Dave wrote:
Bob Eager wrote:

It was the turbo that kept catching me out....if I accelerated the
way I used to on the petrol one, I'd find it going much faster than
I expected, very quickly!

:-)

On the whole it goes much better than the petrol one
did...and much more economically, too.

I find I need between £10-00 to £15 pounds of fuel a week for
pottering around. After I got back with the daughters car 8 days ago,
I had about a quarter of a tank of petrol and had to put some more in
a week later. I only do about 120 to 130 miles a week. It uses far
more petrol. Can't wait to get my diesel back next week.


Our younger son (a student) bombs about the country in my wife's former car,
(306 1.4 petrol) at a cost that horrifies me. Whilst my wife used it, it was
doing 36 mpg. At the time purchased, it was a distress type issue, the only
car we have had since '85 that was petrol. I'm paying that little blighter
to roam about whilst I think about the cost! Kids!

Since I started this, my elder lad wandered in wanting advise about buying a
house that he is almost committed to - progress!

I'm seriously concerned when she takes her car (206cc D) to do the shopping
which seems to be doing 46 mpg (I have logged all fuel for our vehicles from
the early 80's) whilst mine (a Focus 1.8D with 157k on the clock) does 51
mpg. To be fair, hers has only done less than 9k and not run in yet.
Fortunately, it does have several regular blasts of 300 miles to visit the
wrinkly so hopefully will avoid glazed pots.

Is there a significant difference in mpg between the Ford 1753 and the Ford
produced whatever capacity it is that goes into Peugeots and Fords these
days?

Dave wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:41:37 +0000, Dave wrote:

dennis@home wrote:

It is a requirement of driving to know how fast you are going and
it does not require you to constantly look at the speedo.

I have to agree with you here. Under normal circumstances I can
keep my diesel car to a speed limit quite easily, however, I have
been driving a petrol car that I own and another that belongs to
our daughter daughter, for the last 10 days and because they are a
little bit more lively, I find I am breaking the speed limits
quite often. Not by more than about 5 MPH though.

Funnily enough. I had exactly the same problem. When I changed from
a petrol S-Max to a diesel S-Max! I found the diesel behaved very
differently...

Funny enough so far this week I have driven a diesel astra, a petrol
corsa, a diesel smart and a petrol smart soft top.
They all sound different but the roadside furniture passes at the
same rate.

They are all tuned down cars though.

Do you have a lot of furniture charity shops around you?

dennis@home wrote:


"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...

Well, now you have finally understood...have you worked the the aviation
field (in a technical capacity, not making the tea or sweeping the
floor)?

Well know you ask, no and its totally irrelevant as its a physics issue
and not aviation engineering.


which makes you look an even bigger prat than before.
Aeronautical engineering is 90% physics.

"Clot" wrote in message
...

Is there a significant difference in mpg between the Ford 1753 and the
Ford produced whatever capacity it is that goes into Peugeots and Fords
these days?

Its the driver.. I get over 50mpg around town from a 1.7CDT astra, the wife
gets less than 45mpg.
The smarts show an even larger differential between drivers.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...

Well, now you have finally understood...have you worked the the aviation
field (in a technical capacity, not making the tea or sweeping the
floor)?

Well know you ask, no and its totally irrelevant as its a physics issue
and not aviation engineering.


which makes you look an even bigger prat than before.
Aeronautical engineering is 90% physics.

Which explains why you are so poor at it.

Explain why aircraft are shaped like aircraft if you think their shape
doesn't matter.
Then explain to me why you think the stealth fighters aerodynamics are
unaffected by its angular shape.
It is you that is claiming that it is not.
The only thing I have said is that it is that shape because of CAD
limitations when it was designed.
As proof I offered the stealth bomber and the raptor, both are plane shaped
with curves and both have a better stealth capability than the F117 fighter.

As for evidence that they can be detected.. how did they shoot one down over
Serbia if they are undetectable. You do know that one was shot down?

I can assure you that anyone with any sense knows that is it you that
bull****s about virtually every subject you claim to know about and accusing
me of doing so won't work on anyone that thinks about what I said for a few
seconds.

PS dave weren't you going to tell me what I have been saying about planes is
untrue as you stated?

On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 08:16:46 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...

Well, now you have finally understood...have you worked the the aviation
field (in a technical capacity, not making the tea or sweeping the
floor)?

Well know you ask, no and its totally irrelevant as its a physics issue
and not aviation engineering.


which makes you look an even bigger prat than before.
Aeronautical engineering is 90% physics.

Which explains why you are so poor at it.

