I have seen more than one answer or comment where the response is based on science or common practice that is mostly or only relevant to model airplanes when the question is about multirotors. Not all aerodynamic principles that are relevant to fixes wing airplanes apply to multirotors. I am sure there will be times when the reverse will happen. A question about fixed wings is answered with information or facts related to aerodynamic principles that may only be relevant to helicopters or multirotors.

A comment that I made was removed without any discussion of how to be any more polite than I was. Readers may read the answer I commented on and take it as relevant to drones when it really isn't. We owe them better than that.

Should we just downvote the answer and say nothing? What is even more significant is that the answer was written by the original person who asked the question. It is as if they feel their question and answer is unassailable. Where do I get to discuss an issue like this? It is an honor and a privilege to be allowed to speak my mind. What will happen if this person is a moderator? Will no commentary or discussion of his answers ever be allowed?

| |
  • Could you point us in the direction of question(s) and answer(s) which exemplify your concerns? If so, this is a problem that should be addressed. From what you describe, your comment shouldn't have been deleted. – ifconfig May 26 at 2:23
  • The Question/Answer that involved my comment is this: drones.stackexchange.com/q/1177/513 There are one or two similar cases of facts that apply to other types of craft are being used to respond to questions about multirotors.and I will locate them for this discussion. – HansenJC001 May 26 at 2:58
  • Here is a question about thrust of two stacked drone propellers and one answer in particular drones.stackexchange.com/a/1216/513 uses the Dornier Do335 to make a point. The dissimilarities of the Dornier to a hovering multirotor are so profound for one reason alone. Props in high speed flight are not like props in hovering mode. I feel we should all work to discourage answers that include references to a fixed wing power plant when discussing multirotors. – HansenJC001 May 26 at 3:14
  • Here is another Question drones.stackexchange.com/q/1167/513 with a curious reference that compared propellers and wings with this statement: "A spinning propeller is just a rotating wing in a different frame of reference". That may sound good if I read it in a newspaper written by a reporter who is not familiar with aviation. But in the context of the question it is at the fringe edge of the bell curve of relevance. – HansenJC001 May 26 at 3:29
  • Ah, so I see. I understand what you're saying now, thanks for clarifying! – ifconfig May 26 at 3:46
  • @HansenJC001 I'm sorry if a comment on drones.stackexchange.com/q/1177/513 was removed. The only comment I saw was a comment from Robin Bennett. Perhaps you commented, and the comment was removed before I ever saw it. Also, you say that the answer there isn't relevant to drones. Could you explain your reasoning? – Jacob B May 26 at 4:59
  • @JacobB I just added a comment explaining the relevance issue. I frequently see prop loading and propeller diameter as a topic that solves a variety of issues with the design of drones. It rarely is. Too many other factors influence the design of a drone. Prop size is great theory to understand, but not very relevant. – HansenJC001 May 26 at 5:23
  • @HansenJC001 fair enough, although I still see prop size as something very relevant to drones. Just because it doesn't make a night and day difference in most drones doesn't mean it isn't very relevant. – Jacob B May 26 at 19:30
  • @JacobB I will phrase this another way. More than any other aerodynamic principal, prop size is the most misapplied principal in the talking points found on public forums related to multirotors. While it is true that size matters, and it matters to the power of 2, it is not a panacea. It is but one item in a wide array of interconnected principals. Don't over-sell it. – HansenJC001 May 26 at 20:05
  • @HansenJC001 I see what you are saying now. That makes more sense and I agree. It is a bit overrated. :) – Jacob B May 26 at 20:13

I can't speak to the validity (or lack thereof) of the answers mentioned. I must admit that I'm not well versed in the field of aerodynamics as a rising university undergraduate freshman. :)

However, I can respond to your question regarding how to approach dealing with information presented in answers that you think is misguided. Generally speaking, the Stack Exchange model provides for three main courses of action:

  • Downvote the answer
  • Write a comment on the answer detailing your counterargument
  • Write your own "competing" answer to the question

You may elect to pursue any or all of those three options, as is your desire.

A comment that I made was removed without any discussion of how to be any more polite than I was.

It's difficult for me to judge without knowing more context on what your comment said and what was previously said, but this looks to have been improperly handled by the mod who deleted your comment. The only grounds I see for the deletion of someone else's comment is if they were being rude, otherwise in breach of the Stack Exchange code of conduct, or no longer useful within the Stack Exchange commenting guidelines.

Readers may read the answer I commented on and take it as relevant to drones when it really isn't. We owe them better than that.

I agree that we owe this to our users and visitors to our site. As previously mentioned, I don't feel qualified to judge the correctness of the answers you linked to in your above comments.

If I were you, I would try commenting again with your concerns, making sure to be polite and professional with your critique. It's possible the mod in question made an honest mistake. You may also want to explore the third option I mentioned, writing your own answer.

| |
  • 1
    Comments can get flagged for a variety of reasons. On SE generally, comments are actually meant to be temporary. I'm a mod on History:SE where we are explicit about the fact that comments are our barn cats – sempaiscuba May 27 at 1:07
  • @sempaiscuba Hrm, I didn't consider that set of conditions. Although I don't think comment age is the issue here. – ifconfig May 27 at 1:12
  • 1
    I agree, but it is something worth considering if we're going to address the general question of how we deal with comments. – sempaiscuba May 27 at 1:16

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .