Frank Duran,
PBL has already addressed why your curious logic is at fault.
Good and
lucky are two different things.
I don't know much about anything, but I do have a PhD in aerodynamics.
Most pilots don't like being told something because it reinforces how often (inspite of what we like to think) that our decision making is sub-optimal. It is not that our decisions are "bad" per se, but they could often have been/be better.
In the arena of contaminated performance, the engineers/scientists (who generally tend to be far more intellectually capable than us pilots) at NASA, NRC, FAA, NTSB really do know best.
How different does a supercritical wing look from a non-supercritical wing?
Any of you spot the difference with the naked eye?
And yet how much additional performance can you extract from it?
I don't even like the idea of "allowed" contaminant on the underside of the wing, but then again, I'm just an ex-aerodynamicist cum pilot who happens to be on PPrune.
