[YEAGER007]

You know what caldrail, I've had it with your inability to comprehend or even just read what is written.
In every single one of your posts you say things that I have already mentioned.

Furthermore, as you claim to be a practising pilot of some experience, you will know that the position of the centre of gravity is not fixed. It varies according to the load carried on any particular flight, and one of the essential responsibilities of an aircraftas captain (as defined by CAA regulations) is to ensure the CoG is within safe limits for that flight. It isn't physically possible to keep the main spar and the CoG in the same place.

If you opened your eyes for once you'd notice that I mentioned the CoG varies with load! You must be either dyslectic, blind, or you’re just too imprudent to read properly.

The center of gravity also shifts as cargo and passengers are loaded on the aircraft.

You're damning yourself as a careless pilot and for that reason please stay the heck out of my airspce.

You don’t occupy any airspace, you’re a has-been, remember.
You have no clue who I am and you have never flown with me, so who the hell are you to tell me what kind of pilot I am. Not that your opinion matters, mind you... You have proven that your opinions are useless after all.

The reason a tailplane is not curved at the top and flat underneath, is because the function of the tailplane and elevator combination is to create either positive or negative lift at the tail in order to control pitch.

No, the function of the tailplane is to maintain stability. The elevator is there to control pitch. It's no good trying to teach me to suck eggs.

I'm sure you like sucking other stuff, don't you? If you wake up and opened your eyes, you’d see that I was referring to the tailplane & elevator combination. That is what is being discussed here after all. I guess one needs to say everything over and over with you, like one would do with a small child.


You keep on contradicting yourself… You started your childish argument because you claimed the tailplane's function is to keep the tail in the air. LOL! Let’s look at an earlier statement you made…

tailpanes don't work like that. Quite the reverse, they add a small measure of lift to keep the tail from dropping.

It seems you can’t make up your mind about what it’s function is and how it works. The one moment you claim it adds lift to keep the tailplane from falling, the next moment you claim there is never any lift at the tailplane...

By definition, it cannot generate reduced air pressure on the opposite surface.

Have you made up your mind yet?

Further, I don't consider further reading is necessary - I was after all responsible for an aircraft design thirty years ago.

Now that is ARROGANCE personified! I agree about you reading being a futile exercise, though… with your lack of comprehension, no amount of reading will help. Your repeated foolish arguments and lack of realizing what I’m saying shows that you obviously consider yourself to be above studying subjects you are clueless about. Listening to you I bet that plane was one dangerous aircraft to fly. It’s a good thing you haven’t been involved in anything like that in the last 30 years and on more than one occasion. What happened? Did they fire you? I would understand why! Let us know what aircraft to steer clear of, please. But you know what… I call bull. First your claim to fame is that you are a failed pilot. Now all of a sudden you are a has-been, once-off aircraft designer that doesn't now anything about aircraft design and tries to get sympathy because “financial circumstances" caused you to be unable to fly... Let me guess... Your little plane didn’t sell very well? Forgive me if I don't get my violin out for you. Next you’re going to tell us you designed the Concorde... The SR-71? The Space Shuttle?

Even though your antics are amusing, it is getting a bit long in the tooth... So why don’t you run along and go design us a nice paper plane!