Leading Turns With Rudder

[sisu1a]

Hi All,

An SSA 'Master' CFIG I know is perpetually hammering it into his
students that to initiate a turn in a glider, the FIRST thing you do
is feed in rudder. On his 1-5 list of making a turn in a glider, #1 is
rudder (as it's own separate input). While this may be aerodynamically
acceptable practice for a 2-33, it seems a recipie for disaster in
other ships to begin a turn by intentionally skidding. Since in a
pinch, one has a tendency to revert to instincts that were first
learned/practiced (right OR wrong), I see this as a setup for possible
future problems.
Since I have issues with this, I want to gather some other opinions
(particularly those of other CFI's) to help present a case to
possibly get this corrected. He holds little value of MYopinion, so I
was hoping to get some 'name brand' opinions to help my case. And if I
am just putting to much into this, I would rather hear it from this
group.

-Paul

[[email protected]]

On Jul 21, 9:53*am, sisu1a > wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> An SSA 'Master' CFIG I know is perpetually hammering it into his
> students that to initiate a turn in a glider, the FIRST thing you do
> is feed in rudder. On his 1-5 list of making a turn in a glider, #1 is
> rudder (as it's own separate input). While this may be aerodynamically
> acceptable practice for a 2-33, it seems a recipie for disaster in
> other ships to begin a turn by intentionally skidding. Since in a
> pinch, one has a tendency to revert to instincts that were first
> learned/practiced (right OR wrong), I see this as a setup for possible
> future problems.
> Since I have issues with this, I want to gather some other opinions
> (particularly those of *other CFI's) to help present a case to
> possibly get this corrected. He holds little value of MYopinion, so I
> was hoping to get some 'name brand' opinions to help my case. And if I
> am just putting to much into this, I would rather hear it from this
> group.
>
> -Paul

I was taught to lead with the rudder as well - and by a very good
CFIG. I believe the idea is: 1) to build up a little angular momentum
into the turn, 2) to use differential tip speeds to pick up the
outside wing with less adverse yaw and, 3) to overcome any tendency
for students to try to turn only with the stick. On many very long-
winged gliders, you really can't set the turn up properly with out
slewing the aircraft to use the differential tip speeds to help pick
the wing up. If you use too much aileron to initiate the turn the
adverse yaw makes a mess of things.

Obviously kicking the rudder hard at stall can have a bad effect and
most pilots I know believe that a steady state turn with a little slip
is optimal because the fuselage produces a little lift and since the
yaw string is ahead of the c.g. it will show a tiny amount of slip in
a coordinated turn to start with. But overall the safest advice is to
keep the yaw string centered and not do anything too aggressive with
the controls.

9B

[Stefan]

schrieb:
> On Jul 21, 9:53 am, sisu1a > wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> An SSA 'Master' CFIG I know is perpetually hammering it into his
>> students that to initiate a turn in a glider, the FIRST thing you do
>> is feed in rudder. On his 1-5 list of making a turn in a glider, #1 is
>> rudder (as it's own separate input). While this may be aerodynamically
>> acceptable practice for a 2-33, it seems a recipie for disaster in
>> other ships to begin a turn by intentionally skidding. Since in a
>> pinch, one has a tendency to revert to instincts that were first
>> learned/practiced (right OR wrong), I see this as a setup for possible
>> future problems.
>> Since I have issues with this, I want to gather some other opinions
>> (particularly those of other CFI's) to help present a case to
>> possibly get this corrected. He holds little value of MYopinion, so I
>> was hoping to get some 'name brand' opinions to help my case. And if I
>> am just putting to much into this, I would rather hear it from this
>> group.
>>
>> -Paul
>
> I was taught to lead with the rudder as well - and by a very good
> CFIG. I believe the idea is: 1) to build up a little angular momentum
> into the turn, 2) to use differential tip speeds to pick up the
> outside wing with less adverse yaw and, 3) to overcome any tendency
> for students to try to turn only with the stick. On many very long-
> winged gliders, you really can't set the turn up properly with out
> slewing the aircraft to use the differential tip speeds to help pick
> the wing up. If you use too much aileron to initiate the turn the
> adverse yaw makes a mess of things.
>
> Obviously kicking the rudder hard at stall can have a bad effect and
> most pilots I know believe that a steady state turn with a little slip
> is optimal because the fuselage produces a little lift and since the
> yaw string is ahead of the c.g. it will show a tiny amount of slip in
> a coordinated turn to start with. But overall the safest advice is to
> keep the yaw string centered and not do anything too aggressive with
> the controls.
>
> 9B
>
>
>

[Tuno]

I too was taught to use rudder first but I have a hard time viewing
that as "intentionally skidding". It was more like "lead with the
rudder".

~ted/2NO

[[email protected]]

On Jul 21, 12:53 pm, sisu1a > wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> An SSA 'Master' CFIG I know is perpetually hammering it into his
> students that to initiate a turn in a glider, the FIRST thing you do
> is feed in rudder. On his 1-5 list of making a turn in a glider, #1 is
> rudder (as it's own separate input). While this may be aerodynamically
> acceptable practice for a 2-33, it seems a recipie for disaster in
> other ships to begin a turn by intentionally skidding. Since in a
> pinch, one has a tendency to revert to instincts that were first
> learned/practiced (right OR wrong), I see this as a setup for possible
> future problems.
> Since I have issues with this, I want to gather some other opinions
> (particularly those of other CFI's) to help present a case to
> possibly get this corrected. He holds little value of MYopinion, so I
> was hoping to get some 'name brand' opinions to help my case. And if I
> am just putting to much into this, I would rather hear it from this
> group.
>
> -Paul

Actually I learned to do the same thing, although from a commercial
pilot rather than my instructor.
Especially with long wing and/or slippery gliders (as opposed to the
2-33, which was rather
forgiving in this matter) the rudder tends to be underpowered, so you
can clean up
your coordination easier with adverse yaw. It seems backward, but it
works well if
you understand the principle involved. Personally I don't teach that
to a student until they've
got a good understanding of the controls, however.

One thing in particular that my instructor taught me is the importance
of really good coordination.
As a student, when I tried thermalling, I would find that my
instructor was "helping" me out
when the yawstring would suddenly "starch" itself exactly in the
center and the vario would
suddenly read about 200fpm better (he was really bad about that "my
plane, your plane"
business, and so I tend to be bad about it myself!).

-- Matt

[John Smith]

I was taught to keep the string in the middle and to use whatever inputs
are needed to achive this. I was encouraged to experiment and find out
by myself what this means and was pointed to the fact that different
ships may need different inputs.

[PMSC Member]

On Jul 21, 12:53 pm, sisu1a > wrote:

> An SSA 'Master' CFIG I know is perpetually hammering it into his
> students that to initiate a turn in a glider, the FIRST thing you do
> is feed in rudder. [snip]

If true, this guy ought to have his CFIG revoked.

End of story.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jul 21, 12:11*pm, PMSC Member > wrote:
> On Jul 21, 12:53 pm, sisu1a > wrote:
>
> > An SSA 'Master' CFIG I know is perpetually hammering it into his
> > students that to initiate a turn in a glider, the FIRST thing you do
> > is feed in rudder. [snip]
>
> If true, this guy ought to have his CFIG revoked.
>
> End of story.

And that would be why? You'd be revoking a lot of CFIG tickets.

Along with emphasizing the importance of foot work, hopefully he's
talked about the dangers of over ruddering and stall/spin accidents
and talked about how different gliders handle and may or may not
really benefit from early rudder application. And hopefully he really
works on decreases focus on programatic things and transitions
students to developing a feel for flying these gliders.

Darryl

[[email protected]]

On Jul 21, 11:53*am, sisu1a > wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> An SSA 'Master' CFIG I know is perpetually hammering it into his
> students that to initiate a turn in a glider, the FIRST thing you do
> is feed in rudder. On his 1-5 list of making a turn in a glider, #1 is
> rudder (as it's own separate input). While this may be aerodynamically
> acceptable practice for a 2-33, it seems a recipie for disaster in
> other ships to begin a turn by intentionally skidding. Since in a
> pinch, one has a tendency to revert to instincts that were first
> learned/practiced (right OR wrong), I see this as a setup for possible
> future problems.
> Since I have issues with this, I want to gather some other opinions
> (particularly those of *other CFI's) to help present a case to
> possibly get this corrected. He holds little value of MYopinion, so I
> was hoping to get some 'name brand' opinions to help my case. And if I
> am just putting to much into this, I would rather hear it from this
> group.
>
> -Paul

I think we're talking about a slight difference in "timing" between
ailerons and rudder. I can't imagine this CFIG would have you actually
"yaw" the aircraft to any significant degree before applying aileron.
If that's what you're implying, then I'd say that's pretty strange.
John's post makes the most sense; "Do what you have to do to keep the
string centered."

I think the needed rudder/aileron timing depends on the ship you're
flying. Ships with pronounced adverse yaw probably need a bit more
"lead" with the rudder. Our club L-23 is like that. Every time I get
in that ship, it takes a little while to get the timing down (I don't
fly it often). With the not-so-good yaw stability and strong adverse
yaw tendency, it's quite different than my LS1f. The LS likes
"simultaneous" control input. It exhibits very little adverse yaw. I
don't have to "lead" at all with it.

I know I wouldn't want to lead too harshly entering my turn to final.
Heaven forbid if you were too slow. I'd much rather enter the turn to
final with a slight slip due to being a tad late on the rudder than
the alternative (with the obvious consequences).


Dave

[[email protected]]

On Jul 21, 2:27*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Jul 21, 12:11*pm, PMSC Member > wrote:
>
> > On Jul 21, 12:53 pm, sisu1a > wrote:
>
> > > An SSA 'Master' CFIG I know is perpetually hammering it into his
> > > students that to initiate a turn in a glider, the FIRST thing you do
> > > is feed in rudder. [snip]
>
> > If true, this guy ought to have his CFIG revoked.
>
> > End of story.
>
> And that would be why? You'd be revoking a lot of CFIG tickets.
>
> Along with emphasizing the importance of foot work, hopefully he's
> talked about the dangers of over ruddering and stall/spin accidents
> and talked about how different gliders handle and may or may not
> really benefit from early rudder application. And hopefully he really
> works on decreases focus on programatic things and transitions
> students to developing a feel for flying these gliders.
>
> Darryl

Darryl,

You captured better what I was trying to say. I was still typing when
you posted your message.


Dave

[Derek Copeland]

The rudder should only be used to combat the effects of adverse yaw when
the ailerons are applied to make the glider roll and turn. For most types
of glider the stick and the rudder should be applied at the same time, but
when the required angle of bank is reached the stick should be centralised
just before most of the rudder is taken off. This however rather depends
on the type of glider being flown; for some very big span gliders and
vintage types it can pay to lead just slightly with the rudder, but always
remember that the ailerons are the primary roll controls. I get enough
students who put gliders into a turn with a big bootful of rudder without
using the stick at all, and then think that because the glider is now
turning, due to the secondary effect of yaw, they must have used the
ailerons. This is of course a good receipe for spinning in!

Derek Copeland
(UK Instructor)


At 16:53 21 July 2008, sisu1a wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>An SSA 'Master' CFIG I know is perpetually hammering it into his
>students that to initiate a turn in a glider, the FIRST thing you do
>is feed in rudder. On his 1-5 list of making a turn in a glider, #1 is
>rudder (as it's own separate input). While this may be aerodynamically
>acceptable practice for a 2-33, it seems a recipie for disaster in
>other ships to begin a turn by intentionally skidding. Since in a
>pinch, one has a tendency to revert to instincts that were first
>learned/practiced (right OR wrong), I see this as a setup for possible
>future problems.
>Since I have issues with this, I want to gather some other opinions
>(particularly those of other CFI's) to help present a case to
>possibly get this corrected. He holds little value of MYopinion, so I
>was hoping to get some 'name brand' opinions to help my case. And if I
>am just putting to much into this, I would rather hear it from this
>group.
>
>-Paul
>

[HL Falbaum]

"Darryl Ramm" > wrote in message
...
On Jul 21, 12:11 pm, PMSC Member > wrote:
> On Jul 21, 12:53 pm, sisu1a > wrote:
>
> > An SSA 'Master' CFIG I know is perpetually hammering it into his
> > students that to initiate a turn in a glider, the FIRST thing you do
> > is feed in rudder. [snip]
>
> If true, this guy ought to have his CFIG revoked.
>
> End of story.

And that would be why? You'd be revoking a lot of CFIG tickets.

Along with emphasizing the importance of foot work, hopefully he's
talked about the dangers of over ruddering and stall/spin accidents
and talked about how different gliders handle and may or may not
really benefit from early rudder application. And hopefully he really
works on decreases focus on programatic things and transitions
students to developing a feel for flying these gliders.