Explain why aircraft are shaped like aircraft if you think their shape
doesn't matter.
Then explain to me why you think the stealth fighters aerodynamics are
unaffected by its angular shape.
It is you that is claiming that it is not.
The only thing I have said is that it is that shape because of CAD
limitations when it was designed.
As proof I offered the stealth bomber and the raptor, both are plane shaped
with curves and both have a better stealth capability than the F117 fighter.

As for evidence that they can be detected.. how did they shoot one down over
Serbia if they are undetectable. You do know that one was shot down?

I can assure you that anyone with any sense knows that is it you that
bull****s about virtually every subject you claim to know about and accusing
me of doing so won't work on anyone that thinks about what I said for a few
seconds.

PS dave weren't you going to tell me what I have been saying about planes is
untrue as you stated?

Were you ever in the army? I bet you were the only one in the squad who was
in step.



--
The Wanderer

Caffeine isn't addictive as long as you keep taking it.

"The Wanderer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 08:16:46 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...

Well, now you have finally understood...have you worked the the
aviation
field (in a technical capacity, not making the tea or sweeping the
floor)?

Well know you ask, no and its totally irrelevant as its a physics issue
and not aviation engineering.


which makes you look an even bigger prat than before.
Aeronautical engineering is 90% physics.

Which explains why you are so poor at it.

Explain why aircraft are shaped like aircraft if you think their shape
doesn't matter.
Then explain to me why you think the stealth fighters aerodynamics are
unaffected by its angular shape.
It is you that is claiming that it is not.
The only thing I have said is that it is that shape because of CAD
limitations when it was designed.
As proof I offered the stealth bomber and the raptor, both are plane
shaped
with curves and both have a better stealth capability than the F117
fighter.

As for evidence that they can be detected.. how did they shoot one down
over
Serbia if they are undetectable. You do know that one was shot down?

I can assure you that anyone with any sense knows that is it you that
bull****s about virtually every subject you claim to know about and
accusing
me of doing so won't work on anyone that thinks about what I said for a
few
seconds.

PS dave weren't you going to tell me what I have been saying about planes
is
untrue as you stated?

Were you ever in the army? I bet you were the only one in the squad who
was
in step.

Your funny. Please explain what you think you are saying above?
I assume you are saying you are all taking orders while I am the only one
thinking for myself.

On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 08:33:04 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

"The Wanderer" wrote in message
...


Were you ever in the army? I bet you were the only one in the squad who
was
in step.

Please explain what you think you are saying above?

You really are as thick as others have said. Irony obviously isn't a strong
point with you.



--
The Wanderer

Faith is a gift from your God
Religion is a gift from the Devil

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...

Well, now you have finally understood...have you worked the the
aviation
field (in a technical capacity, not making the tea or sweeping the
floor)?

Well know you ask, no and its totally irrelevant as its a physics
issue and not aviation engineering.


which makes you look an even bigger prat than before.
Aeronautical engineering is 90% physics.

Which explains why you are so poor at it.

Explain why aircraft are shaped like aircraft if you think their shape
doesn't matter.

Exactly what in the above says that I dont think shape matters.

They are shaped the way they are for physics reason. The stealth happens
to be otimised for low radar footprint, that's all, rather than fuel
efficiency or performance.



Then explain to me why you think the stealth fighters aerodynamics are
unaffected by its angular shape.

I never said they were not.

I merely said that it wasnt unstable.

It is you that is claiming that it is not.

Don't lie more than you have to Dennis.

You don't have a degree in physics. I do have a degree in engineering.

I actually do design model aircraft. I do stability calcs on them routinely.



The only thing I have said is that it is that shape because of CAD
limitations when it was designed.

Bull****.

As proof I offered the stealth bomber and the raptor, both are plane
shaped with curves and both have a better stealth capability than the
F117 fighter.



Its more than shape..

As for evidence that they can be detected.. how did they shoot one down
over Serbia if they are undetectable. You do know that one was shot down?


I never said they were undetectable either.

I can assure you that anyone with any sense knows that is it you that
bull****s about virtually every subject you claim to know about and
accusing me of doing so won't work on anyone that thinks about what I
said for a few seconds.


Sorry Dennis, people here who HAVE got genuine experience, and degrees
in technical disciplines, and can do mathematics know what you are.

You betray your ignorance every time you open your mouth.

You may fool some people for some of the time, but really, no one
believes in your tin pot theories.




PS dave weren't you going to tell me what I have been saying about
planes is untrue as you stated?

My name is not Dave.

You cant even get that right.

Sigh.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...

