sentence about aberrations. Still doesn't make sense. It doesn't read anything like your more reasonable and obvious statement above.
Despite the differences in the way some of us word things sometimes, it's likely that we agree on more points than we disagree on.
The tube is interesting. What is it's intended purpose?