Darryl


I teach in a ASK21 and previously G103. Both exhibit adverse yaw very
clearly.
The only way to "coordinate" the turn in one of these is to begin with a
touch of rudder, a tenth of a second before the aileron. Well, actually not
quantitated but just to illustrate the idea. The nose must begin to turn
(let's say) left as the left aileron is applied. If the student is a bit
late on the rudder, the turn will just look and feel a bit "sloppy".

So, I say "just start the rudder first, then bring in the aileron, to make
the nose move in proportion to the stick." This will keep the string
centered. Most students are late on the rudder, so this gets them "caught
up".

This is not necessary on our club single place gliders, but by then, the
students know how to coordinate a turn by how it looks and feels.


Hartley Falbaum
CFIG, Master SSA XC CFIG USA

[PMSC Member]

On Jul 21, 3:27 pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Jul 21, 12:11 pm, PMSC Member > wrote:
>
> > On Jul 21, 12:53 pm, sisu1a > wrote:
>
> > > An SSA 'Master' CFIG I know is perpetually hammering it into his
> > > students that to initiate a turn in a glider, the FIRST thing you do
> > > is feed in rudder. [snip]
>
> > If true, this guy ought to have his CFIG revoked.
>
> > End of story.
>
> And that would be why? You'd be revoking a lot of CFIG tickets.
>
> Along with emphasizing the importance of foot work, hopefully he's
> talked about the dangers of over ruddering and stall/spin accidents
> and talked about how different gliders handle and may or may not
> really benefit from early rudder application. And hopefully he really
> works on decreases focus on programatic things and transitions
> students to developing a feel for flying these gliders.
>
> Darryl


Let's not wander too far afield and make assumptions about what a
great guy this CFIG might otherwise be. We've been told he teaches
*student pilots* "that to initiate a turn in a glider, the FIRST thing
you do is feed in rudder."

We all know there are certain gliders that, under certain
circumstances, are best flown with leading rudder. Typically, we're
talking about a glass ship with heavy wings (esp. with water) and
thermal entry at thermaling speed, at altitude.

Not trainers.

Not students.

Not if the spoilers are open.

Not in the pattern.

Not at low agl altitude under any circumstance.


Is is REALLY necessary to review the stats on stall/spin accidents,
AGAIN?

I have never in 20 odd years met an instructor that teaches students
this way, and have great difficulty believing this is as common as you
suggest.

This doesn't worry you? You don't understand the problem. And you
aren't going to figure it out reading usenet :-). See a good CFIG.

The idea that any CFIG would teach this way frankly astounds me. I
regard it as malpractice of the very worst sort. The fact that various
people on this group report this as a not uncommon practice troubles
me. To the extent that this is true, it supports the allegation that
many pilots simply don't have the knowledge to fly safely.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 21, 12:53*pm, sisu1a > wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> An SSA 'Master' CFIG I know is perpetually hammering it into his
> students that to initiate a turn in a glider, the FIRST thing you do
> is feed in rudder. On his 1-5 list of making a turn in a glider, #1 is
> rudder (as it's own separate input). While this may be aerodynamically
> acceptable practice for a 2-33, it seems a recipie for disaster in
> other ships to begin a turn by intentionally skidding. Since in a
> pinch, one has a tendency to revert to instincts that were first
> learned/practiced (right OR wrong), I see this as a setup for possible
> future problems.
> Since I have issues with this, I want to gather some other opinions
> (particularly those of *other CFI's) to help present a case to
> possibly get this corrected. He holds little value of MYopinion, so I
> was hoping to get some 'name brand' opinions to help my case. And if I
> am just putting to much into this, I would rather hear it from this
> group.
>
> -Paul

When introducing yaw control, I teach "lead with the rudder" slightly.
This is done because
most people(almost all) are better with their hand than their feet.
This is done while pointing out that yaw and roll should start
together to create an effective turn entry. This is done as timing
only and is NOT allowed to create the impression that the rudder turns
the glider. Within a very few flights this timing has been learned and
"lead with the rudder" does not come up again unless the student has
coordination trouble.
Skidding truns are not tolerated.
I also teach "lead with the stick" on the exit for the same reason.
I also teach "lead with the rudder" on turn stall and incipient spin
recoveries.
Let the flames begin.
UH

[LOV2AV8]

On Jul 21, 9:53*am, sisu1a > wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> An SSA 'Master' CFIG I know is perpetually hammering it into his
> students that to initiate a turn in a glider, the FIRST thing you do
> is feed in rudder. On his 1-5 list of making a turn in a glider, #1 is
> rudder (as it's own separate input). While this may be aerodynamically
> acceptable practice for a 2-33, it seems a recipie for disaster in
> other ships to begin a turn by intentionally skidding. Since in a
> pinch, one has a tendency to revert to instincts that were first
> learned/practiced (right OR wrong), I see this as a setup for possible
> future problems.
> Since I have issues with this, I want to gather some other opinions
> (particularly those of *other CFI's) to help present a case to
> possibly get this corrected. He holds little value of MYopinion, so I
> was hoping to get some 'name brand' opinions to help my case. And if I
> am just putting to much into this, I would rather hear it from this
> group.
>
> -Paul

I am a CFIG at a club that uses G103 for primary instruction. The
amount of rudder application required in a turn is not cut and dry.
There are many variables...speed, amount of aileron applied and how
fast it is applied. It is also not a step 1, step 2 affair. It all
comes down to a "balance of forces" which equals an "aircraft flown in
trim". The fallback that I encourage students to use is simultaneous
application of rudder with the stick input. It just so happens that
in the G103, half rudder with half stick application and full rudder
with full aileron stick input works very well at thermalling speeds
and the yaw string will hardly move. Of course, the rudder must be
returned to nearly neutral when the stick is returned to neutral.
Students frequently forget that part.

Randy

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jul 21, 1:12*pm, PMSC Member > wrote:
> On Jul 21, 3:27 pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 21, 12:11 pm, PMSC Member > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 21, 12:53 pm, sisu1a > wrote:
>
> > > > An SSA 'Master' CFIG I know is perpetually hammering it into his
> > > > students that to initiate a turn in a glider, the FIRST thing you do
> > > > is feed in rudder. [snip]
>
> > > If true, this guy ought to have his CFIG revoked.
>
> > > End of story.
>
> > And that would be why? You'd be revoking a lot of CFIG tickets.
>
> > Along with emphasizing the importance of foot work, hopefully he's
> > talked about the dangers of over ruddering and stall/spin accidents
> > and talked about how different gliders handle and may or may not
> > really benefit from early rudder application. And hopefully he really
> > works on decreases focus on programatic things and transitions
> > students to developing a feel for flying these gliders.
>
> > Darryl
>
> Let's not wander too far afield and make assumptions about what a
> great guy this CFIG might otherwise be. *We've been told he teaches
> *student pilots* "that to initiate a turn in a glider, the FIRST thing
> you do is feed in rudder."
>
> We all know there are certain gliders that, under certain
> circumstances, are best flown with leading rudder. *Typically, we're
> talking about a glass ship with heavy wings (esp. with water) and
> thermal entry at thermaling speed, at altitude.
>
> Not trainers.
>
> Not students.
>
> Not if the spoilers are open.
>
> Not in the pattern.
>
> Not at low agl altitude under any circumstance.
>
> Is is REALLY necessary to review the stats on stall/spin accidents,
> AGAIN?
>
> I have never in 20 odd years met an instructor that teaches students
> this way, and have great difficulty believing this is as common as you
> suggest.
>
> This doesn't worry you? *You don't understand the problem. *And you
> aren't going to figure it out reading usenet :-). *See a good CFIG.
>
> The idea that any CFIG would teach this way frankly astounds me. *I
> regard it as malpractice of the very worst sort. The fact that various
> people on this group report this as a not uncommon practice troubles
> me. *To the extent that this is true, it supports the allegation that
> many pilots simply don't have the knowledge to fly safely.

Look, I was replying to you wandering afield and assuming the guy is
clueless and ought to have his ticked yanked. He could be the worse
instructor around, he might be the best. The point is just picking on
one statement does not prove anything. I laid out what sort of
discussion/other issues I'd expect a CFIG to raise. It is probably
useless to try to discuss somebody's professional teaching skills by
saying "he says X". I kind of doubt the discussion starts and ends
there with no more conversation with the student. What else does he
say? What caveats does he place on this? What does he demonstrate to
students, what practical lesson approach and drills does he have
students do to improve their feel for turn coordination, what is his
approach to incipient spin and spin training, etc. Oops we don't know
any of that but hell lets take away the guys ticket since somebody
says he says something.

Spouting off your opinion on usenet and then denegrating any opinions
on usenet is kind of amusing.

Darryl
(who leads with rudder frequently)

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jul 21, 9:53*am, sisu1a > wrote:
>. He holds little value of MYopinion, so I
> was hoping to get some 'name brand' opinions to help my case. And if I
> am just putting to much into this, I would rather hear it from this
> group.

Well lots have jumped in with feet first but I was taught, and used to
teach, stick and rudder together.

I have to agree though with those that say do what ever it takes to
make the glider do what you want it to. For student pilots that's
usually to keep the yaw string centered entering, exiting, and while
established in, a turn.

I have flown lots of glider types but most of my experience is in
single place Schleichers. I never lead with rudder to roll my 28, nor
did I with my 19. (except when flying rudder only when the hands were
busy with something else)

I received my initial glider training in UK but first soloed in US.

Andy (not a brand name)

[[email protected]]

On Jul 21, 5:12 pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Jul 21, 1:12 pm, PMSC Member > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 21, 3:27 pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 21, 12:11 pm, PMSC Member > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 21, 12:53 pm, sisu1a > wrote:
>
> > > > > An SSA 'Master' CFIG I know is perpetually hammering it into his
> > > > > students that to initiate a turn in a glider, the FIRST thing you do
> > > > > is feed in rudder. [snip]
>
> > > > If true, this guy ought to have his CFIG revoked.
>
> > > > End of story.
>
> > > And that would be why? You'd be revoking a lot of CFIG tickets.
>
> > > Along with emphasizing the importance of foot work, hopefully he's
> > > talked about the dangers of over ruddering and stall/spin accidents
> > > and talked about how different gliders handle and may or may not
> > > really benefit from early rudder application. And hopefully he really
> > > works on decreases focus on programatic things and transitions
> > > students to developing a feel for flying these gliders.
>
> > > Darryl
>
> > Let's not wander too far afield and make assumptions about what a
> > great guy this CFIG might otherwise be. We've been told he teaches
> > *student pilots* "that to initiate a turn in a glider, the FIRST thing
> > you do is feed in rudder."
>
> > We all know there are certain gliders that, under certain
> > circumstances, are best flown with leading rudder. Typically, we're
> > talking about a glass ship with heavy wings (esp. with water) and
> > thermal entry at thermaling speed, at altitude.
>
> > Not trainers.
>
> > Not students.
>
> > Not if the spoilers are open.
>
> > Not in the pattern.
>
> > Not at low agl altitude under any circumstance.
>
> > Is is REALLY necessary to review the stats on stall/spin accidents,
> > AGAIN?
>
> > I have never in 20 odd years met an instructor that teaches students
> > this way, and have great difficulty believing this is as common as you
> > suggest.
>
> > This doesn't worry you? You don't understand the problem. And you
> > aren't going to figure it out reading usenet :-). See a good CFIG.
>
> > The idea that any CFIG would teach this way frankly astounds me. I
> > regard it as malpractice of the very worst sort. The fact that various
> > people on this group report this as a not uncommon practice troubles
> > me. To the extent that this is true, it supports the allegation that
> > many pilots simply don't have the knowledge to fly safely.
>
> Look, I was replying to you wandering afield and assuming the guy is
> clueless and ought to have his ticked yanked. He could be the worse
> instructor around, he might be the best. The point is just picking on
> one statement does not prove anything. I laid out what sort of
> discussion/other issues I'd expect a CFIG to raise. It is probably
> useless to try to discuss somebody's professional teaching skills by
> saying "he says X". I kind of doubt the discussion starts and ends
> there with no more conversation with the student. What else does he
> say? What caveats does he place on this? What does he demonstrate to
> students, what practical lesson approach and drills does he have
> students do to improve their feel for turn coordination, what is his
> approach to incipient spin and spin training, etc. Oops we don't know
> any of that but hell lets take away the guys ticket since somebody
> says he says something.
>
> Spouting off your opinion on usenet and then denegrating any opinions
> on usenet is kind of amusing.
>
> Darryl
> (who leads with rudder frequently)

Well I see you have this completely figured out. You certainly read a
lot more into this exchange than I (or anyone else) wrote, so this is
the end of it for me. Good luck & good soaring to you.

[sisu1a]

I feel compelled at this point to add that this guy does not promote
stomping the rudder or other outwardly unsafe flying habits and is
absolutely fanatical about keeping the string straight, to the point
of obnoxiousness. He would not accept my explanation of mildly
slipping during thermaling ala' Holighaus/Johnson on a flight last
year, outright rejecting it on principal (he was sure I read the
article wrong or remembered it incorrectly).

