 | | Re: Historical fudging...
|
|
(...) The article I was reading was mentioning that the amount of flex needed in a wing was FAR less than the movement of a flap, as the wing surface was much larger than the flaps, and slight flexing made quite a difference in the airflow over the (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
(...) What, no response? Example of lack of justification. (...) Yes I did. Admitting fault is better than not admitting fault. It is not as good as never having acted wrongly in the first place, though. (...) You both impersonated someone by (...) (22 years ago, 19-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
(...) With respect, you have not answered my question: Is that good or bad? (...) I was able to apologise and acknowledge my errors. Further, I don't view it as the "same" - can you show how it is? Like I said, my action may have been silly, but it (...) (22 years ago, 18-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Historical fudging...
|
|
(...) I suspect aircraft are expensive either way. The real question I would have is what would the psychological impact be on passengers who look out and see the wing of the aircraft bending up and down a lot? They might get additionally unnerved (...) (22 years ago, 18-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Historical fudging...
|
|
(...) Hmmm... wouldn't composite wings prove too costly for large passenger planes? They sure look like they can improve performance, and that is an invaluable factor when we are talking about fighter-jets (for instance). But would the increased (...) (22 years ago, 18-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
