Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp
Which has what to do with anything?
I never claimed to go to Cambridge. I went to Embry Riddle. I do have friends who went to other colleges and they also know of the Spitfire's instability.
|
I know that you didn't go to Cambridge as to Embury Riddie that may or may not be the case. I do know that when you offerred to debate Longitudional Stability by standards one was to do with roll rates and nothing to do with what you wanted. I believe that one of the other standards you wanted to use is to do with ordering spare parts, not exactly stability. I wouldn't expect a graduate from Embry Riddle to make that kind of mistake, its possible of course but it is a basic error
But you did say that Cambridge and others used the Spitfire wing when you clearly don't know
Quote:
What does your point have to do with that fact or any fact relevant to this discussion?
|
Because its another example of you making up statements without foundation to support your case.
Quote:
|
Or the fact, it is Cambridge University that published the book??
|
Cambridge University Press is a publishing house
NOT a University. The University is an admin for the collages not a seat of learning and supplies support to the member seats of learning, including publishing.
These tend to prove that you trawled for something to support your statement rather than have actual evidence
Speaking of evidence and more importantly, we are all waiting for your source or evidence re piles of bent wings in the BOB waiting for repair. I produced two pieces of evidence you have have yet to produce anything.
You once accused me of being unprofessional so either substantiate your claim or withdraw it, its the professional thing to do