I also want to add that my concern is geared toward what ab-initio
students should or should not be taught, as it is very hard to unlearn
something, no matter how wrong. As far as I understand the human
brain, it will most likely revert to these early lessons when/if a
'situation' arises and stress levels are very high.

I certainly don't think he should have his ticket yanked by any means,
I just have my own reservations about the soundness of *possibly*
instilling reflexes into people that can potentially be dangerous if
reverted to at an inopportune moment. This forum seems like a good
place for this discussion, to see how others more qualified than I
weigh in on the subject before making it a campaign and I thank
everyone thus far for their thoughtful responses.

-Paul

[[email protected]]

On Jul 21, 5:10 pm, wrote:
> On Jul 21, 12:53 pm, sisu1a > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi All,
>
> > An SSA 'Master' CFIG I know is perpetually hammering it into his
> > students that to initiate a turn in a glider, the FIRST thing you do
> > is feed in rudder. On his 1-5 list of making a turn in a glider, #1 is
> > rudder (as it's own separate input). While this may be aerodynamically
> > acceptable practice for a 2-33, it seems a recipie for disaster in
> > other ships to begin a turn by intentionally skidding. Since in a
> > pinch, one has a tendency to revert to instincts that were first
> > learned/practiced (right OR wrong), I see this as a setup for possible
> > future problems.
> > Since I have issues with this, I want to gather some other opinions
> > (particularly those of other CFI's) to help present a case to
> > possibly get this corrected. He holds little value of MYopinion, so I
> > was hoping to get some 'name brand' opinions to help my case. And if I
> > am just putting to much into this, I would rather hear it from this
> > group.
>
> > -Paul
>
> When introducing yaw control, I teach "lead with the rudder" slightly.
> This is done because
> most people(almost all) are better with their hand than their feet.
> This is done while pointing out that yaw and roll should start
> together to create an effective turn entry. This is done as timing
> only and is NOT allowed to create the impression that the rudder turns
> the glider. Within a very few flights this timing has been learned and
> "lead with the rudder" does not come up again unless the student has
> coordination trouble.
> Skidding truns are not tolerated.
> I also teach "lead with the stick" on the exit for the same reason.
> I also teach "lead with the rudder" on turn stall and incipient spin
> recoveries.
> Let the flames begin.
> UH

That's all pretty sensible and defensible compared to what was
described by the OP. No flames from me.

[Bill Daniels]

"sisu1a" > wrote in message
...
>I feel compelled at this point to add that this guy does not promote
> stomping the rudder or other outwardly unsafe flying habits and is
> absolutely fanatical about keeping the string straight, to the point
> of obnoxiousness. He would not accept my explanation of mildly
> slipping during thermaling ala' Holighaus/Johnson on a flight last
> year, outright rejecting it on principal (he was sure I read the
> article wrong or remembered it incorrectly).
>
> I also want to add that my concern is geared toward what ab-initio
> students should or should not be taught, as it is very hard to unlearn
> something, no matter how wrong. As far as I understand the human
> brain, it will most likely revert to these early lessons when/if a
> 'situation' arises and stress levels are very high.
>
> I certainly don't think he should have his ticket yanked by any means,
> I just have my own reservations about the soundness of *possibly*
> instilling reflexes into people that can potentially be dangerous if
> reverted to at an inopportune moment. This forum seems like a good
> place for this discussion, to see how others more qualified than I
> weigh in on the subject before making it a campaign and I thank
> everyone thus far for their thoughtful responses.
>
> -Paul

I'm uncomfortable with teaching "lead with rudder" to primary students. In
fact, aerodynamically, there is no need for rudder until adverse yaw
manifests itself so both rudder and aileron should be applied
simultaneously.

Where this idea comes from, I think, is that it often FEELS like rudder
input needs to come first. This is because most people move their feet
slower than their hands. If your brain tells your hands and feet to move at
the same time, the hands will move first. If you consiously try to move
your feet a fraction of a second before your hands, it's likely they will
move at nearly the same time.

The problem with "institutionalizing" the rudder-first idea is that as
pilots gain experience, their hands and feet will start moving in
synchronization leading to real rudder first action and inadvertant skidding
turn entries.

I tell students to move the rudder and ailerons at the same time but to
expect that, at first, their sluggish feet reactions will make it feel as if
they need to use the rudder first. Later, when they have more experience,
it will feel like they are moving them at the same time.

So much for inadvertant skiding turn entries. It is actually an advantage
to deliberately skid turn entries with some gliders. If the glider has a
lot of dihedral, there will be a strong yaw-to-roll coupling effect which
adds to the roll effect from the ailerons. Slightly skidding the turn
entries with my Nimbus 2C will cut a second off the 45 degree right bank to
45 degree left bank turn reversal which is significant in a 20m glider.

BTW, the effect of the Holinghaus/Johnson slipping turn is not to achieve
"fuselage lift" but to use the dihedral yaw to roll coupling to hold off
overbanking while keeping the ailerons centered. Centered ailerons keeps
the wing profile intact tip to tip resulting in a greater rate of climb. It
also has the added safety benefit that if the glider stalls it is likely to
drop the high wing giving the pilot an additional second or so to recover
wings level.

Bill D

[Don Johnstone[_3_]]

At 02:56 22 July 2008, Bill Daniels wrote: (Snip)
>
>I'm uncomfortable with teaching "lead with rudder" to primary
students.
>In
>fact, aerodynamically, there is no need for rudder until adverse yaw
>manifests itself so both rudder and aileron should be applied
>simultaneously.

>
>Bill D
>

So am I and I personally have never done that. I have pointed out to post
solo pilots that the technique of leading with the rudder on some gliders
(Grob103 in particular) will clean up the entry to a turn where it is
intended to use large aileron input, it seems prevent the adverse yaw
starting. It is not necessary for "normal" turn entry. I have never
found it necessary on a ASW glider of any type.

[Martin Gregorie[_3_]]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:53:24 -0700, sisu1a wrote:

I'm not an instructor, but here's my take.

For my taste the earlier G103s, the Acro II and Twin Astir flavours are
rather under ruddered. I find that, when flying these, my turn entries and
exits are cleaner if I very slightly lead with the rudder. This is a
matter of just a few milliseconds: a tenth of a second at most.

Those are the only gliders where I think its needed. The G103C Acro III,
the version with Schuemann wing planform, handles a lot better than the
earlier ones and doesn't need this treatment.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. |
org | Zappa fan & glider pilot

[[email protected]]

On Jul 21, 9:08 pm, sisu1a > wrote:
> I feel compelled at this point to add that this guy does not promote
> stomping the rudder or other outwardly unsafe flying habits and is
> absolutely fanatical about keeping the string straight, to the point
> of obnoxiousness. He would not accept my explanation of mildly
> slipping during thermaling ala' Holighaus/Johnson on a flight last
> year, outright rejecting it on principal (he was sure I read the
> article wrong or remembered it incorrectly).
>
> I also want to add that my concern is geared toward what ab-initio
> students should or should not be taught, as it is very hard to unlearn
> something, no matter how wrong. As far as I understand the human
> brain, it will most likely revert to these early lessons when/if a
> 'situation' arises and stress levels are very high.
>
> I certainly don't think he should have his ticket yanked by any means,
> I just have my own reservations about the soundness of *possibly*
> instilling reflexes into people that can potentially be dangerous if
> reverted to at an inopportune moment. This forum seems like a good
> place for this discussion, to see how others more qualified than I
> weigh in on the subject before making it a campaign and I thank
> everyone thus far for their thoughtful responses.
>
> -Paul

Paul -- I can't reconcile these statements and your OP. How does one
teach applying rudder "first, as it's own control movement" and yet be
absolutely fanatical about keeping the yaw string centered?

[Michel Talon]

PMSC Member > wrote:
> We all know there are certain gliders that, under certain
> circumstances, are best flown with leading rudder. Typically, we're
> talking about a glass ship with heavy wings (esp. with water) and
> thermal entry at thermaling speed, at altitude.
>
> Not trainers.
>
> Not students.
>
> Not if the spoilers are open.
>
> Not in the pattern.
>
> Not at low agl altitude under any circumstance.
>
>
> Is is REALLY necessary to review the stats on stall/spin accidents,
> AGAIN?
>
> I have never in 20 odd years met an instructor that teaches students
> this way, and have great difficulty believing this is as common as you
> suggest.
>
> This doesn't worry you? You don't understand the problem. And you
> aren't going to figure it out reading usenet :-). See a good CFIG.
>
> The idea that any CFIG would teach this way frankly astounds me. I
> regard it as malpractice of the very worst sort. The fact that various
> people on this group report this as a not uncommon practice troubles
> me. To the extent that this is true, it supports the allegation that
> many pilots simply don't have the knowledge to fly safely.


Add me to the list of people who have been instructed by their first
instructor to turn mostly with rudder. This guy was routinely flying
at small distance from ridges using this method (it was at Pic Saint
Loup, France http://cvvm.free.fr/index/index.php), and he was the chief
instructor. One of his other sayings was "there are no good pilots,
there are old ones". I don't know how he lived to this principle,
because, indeed i fully agree with "PMSC Member". Especially when
all this was on an ASK 13, which does very nice spins. Of course
this junk was rationalized with a large infusion of crappy theories
about adverse yaw or whatever, when it is very clear that flying
perfectly symmetrical is always the optimum aerodynamically, and,
more important, the safest.

--

Michel TALON

[Mike the Strike]

>
> Those are the only gliders where I think its needed.
>

Never flown a Jantar-1?

Horribly under-ruddered, as I recall, needing lots of boot to
coordinate a turn and preferring it applied a tad before aileron.

Mike

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jul 22, 5:44*am, (Michel Talon) wrote:
> PMSC Member > wrote:
> > We all know there are certain gliders that, under certain
> > circumstances, are best flown with leading rudder. *Typically, we're
> > talking about a glass ship with heavy wings (esp. with water) and
> > thermal entry at thermaling speed, at altitude.
>
> > Not trainers.
>
> > Not students.
>
> > Not if the spoilers are open.
>
> > Not in the pattern.
>
> > Not at low agl altitude under any circumstance.
>
> > Is is REALLY necessary to review the stats on stall/spin accidents,
> > AGAIN?
>
> > I have never in 20 odd years met an instructor that teaches students
> > this way, and have great difficulty believing this is as common as you
> > suggest.
>
> > This doesn't worry you? *You don't understand the problem. *And you
> > aren't going to figure it out reading usenet :-). *See a good CFIG.
>
> > The idea that any CFIG would teach this way frankly astounds me. *I
> > regard it as malpractice of the very worst sort. The fact that various
> > people on this group report this as a not uncommon practice troubles
> > me. *To the extent that this is true, it supports the allegation that
> > many pilots simply don't have the knowledge to fly safely.
>
> Add me to the list of people who have been instructed by their first
> instructor to turn mostly with rudder. This guy was routinely flying
> at small distance from ridges using this method (it was at Pic Saint
> Loup, Francehttp://cvvm.free.fr/index/index.php), and he was the chief
> instructor. One of his other sayings was "there are no good pilots,
> there are old ones". I don't know how he lived to this principle,
> because, indeed i fully agree with "PMSC Member". Especially when
> all this was on an ASK 13, which does very nice spins. Of course
> this junk was rationalized with a large infusion of crappy theories
> about adverse yaw or whatever, when it is very clear that flying
> perfectly symmetrical is always the optimum aerodynamically, and,
> more important, the safest.
>
> --
>
> Michel TALON

It is not clear the original post was "turn mostly wth rudder" - if so
that would be strange advice. I read this as "number 1 thing" is the
instructor is suggesting doing this first. Other instructors would
commonly state this as "lead with rudder" (which I think will be
fairly common advice or at least discussed by many instructors). Here
is a case where use of language could be confusing to students if not
properly explained, but again I hope there was a lot more explanation,
demonstration, practice etc. involved.

Darryl

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jul 22, 6:55*am, Mike the Strike > wrote:
> > Those are the only gliders where I think its needed.
>
> Never flown a Jantar-1?
>
> Horribly under-ruddered, as I recall, needing lots of boot to
> coordinate a turn and preferring it applied a tad before aileron.
>
> Mike

ASH-25, and I'd assume a Nimbus, etc. (yes not much training done in
those).

Darryl

[sisu1a]

On Jul 22, 4:44 am, wrote:
> On Jul 21, 9:08 pm, sisu1a > wrote:
>
>
>
> > I feel compelled at this point to add that this guy does not promote
> > stomping the rudder or other outwardly unsafe flying habits and is
> > absolutely fanatical about keeping the string straight, to the point
> > of obnoxiousness. He would not accept my explanation of mildly
> > slipping during thermaling ala' Holighaus/Johnson on a flight last
> > year, outright rejecting it on principal (he was sure I read the
> > article wrong or remembered it incorrectly).
>
> > I also want to add that my concern is geared toward what ab-initio
> > students should or should not be taught, as it is very hard to unlearn
> > something, no matter how wrong. As far as I understand the human
> > brain, it will most likely revert to these early lessons when/if a
> > 'situation' arises and stress levels are very high.
>
> > I certainly don't think he should have his ticket yanked by any means,
> > I just have my own reservations about the soundness of *possibly*
> > instilling reflexes into people that can potentially be dangerous if
> > reverted to at an inopportune moment. This forum seems like a good
> > place for this discussion, to see how others more qualified than I
> > weigh in on the subject before making it a campaign and I thank
> > everyone thus far for their thoughtful responses.
>
> > -Paul
>
> Paul -- I can't reconcile these statements and your OP. How does one
> teach applying rudder "first, as it's own control movement" and yet be
> absolutely fanatical about keeping the yaw string centered?


