Perhaps it might be easier to just go fly my gyro PLANE and.... (LONG POST)
Perhaps it might be easier to just go fly my gyro PLANE and.... (LONG POST)
not associate myself with the PRA or the RWF.
This is not a "Waaaah, I'm taking my toys and going home."
But this thread is, without a doubt, one of the reasons that we are on the road to failure.
What we end up arguing about (proven aerodynamic factors and semantics) is indeed detrimental to the progression of gyroplane design and our sport.
This is the only place where I have seen that flight hours are king, and that math and physics are deemed irrelevant in the face of experience.
While I personally have pretty thick skin, it does our cause no good to see the number of axe-grinding personal attacks and the steadfast determination to promulgate INCORRECT information. (read: to continue teaching voodoo aerodynamics)
A lot of the vocal people on this forum have divided into readily discernible camps - both with an axe to grind. Some come to the defense of others because they fly the same machine, whereas they would not otherwise based upon the logic of the argument. Some just want to "stir the pot." The problem is, there is no way to know, other than to read a few thousand posts, who is out there that you can trust.
The result is that the true Newbie will end up with a huge question mark when safety is concerned, because of the repeated arguments over CLT, PPO, Hstabs and PIO by highly experienced pilots.
By the way, I am new to this sport, but NOT new to aviation, nor to RW flight.
While I have no gyro experience from which to "argue" any points, the community I grew up in (Army Aviation) regarded logic and physics as King.
We use charts and graphs and mathematical data to prove points, and explain aerodynamic principles. We have friendly discussions, but in the end, it is about educating the newbies about what not to do. Also some "best practices," some lessons learned, etc.
Some of it is ego related, as those who maintain the sharpest academic and flight skills usually are the ones that drift off into esoteric arguments about whether or not centrifugal force is actually a force compared to centripetal force...but in the end, math is king.
The bottom line is that we educate based upon proven mathematical functions and performance charts... we explain ground effect, transverse flow, and "effective translational lift" with age-old charts. Blow-back, cyclic feathering, autorotation, vortex ring state are all phenomena we are are familiar with.
Experience alone cannot countermand mathematical formulae and physical constants. However, experience and math trumps math alone. In logical arguments as well as poker.
In other words, my combat experience in Iraq and experience as a maintenance test pilot are worth a lot when talking to newbies about how to perform different flight maneuvers.
However, if I were to start espousing some principles of aerodynamics that are markedly incorrect, two things would happen:
First, my reputation as someone to listen to would be forever destroyed. Even if I argue other points correctly, trust in me as a teacher would be lost if I continued to spread incorrect info. Word would spread quickly...
The second thing that would happen is that the IPs (instructor pilots) would circle me like sharks around a piece of meat, put me through the ringer, and if I were to fail any portion (academic or flight), my Pilot-in-Command status would be revoked.
Even IPs can disagree - that's why we have a Standardization IP - he sets the tone that all other IPs agree on.
You see, the important part is that the squabbles about what and how to teach are taken care of in a closed room. The discussion is often heated. but as instructors, and leaders, we all agree that once we leave the room, we all teach the EXACT same thing, and do not undermine the SIP, other IPs, and the Standardization Program for the unit.
As I am writing this, I can see that this forum is trying to act in the same way - but we have no ability to pull PIC orders.
The bottom line is this: Good judgment is the most important part of being an aviator, and a pilot in command.
That judgment neither stops, nor starts, when you are in the air. "Bozo no-nos" on the ground can ruin your reputation quicker than any flight maneuver. And that includes telling people the wrong things.
Until we can devise a method of identifying the knowledgeable people on this forum, i.e. the ones to listen to, we are at the mercy of renegades with axes to grind.
Perhaps I am not giving newbs enough credit - we are all human beings, and even with the limitations of typewritten correspondence as a medium, we can all recognize blowhards and people with axes to grind.
I don't know. I say that we create a sticky, and elevate those in this forum that use experience and math to teach, and refuse to partake in personal attacks. We should not limit it to just CFI's, as there are others with marked mathematical ability. Anyway, we make these leaders the "aerodynamic moderators" of this forum.
They can argue in a closed room, but when they leave, they all sell the same thing, the same way.
Standardization rules!!!
Anyway, I have this to say: I apologize if I offended anyone. I should not have referred to anyone by the term "dinosaur," as it has definite negative connotations.