Well, now you have finally understood...have you worked the the
aviation
field (in a technical capacity, not making the tea or sweeping the
floor)?

Well know you ask, no and its totally irrelevant as its a physics issue
and not aviation engineering.


which makes you look an even bigger prat than before.
Aeronautical engineering is 90% physics.

Which explains why you are so poor at it.

Explain why aircraft are shaped like aircraft if you think their shape
doesn't matter.

Exactly what in the above says that I dont think shape matters.

They are shaped the way they are for physics reason. The stealth happens
to be otimised for low radar footprint, that's all, rather than fuel
efficiency or performance.

Which is *exactly* what i said and you have been denying up until now you
idiot!

Then explain to me why you think the stealth fighters aerodynamics are
unaffected by its angular shape.

I never said they were not.

I merely said that it wasnt unstable.

Well it is, so you are wrong again!


It is you that is claiming that it is not.

Don't lie more than you have to Dennis.

You don't have a degree in physics. I do have a degree in engineering.

I actually do design model aircraft. I do stability calcs on them
routinely.

Well you don't know much, stick with models.

The only thing I have said is that it is that shape because of CAD
limitations when it was designed.

Bull****.

As proof I offered the stealth bomber and the raptor, both are plane
shaped with curves and both have a better stealth capability than the
F117 fighter.



Its more than shape..

As for evidence that they can be detected.. how did they shoot one down
over Serbia if they are undetectable. You do know that one was shot down?


I never said they were undetectable either.

I can assure you that anyone with any sense knows that is it you that
bull****s about virtually every subject you claim to know about and
accusing me of doing so won't work on anyone that thinks about what I
said for a few seconds.


Sorry Dennis, people here who HAVE got genuine experience, and degrees in
technical disciplines, and can do mathematics know what you are.

You betray your ignorance every time you open your mouth.

You may fool some people for some of the time, but really, no one believes
in your tin pot theories.

Well I think you are a liar, your engineering must be in bog cleaning.

PS dave weren't you going to tell me what I have been saying about planes
is untrue as you stated?

My name is not Dave.

You cant even get that right.

Another error on your part, it was addressed to dave not you.


Sigh.

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...

Well, now you have finally understood...have you worked the the
aviation
field (in a technical capacity, not making the tea or sweeping the
floor)?

Well know you ask, no and its totally irrelevant as its a physics
issue and not aviation engineering.


which makes you look an even bigger prat than before.
Aeronautical engineering is 90% physics.

Which explains why you are so poor at it.

Explain why aircraft are shaped like aircraft if you think their
shape doesn't matter.

Exactly what in the above says that I dont think shape matters.

They are shaped the way they are for physics reason. The stealth
happens to be otimised for low radar footprint, that's all, rather
than fuel efficiency or performance.

Which is *exactly* what i said and you have been denying up until now
you idiot!

Then explain to me why you think the stealth fighters aerodynamics
are unaffected by its angular shape.

I never said they were not.

I merely said that it wasnt unstable.

Well it is, so you are wrong again!

No, it isn't. Otherwise it wouldn't fly.


It is you that is claiming that it is not.

Don't lie more than you have to Dennis.

You don't have a degree in physics. I do have a degree in engineering.

I actually do design model aircraft. I do stability calcs on them
routinely.

Well you don't know much, stick with models.


But that's better than not knowing anything.

The only thing I have said is that it is that shape because of CAD
limitations when it was designed.

Bull****.

As proof I offered the stealth bomber and the raptor, both are plane
shaped with curves and both have a better stealth capability than the
F117 fighter.



Its more than shape..

As for evidence that they can be detected.. how did they shoot one
down over Serbia if they are undetectable. You do know that one was
shot down?


I never said they were undetectable either.

I can assure you that anyone with any sense knows that is it you that
bull****s about virtually every subject you claim to know about and
accusing me of doing so won't work on anyone that thinks about what I
said for a few seconds.


Sorry Dennis, people here who HAVE got genuine experience, and degrees
in technical disciplines, and can do mathematics know what you are.

You betray your ignorance every time you open your mouth.

You may fool some people for some of the time, but really, no one
believes in your tin pot theories.

Well I think you are a liar, your engineering must be in bog cleaning.


No, its in engineering with a masters in electrical science as it
happens. From Cambridge.

Theres only one liar here.

PS dave weren't you going to tell me what I have been saying about
planes is untrue as you stated?

My name is not Dave.

You cant even get that right.

Another error on your part, it was addressed to dave not you.



Then why was it in response to my post?.

Sigh. You simply cant get ANYTHING right can you?


Sigh.

dennis@home wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
...


