"Timothy A. Seufert" wrote in message
news:jKXBc.75809$Hg2.10677@attbi_s04...
In article b3tBc.87266$0y.49768@attbi_s03,
"Chelvam" wrote:

"Bromo" wrote in message
news:w4jBc.64693$Hg2.9199@attbi_s04...
On 6/20/04 10:37 AM, in article , "Steven
Sullivan" wrote:

snip..snip..

It was the observation and dogged pursuit of detail that
revealed the real truth. This is not the same in magnitude, but
similar
in
effect.

And the aviation engineer thought that Japanese zero planes were
aerodynamically impossible.

What aviation engineer? When?





Perhaps an aviation engineer might have said the early rumored Zero was
aerodynamically impossible. He would have been right.


Too bad google failed me on this one. But correct me if I am wrong. Two
Japanese Companies were involved in the development of the Zero. Matsu****a
did the job. the other company quit saying that it was impossible.

When the American had its close encounter with Zero in China it was
initially dismissed by the American that such thing was "aerodynamically
impossible".

I am not saying Zero defied physics but the initial assessment was sceptical
because the knowhow then wasn't good enough.

That's the same story about bumblebee. Yes we have the scientific
explanation but if you look at the link provided by Ketil
http://www.math.niu.edu/~rusin/known-math/98/bees there was once a
Sainte-Lague, Magnan's lab assistant who was apparently some sort of
engineer said so and furthermore the usual aerodynamics in 1930 would - I
quote "makes back-of-envelope calculations
next to hopeless"