Well, it makes instruction with him about as much fun as it sounds
(assuming your not a hapless student that doesn't know better and
would never stand up to his authority which BTW is very authoritative,
complete w/yelling tendencies but I digress...). It should be noted
that he is using a 2-33 (our other trainer is an L-13 Blanik, which he
is convinced it is awful for instruction compared to the wonderful
2-33...) to push this technique, which is not exactly snappy in ANY
responses so I doubt the string is getting too far in most of the
time. 95% of the instruction he does is with newbies who won't talk
back, so your point is probably never brought up (the rest of the
folks just grit their teeth, bite their tongue and finish their BFR
ASAP).
Recapping, my real concern of this does not come from how the 2-33
specifically likes/dislikes it. My concern comes from building this
technique by rote as a reflex in students because it translates poorly
to most other gliders, and seems like it could potentially lead to
disaster down the road, from my limited perspective. Honest, this
stuff actually gets written on a board and drilled into students
heads, I'm not making this up.

-Paul
(trying to keep descriptions as generic as possible because I DON'T
want to call him out)

[Martin Gregorie[_3_]]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:52:43 -0700, Darryl Ramm wrote:

> On Jul 22, 6:55*am, Mike the Strike > wrote:
>> > Those are the only gliders where I think its needed.
>>
>> Never flown a Jantar-1?
>>
>> Horribly under-ruddered, as I recall, needing lots of boot to
>> coordinate a turn and preferring it applied a tad before aileron.
>>
>> Mike
>
> ASH-25, and I'd assume a Nimbus, etc. (yes not much training done in
> those).
>
The only one of those I've handled was a Nimbus 3, which seemed to
handle OK apart from the rudder forces and the (to me anyway) large
amounts of inertia about all three axes. Mind you, that was on a really
difficult day - little drift but solid overcast at 3000 ft and only wide
diameter, weak lift under it, so anything other than gentle turns would
have lost more than they gained. We stayed up 3 hours to get some value
from the tow and never got higher than 2800 ft or more than 10 miles from
home.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. |
org | Zappa fan & glider pilot

[John Smith]

> all this was on an ASK 13, which does very nice spins. Of course
> this junk was rationalized with a large infusion of crappy theories
> about adverse yaw or whatever, when it is very clear that flying

I've heard a similiar theory: When flying along a ridge, always keep the
glider slightly slipping (keep the wing which points to the ridge
slightly leading), because like this, if you happen to fall in a spin,
it will turn away from the ridge...

As the instructor was in his seventies, I decided it wasn't worth a dispute.

[PMSC Member]

On Jul 22, 11:57 am, sisu1a > wrote:

> Well, it makes instruction with him about as much fun as it sounds

[...]

> My concern comes from building this
> technique by rote as a reflex in students because it translates poorly
> to most other gliders, and seems like it could potentially lead to
> disaster down the road, from my limited perspective. Honest, this
> stuff actually gets written on a board and drilled into students
> heads, I'm not making this up.

Got a real peach there :-).

Obviously, I think your concern is valid. Primacy is real.

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

sisu1a wrote:

>An SSA 'Master' CFIG I know is perpetually hammering it into his
>students that to initiate a turn in a glider, the FIRST thing you do
>is feed in rudder.
>-Paul

I fly mostly Std. class 15m glass planes (sometimes Duo Discus) and I've
found that I feel it is the rate of rudder application that differs to make a
coodinated turn. I tend to move my hands and feet simulaneously but find how
quickly I get the rudder out to an optimum deflection for a turn is the
difference in the planes I fly.

Thats my sense of things.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/soaring/200807/1

[Brian[_1_]]

On Jul 22, 11:27*am, PMSC Member > wrote:
> On Jul 22, 11:57 am, sisu1a > wrote:
>
> > Well, it makes instruction with him about as much fun as it sounds
>
> [...]
>
> > My concern comes from building this
> > technique by rote as a reflex in students because it translates poorly
> > to most other gliders, and seems like it could potentially lead to
> > disaster down the road, from my limited perspective. Honest, this
> > stuff actually gets written on a board and drilled into students
> > heads, I'm not making this up.
>
> Got a real peach there :-).
>
> Obviously, I think your concern is valid. *Primacy is real.

It is just my opinion but I don't think that teaching to "Lead with
the Rudder" is a bad thing and actually has some positives.
True intially adding rudder might initiate a spin when just above
stall, But the next thing you do is add aileron that reduces AOA on
the inboard wing which reduces the chance of it spinning or
continuing to Spin.
Even if it does enter a Spin, the Correct recover proceedure is a form
of "Lead with the Rudder" i.e. opposite rudder.

I find the instructing to "lead with the rudder" in many gliders is
just anticiping the adverse yaw and produces a more coordinated turn,
especially with new students.

Brian

[Jim White[_2_]]

At 09:41 22 July 2008, Don Johnstone wrote:
I have never
>found it necessary on a ASW glider of any type.


It may not be necessary Don, but it is effective. How many competitions
have you won in your ASWs (of any type)?

[Jim White[_2_]]

At 09:41 22 July 2008, Don Johnstone wrote:
I have never
>found it necessary on a ASW glider of any type.


It may not be necessary Don, but it is effective. How many competitions
have you won in your ASWs (of any type)?

[Don Johnstone[_3_]]

At 20:56 22 July 2008, Jim White wrote:
>At 09:41 22 July 2008, Don Johnstone wrote:
> I have never
>>found it necessary on a ASW glider of any type.
>
>
>It may not be necessary Don, but it is effective. How many competitions
>have you won in your ASWs (of any type)?

What has that got to do with anything. I was commenting on the handling
properties. Gliders designed by Weber, the W of ASW tend to be very well
co-ordinated and do not require any strange rudder input. This was
certainly true of the ASW17 and all the smaller ASWs, sadly I cannot
comment on the ASW22. I would say that leading with rudder where it is not
necessary is in-efficient and could delay achieving a constant turn rate.
On the other hand flying a Grob 103 and avoiding adverse yaw with large
aileron inputs was a different matter, leading with rudder led to a much
more clean entry. The other two main types I have flown a lot the Discus
and LS8 did not require leading with rudder, and in my experience neither
did the ASK21.

I might not have won any comps but I have been an instructor for over 40
years and I am still walking about, must have done something right.

[noel.wade]

I love how some pilots are so bull-headed and opinionated about exact
procedures. The whole point of receiving training is to develop
skills and JUDGEMENT about the best course of action under different
circumstances! As a glider pilot who flies a landing-pattern full of
semi-subjective criteria, you ought to KNOW that each case is unique.

All of these people huffing and puffing about what you "must" do or
"can't" do or what's "always" right or wrong are missing the whole
point. You have to remain flexible and treat each situation as a
unique one - giving it full consideration and taking into account all
of the variables (no matter how they come at you).

Here's a recent situation in my club that illustrates how poorly
blanket rules work:

I acquired a DG-300. I've never flown one, but I love them and have
sat in a few on the ground. I owned a Russia for a year before
upgrading. This year I put nearly 20 hours into flying an LS-4 at
Minden, plus some time in a Discus, SZD-55, and even a couple of short
flights in a Mini-Nimbus. I studied hard but was flatly REFUSED the
chance to fly with my club the first week I had the glider, because
the club was operating out of a remote airfield. A CFIG at the field
swore it was unsafe for me (a "low time" pilot) to fly a new aircraft
the first time at a "dangerous" airfield (even though I'd flown there
several times before). He would not take into account my preparation,
judgement, or the currency of my skills - he relied on blanket rules
and judged me on my total time.

So what happened the very next week? An extremely skilled former
airline pilot with thousands of hours was allowed to take up a club
ship. He's a friendly and helpful person who I like very much - but
he's been out of the area for most of a year. It is questionable
whether our club guidelines on currency were checked before he flew.
He landed a club glider short of the field and twisted it up
(thankfully no injuries) - AT OUR HOME AIRFIELD. Meanwhile, I was in
the desert at another remote strip that I'd flown at only once
before. I put almost 10 hours on my new glider in 1 weekend, racking
up a lot of safe miles.

Bottom line: Blanket rules don't work, and no one is immune from bad
judgement or poor preparation no matter their location, age, or past
experience.

You MUST be prepared and you MUST exercise good judgement in ALL
phases of your flying (pre-flight preparation through post-flight
storage) - and those are the ONLY criteria that matter in the end.
GOOD instructors (of which there are far too few) need to be teaching
those things, not hard-and-fast rules or robotic procedures to be
followed to the letter. Good instructors should also be judging
pilots NOT just on how they follow a checklist or repeat a set of
steps they've been shown; but rather how the pilot reacts to different
circumstances and exercises good judgement and decision-making.

If a pilot (be it a student or a veteran) can't show good judgement
and timely decision-making, they have no business being Pilot In
Command.

I would argue that by the time you take your check-ride, you should
understand the aerodynamics and physics of your aircraft well enough
to know safe inputs from unsafe control inputs. How ONE particular
aircraft responds to those inputs and what makes it fly best is a set
of judgements (...there's that word again...) that you can only
develop with understanding and experience.

--Noel
[rant over]

[Derek Copeland]

At 20:56 22 July 2008, Jim White wrote:
>At 09:41 22 July 2008, Don Johnstone wrote:
> I have never
>>found it necessary on a ASW glider of any type.
>
>
>It may not be necessary Don, but it is effective. How many competitions
>have you won in your ASWs (of any type)?
>
Jim, what's this got to do with argument? A BGA National Coach said of
one top UK competition glider pilot "The only time the slip ball is ever
in the middle is as it crashes from one side to the other!" Top
competition pilots are very good at knowing WHERE to fly to find the best
lift and do not necessarily have to have perfect handling skills.

Del Copeland

[Jim White[_2_]]

Nonsense...if you don't fly the glider efficiently you won't climb or
glide well and you certainly won't win. Accurate flying is fundamental to
XC speed.

btw Don, the W in ASW is Waibel. duh

At 06:11 23 July 2008, Derek Copeland wrote:

>Jim, what's this got to do with argument? A BGA National Coach said of
>one top UK competition glider pilot "The only time the slip ball is
ever
>in the middle is as it crashes from one side to the other!" Top
>competition pilots are very good at knowing WHERE to fly to find the
best
>lift and do not necessarily have to have perfect handling skills.
>
>Del Copeland
>

[Z Goudie[_2_]]

I used to briefly get absolute beginners to turn using aileron with their
feet off the pedals while I surruptitiously did the ruddery bits and then,
once they'd grasped the fact that banking was the reason the glider
turned, get them to use both together.

Teaching rudder first to ab initios is tantamount to a criminal offence in
my opinion.

[Cats]

On Jul 23, 10:56*am, Z Goudie > wrote:
> I used to briefly get absolute beginners to turn using aileron with their
> feet off the pedals while I surruptitiously did the ruddery bits and then,
> once they'd grasped the fact that banking was the reason the glider
> turned, get them to use both together.

There was nothing secret about the back seat chap working the rudders
while I did the stick on my first flight.


> Teaching rudder first to ab initios is tantamount to a criminal offence in
> my opinion.

[Bruce]

For what it is worth - we teach sequentially (in South Africa) the primary effects of controls.

So - for ab-initios it is -
First control - stick forward and back for speed control. Instructor worries about all the rest (Aileron, airbrakes and
rudder). Student ignores string, and direction.
Once bloggs has mastered that the primary effect of the elevators is to control speed, we move on to ailerons
Second control - learn to turn the aircraft with aileron - instructor now only controlling rudder and airbrakes.
Student wories about speed and learns to control direction. Stringf stays where it should be because the instructor is
doint it. Once the student has this one sorted we let him / her put feet on rudders and start teaching co-ordination.
Once that is pretty well sorted the airbrakes are an easy logical next step.
Then we start on permutations like slips and spins and all those other complications.

Works pretty well - when student gets confused about "what does this control do?" - primacy takes over and they tend to
do appropriate things more often.

In my opinion - Anyone who teaches by rote and/or a method that will induce unco-ordinated turns as the primary memory
is dangerous.