They are all tuned down cars though.

They all exceed the speed limits if you let them.


Do you have a lot of furniture charity shops around you?

No idea, do you want me to ask the neigbours if they have any for you?
I don't need any as having cheap cars keeps my bank balance at a few
tens of £k.

It was just that you used the term street furniture. I hate that term
for road signs. Try sitting/resting/sleeping on one.

Dave

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"The Wanderer" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 08:16:46 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...

Well, now you have finally understood...have you worked the the
aviation
field (in a technical capacity, not making the tea or sweeping the
floor)?

Well know you ask, no and its totally irrelevant as its a physics issue
and not aviation engineering.


which makes you look an even bigger prat than before.
Aeronautical engineering is 90% physics.

Which explains why you are so poor at it.

Explain why aircraft are shaped like aircraft if you think their shape
doesn't matter.
Then explain to me why you think the stealth fighters aerodynamics are
unaffected by its angular shape.
It is you that is claiming that it is not.
The only thing I have said is that it is that shape because of CAD
limitations when it was designed.
As proof I offered the stealth bomber and the raptor, both are plane
shaped
with curves and both have a better stealth capability than the F117
fighter.

As for evidence that they can be detected.. how did they shoot one
down over
Serbia if they are undetectable. You do know that one was shot down?

I can assure you that anyone with any sense knows that is it you that
bull****s about virtually every subject you claim to know about and
accusing
me of doing so won't work on anyone that thinks about what I said
for a few
seconds.

PS dave weren't you going to tell me what I have been saying about
planes is
untrue as you stated?

Were you ever in the army? I bet you were the only one in the squad
who was
in step.

Your funny. Please explain what you think you are saying above?
I assume you are saying you are all taking orders while I am the only
one thinking for myself.

Yes that would truly be a joke


--
geoff

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


They are shaped the way they are for physics reason. The stealth happens
to be otimised for low radar footprint, that's all, rather than fuel
efficiency or performance.

Which is *exactly* what i said and you have been denying up until now you
idiot!

You appear to have missed this point so I will reiterate for you!

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


They are shaped the way they are for physics reason. The stealth
happens to be otimised for low radar footprint, that's all, rather
than fuel efficiency or performance.

Which is *exactly* what i said and you have been denying up until now
you idiot!

You appear to have missed this point so I will reiterate for you!

No, you said they were unstable.

dennis@home wrote:


"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...

Well, now you have finally understood...have you worked the the aviation
field (in a technical capacity, not making the tea or sweeping the
floor)?

Well know you ask, no and its totally irrelevant as its a physics issue
and not aviation engineering.

Question for for you...

What would prevent a Hawk trainer aircraft from spinning in flight? It
was designed as a first jet trainer, by the way.

Dave

Dave wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...

Well, now you have finally understood...have you worked the the aviation
field (in a technical capacity, not making the tea or sweeping the
floor)?

Well know you ask, no and its totally irrelevant as its a physics
issue and not aviation engineering.

Question for for you...

What would prevent a Hawk trainer aircraft from spinning in flight? It
was designed as a first jet trainer, by the way.

Dave

generally an adequacy of fin area.

Wont stop a spin, but makes it a lot easier to get out of.

Its more complicated than that, but that's the most basic reason why
fins exist on planes.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


They are shaped the way they are for physics reason. The stealth
happens to be otimised for low radar footprint, that's all, rather
than fuel efficiency or performance.

Which is *exactly* what i said and you have been denying up until now
you idiot!

You appear to have missed this point so I will reiterate for you!

No, you said they were unstable.

Why don't you argue with this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relaxed_stability.

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...

Well, now you have finally understood...have you worked the the
aviation
field (in a technical capacity, not making the tea or sweeping the
floor)?

Well know you ask, no and its totally irrelevant as its a physics
issue and not aviation engineering.


which makes you look an even bigger prat than before.
Aeronautical engineering is 90% physics.

Which explains why you are so poor at it.

Explain why aircraft are shaped like aircraft if you think their shape
doesn't matter.
Then explain to me why you think the stealth fighters aerodynamics are
unaffected by its angular shape.

Because if they did, it couldn't fly.
Basically, the shape of the aircraft conforms closely to normal aerodynamics

PS dave weren't you going to tell me what I have been saying about
planes is untrue as you stated?

First, you have to understand what stealth is all about.

Can't see it.
Can't hear it.
Can't smell it.
Can't detect it on radar.

Lets take the first one.

