If you’d like to discuss it we can, although I’d prefer not to drag this off topic further. You want to use militaryfactory.com as a source that’s up to you, but a quick google search will get you what you want.
The Kfir’s canards act much in the same way as leading edge flaps do, maintaining airflow over the wing at higher angles of attack than they would otherwise be able to without… as well as creating vortices for improved rudder control.
You have to throw insults in all your replies because you feel attacked. It’s okay, you don’t need to be rude. You’re not being attacked.
You spent 2000 comments without a single source and shown false about 2000 separate particular things and the response was always a wall of text from wiki. Stepped up to militaryfactory.com tho so we gucci.
I would say that too if I were clueless. (not really I have integrity to admit).
A close-coupled canard is a wing configuration in which a small forewing or foreplane is placed forward of the main wing of a fixed-wing aircraft or a weapon. It has been shown to benefit a supersonic delta wing designwhich gains lift in both transonic flight (such as for supercruise) and also in low speed flight (such as take offs and landings). In the close-coupled delta wing canard, the foreplane is located just above and forward of the main wing. This configuration ensures a wide range of center of gravity positions for all flight conditions as well as benign handling throughout the whole flight envelope.
Would you like some links? Or you going to point to studies you have no clue and never read. But collect them like a little packrat?
I’ve gone out of my way to help you understand and DM’d you proof. Now you try to bait me back into the public thread after seeing what I’ve said is true.
If anyone wants to see the study and specific paragraphs just DM me. Done here.
Argument is a central concept for philosophy. Philosophers rely heavily on arguments to justify claims, and these practices have been motivating reflections on what arguments and argumentation are for millennia. Moreover, argumentative practices are also pervasive elsewhere; they permeate scientific inquiry, legal procedures, education, and political institutions. The study of argumentation is an inter-disciplinary field of inquiry, involving philosophers, language theorists, legal scholars, cognitive scientists, computer scientists, and political scientists, among many others. This entry provides an overview of the literature on argumentation drawing primarily on philosophical sources, but also engaging extensively with relevant sources from other disciplines.
Dude just threw several whole ass books at us and ran off into the night
I’m gonna read all of them to find out why he rejects this definition:
A close-coupled canard is a wing configuration in which a small forewing or foreplane is placed forward of the main wing of a fixed-wing aircraft or a weapon. It has been shown to benefit a supersonic delta wing design which gains lift in both transonic flight (such as for supercruise) and also in low speed flight (such as take offs and landings). In the close-coupled delta wing canard, the foreplane is located just above and forward of the main wing. This configuration ensures a wide range of center of gravity positions for all flight conditions as well as benign handling throughout the whole flight envelope.
im chilling, i just have no idea how both of you think it is fun to keep going this for days, weeks, just to prove who is wrong or right at something, at this point, it seems more like a personal issue between the two of you than actually trying to improve anything related to the game, at least in my opinion
Because people like watching me dunk and I am also learning/refreshing at the same time. We are all learning a tremendous amount about these aircraft. You must admit.
Even Mig though he does not like to admit and knew everything since the moment the gods created him.
Additionally, I like throwing in some comedy here and there at his expense.
im not sure about that, i cant say about the others but maybe it is fun for the first 5 or 10 messages, now, for the whole day? nah, it gets annoying
because at some point you both must come to the conclusion that neither of you will be able to convince the other that you are more right or wrong than the other, so of course the argument will never end, keep going is just…useless?fight between egos? idk, but anyway, if u guys want to keep that, go for it
