Steve C.'s : Sportsmen Supported by Designers
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 5:08 amSelected for study, keeping, archiving:
=======================================================
June 24, 2015
I got side-tracked in my above post, by what may seem to be an innocent misspelling, but which might turn out to be an error of great significance. Time will tell. It could very well be that it was just the vodka whispering sweet nothings in my ear.
I can't help but get the impression that I'm one of the Steve's in the Steve And Steve Show mentioned earlier in this thread. I can't speak (type?) for the Other Steve, of Aeroexperiments fame, but I will type for myself, Steve Corbin, aka "dayhead".
There's the practical side of things. And then there's the "Theoretical BS" side of things.
I believe that the practical side of things makes good use of the theoretical BS side of things. It's all entertwined, a word I'm not nearly as good at as my cat is.
For just a moment, let's pause to get clear on something. It's been my experience that hang glider pilots can be divided into two distinct camps: The Sportsman, and the Aeronautically Inclined Participant.
The Sportsman sez: "Just gimmee the glider, show me how to steer it, and I'll take it from there".
The Aeronautically Inclined Participant sez: "Ok, I understand how to steer it, but WHY do I steer it that way?" He's to be forgiven for being curious. Like my cat Yoda likes to say, "Curiosity killed the cat, but satisfaction brought him back".
How many here have taken notice that it's the Sportsmen winning contests, while the glider designers are content with figuring out how to provide the sportsman with what he needs to win?
And so with that being said, I think we can now dispense with that whole idea of theory being bulls***, or BS as the censors would have it.
Sorry, Mister Sportsman, but if it weren't for aeronautical theory, you wouldn't have a hang glider to fly, let alone one to compete with.
And have any of you noticed that the hang glider designers rarely, if ever, come to these websites and explain how our equipment works? Well, we all know that they are far too busy to do so so, don't we? Who would dare to suggest that they aren't here because they themselves don't know either?
And so we are left with Aeroexperiments, aka Steve Seibel, and anyone else willing to put forth a possible Reason Why.
BS, you say. Ok, if you have a better answer let's hear it. But if you don't, let's not hear you cry "BS!" to any idea put forth.
Aeroexperiments has ventured forth a lot of good theories as to why our gliders behave the way they do under many various circumstances, particularly in the area of bank angle, cg location, and yaw angles.
And none of the designers have bothered to refute any of his theories. We'll be kind and say they haven't the time to post here, but in absence of their comments, it's only fair to assume that Steve knows what he's talking about.
Aeronautical BS. That's what aviation is made of. We need hot dog designers just as much as we need hot dog pilots.
=======================================================
June 24, 2015
I got side-tracked in my above post, by what may seem to be an innocent misspelling, but which might turn out to be an error of great significance. Time will tell. It could very well be that it was just the vodka whispering sweet nothings in my ear.
I can't help but get the impression that I'm one of the Steve's in the Steve And Steve Show mentioned earlier in this thread. I can't speak (type?) for the Other Steve, of Aeroexperiments fame, but I will type for myself, Steve Corbin, aka "dayhead".
There's the practical side of things. And then there's the "Theoretical BS" side of things.
I believe that the practical side of things makes good use of the theoretical BS side of things. It's all entertwined, a word I'm not nearly as good at as my cat is.
For just a moment, let's pause to get clear on something. It's been my experience that hang glider pilots can be divided into two distinct camps: The Sportsman, and the Aeronautically Inclined Participant.
The Sportsman sez: "Just gimmee the glider, show me how to steer it, and I'll take it from there".
The Aeronautically Inclined Participant sez: "Ok, I understand how to steer it, but WHY do I steer it that way?" He's to be forgiven for being curious. Like my cat Yoda likes to say, "Curiosity killed the cat, but satisfaction brought him back".
How many here have taken notice that it's the Sportsmen winning contests, while the glider designers are content with figuring out how to provide the sportsman with what he needs to win?
And so with that being said, I think we can now dispense with that whole idea of theory being bulls***, or BS as the censors would have it.
Sorry, Mister Sportsman, but if it weren't for aeronautical theory, you wouldn't have a hang glider to fly, let alone one to compete with.
And have any of you noticed that the hang glider designers rarely, if ever, come to these websites and explain how our equipment works? Well, we all know that they are far too busy to do so so, don't we? Who would dare to suggest that they aren't here because they themselves don't know either?
And so we are left with Aeroexperiments, aka Steve Seibel, and anyone else willing to put forth a possible Reason Why.
BS, you say. Ok, if you have a better answer let's hear it. But if you don't, let's not hear you cry "BS!" to any idea put forth.
Aeroexperiments has ventured forth a lot of good theories as to why our gliders behave the way they do under many various circumstances, particularly in the area of bank angle, cg location, and yaw angles.
And none of the designers have bothered to refute any of his theories. We'll be kind and say they haven't the time to post here, but in absence of their comments, it's only fair to assume that Steve knows what he's talking about.
Aeronautical BS. That's what aviation is made of. We need hot dog designers just as much as we need hot dog pilots.