Why are the yokes always turned?

[Mxsmanic]

Why does it seem that the control yokes of small aircraft are always
turned completely to one side or the other in photographs? Is there
some sort of convention about doing this? A safety reason? Why is it
so common?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Wade Hasbrouck]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Why does it seem that the control yokes of small aircraft are always
> turned completely to one side or the other in photographs? Is there
> some sort of convention about doing this? A safety reason? Why is it
> so common?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

If it is during taxi operations... It is so that the wind doesn't get under
the wing and flip the plane over... Basically "Quartering headwind, turn
into it, quartering tailwind, turn away from it and elevator forward."

[EridanMan]

There is a standard practice of looping the pilot's seatbelt through
the yoke and latching it on non-cessna aircraft (or any plane that does
not have a built-in controll locking mechanism), this pulls the yoke
all the way back and over, and might be what you're describing.

It actually isn't the best practice, its hard on the yoke... There are
several after-market control locks for airplanes that don't have them
built in, but they can be hard to find.

A Control lock is a device which holds the controls of the aircraft so
they do not bang around if winds gusts. The practice above is
essentially using the seatbelt to do the same thing.

Cessna's have a hole in the pilot's side yoke shaft in which you put a
peg that bends around and covers the magneto switch (so you can't
accidentally start with the control lock in place). Its a very simple,
functional system... not sure why other aircraft makers didn't use it
too (I'm sure other AC makers use other systems as well I dont' know
about).


Mxsmanic wrote:
> Why does it seem that the control yokes of small aircraft are always
> turned completely to one side or the other in photographs? Is there
> some sort of convention about doing this? A safety reason? Why is it
> so common?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 07:03:12 +0200, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Why does it seem that the control yokes of small aircraft are always
> turned completely to one side or the other in photographs? Is there
> some sort of convention about doing this? A safety reason? Why is it
> so common?

I've never seen this. Can you post a link to some examples?

Ron Wanttaja

[Mxsmanic]

Wade Hasbrouck writes:

> If it is during taxi operations... It is so that the wind doesn't get under
> the wing and flip the plane over... Basically "Quartering headwind, turn
> into it, quartering tailwind, turn away from it and elevator forward."

OK. I neglected to mention that the photos I've seen were normally of
aircraft that were parked. I'll make a note of the adjustments for
taxi.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jim Macklin]

Often the ailerons are connect to the rudder with a bungee.
The rudder is connected to the nose wheel steering. Ergo.


"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
| On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 07:03:12 +0200, Mxsmanic
> wrote:
|
| > Why does it seem that the control yokes of small
aircraft are always
| > turned completely to one side or the other in
photographs? Is there
| > some sort of convention about doing this? A safety
reason? Why is it
| > so common?
|
| I've never seen this. Can you post a link to some
examples?
|
| Ron Wanttaja

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Why does it seem that the control yokes of small aircraft are always
> turned completely to one side or the other in photographs? Is there
> some sort of convention about doing this? A safety reason? Why is it
> so common?
>
Without any airflow over the ailerons, it's kind of hard to hold
them in the center. As soon as the control flops over to one
side or the other, it tends to stay there.

[Viperdoc[_1_]]

There are usually slight differences in weight between the control surfaces,
due to the manufacturing process. For example, it is not uncommon for one
aileron to be a pound or two heavier than the other.

Gravity, plus the force of winds, will inevitably cause one to droop.
Likewise, rudders are not always hinged in a straight line, and the hinge
lines are off center, so the rudder will tend to tilt toward the heavier
side.

This is simply a factor in owning planes that are frequently over 20+ years
old.

[Jim Burns[_1_]]

It's for photo purposes. Usually to allow an unobstructed view of the
panel.
Jim

[buttman]

EridanMan wrote:
> There is a standard practice of looping the pilot's seatbelt through
> the yoke and latching it on non-cessna aircraft (or any plane that does
> not have a built-in controll locking mechanism), this pulls the yoke
> all the way back and over, and might be what you're describing.
>
> It actually isn't the best practice, its hard on the yoke... There are
> several after-market control locks for airplanes that don't have them
> built in, but they can be hard to find.
>
> A Control lock is a device which holds the controls of the aircraft so
> they do not bang around if winds gusts. The practice above is
> essentially using the seatbelt to do the same thing.
>
> Cessna's have a hole in the pilot's side yoke shaft in which you put a
> peg that bends around and covers the magneto switch (so you can't
> accidentally start with the control lock in place). Its a very simple,
> functional system... not sure why other aircraft makers didn't use it
> too (I'm sure other AC makers use other systems as well I dont' know
> about).
>

I know some manufactures no longer make control locks for liability
reasons. People would try to take off with the control lock still in
place and crash; then sue the manufacturer. Seems really stupid, but
thats what I heard.

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Natalie writes:

> Without any airflow over the ailerons, it's kind of hard to hold
> them in the center. As soon as the control flops over to one
> side or the other, it tends to stay there.