For what it is worth I learned this way on a Bergfalke 2/55 - in the gliding encyclopaedia, the definition of "adverse
yaw" says - refer to "Bergfalke". It is notoriously under ruddered and hard to co-ordinate. I certainly learned to use
the rudder, and on almost every conversion since have found myself having to back off on the rudder. But it is
relatively instinctive to apply the - "feet make the string straight" rule. Student learns to make appropriate control
inputs to balance the aircraft, not some set of rules. That brings images of the Prussian officer in those magnificent
men in their flying machines to mind...

Z Goudie wrote:
> I used to briefly get absolute beginners to turn using aileron with their
> feet off the pedals while I surruptitiously did the ruddery bits and then,
> once they'd grasped the fact that banking was the reason the glider
> turned, get them to use both together.
>
> Teaching rudder first to ab initios is tantamount to a criminal offence in
> my opinion.

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

At 20:16 22 July 2008, Brian wrote:
>
>I find the instructing to "lead with the rudder" in many gliders is
>just anticiping the adverse yaw and produces a more coordinated turn,
>especially with new students.

My initial reaction to this thread that make an iron-clad
rule to "always lead with the rudder" wasn't very bright.
I agree with the folks who have said - do whatever it
takes to keep the turn coordinated. And of course this
is going to vary from glider to glider. Each type is different.

Brian makes another good point here, though, when it
comes to instructing (I'm not an instructor, and have no
desire to be one - I couldn't take the excitement). Each
student is different, so you do whatever it takes to get
the message across. They'll figure it out eventually.

Jim Beckman

[Derek Copeland]

On the other hand, I know plenty of pilots who fly perfectly coordinated
turns, but who are absolutely cr@p cross-country and competition pilots.

Del Copeland

At 07:26 23 July 2008, Jim White wrote:
>Nonsense...if you don't fly the glider efficiently you won't climb or
>glide well and you certainly won't win. Accurate flying is fundamental
to
>XC speed.
>
>At 06:11 23 July 2008, Derek Copeland wrote:
>
>>Jim, what's this got to do with the argument? A BGA National Coach said
of
>>one top UK competition glider pilot "The only time the slip ball is
>ever
>>in the middle is as it crashes from one side to the other!" Top
>>competition pilots are very good at knowing WHERE to fly to find the
>best
>>lift and do not necessarily have to have perfect handling skills.
>>
>>Del Copeland
>>
>

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jul 23, 5:13*am, Bruce > wrote:
> For what it is worth - we teach sequentially (in South Africa) the primary effects of controls.

I don't know if what you wrote is actually what you teach, but what
you wrote does not describe the primary effects of the controls, at
least not as I was taught.

Elevator - primary effect pitch attitude change, secondary effect
speed change
Aileron - primary effect roll attitude change, secondary effect
adverse yaw
Rudder - primary effect yaw attitude change, secondary effect roll

Andy

[Don Johnstone[_3_]]

Jim, we are not talking about cross country flying but about entering,
maintaining and exiting a turn as smoothly as possible. With 10000
launches 99% from a winch I would suggest that my "scratching"
credentials are pretty good. If you can thermal away a T31 or any other
glider come to that, from 500ft on a regular basis you have to be
efficient. Most cross countrys start from a aerotow into the moronosphere.
Of course competition pilots have to fly accurately, or fit a turbo, but
they are not necessarily the best low down scratching pilots. Just because
80% of the pilots in the UK are not competition pilots dones not make them
any less skilled, and to suggest otherwise is an insult.

At 07:26 23 July 2008, Jim White wrote:
>Nonsense...if you don't fly the glider efficiently you won't climb or
>glide well and you certainly won't win. Accurate flying is fundamental
to
>XC speed.
>
>btw Don, the W in ASW is Waibel. duh
>
>At 06:11 23 July 2008, Derek Copeland wrote:
>
>>Jim, what's this got to do with argument? A BGA National Coach said of
>>one top UK competition glider pilot "The only time the slip ball is
>ever
>>in the middle is as it crashes from one side to the other!" Top
>>competition pilots are very good at knowing WHERE to fly to find the
>best
>>lift and do not necessarily have to have perfect handling skills.
>>
>>Del Copeland
>>
>

[Don Johnstone[_3_]]

At 13:17 23 July 2008, Andy wrote:
>On Jul 23, 5:13=A0am, Bruce wrote:
>> For what it is worth - we teach sequentially (in South Africa) the
>primar=
>y effects of controls.
>
>I don't know if what you wrote is actually what you teach, but what
>you wrote does not describe the primary effects of the controls, at
>least not as I was taught.
>
>Elevator - primary effect pitch attitude change, secondary effect
>speed change
>Aileron - primary effect roll attitude change, secondary effect
>adverse yaw
>Rudder - primary effect yaw attitude change, secondary effect roll
>
>Andy

The primary effect of elevator is to change the pitch attitude. There is
no true secondary effect.
The primary effect of aileron is roll, the secondary effect is yaw IN THE
DIRECTION OF THE AILERON APPLICATION, resulting in a spiral dive. In other
words if you keep aileron applied to the right the aircraft will roll right
and then yaw right. Adverse yaw is not the secondary effect. Any adverse
yaw present with the application of the aileron will be cancelled out when
the glider slips to the right.
Rudder is correct. The result is a spiral dive.

[HL Falbaum]

"sisu1a" > wrote in message
...
> On Jul 22, 4:44 am, wrote:
>> On Jul 21, 9:08 pm, sisu1a > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > I feel compelled at this point to add that this guy does not promote
>> > stomping the rudder or other outwardly unsafe flying habits and is
>> > absolutely fanatical about keeping the string straight, to the point
>> > of obnoxiousness. He would not accept my explanation of mildly
>> > slipping during thermaling ala' Holighaus/Johnson on a flight last
>> > year, outright rejecting it on principal (he was sure I read the
>> > article wrong or remembered it incorrectly).
>>
>> > I also want to add that my concern is geared toward what ab-initio
>> > students should or should not be taught, as it is very hard to unlearn
>> > something, no matter how wrong. As far as I understand the human
>> > brain, it will most likely revert to these early lessons when/if a
>> > 'situation' arises and stress levels are very high.
>>
>> > I certainly don't think he should have his ticket yanked by any means,
>> > I just have my own reservations about the soundness of *possibly*
>> > instilling reflexes into people that can potentially be dangerous if
>> > reverted to at an inopportune moment. This forum seems like a good
>> > place for this discussion, to see how others more qualified than I
>> > weigh in on the subject before making it a campaign and I thank
>> > everyone thus far for their thoughtful responses.
>>
>> > -Paul
>>
>> Paul -- I can't reconcile these statements and your OP. How does one
>> teach applying rudder "first, as it's own control movement" and yet be
>> absolutely fanatical about keeping the yaw string centered?
>
>
> Well, it makes instruction with him about as much fun as it sounds
> (assuming your not a hapless student that doesn't know better and
> would never stand up to his authority which BTW is very authoritative,
> complete w/yelling tendencies but I digress...). It should be noted
> that he is using a 2-33 (our other trainer is an L-13 Blanik, which he
> is convinced it is awful for instruction compared to the wonderful
> 2-33...) to push this technique, which is not exactly snappy in ANY
> responses so I doubt the string is getting too far in most of the
> time. 95% of the instruction he does is with newbies who won't talk
> back, so your point is probably never brought up (the rest of the
> folks just grit their teeth, bite their tongue and finish their BFR
> ASAP).
> Recapping, my real concern of this does not come from how the 2-33
> specifically likes/dislikes it. My concern comes from building this
> technique by rote as a reflex in students because it translates poorly
> to most other gliders, and seems like it could potentially lead to
> disaster down the road, from my limited perspective. Honest, this
> stuff actually gets written on a board and drilled into students
> heads, I'm not making this up.
>
> -Paul
> (trying to keep descriptions as generic as possible because I DON'T
> want to call him out)


Well, Paul---
Have you personally been trained by this instructor, or is this second hand
"distilled" information.
Perhaps the full instruction is more complete---or maybe not.

The art of instruction is in learning the essence of the thing to be
taught, then breaking it down into steps so it can be taught. What is
actually being taught is (or should be), coordinated turns. This does not
mean apply the same rudder and aileron movement at the same time, or the
same control pressures at the same time. It means do what it takes to get
the effect desired-i.e. crisp, string centered, constant airspeed turn. How
that is to be done varies from aircraft to aircraft and from airspeed to
other airspeed. If the student learns first what a coordinated turn is and
is not, then everything else falls into place, and the law of primacy will
prevail in a pinch.

Hartley Falbaum USA

[Eric Greenwell]

Jim White wrote:
> Nonsense...if you don't fly the glider efficiently you won't climb or
> glide well and you certainly won't win. Accurate flying is fundamental to
> XC speed.

My experience with losing in contests is being the the right place at
the right time is fundamental to XC speed. I never wished I'd flown more
efficiently! I'm guessing you haven't flown in many contests or talked
to the winners enough. Flying the glider well is about safety, not going
fast.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Jul 22, 4:41*pm, Don Johnstone > wrote:
> ...Gliders designed by Weber, the W of ASW tend to be very well
> co-ordinated...

Off-topic, but who's this Weber guy? I've never heard of him. I'll
have to ask Gerhard Waibel about him...

;)

Thanks, Bob K.
www.hpaircraft.com

[sisu1a]

> Well, Paul---
> Have you personally been trained by this instructor, or is this second hand
> "distilled" information.
> Perhaps the full instruction is more complete---or maybe not.

Hi Harty,

While I showed up to my club already rated a private pilot, I have
indeed experienced this phenomenon first hand. Being the new guy, I
kept my mouth shut during my field check flights and subsequent ship
checkout flights. While doing some airwork on my commercial at a later
date though, he was very upset with my turn coordination as I was
resisting his very loud/high pitched insistence that I MUST lead with
the rudder for proper turn coordination in a glider-period. I
explained to him that the plane I normally flew (Sisu 1a) would not
appreciate that very much, nor would a lot of other ships I have the
aspirations to fly, that it was contrary to my previous training, and
a reflex that I would rather not develop. In my book slipping =
inefficient while skidding = dangerous, no mater how loud you yell.

He also was very upset with my thermalling technique (the mild slip
thing), and in his eyes that reflected on my qualifications as a
commercial pilot (I tried to explain that I only wanted to cover PTS
issues, and that my personal thermalling technique was not actually
part of the PTS...). He has already accused me of 'arguing' with him,
when defending myself from things he was trying to ding me for that he
was simply NOT right about (seems the FAA wanted to 'argue' with him
too once books got involved). I personally wrote off flying with him
(actually, the only ones who go up with him are newbs or BFR's in a
pinch), but when I am on the ground I am constantly hearing his lesson
on how a glider turns, and just in case I heard wrong all those times
(including in the air...) it is also in writing. It just really annoys
me, since this guy teaches this SO authoritatively along with other
flat out misconceptions (although the rudder is the only one I deemed
potentially hazardous and am seeking outside opinions on). I'm trying
my best not to smear, as that would be unproductive and this fellow
DOES have a lot to offer despite my feelings on this issue. Ignorance
is curable, and luckily this guys' not stupid.

-Paul

[noel.wade]

Paul -

Just so you know, you're not alone. We too have instructors up here
who misunderstand what a "CFIG" rating means.

We say that a PPL is a "license to learn". We need to emphasize that
a CFI certificate is simply a "license to teach" - not a license to
have all the answers or to have a God-complex.

And a CFI cert does not mean you STOP learning; though many seem to
think getting one of these is a signal that they know all they'll ever
need to.

--Noel

[Bruce]

Blush

I should learn to not write in such a hurry - that was very poorly said.

What I was trying to get across was that we teach the effect of controls (as you have described so succinctly) in the
sequence I described. We also teach primary effect first, then the secondary effect then move on to the next control.
Students only learn one control at a time.
Because it is a logical progression of complexity, and the primacy principle then works for you.

Andy wrote:
> On Jul 23, 5:13 am, Bruce > wrote:
>> For what it is worth - we teach sequentially (in South Africa) the primary effects of controls.
>
> I don't know if what you wrote is actually what you teach, but what
> you wrote does not describe the primary effects of the controls, at
> least not as I was taught.
>
> Elevator - primary effect pitch attitude change, secondary effect
> speed change
> Aileron - primary effect roll attitude change, secondary effect
> adverse yaw
> Rudder - primary effect yaw attitude change, secondary effect roll
>
> Andy

[Cats]

On Jul 23, 6:14*pm, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> On Jul 22, 4:41*pm, Don Johnstone > wrote:
>
> > ...Gliders designed by Weber, the W of ASW tend to be very well
> > co-ordinated...
>
> Off-topic, but who's this Weber guy? I've never heard of him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Maria_von_Weber

> I'll have to ask Gerhard Waibel about him...
>
> ;)
>
> Thanks, Bob K.www.hpaircraft.com

[noel.wade]

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Maria_von_Weber

Ah, I loved performing his Clarinet pieces (they rank right behind
Mozart's Clarinet Concerto as my favorite to play)

....And I didn't even know he was into gliders!! ;-)

--Noel

[Cats]

On Jul 24, 2:43*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Maria_von_Weber
>
> Ah, I loved performing his Clarinet pieces (they rank right behind
> Mozart's Clarinet Concerto as my favorite to play)
>
> ...And I didn't even know he was into gliders!! ;-)
>
> --Noel

Is there no end to the talents of people here? :)

Personally I prefer the Mozart both to play & listen to by a country
mile, but sadly many great composers didn't create a clarinet
concerto. Beethoven, Schubert & Brahms come straight to mind, though
Brahms wrote some truely sublime chamber music for it.

