Absolutely Jim. Sagacious words. Any individual's assimilation is ultimately affected through predisposition of either temperament or ability despite our best attempts to stereotype particular groups which might emperically demonstrate an above or below average tendency to certain behaviours.

But that said, it's fair to say as a universally accepted established psychological profile that the majority of pilots have egos. I deign to use the adjective "healthy" as it's not always so, it doesn't follow necessarily that that ego will present in ALL pilots as a barrier to learning although it sometimes = true for the emotionally undeveloped or immature pilot as any much as other stereotypical sub-group or individual.

What gets my goat are falsehoods which assume mythological = true status due popular propogation by the insecure wanting to believe it so as a means of reasserting their own status and reassuring feelings of inadequacy naturally aroused when presented with those who have a obvious status - for those who measure in such terms, which sadly is the majority, "what do you do for a job?" - 'advantage' and undeniable knowledge and expertise beyond the comprehension or understanding of their own.

Unfortunately, the question invariably ALWAYS breaks down into an a partisan perspective favouring the irrational emotionally driven obvious preferred answer of the natural majority whom it placates, the rank and file RC flyer prejudiced by a lack of 'ken and in many, previously mentioned insecurity. The best simple lay analogy I can quickly come up with in trying to present to your average RC flyer at his level about his level of "how it all works" understanding in comparison with that of a highly experienced airline captain, and please, remember, most airline captains were't always ..most have done hard yards somewhere, sometime, is "remember how 'smart you thought you were at 17 and how much you thought you knew about life....but now in the light of greater experience and knowledge at 50 realise how naive and ill knowledgable you were despite your unwavering self-assurance in your own belief system back then?".

The RC reality, is that much of RL aviation knowledge and practice directly transposes to the practical operating fundamentals in RC. RC is much, much simpler and easier than flying the real thing. The only aspect which doesn't come with any advantage is control 'reversal' or manipulation when in reverse perspective. Allthough that too is picked up easily enough, and very quickly and easily in this age of RC simulators by professional pilots who know what a procedural trainer is, how to use one, and have the discipline and methodology to do so - with the caveat - IFF they apply themselves. Most will. Why? Because they are conditioned to structured instruction and applied learning with the quickest way being listen, read, apply, and reinforce all through practise, practise and more practise using the sharpest tools. 4 or 5 P principle. Not to mention already being used to learning in the dynamic teaching/learning environment, used to being appraised & critiqued without personalising it, to being trained, checked and tested with expected minimum standards of demonstrated progress being acceptable. Most of these assets which compliment good instruction are completely alien to Joe Blow-in off the street.

Sure, all equally have to get used to to external vs internal perspective, although pilots will or should ordinarily still have the transition advantage there. They will still have to develop the new and necessary physical co-ordination skills just as a squash, racketball or tennis player would if they learnt. But, when learning mode 2, (or 3 for lefties) except for rudder which has to be re-learnt as being applied with the hand instead of the feet (unless auto-mixed), the co-ordination and natural application of controls comes swiftly, naturally and easily.

On the plus side, pilots don't have to learn (or shouldn't) what a circuit is and how to fly one. They already understand that, but just need to practise...like everyone else. They understand the fundamentals of changing power or attitude, how to do it and what their effect will be upon the overall flight picture. How to apply aileron without the necessity of it being explained to them that you only apply it to initiate, then recentralise and don't hold it in during the turn,.. etc. They shouldn't need it pointed that some up elevator will be required to be held in during a turn, increasing with steeper AoB, having flown and practised steep turns IRL. Nor require to be told of the importance of keeping the nose up or how to recover if the nose starts to drop, all fundamentals of which the RC noob hasn't a clue, has to learn from scratch and about which is NEVER long or short briefed except usually by corrective instruction during the lesson, which ipso facto, prevents adequate explanation other than monkey see monkey do - do what I say observational assimilation - if the instructor is offering good instructing and keeping his aural communication to the minimum necessary to ensure effective communication and minimise load shedding during the lesson. If the stud is lucky, it might be mentioned in post flight critique or debrief, if there is one which there more often isn't. I can go on for an age pointing out all the advantages, awareness of W/V allowing correction for drift and an understanding of how the difference between and how it affects heading vs track. Appreciating GS upwind and down wind. Manipluation of time by space or speed. Then there's just plain old fashioned airmanship which as a basic awareness appreciates intellectually that we operate in relatively close proiximity to the ground and takes into consideration what we might do to control the envelope to minimise incidents and maximise safety. Most importantly, they understand the importance of flying with ones limits, flying the type suited to their skills instead of desires and staying ahead of the aeroplane, something Dave Scott's acccelerated school of RC flying accceeds primary importance to (as it should) and refers to as "controlling" rather than "reacting". There is just such a great advantage to already being a competent pilot first, and this only increases proportionally with increased experience and qualification.

Of course, this is reliant upon the premise that the said pilot is actually knowledgable and competent, the degree of which must and will vary with experience, qualification and aptitude. But generally, the truth is that intellectually and emotionally, pilots whose egos aren't a barrier to instruction make better studs, will progress faster, with a greater level of understanding, and to a higher general level of basic RC competency.

But along with the other myths will be pepetuated in ignorance both here and doing the regular rounds at every club, this one won't rest any more than the other unresolvable arguments obfuscated by emotional irrationality and a preponderance for a belief system dominated by zealotry. In no particular order, they remain;

1. Pilots vs non-pilot (learning RC)
2. Mode 1 versus mode 2
3. Castor vs synthetic
4. 4 stroke vs 2 stroke
5. ARF vs kit (or scratch)
6. EP vs IC

Have I forgotten any?

Of course, being completely unbiased myself I shall present the definitvely correct answers we all know = true to the above listed 5 debates. [sm=punching.gif]

CAUTION FOR HUMOUR DEFICIENT <the following may be intended tongue in cheek> CAUTION FOR HUMOUR DEFICIENT

1. Real pilots have a relevant skillset with less to assimilate = learn faster [X(]
2. Mode 1 is for monkeys! - indisputable. Just look at how many monkeys fly it!
3. Castor belongs with Biggle's in his Camel!
4. Suck n blow...is all you need for speed! - or power when it comes down to it. [8D]
5. ARFs! - what do you want to be, a better builder or better flyer?
5. IC rulEz - just watch. Cheap IC ARF mid-airs EP. Buck for buck, my money's on the IC. A persuasively efficient technique for those pesky hovering helis and 3Ders as well.[sm=spinnyeyes.gif]