Aren't they balanced such that they have no tendency to turn either
way? I should think the forces on them in a parked aircraft would be
symmetrical.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Ron Natalie writes:
>
>> Without any airflow over the ailerons, it's kind of hard to hold
>> them in the center. As soon as the control flops over to one
>> side or the other, it tends to stay there.
>
> Aren't they balanced such that they have no tendency to turn either
> way? I should think the forces on them in a parked aircraft would be
> symmetrical.
>
They are balanced aerodynamically so they go neutral. As I said,
with no wind blowing on them in a lot of planes they'll sit
on the stops once they are knocked to one side or another.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Ron Natalie writes:
>
>> Without any airflow over the ailerons, it's kind of hard to hold
>> them in the center. As soon as the control flops over to one
>> side or the other, it tends to stay there.
>
> Aren't they balanced such that they have no tendency to turn either
> way? I should think the forces on them in a parked aircraft would be
> symmetrical.
>
The forces on a parked airplane would only be symmetrical if the plane was
always headed into the wind. Obviously, this will rarely be the case
except for those parking spaces that are built on a turntable with a
large rudder on the back.

Neil

[Alan Gerber]

[Note Followup-To reset.]

In rec.aviation.student buttman > wrote:

> I know some manufactures no longer make control locks for liability
> reasons. People would try to take off with the control lock still in
> place and crash; then sue the manufacturer. Seems really stupid, but
> thats what I heard.

Of all the things to sue over, that seems lamer than most. And, if that's
the case, why do they still make, say, pitot covers? Or fuel gauges only
accurate at "Empty"? Or tow bars?

(Or, if not lamer to sue over, then lamer to stop manufacturing over.)

.... Alan

--
Alan Gerber
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Ron Natalie]

Alan Gerber wrote:

> Of all the things to sue over, that seems lamer than most. And, if that's
> the case, why do they still make, say, pitot covers? Or fuel gauges only
> accurate at "Empty"? Or tow bars?
>
Fuel gauges aren't accurate anywhere. There's no accuracy requirement
in the FARs at all. All it says is the E mark is supposed to
correspond to the end of usable fuel (as opposed to bone dry).

[Gary Drescher]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
> Fuel gauges aren't accurate anywhere. There's no accuracy requirement
> in the FARs at all. All it says is the E mark is supposed to
> correspond to the end of usable fuel (as opposed to bone dry).

It's true that 23.1337b1 says "Each fuel quantity indicator must be
calibrated to read 'zero' during level flight when the quantity of fuel
remaining in the tank is equal to the unusable fuel supply". As you point
out, that's merely clarifying that 'zero' should correspond to no *usable*
fuel rather than no *total* fuel (usable plus unusable). (Some people--not
you--misinterpret 23.1337b1 to mean that a fuel gauge only has to be
accurate when it says 'empty'.)

But I don't think it's quite true that there's no fuel-gauge accuracy
requirement in the FARs. According to 23.1337b, "There must be a means to
indicate to the flightcrew members the quantity of usable fuel in each tank
during flight. An indicator calibrated in appropriate units and clearly
marked to indicate those units must be used.".

Although there's no *quantitative* requirement as to how accurate the gauge
must be, 21.1337b says the gauge has to tell the crew how much fuel in fact
remains; so there's an implicit commonsense requirement that it be at least
roughly accurate (or else it's not telling the crew what it's required to be
telling them).

--Gary

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-10-16, Neil Gould > wrote:
> The forces on a parked airplane would only be symmetrical if the plane was
> always headed into the wind. Obviously, this will rarely be the case
> except for those parking spaces that are built on a turntable with a
> large rudder on the back.

On a point of pedantry, the turntable parking space would not need a
rudder. The plane tied down to this turntable tiedown would cause it to
point into the wind, since the turntable/aircraft combination would
behave like a large weather vane.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Mark Hansen]

On 10/18/06 05:21, Dylan Smith wrote:
> On 2006-10-16, Neil Gould > wrote:
>> The forces on a parked airplane would only be symmetrical if the plane was
>> always headed into the wind. Obviously, this will rarely be the case
>> except for those parking spaces that are built on a turntable with a
>> large rudder on the back.
>
> On a point of pedantry, the turntable parking space would not need a
> rudder. The plane tied down to this turntable tiedown would cause it to
> point into the wind, since the turntable/aircraft combination would
> behave like a large weather vane.
>

Yea ... it's a good thing you caught that.

[Jim Macklin]

Works for seaplanes so you need a proper mooring buoy with
clear space 360° on each airplane.

For seaplane and boats too, if you have a permanent
anchorage, try heavy chain and three anchors at 120°
spread.. You can use four big concrete slabs as dead weight
or three Danforth type anchors, connected to a center
weight. A large diameter nylon rope from the center point
to a buoy, with points to tie-up. If your water is subject
to tides, you need to allow for this change in water depth.
The heavy chains keep the forces on you anchor normal to the
bottom and the mooring buoy will have limited swing and
still hold against wind and current changes.

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
| On 10/18/06 05:21, Dylan Smith wrote:
| > On 2006-10-16, Neil Gould >
wrote:
| >> The forces on a parked airplane would only be
symmetrical if the plane was
| >> always headed into the wind. Obviously, this will
rarely be the case
| >> except for those parking spaces that are built on a
turntable with a
| >> large rudder on the back.
| >
| > On a point of pedantry, the turntable parking space
would not need a
| > rudder. The plane tied down to this turntable tiedown
would cause it to
| > point into the wind, since the turntable/aircraft
combination would
| > behave like a large weather vane.
| >
|
| Yea ... it's a good thing you caught that.
|