[user]

Bad habits don't discriminate based on titles. Sadly, titles can more easily
pass on those bad habits as best practices. The rudder first approach is
something gleaned by many pilots from the stories about a few marginally
controllable "super gliders" from a previous generation of the sport. Its
reapplication to certain "underruddered" two-place training gliders shows a
remarkable lack of understanding of coordination.

Here's the crux of the problem... the rudder first approach is most
effective at low speed, when the ailerons produce the greatest adverse yaw
and the vertical stabilizer has less righting force. When is coordination
most important?

To make your argument I'd focus on the following:

Lack of coordination is universally discouraged. Any training regimen which
promotes lack of coordination needs to justify it based on both increased
controllability AND uncompromised safety.

Generally, all sailplanes require more rudder with less aileron at low speed
to remain coordinated. Shouldn't pilots be taught to discern the difference
in control effectiveness throughout the speed range rather than to simply
using an expedient that "works" in one case?

If you teach someone from the outset to lead with rudder, isn't it likely he
will continue this practice for ALL aircraft and in all conditions?

Modern aircraft are built to standards of controllability. Does your model's
operator's manual suggest leading with the rudder? If not, why not?

And finally, from an aesthetic point of view, it's just plain sloppy. As a
CFI, I'd question the abilities of a pilot who couldn't make a coordinated
turn in a modern glider (SGS 2-33 included) all the way down to MCA. Slewing
the nose before banking... every time you turn? My comment to the pilot
would be to fly the glider you're in, not the one you're fantasizing about.

;-)


"sisu1a" > wrote in message
...
> Hi All,
>
> An SSA 'Master' CFIG I know is perpetually hammering it into his
> students that to initiate a turn in a glider, the FIRST thing you do
> is feed in rudder. On his 1-5 list of making a turn in a glider, #1 is
> rudder (as it's own separate input). While this may be aerodynamically
> acceptable practice for a 2-33, it seems a recipie for disaster in
> other ships to begin a turn by intentionally skidding. Since in a
> pinch, one has a tendency to revert to instincts that were first
> learned/practiced (right OR wrong), I see this as a setup for possible
> future problems.
> Since I have issues with this, I want to gather some other opinions
> (particularly those of other CFI's) to help present a case to
> possibly get this corrected. He holds little value of MYopinion, so I
> was hoping to get some 'name brand' opinions to help my case. And if I
> am just putting to much into this, I would rather hear it from this
> group.
>
> -Paul

[Chris Reed[_2_]]

I'd say this post provides an excellent summary.

There are gliders where, to obtain improved performance, it is sometimes
helpful to fly uncoordinated. For example, to persuade my Open Cirrus
(1967 design, 17.7m span) to turn into a strong thermal, it's sometimes
most effective to yaw it towards the thermal enough to induce the
beginning of a wing drop - then catch it and continue into the turn.

BUT, this is deliberate uncoordinated flying. If you haven't been taught
to fly coordinated, you won't be able to recognise when and where it's
safe to do the opposite.

In the circuit, or thermalling low down, I work really hard to keep my
turns coordinated. Attempting to turn in the way I described above would
be a recipe for disaster. I only do it in the circumstances I described
because I was TAUGHT to fly coordinated, and now have enough experience
(I hope) to recognise when it's safe to do something else. The default
should always be coordinated flying.

user wrote:
> Bad habits don't discriminate based on titles. Sadly, titles can more easily
> pass on those bad habits as best practices. The rudder first approach is
> something gleaned by many pilots from the stories about a few marginally
> controllable "super gliders" from a previous generation of the sport. Its
> reapplication to certain "underruddered" two-place training gliders shows a
> remarkable lack of understanding of coordination.
>
> Here's the crux of the problem... the rudder first approach is most
> effective at low speed, when the ailerons produce the greatest adverse yaw
> and the vertical stabilizer has less righting force. When is coordination
> most important?
>
> To make your argument I'd focus on the following:
>
> Lack of coordination is universally discouraged. Any training regimen which
> promotes lack of coordination needs to justify it based on both increased
> controllability AND uncompromised safety.
>
> Generally, all sailplanes require more rudder with less aileron at low speed
> to remain coordinated. Shouldn't pilots be taught to discern the difference
> in control effectiveness throughout the speed range rather than to simply
> using an expedient that "works" in one case?
>
> If you teach someone from the outset to lead with rudder, isn't it likely he
> will continue this practice for ALL aircraft and in all conditions?
>
> Modern aircraft are built to standards of controllability. Does your model's
> operator's manual suggest leading with the rudder? If not, why not?
>
> And finally, from an aesthetic point of view, it's just plain sloppy. As a
> CFI, I'd question the abilities of a pilot who couldn't make a coordinated
> turn in a modern glider (SGS 2-33 included) all the way down to MCA. Slewing
> the nose before banking... every time you turn? My comment to the pilot
> would be to fly the glider you're in, not the one you're fantasizing about.
>
> ;-)
>
>

[Tony Verhulst]

Chris Reed wrote:
> I'd say this post provides an excellent summary.
>
> There are gliders where, to obtain improved performance, it is sometimes
> helpful to fly uncoordinated. For example, to persuade my Open Cirrus
> (1967 design, 17.7m span) to turn into a strong thermal, it's sometimes
> most effective to yaw it towards the thermal enough to induce the
> beginning of a wing drop - then catch it and continue into the turn.

In the (most excellent) video "A Fine Week of Soaring", George Moffat
says that the handling of some first generation glass ships was so poor
that you could initiate a turn substantially faster by first moving the
stick in the opposite direction. Once the adverse yaw (in the desired
direction)had kicked in, THEN you'd move the ailerons into the turn.

Tony V

[Phil Collin]

Tony Verhulst wrote:
> Chris Reed wrote:
>> I'd say this post provides an excellent summary.
>>
>> There are gliders where, to obtain improved performance, it is
>> sometimes helpful to fly uncoordinated. For example, to persuade my
>> Open Cirrus (1967 design, 17.7m span) to turn into a strong thermal,
>> it's sometimes most effective to yaw it towards the thermal enough to
>> induce the beginning of a wing drop - then catch it and continue into
>> the turn.
>
> In the (most excellent) video "A Fine Week of Soaring", George Moffat
> says that the handling of some first generation glass ships was so poor
> that you could initiate a turn substantially faster by first moving the
> stick in the opposite direction. Once the adverse yaw (in the desired
> direction)had kicked in, THEN you'd move the ailerons into the turn.
>
> Tony V
Sounds like a Nimbus 2 specific quote....

[Chris Reed[_2_]]

I suspect it's a Nimbus 1 specific quote (Open Cirrus fuselage with huge
wings) - see Moffat's Winning on the Wind 1st ed for a description of
the fun he had flying this beast.

I'm told the Nimbus 2 is *way* better handling (even though almost all
opinions I've heard on the 2 - as opposed to the 2c - are not
complimentary).

phil collin wrote:
> Tony Verhulst wrote:
>> Chris Reed wrote:
>>> I'd say this post provides an excellent summary.
>>>
>>> There are gliders where, to obtain improved performance, it is
>>> sometimes helpful to fly uncoordinated. For example, to persuade my
>>> Open Cirrus (1967 design, 17.7m span) to turn into a strong thermal,
>>> it's sometimes most effective to yaw it towards the thermal enough to
>>> induce the beginning of a wing drop - then catch it and continue into
>>> the turn.
>>
>> In the (most excellent) video "A Fine Week of Soaring", George Moffat
>> says that the handling of some first generation glass ships was so
>> poor that you could initiate a turn substantially faster by first
>> moving the stick in the opposite direction. Once the adverse yaw (in
>> the desired direction)had kicked in, THEN you'd move the ailerons into
>> the turn.
>>
>> Tony V
> Sounds like a Nimbus 2 specific quote....

[[email protected]]

On Jul 31, 12:38 pm, Chris Reed > wrote:
> I suspect it's a Nimbus 1 specific quote (Open Cirrus fuselage with huge
> wings) - see Moffat's Winning on the Wind 1st ed for a description of
> the fun he had flying this beast.
>
> I'm told the Nimbus 2 is *way* better handling (even though almost all
> opinions I've heard on the 2 - as opposed to the 2c - are not
> complimentary).
>
> phil collin wrote:
> > Tony Verhulst wrote:
> >> Chris Reed wrote:
> >>> I'd say this post provides an excellent summary.
>
> >>> There are gliders where, to obtain improved performance, it is
> >>> sometimes helpful to fly uncoordinated. For example, to persuade my
> >>> Open Cirrus (1967 design, 17.7m span) to turn into a strong thermal,
> >>> it's sometimes most effective to yaw it towards the thermal enough to
> >>> induce the beginning of a wing drop - then catch it and continue into
> >>> the turn.
>
> >> In the (most excellent) video "A Fine Week of Soaring", George Moffat
> >> says that the handling of some first generation glass ships was so
> >> poor that you could initiate a turn substantially faster by first
> >> moving the stick in the opposite direction. Once the adverse yaw (in
> >> the desired direction)had kicked in, THEN you'd move the ailerons into
> >> the turn.
>
> >> Tony V
> > Sounds like a Nimbus 2 specific quote....

Isn't that the plane that went into a spin during the world content
that he had great difficulty recovering?
Yikes!

I had a partner on an HP-11 that couldn't get enough rudder authority
to handle a
crosswind landing once (full elevator mixed out all the rudder input
for the V-tail). He swung
the ailerons into the wind to use the adverse yaw to kick the nose
around and line
up with the landing (he was a test pilot when he was younger). Not
something
I would have thought of at the time!

In any case the point of leading with the rudder is to get "better"
coordination, not to fly uncoordinated. I wouldn't consider bringing
it up
until the student was fairly advanced. Usually it would have come up
when
I transitioned people into our Grob 103 (after pilot license obtained).

[noel.wade]

I probably shouldn't leap back into this mess, but let me just point
out one more thing:

People tend to think about stick movements and pedal movements when
they talk about "coordinated" flying.

But the truth of the matter is that the airplane doesn't CARE what
goes on in the cockpit. It cares about how the air flows over the
craft and the control surfaces.

"Flying coordinated" means making WHATEVER control inputs are
required, in WHATEVER sequence necessary, to keep the airflow as
orderly and efficient as possible.

IMHO the best pilots are the ones who "detach" themselves and shift
their Point Of View to that of the aircraft itself. They aren't
thinking about the flight in terms of how they perceive it as an
occupant from their particular seating position or their control
stick. Thinking in terms of the aircraft and the air around it is
infinitely better than trying to act as a manipulator of levers and
pulleys inside a tube.

--Noel

[Brad[_2_]]

Anyone that's flown a high performance hang glider, in this case a
Sensor 510, (I'm dating myself here) knows that somtimes we would get
a tip 'stuck" when trying to turn into a strong thermal. One of the
tricks was to "pop" the control bar the opposite way of the desired
turn, and "un-stick" the wing, this would usually result in getting
the wing to go where you wanted it to go.

The other day I was flying with a buddy and we were talking about the
thermals we encountered during that flight. I told him a couple of
times I would be climbing like crazy but not able to complete the
thermal turn, so I quickly pushed the stick the opposite way, un-stuck
the wing and then easily turned into the core. He looked at me kinda
funny and said he did the same thing that day.

We both have 3 or 4 hundred hours in hang gliders and made the switch
to 3-axis many years ago, and glad of it!

Brad


On Jul 31, 1:27*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> I probably shouldn't leap back into this mess, but let me just point
> out one more thing:
>
> People tend to think about stick movements and pedal movements when
> they talk about "coordinated" flying.
>
> But the truth of the matter is that the airplane doesn't CARE what
> goes on in the cockpit. *It cares about how the air flows over the
> craft and the control surfaces.
>
> "Flying coordinated" means making WHATEVER control inputs are
> required, in WHATEVER sequence necessary, to keep the airflow as
> orderly and efficient as possible.
>
> IMHO the best pilots are the ones who "detach" themselves and shift
> their Point Of View to that of the aircraft itself. *They aren't
> thinking about the flight in terms of how they perceive it as an
> occupant from their particular seating position or their control
> stick. *Thinking in terms of the aircraft and the air around it is
> infinitely better than trying to act as a manipulator of levers and
> pulleys inside a tube.
>
> --Noel

[user]

He says... from the lotus position, index finger on thumb, palms turned
upward, and fingers spread. Be the glider. Hmmmmmmmmmm.... Hmmmmmmmmm....

