So if they'd of used a big balloon instead of a gas engine it would of flown without spinning the fuselage? Or was the balloon a distraction that had little to do with the original discussion?In this case however it is possible to be absolute about the point of failure, it is what allows progress and development of design. A design can have elements of success and overall failure, you take the successful parts and build off of those, that is called progress.
There is no gauntlet to pick up, you can't throw down something from a point of ignorance and then think you have the high ground.
The whole debate boils down to your claim that it would spin the fuselage and I know enough to know you are wrong. You are willing to go all over the internet making wild assumptions and then present them as fact, when you really don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Why can't you trust someone saying you are wrong about a simple assumption you made about a design failure?
I could try to explain it, again, but why bother when you don't want to learn?
There are similar principles of design shared by the old aircraft being discussed and the balloon helicopter.So if they'd of used a big balloon instead of a gas engine it would of flown without spinning the fuselage? Or was the balloon a distraction that had little to do with the original discussion?
Gonna have to step in for pdqdl as he seems busy at the moment. Take a careful look at the chairs behind her. One has a really skinny back support, showing that a photoshop was done on the image. But she is one fine looking woman.
Sent from my iPhone when I should be doing something else
I wasn't quite following the use of the word "disparaging" his ignorance. So, I looked it up. It's says it's a certain type of insult. OK, I follow that. You are are insulting his ignorance. Then it says in a manor that shows the insulter's superiority. Not sure you achieved your goal.https://www.thefreedictionary.com/ignorance
The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.
Maybe you didn't choose your words carefully enough before you typed them, but what you wrote was wrong. Period. I didn't pick on that, or you, just corrected it.
All along I've said you are ignorant, which I know you to be. Throwing information is not the same as sharing knowledge. You've thrown a lot of information, but not shared knowledge of the aircraft in question or it's operation. I have concluded that you don't know what you don't know, based solely on your lack of addressing the technical aspects of the design.
If you really had such thick skin you would have learned something, instead I see you as thrashing about trying to argue a point that you clearly are not understanding. Sorry you got your panties in a wad for being called wrong, but you are.
Long posts and links don't make you right when your links don't apply to the discussion, they just mean you wasted your time finding them.
I am disparaging your ignorance, and at this point your lack of ability to know when your are wrong, didn't mean it personally, but you can take it however you want.