Tornado Interdictor strike (IDS). Was not designed as being a stealth
aircraft, but a ground attack bomber. It was found out in it's
development days that the stealth factor was removed when it came into
angle of attack, because it's square engine intakes showed up as two
black holes in the sky. Lights in the intake were tried out.

The passage of an aircraft can be detected in the sky by the disturbance
if creates by just passing through it and it can be analysed what just
went through by extrapolation.

Second point.

Quiet engines have been developed by using high bypass air through the
engines aka the Hush jet. They are not efficient enough for military
use. But there are far better ways to cool and quieten the exhaust air
from a jet engine that I can't go into.

Third point and the worst to combat.

Avtur, Avcat and Avtag all smell the same when burnt, but it takes a
long time for the smell to get down to the ground troupes. By the time
it did, they would be mince meat.


Now we come to what I think you mean about stealth.

Over the years, various paints and exterior coverings had been used to
absorb radar emissions.

These days we use acute angles and subtle curves to fool radars. None of
this made the aircraft unstable though.

I can't go into this part any further as we used to work very closely
with the radar section, only transferring targets at night when there
was cloud to obscure the satalights.

Dave

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


They are shaped the way they are for physics reason. The stealth
happens to be otimised for low radar footprint, that's all, rather
than fuel efficiency or performance.

Which is *exactly* what i said and you have been denying up until now
you idiot!

You appear to have missed this point so I will reiterate for you!

I am patiently waiting.

Dave

"Dave" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...

Well, now you have finally understood...have you worked the the
aviation
field (in a technical capacity, not making the tea or sweeping the
floor)?

Well know you ask, no and its totally irrelevant as its a physics issue
and not aviation engineering.


which makes you look an even bigger prat than before.
Aeronautical engineering is 90% physics.

Which explains why you are so poor at it.

Explain why aircraft are shaped like aircraft if you think their shape
doesn't matter.
Then explain to me why you think the stealth fighters aerodynamics are
unaffected by its angular shape.

Because if they did, it couldn't fly.
Basically, the shape of the aircraft conforms closely to normal
aerodynamics

Have you seen a stealth fighter?
If you think it conforms closely then I think you haven't.

Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-117 and then argue as it agrees
with what I said.


PS dave weren't you going to tell me what I have been saying about planes
is untrue as you stated?

First, you have to understand what stealth is all about.

Can't see it.
Can't hear it.
Can't smell it.
Can't detect it on radar.

Lets take the first one.

I have made no comment on the first threeb but feel free to start a
discussion if you like.


Tornado Interdictor strike (IDS). Was not designed as being a stealth
aircraft, but a ground attack bomber. It was found out in it's development
days that the stealth factor was removed when it came into angle of
attack, because it's square engine intakes showed up as two black holes in
the sky. Lights in the intake were tried out.

The passage of an aircraft can be detected in the sky by the disturbance
if creates by just passing through it and it can be analysed what just
went through by extrapolation.

Second point.

Quiet engines have been developed by using high bypass air through the
engines aka the Hush jet. They are not efficient enough for military use.
But there are far better ways to cool and quieten the exhaust air from a
jet engine that I can't go into.

Third point and the worst to combat.

Avtur, Avcat and Avtag all smell the same when burnt, but it takes a long
time for the smell to get down to the ground troupes. By the time it did,
they would be mince meat.


Now we come to what I think you mean about stealth.

Over the years, various paints and exterior coverings had been used to
absorb radar emissions.

These days we use acute angles and subtle curves to fool radars. None of
this made the aircraft unstable though.


We are talking about a *stealth fighter*, it does not have subtle curves.
It has angles designed to reflect what energy remains after passing through
the absorbent material to somewhere other than the point where it
originated.
The angles make it unstable, it is not possible to fly it without the
computers controlling the surfaces.
You can believe TNP if you want but it will not change the facts.

It has angles because it is a very old design and they didn't have the
technology to do it as per the B2 which does use curves as I said in the
first place.

I also said the F22 is even better due to being modern and not having the
angles.

So so far you haven't said anything I hadn't already said.
What exactly are these untruths I am supposed to have said?


I can't go into this part any further as we used to work very closely with
the radar section, only transferring targets at night when there was cloud
to obscure the satalights.

You had nothing to do with the stealth fighter design that is obvious.


Dave

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


They are shaped the way they are for physics reason. The stealth
happens to be otimised for low radar footprint, that's all, rather
than fuel efficiency or performance.

Which is *exactly* what i said and you have been denying up until
now you idiot!

You appear to have missed this point so I will reiterate for you!

No, you said they were unstable.