Maybe someday I'll reach that plane (pun intended). In the meantime, the
best I can do is manipulate the controls to keep the string straight and the
speed within a knot or two of where I think it should be. Beep, beep,
beep... Hmmm... Now where did I leave my copy of The Zen of Gliding?

:-)


"noel.wade" > wrote in message
...
>I probably shouldn't leap back into this mess, but let me just point
> out one more thing:
>
> People tend to think about stick movements and pedal movements when
> they talk about "coordinated" flying.
>
> But the truth of the matter is that the airplane doesn't CARE what
> goes on in the cockpit. It cares about how the air flows over the
> craft and the control surfaces.
>
> "Flying coordinated" means making WHATEVER control inputs are
> required, in WHATEVER sequence necessary, to keep the airflow as
> orderly and efficient as possible.
>
> IMHO the best pilots are the ones who "detach" themselves and shift
> their Point Of View to that of the aircraft itself. They aren't
> thinking about the flight in terms of how they perceive it as an
> occupant from their particular seating position or their control
> stick. Thinking in terms of the aircraft and the air around it is
> infinitely better than trying to act as a manipulator of levers and
> pulleys inside a tube.
>
> --Noel

[Tony Verhulst]

user wrote:
> Hmmm... Now where did I leave my copy of The Zen of Gliding?

I'm thinking of writing a glider book. I have two titles in mind -
either Guido's Glider Guider Guide or We Who Wear Funny Hats.

Tony :-)
http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/SOARING/onO2_3.jpg

[John H. Campbell[_2_]]

Let me suggest that what cuts across all types of glider, angles of
attack and back, phases of flight, is the goal of the maneuver. Both
the CFI-G referred to in the OP, Paul, and most others agree that they
wish to perform a coordinated turn entry (setting aside circumstances
where slipping is advisable or fruitful). So, in teaching, why not
stress monitoring methods first -- primarily visual (yaw string staring
in the face for just that purpose), and then also aural (screaming
vent), kinesthetic ("falling" to the inside is a classic sign of
slipping to avoid initial discomfort at leaning from the vertical,
"cracking the whip" a danger sign), control positions. So, "leading
with the rudder" could be appropriate IF IT WORKS, but how about making
it an incidental discovery, a consequence, as opposed to a primary cause
or goal. In introducing maneuvers, I favor discussion and demonstration
(student following through) of "it should look like this" before
admonitions of "move this to there to achieve that goal". Also, even
following RUAC, I favor avoiding "always" and "never".

--JHC

[Brad[_2_]]

You may be on to somthing. Some pilots are referred to as naturals and
their skills are readily apparent.
A young friend of mine won a national hang gliding competition flying
bare bar, no instruments at all. The times I flew with him were
inspriring.................you see, I too was a member of those
ranks....heh..............the rest who have to study and make fun of
the Zen masters will always wonder how it's done, as they re-read
everything Reichmann wrote whilst grunting in the restroom.

Brad

On Jul 31, 7:00*pm, "user" > wrote:
> He says... from the lotus position, index finger on thumb, palms turned
> upward, and fingers spread. Be the glider. Hmmmmmmmmmm.... Hmmmmmmmmm....
>
> Maybe someday I'll reach that plane (pun intended). In the meantime, the
> best I can do is manipulate the controls to keep the string straight and the
> speed within a knot or two of where I think it should be. Beep, beep,
> beep... Hmmm... Now where did I leave my copy of The Zen of Gliding?
>
> :-)
>
> "noel.wade" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> >I probably shouldn't leap back into this mess, but let me just point
> > out one more thing:
>
> > People tend to think about stick movements and pedal movements when
> > they talk about "coordinated" flying.
>
> > But the truth of the matter is that the airplane doesn't CARE what
> > goes on in the cockpit. *It cares about how the air flows over the
> > craft and the control surfaces.
>
> > "Flying coordinated" means making WHATEVER control inputs are
> > required, in WHATEVER sequence necessary, to keep the airflow as
> > orderly and efficient as possible.
>
> > IMHO the best pilots are the ones who "detach" themselves and shift
> > their Point Of View to that of the aircraft itself. *They aren't
> > thinking about the flight in terms of how they perceive it as an
> > occupant from their particular seating position or their control
> > stick. *Thinking in terms of the aircraft and the air around it is
> > infinitely better than trying to act as a manipulator of levers and
> > pulleys inside a tube.
>
> > --Noel- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Brad[_2_]]

addendum: I made a low save over Richard Bachs grass airstrip
yesterday............and I had my funny hat on........:)

Brad

[Cats]

On Aug 1, 4:57*am, Brad > wrote:
> You may be on to somthing. Some pilots are referred to as naturals and
> their skills are readily apparent.
> A young friend of mine won a national hang gliding competition flying
> bare bar, no instruments at all. The times I flew with him were
> inspriring.................you see, I too was a member of those
> ranks....heh..............the rest who have to study and make fun of
> the Zen masters will always wonder how it's done, as they re-read
> everything Reichmann wrote whilst grunting in the restroom.

Learning young makes a huge difference. I learnt to sail racing
dinghies in my teens and when I compare how I sail with how I fly the
differences are huge, even once I've allowed for my much greater
experience in dinghies. I raced my dinghy with no wind indicator,
just the wind on my skin. The one I had fell off, I didn't replace it
immediately and found I sailed just as well without it. Better in
some ways - it left my attention completely free to look outside the
boat.

I learnt to ski to a fair standard for a UK 2-weeks per year person in
my 20s & early 30s and it doesn't take too long to get back into the
swing of it, so long as the conditions are not tricky. I never
mastered ice or bumps!

And with sailing in particular, I would find it very hard to explain
to a middle-aged beginner why I do a lot of what I do - I just know I
need to do it. I feel it. In short I've got the Zen thing with boats
- and I found it applied to larger boats as well when I did a little
sailing on them back in '97.

[J a c k]

noel.wade wrote:


> IMHO the best pilots are the ones who "detach" themselves and shift
> their Point Of View to that of the aircraft itself. They aren't
> thinking about the flight in terms of how they perceive it as an
> occupant from their particular seating position or their control
> stick. Thinking in terms of the aircraft and the air around it is
> infinitely better than trying to act as a manipulator of levers and
> pulleys inside a tube.


One hundred hours? Two hundred? How long would you expect it to take for
a pilot to develop that POV?


Jack

[J a c k]

user wrote:

> ...where did I leave my copy of The Zen of Gliding?

> "noel.wade" > wrote...

>> IMHO the best pilots are the ones who "detach" themselves and shift
>> their Point Of View to that of the aircraft itself. They aren't
>> thinking about the flight in terms of how they perceive it as an
>> occupant from their particular seating position or their control
>> stick. Thinking in terms of the aircraft and the air around it is
>> infinitely better than trying to act as a manipulator of levers and
>> pulleys inside a tube.


Noel's description is apt, though it won't fit everyone. It is probably
possible to fly fairly well without reaching that consciousness, but
it's more satisfying when you do. I suspect that fighter pilots in the
days before BVR fights reached that level or died, and probably still
need to do so. Don't knock it till you've had it.


Jack

[user]

I do the best with what I've got... and yes! there's a copy of Reichman next
to my favorite reading stool.

Just call me Rudy. Roooooody! Roooody!

Cheers to funny hats!


"Brad" > wrote in message
...
You may be on to somthing. Some pilots are referred to as naturals and
their skills are readily apparent.
A young friend of mine won a national hang gliding competition flying
bare bar, no instruments at all. The times I flew with him were
inspriring.................you see, I too was a member of those
ranks....heh..............the rest who have to study and make fun of
the Zen masters will always wonder how it's done, as they re-read
everything Reichmann wrote whilst grunting in the restroom.

Brad

On Jul 31, 7:00 pm, "user" > wrote:
> He says... from the lotus position, index finger on thumb, palms turned
> upward, and fingers spread. Be the glider. Hmmmmmmmmmm.... Hmmmmmmmmm....
>
> Maybe someday I'll reach that plane (pun intended). In the meantime, the
> best I can do is manipulate the controls to keep the string straight and
> the
> speed within a knot or two of where I think it should be. Beep, beep,
> beep... Hmmm... Now where did I leave my copy of The Zen of Gliding?
>
> :-)
>
> "noel.wade" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> >I probably shouldn't leap back into this mess, but let me just point
> > out one more thing:
>
> > People tend to think about stick movements and pedal movements when
> > they talk about "coordinated" flying.
>
> > But the truth of the matter is that the airplane doesn't CARE what
> > goes on in the cockpit. It cares about how the air flows over the
> > craft and the control surfaces.
>
> > "Flying coordinated" means making WHATEVER control inputs are
> > required, in WHATEVER sequence necessary, to keep the airflow as
> > orderly and efficient as possible.
>
> > IMHO the best pilots are the ones who "detach" themselves and shift
> > their Point Of View to that of the aircraft itself. They aren't
> > thinking about the flight in terms of how they perceive it as an
> > occupant from their particular seating position or their control
> > stick. Thinking in terms of the aircraft and the air around it is
> > infinitely better than trying to act as a manipulator of levers and
> > pulleys inside a tube.
>
> > --Noel- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[user]

Some people would say I'm already there. Being there, I know different.

Gotta go. Reichman's calling.


;-)


"J a c k" > wrote in message
. ..
> user wrote:
>
> > ...where did I leave my copy of The Zen of Gliding?
>
>> "noel.wade" > wrote...
>
>>> IMHO the best pilots are the ones who "detach" themselves and shift
>>> their Point Of View to that of the aircraft itself. They aren't
>>> thinking about the flight in terms of how they perceive it as an
>>> occupant from their particular seating position or their control
>>> stick. Thinking in terms of the aircraft and the air around it is
>>> infinitely better than trying to act as a manipulator of levers and
>>> pulleys inside a tube.
>
>
> Noel's description is apt, though it won't fit everyone. It is probably
> possible to fly fairly well without reaching that consciousness, but it's
> more satisfying when you do. I suspect that fighter pilots in the days
> before BVR fights reached that level or died, and probably still need to
> do so. Don't knock it till you've had it.
>
>
> Jack

[Tony Verhulst]

John H. Campbell wrote:
> ..... So, in teaching, why not
> stress monitoring methods first -- primarily visual (yaw string staring
> in the face for just that purpose)


Mostly because if you do that from the start, the student will focus on
the yaw string and drop everything else (an exaggeration, but you get
the point). I think that Piggott may have it right when he says that the
yaw string is most useful for long straight glides - to ensure that you
have no inadvertent slip. I tell students about the yaw string, of
course, but I also say that I can tell if their turns are coordinated
with my eyes closed because my shoulders won't move.

Tony V.

[toad]

On Jul 31, 6:59 am, "user" > wrote:

<sniped alot>
> Slewing the nose before banking... every time you turn?

"Leading with the rudder" does NOT equal "Slewing the nose before
banking" !

You can lead with the rudder and still get a coordinated turn entry.
You might only lead by a fraction of a second, but you can push on the
rudder before the stick. If that is what works best in the glider
that you are flying.

Todd Smith
3S

[user]

Then you're talking about a mental game, which is fine. Focus on the rudder
since it requires a larger movement at low speed.

Nontheless, the rudder balances aileron drag. Coordination is simply defined
as balancing the yaw moment from the ailerons with a SIMULTANEOUS and
opposing yaw moment from the rudder. The amount of rudder needed to
compensate for aileron drag is inversely proportional to speed. The question
in my mind is, does the original post's premise of a regimen of

"...the FIRST thing you do is feed in rudder. On his 1-5 list of making a
turn in a glider, #1 is rudder (as its own separate input)."

produce a good pilot? At anything more than a few knots above MCA, this
formula will lead to a slewing nose, in equal proportion as I would expect
to see in an underruddered turn entry near MCA.

But maybe I'm just over sensitive to yaw motion... or maybe I'm just being
too dogmatic about sloppy flying (or thinking).


"toad" > wrote in message
...
> On Jul 31, 6:59 am, "user" > wrote:
>
> <sniped alot>
>> Slewing the nose before banking... every time you turn?
>
> "Leading with the rudder" does NOT equal "Slewing the nose before
> banking" !
>
> You can lead with the rudder and still get a coordinated turn entry.
> You might only lead by a fraction of a second, but you can push on the
> rudder before the stick. If that is what works best in the glider
> that you are flying.
>
> Todd Smith
> 3S
>
>

[John Galloway[_1_]]

Except in the case of very long span gliders, I wonder if the "lead with
rudder" pilots are actually flying very differently from the "both
together" pilots? I think that they may simply be describing what it
feels like to initiate a turn. Here's a hypothesis based on four
knowns:

The primary effect of the aileron is as a *rate* of roll control - keep
the deflection applied and the glider keeps rolling.

The primary effect of the rudder is *degree* of yaw control - keep the
deflection applied and the yaw stays steady.

For a given airspeed and a given aileron deflection at 1g there is an
appropriate amount of rudder deflection.

The forces required to apply rudder are generally higher than to apply
aileron.