Why don't you argue with this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relaxed_stability.


relaxed stability is not no stability.
idiot.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


They are shaped the way they are for physics reason. The stealth
happens to be otimised for low radar footprint, that's all, rather
than fuel efficiency or performance.

Which is *exactly* what i said and you have been denying up until now
you idiot!

You appear to have missed this point so I will reiterate for you!

No, you said they were unstable.

Why don't you argue with this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relaxed_stability.


relaxed stability is not no stability.
idiot.

You can't read then.
It quite clearly states the stealth fighter is unstable.
Have you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-117 yet?
That also states that you are wrong BTW.
Why don't you log on and correct them as you clearly know more than anyone
else.

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


They are shaped the way they are for physics reason. The stealth
happens to be otimised for low radar footprint, that's all,
rather than fuel efficiency or performance.

Which is *exactly* what i said and you have been denying up until
now you idiot!

You appear to have missed this point so I will reiterate for you!

No, you said they were unstable.

Why don't you argue with this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relaxed_stability.


relaxed stability is not no stability.
idiot.

You can't read then.
It quite clearly states the stealth fighter is unstable.
Have you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-117 yet?
That also states that you are wrong BTW.
Why don't you log on and correct them as you clearly know more than
anyone else.

because its probably written by you anyway.

The Wanderer wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 08:16:46 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...

Well, now you have finally understood...have you worked the the
aviation field (in a technical capacity, not making the tea or
sweeping the floor)?

Well know you ask, no and its totally irrelevant as its a physics
issue and not aviation engineering.


which makes you look an even bigger prat than before.
Aeronautical engineering is 90% physics.

Which explains why you are so poor at it.

Explain why aircraft are shaped like aircraft if you think their
shape doesn't matter.
Then explain to me why you think the stealth fighters aerodynamics
are unaffected by its angular shape.
It is you that is claiming that it is not.
The only thing I have said is that it is that shape because of CAD
limitations when it was designed.
As proof I offered the stealth bomber and the raptor, both are plane
shaped with curves and both have a better stealth capability than
the F117 fighter.

As for evidence that they can be detected.. how did they shoot one
down over Serbia if they are undetectable. You do know that one was
shot down?

I can assure you that anyone with any sense knows that is it you that
bull****s about virtually every subject you claim to know about and
accusing me of doing so won't work on anyone that thinks about what
I said for a few seconds.

PS dave weren't you going to tell me what I have been saying about
planes is untrue as you stated?

Were you ever in the army? I bet you were the only one in the squad
who was in step.

I laughed at that and appreciated what you were saying! Please do not try to
confuse dennis with facts.

On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 22:32:06 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Dave wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...

Well, now you have finally understood...have you worked the the aviation
field (in a technical capacity, not making the tea or sweeping the
floor)?

Well know you ask, no and its totally irrelevant as its a physics
issue and not aviation engineering.

Question for for you...

What would prevent a Hawk trainer aircraft from spinning in flight? It
was designed as a first jet trainer, by the way.

Dave

generally an adequacy of fin area.

Wont stop a spin, but makes it a lot easier to get out of.

Its more complicated than that, but that's the most basic reason why
fins exist on planes.

The question wasn't posed so you could jump in.

Or couldn't you work that out? There *that* question was for you.


--
The Wanderer

I have become more optimistic.
I now believe that things can get worse.

On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 23:02:35 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


They are shaped the way they are for physics reason. The stealth
happens to be otimised for low radar footprint, that's all, rather
than fuel efficiency or performance.

Which is *exactly* what i said and you have been denying up until now
you idiot!

You appear to have missed this point so I will reiterate for you!

No, you said they were unstable.

Why don't you argue with this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relaxed_stability.

Oh ho ho! Wikipedia as a reference.

I think there should be a variation of Godwin's Law, 'He who cites
Wikipedia has lost the argument'.

What a dullard you are.


--
The Wanderer

Meditate! It's better than sitting doing nothing.

On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 01:03:33 -0000, Clot wrote:

The Wanderer wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 08:16:46 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...

Well, now you have finally understood...have you worked the the
aviation field (in a technical capacity, not making the tea or
sweeping the floor)?

Well know you ask, no and its totally irrelevant as its a physics
issue and not aviation engineering.


which makes you look an even bigger prat than before.
Aeronautical engineering is 90% physics.

Which explains why you are so poor at it.

Explain why aircraft are shaped like aircraft if you think their
shape doesn't matter.
Then explain to me why you think the stealth fighters aerodynamics
are unaffected by its angular shape.
It is you that is claiming that it is not.
The only thing I have said is that it is that shape because of CAD
limitations when it was designed.
As proof I offered the stealth bomber and the raptor, both are plane
shaped with curves and both have a better stealth capability than
the F117 fighter.

As for evidence that they can be detected.. how did they shoot one
down over Serbia if they are undetectable. You do know that one was
shot down?

I can assure you that anyone with any sense knows that is it you that
bull****s about virtually every subject you claim to know about and
accusing me of doing so won't work on anyone that thinks about what
I said for a few seconds.

PS dave weren't you going to tell me what I have been saying about
planes is untrue as you stated?

Were you ever in the army? I bet you were the only one in the squad
who was in step.

I laughed at that and appreciated what you were saying! Please do not try to
confuse dennis with facts.

Dennis is quoting Wikipedia as an authoratative source. To quote Dell Boy,
What a plonker!

--
The Wanderer

All wighy, rho sriyched yhe ket pads on my ketboawd?

"The Wanderer" wrote in message
...


Dennis is quoting Wikipedia as an authoratative source. To quote Dell Boy,
What a plonker!

Read the references.
Oh! too many big words for you though.

Hint any encyclopaedia is only as good as the references.

"The Wanderer" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 23:02:35 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


They are shaped the way they are for physics reason. The stealth
happens to be otimised for low radar footprint, that's all, rather
than fuel efficiency or performance.

Which is *exactly* what i said and you have been denying up until now
you idiot!

You appear to have missed this point so I will reiterate for you!

No, you said they were unstable.

Why don't you argue with this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relaxed_stability.

Oh ho ho! Wikipedia as a reference.

I think there should be a variation of Godwin's Law, 'He who cites
Wikipedia has lost the argument'.

When you are arguing with idiots like you it is necessary to point it out in
simple terms.
Now prove wiki is wrong or admit you don't have a clue.

What a dullard you are.

What an idiot you are.

The Wanderer wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 22:32:06 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Dave wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...

Well, now you have finally understood...have you worked the the aviation
field (in a technical capacity, not making the tea or sweeping the
floor)?
Well know you ask, no and its totally irrelevant as its a physics
issue and not aviation engineering.
Question for for you...

What would prevent a Hawk trainer aircraft from spinning in flight? It
was designed as a first jet trainer, by the way.

Dave
generally an adequacy of fin area.

Wont stop a spin, but makes it a lot easier to get out of.

Its more complicated than that, but that's the most basic reason why
fins exist on planes.

The question wasn't posed so you could jump in.


Oh I thought you actually were interested in teh answer. Silly me!

Or couldn't you work that out? There *that* question was for you.


I could, but again, my mistake was thinking it was a serious question:
Sorry.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


Oh I thought you actually were interested in teh answer. Silly me!

If he had wanted an answer he would have said what sort of spin as it is
different for each type.

On Feb 19, 11:46*pm, Bob Eager wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 23:16:32 +0000, Dave wrote:
Bob Eager wrote:

It was the turbo that kept catching me out....if I accelerated the way
I used to on the petrol one, I'd find it going much faster than I
expected, very quickly!

:-)

On the whole it goes much better than the petrol one did...and much
more economically, too.

I find I need between £10-00 to £15 pounds of fuel a week for pottering
around. After I got back with the daughters car 8 days ago, I had about
a quarter of a tank of petrol and had to put some more in a week later.
I only do about 120 to 130 miles a week. It uses far more petrol. Can't
wait to get my diesel back next week.

Yup. My petrol Galaxy did about 27mpg most of the time (a lot of short
journeys).

I was lucky to better 20mpg with my Sharan (VR6)

The petrol S-Max raised that to 33mpg, and the diesel S-Max is
at about 40mpg, and more pleasant to drive. On a journey to the Lake
District and back, loaded right up with four passengers and camping gear,
it did 47mpg!

Diesel C-Max (1.6) is almost 50mpg

Diesel Fusion (1.4) seems to run on fumes from the car in front.

MBQ

On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 10:30:04 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

"The Wanderer" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 23:02:35 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


They are shaped the way they are for physics reason. The stealth
happens to be otimised for low radar footprint, that's all, rather
than fuel efficiency or performance.

Which is *exactly* what i said and you have been denying up until now
you idiot!

You appear to have missed this point so I will reiterate for you!

No, you said they were unstable.

Why don't you argue with this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relaxed_stability.

Oh ho ho! Wikipedia as a reference.

I think there should be a variation of Godwin's Law, 'He who cites
Wikipedia has lost the argument'.

When you are arguing with idiots like you it is necessary to point it out in
simple terms.
Now prove wiki is wrong or admit you don't have a clue.