Therefore, when we begin a coordinated turn and apply the appropriately
coordinated rudder and aileron deflections at the same rates - say over
one second (and let's say that the glider takes 2-4 seconds to roll into
the full turn) then the pilot will be aware that all of application of the
rudder deflection will all have taken place in the first half to quarter of
the of the roll into the turn and will also sense that more force was
required to apply the rudder than the aileron i.e. what feels like leading
with the rudder may a lot closer to coordinated flying than is apparent
from the words used to describe it.

John Galloway




At 11:35 02 August 2008, user wrote:
>Then you're talking about a mental game, which is fine. Focus on the
rudder
>
>since it requires a larger movement at low speed.
>
>Nontheless, the rudder balances aileron drag. Coordination is simply
>defined
>as balancing the yaw moment from the ailerons with a SIMULTANEOUS and
>opposing yaw moment from the rudder. The amount of rudder needed to
>compensate for aileron drag is inversely proportional to speed. The
>question
>in my mind is, does the original post's premise of a regimen of
>
>"...the FIRST thing you do is feed in rudder. On his 1-5 list of making
a
>turn in a glider, #1 is rudder (as its own separate input)."
>
>produce a good pilot? At anything more than a few knots above MCA, this
>formula will lead to a slewing nose, in equal proportion as I would
expect
>
>to see in an underruddered turn entry near MCA.
>
>But maybe I'm just over sensitive to yaw motion... or maybe I'm just
being
>
>too dogmatic about sloppy flying (or thinking).
>
>
>"toad" wrote in message
...
>> On Jul 31, 6:59 am, "user" wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Slewing the nose before banking... every time you turn?
>>
>> "Leading with the rudder" does NOT equal "Slewing the nose before
>> banking" !
>>
>> You can lead with the rudder and still get a coordinated turn entry.
>> You might only lead by a fraction of a second, but you can push on the
>> rudder before the stick. If that is what works best in the glider
>> that you are flying.
>>
>> Todd Smith
>> 3S
>>
>>
>
>
>

[toad]

On Aug 2, 7:35*am, "user" > wrote:
> Then you're talking about a mental game, which is fine. Focus on the rudder
> since it requires a larger movement at low speed.

... snip ...

> The question
> in my mind is, does the original post's premise of a regimen of
>
> "...the FIRST thing you do is feed in rudder. On his 1-5 list of making a
> turn in a glider, #1 is rudder (as its own separate input)."
>
> produce a good pilot? At anything more than a few knots above MCA, this
> formula will lead to a slewing nose, in equal proportion as I would expect
> to see in an underruddered turn entry near MCA.
>

Yes, it is a mental game. The instructor's job is to train the
student to fly correctly. The talking is just a means to the end. I
don't care if the instructor tells the student to first yell "olly
olly oxen free" before he turns. If the student performs a good
coordinated turn entry, then the instructor has done their job.

Todd
3S

[Bill Daniels]

"toad" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 2, 7:35 am, "user" > wrote:
> Then you're talking about a mental game, which is fine. Focus on the
> rudder
> since it requires a larger movement at low speed.

.... snip ...

> The question
> in my mind is, does the original post's premise of a regimen of
>
> "...the FIRST thing you do is feed in rudder. On his 1-5 list of making a
> turn in a glider, #1 is rudder (as its own separate input)."
>
> produce a good pilot? At anything more than a few knots above MCA, this
> formula will lead to a slewing nose, in equal proportion as I would expect
> to see in an underruddered turn entry near MCA.
>

Yes, it is a mental game. The instructor's job is to train the
student to fly correctly. The talking is just a means to the end. I
don't care if the instructor tells the student to first yell "olly
olly oxen free" before he turns. If the student performs a good
coordinated turn entry, then the instructor has done their job.

Todd
3S

Well, yes, but...

The goal should be to train pilots for a lifetime of safe, high performance
flying. Merely training them to the standards needed for solo or the
practical test is shortchanging them. Beware the knock on ramifications of
"primacy".

If taught to "lead with the rudder" when in fact the goal is simultaneous
application of rudder and aileron, that will come back to bite the trainee
when feet reaction times improve with increasing experience. "Lead with
rudder" is, in fact, only a shortcut that helps the instructor move the
student along faster. In the long run, it puts the student at risk for
skidding turns and stall/spin accidents.

The fact that certain big wing gliders and antiques actually benefit from
this technique doesn't excuse teaching it to primary students. The student
should first learn to do it 'right' and then learn the exceptions.

Teach them correct theory and help them use their feet in coordination with
their hands. It will be hard for them to use their feet in coordination
with their hands at first, but they will learn to do it eventually.

If you want your student to improve coordination of turn entries, try "use
less aileron" rather than "lead with rudder". Or: "Dont use more aileron
than the rudder can cope with".

Bill Daniels

[Nyal Williams[_2_]]

This battlefield is littered with straw men.

[Sarah Anderson[_2_]]

Maybe so, maybe so... There is a mysterious figure, left power CFI flying for soaring who
may or may not corporally exist:

http://www.pilotpsy.com/index.html

Sarah



user wrote:
> He says... from the lotus position, index finger on thumb, palms turned
> upward, and fingers spread. Be the glider. Hmmmmmmmmmm.... Hmmmmmmmmm....
>
> Maybe someday I'll reach that plane (pun intended). In the meantime, the
> best I can do is manipulate the controls to keep the string straight and the
> speed within a knot or two of where I think it should be. Beep, beep,
> beep... Hmmm... Now where did I leave my copy of The Zen of Gliding?
>
> :-)
>
>
> "noel.wade" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I probably shouldn't leap back into this mess, but let me just point
>> out one more thing:
>>
>> People tend to think about stick movements and pedal movements when
>> they talk about "coordinated" flying.
>>
>> But the truth of the matter is that the airplane doesn't CARE what
>> goes on in the cockpit. It cares about how the air flows over the
>> craft and the control surfaces.
>>
>> "Flying coordinated" means making WHATEVER control inputs are
>> required, in WHATEVER sequence necessary, to keep the airflow as
>> orderly and efficient as possible.
>>
>> IMHO the best pilots are the ones who "detach" themselves and shift
>> their Point Of View to that of the aircraft itself. They aren't
>> thinking about the flight in terms of how they perceive it as an
>> occupant from their particular seating position or their control
>> stick. Thinking in terms of the aircraft and the air around it is
>> infinitely better than trying to act as a manipulator of levers and
>> pulleys inside a tube.
>>
>> --Noel
>
>

[Ed Downham[_2_]]

At 15:26 01 August 2008, toad wrote:
>On Jul 31, 6:59 am, "user" wrote:
>
>
>> Slewing the nose before banking... every time you turn?
>
>"Leading with the rudder" does NOT equal "Slewing the nose before
>banking" !
>
>You can lead with the rudder and still get a coordinated turn entry.
>You might only lead by a fraction of a second, but you can push on the
>rudder before the stick. If that is what works best in the glider
>that you are flying.
>
>Todd Smith
>3S
>
>
>

I agree that it's very glider-related: in some machines I've flown
(especially those with larger and/or multiple spans) there is not enough
rudder to coordinate with full aileron deflection at normal thermal entry
speeds, so a way to counter that is to apply rudder for a longer duration
(before and after aileron input) or more rudder / less aileron (slower
entry). As this is a _transient_ situation and results in improved
coordination and control, I can't get too worried about it; if a training
glider requires similar inputs to fly nicely then why not mention this?
Better than a student losing confidence because their turns feel a bit
imprecise and they don't know why? (I assume they've been taught to turn
the ¨proper¨ way to begin with...)

From what I've seen, I'd say it's much more important to eliminate the
tendency, once turning, to _continuously_ hold rudder deflection into the
turn along with out-turn aileron (lack of comfort with banking?) We all
know where that leads, yet I've seen it demonstrated by some fairly
experienced pilots who were unaware of their habit.

[Don Johnstone[_3_]]

At 12:55 04 August 2008, Ed Downham wrote:
>>I agree that it's very glider-related: in some machines I've flown
>(especially those with larger and/or multiple spans) there is not enough
>rudder to coordinate with full aileron deflection at normal thermal
entry
>speeds, so a way to counter that is to apply rudder for a longer
duration
>(before and after aileron input) or more rudder / less aileron (slower
>entry). As this is a _transient_ situation and results in improved
>coordination and control, I can't get too worried about it; if a
training
>glider requires similar inputs to fly nicely then why not mention this?
>Better than a student losing confidence because their turns feel a bit
>imprecise and they don't know why? (I assume they've been taught to
turn
>the ¨proper¨ way to begin with...)
>
>From what I've seen, I'd say it's much more important to eliminate
the
>tendency, once turning, to _continuously_ hold rudder deflection into
the
>turn along with out-turn aileron (lack of comfort with banking?) We all
>know where that leads, yet I've seen it demonstrated by some fairly
>experienced pilots who were unaware of their habit.
>
Even with a training glider which requires "lead with rudder" for a full
deflection thermal entry turn it is not necessary for a normal turn entry
with less aileron deflection (The Grob 103 is a perfect example) The Grob
enters a turn in a co-ordinated manner provided the correct amount of
aileron is used simultaneously with rudder to balance. The original point
was teaching lead with rudder to ab initio students and this is clearly
not necessary and bad practice. When teaching turns to ab initio students
no-one teached full aileron deflection do they? It is a technique which
can be introduced to more experienced pilots when they need to use full
aileron deflection for a clean thermal entry, and is perfectly valid as
long as the pilot is ware of the pitfalls of applying large amounts of
rudder.

[user]

Better straw men than the real thing...

Bill has a good point. Hard to say how many of our little expediencies lead
to inexplicable accidents farther down the road!


"Nyal Williams" > wrote in message
...
> This battlefield is littered with straw men.
>

[Mark Drela]

In article >, "user" > writes:
>
> Nontheless, the rudder balances aileron drag.

To be more precise, the rudder primarily balances the fore/aft
tilting of the lift vectors on the left and right wings,
which is a result of _roll rate_. The aileron drag difference
has a much smaller contribution.
The PDF diagram in this link illustrates the effect:
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5887550&postcount=31


> Coordination is simply defined
> as balancing the yaw moment from the ailerons with a SIMULTANEOUS and
> opposing yaw moment from the rudder. The amount of rudder needed to
> compensate for aileron drag is inversely proportional to speed.

Correct.
But the required rudder deflection is actually inversely proportional
to CL, and hence to the _square_ of the speed.

[Don Johnstone[_3_]]

At 23:44 07 August 2008, Mark Drela wrote:
>In article , "user" writes:
>>
>> Nontheless, the rudder balances aileron drag.
>
>To be more precise, the rudder primarily balances the fore/aft
>tilting of the lift vectors on the left and right wings,
>which is a result of _roll rate_. The aileron drag difference
>has a much smaller contribution.
>The PDF diagram in this link illustrates the effect:
>http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5887550&postcount=31
>
>
No sure that the above is the complete answer as it covers profile drag
but completely ignores induced (lift dependent) drag.

Consider a glider wing in level flight and assume we have a drag factor of
2 (Newtons, foot pounds,bananas, doesn't matter)
The airlerons to roll and the lift on the down going aileron wing is
doubled over the area influenced by the aileron, the induced drag
increases by 4. If the ailerons are non differential the lift over the
same area on the opposite wing is reduced by half to 1 giving a total
force of 5 trying to induce yaw. On a glider with long wings the leverage
of these forces will produce a significant adverse yaw while the aileron
is applied. I would agree that when the glider starts to roll the upgoing
wing suffers a reduced angle of attack, over it's whole area, reducing
the lift and vice versa for the other wing, these forces tending to
mitigate the adverse yaw caused by lift inbalance between the two wings.

[Andreas Maurer]

Hi Mark,

On 07 Aug 2008 23:44:00 GMT, (Mark Drela) wrote:

>In article >, "user" > writes:
>>
>> Nontheless, the rudder balances aileron drag.
>
>To be more precise, the rudder primarily balances the fore/aft
>tilting of the lift vectors on the left and right wings,
>which is a result of _roll rate_. The aileron drag difference
>has a much smaller contribution.

Flying an open class glider with pretty limited roll rate, I can
assure you that roll rate does NOT influence adverse yaw at all. ;)

As Don Johnstone already pointed out, adverse yaw is caused mainly by
induced drag.


Bye
Andreas

[Peter Higgs]

Hi Guys, I am a bit new to this forum, but see that you have quite a
prolonged discussion going on !

The only comment I would like to make is that whilst undergoing some type
conversion at the Long-Myndd, my Instructor said I was not using much
rudder.... Whilst I was flying straight and level...

My attempts at wing leveling where being quite succesful in the turbulent
air, and we were holding a good fixed heading, but he was correct; That
even without any roll, the deflected ailerons would still be producing
differential drag.... and the adverse yaw.

Many thanks to that Instructor, I now always use the rudder whenever I
shift the stick, even in straight and level flight.

Pilot Pete