The point at issue is that Wikipedia is open to editing by anyone, so at
best it is a starting point. Anyone who thinks it is an authorative source
to quote is a fool.

The statement at the top of page *you* referenced is interesting.

'This article does not cite any references or sources.'

It is worthless as the basis for an argument.

That makes you a fool as well as a dullard.

--
The Wanderer

Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information
available.

On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 10:28:17 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

"The Wanderer" wrote in message
...


Dennis is quoting Wikipedia as an authoratative source. To quote Dell Boy,
What a plonker!

Read the references.
Oh! too many big words for you though.

Hint any encyclopaedia is only as good as the references.

Bigger hint, *you* were citing it in support of *your* argument.

Even bigger hint, There *were* no references, no sources, nothing.

It is worthless. You are worthless. Your argument is worthless.

You *are* a fool and a dullard.


--
The Wanderer

Life is a catastrophic success.

"The Wanderer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 10:30:04 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

"The Wanderer" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 23:02:35 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


They are shaped the way they are for physics reason. The stealth
happens to be otimised for low radar footprint, that's all, rather
than fuel efficiency or performance.

Which is *exactly* what i said and you have been denying up until
now
you idiot!

You appear to have missed this point so I will reiterate for you!

No, you said they were unstable.

Why don't you argue with this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relaxed_stability.

Oh ho ho! Wikipedia as a reference.

I think there should be a variation of Godwin's Law, 'He who cites
Wikipedia has lost the argument'.

When you are arguing with idiots like you it is necessary to point it out
in
simple terms.
Now prove wiki is wrong or admit you don't have a clue.

The point at issue is that Wikipedia is open to editing by anyone, so at
best it is a starting point. Anyone who thinks it is an authorative source
to quote is a fool.

The statement at the top of page *you* referenced is interesting.

'This article does not cite any references or sources.'

You are TNP AICMFP.
Do what any sensible person would and click the f117 link.
There you will find a whole history of the plane including the cites you
can't find.
Or even click on the link in my other post you chose to ignore which takes
you to the same place.


It is worthless as the basis for an argument.

That makes you a fool as well as a dullard.

You are the fool it would appear.

On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 15:27:00 -0000, dennis@home wrote:



You remind me very much Of Violet Elizabeth Bott.

You can scweam and scweam and scweam and stamp your foot as much as you
like. It still doesn't alter the facxt that *you* referenced a Wikipedia
article entitled 'Relaxed Stability'.

If you wanted to reference the F17, why didn't you link directly to that
page? I know, because you're lazy, you're foolish and most importantly you
didn't think things through. You just came across a Wiki page that looked
as though it supported your argument and now that you've been shown to be
the fool that you are you are desperately scrambling to try and change your
argument.

You are a fool and a dullard. You have shown time and time again that you
are incapable of formulating a cohesive argument. Have you considered that
usenet isn't the place for you?

--
The Wanderer

Wine Improves with age. The older I get the better it tastes!

"The Wanderer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 15:27:00 -0000, dennis@home wrote:



You remind me very much Of Violet Elizabeth Bott.

You can scweam and scweam and scweam and stamp your foot as much as you
like. It still doesn't alter the facxt that *you* referenced a Wikipedia
article entitled 'Relaxed Stability'.

If you wanted to reference the F17, why didn't you link directly to that
page?

I did, you are too stupid to have noticed, or is it too idle to read the
posts, or just that you ignored it as it didn't fit into your petty little
argument.

On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 16:00:17 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

"The Wanderer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 15:27:00 -0000, dennis@home wrote:



You remind me very much Of Violet Elizabeth Bott.

You can scweam and scweam and scweam and stamp your foot as much as you
like. It still doesn't alter the facxt that *you* referenced a Wikipedia
article entitled 'Relaxed Stability'.

If you wanted to reference the F17, why didn't you link directly to that
page?

I did,

Not to *me* you didn't. Check the threading. Once again you make the
fundamental mistake of thinking your posts are so important they're read
because of their worth

You are a fool and a dullard.




--
The Wanderer

Caffeine isn't addictive as long as you keep taking it.

"The Wanderer" wrote in message
.. .


Not to *me* you didn't.

Well I didn't post any of it for you but that didn't stop you trying to
interfere and post your attempts at insults.
You can't say "well you didn't post it for me" when you jumped in uninvited
in the first place.
I recommend you think before you support the party that is in the wrong
rather than believing what TNP posts.

Check the threading. Once again you make the
fundamental mistake of thinking your posts are so important they're read
because of their worth

You are a fool and a dullard.

Again you show yourself to be the fool.