Why are the yokes always turned?

Ron Natalie writes:

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

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

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
Ron Natalie writes:

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

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

They are balanced aerodynamically so they go neutral. As I said,
with no wind blowing on them in a lot of planes they'll sit
on the stops once they are knocked to one side or another.

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Ron Natalie writes:

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

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

The forces on a parked airplane would only be symmetrical if the plane was
always headed into the wind. Obviously, this will rarely be the case
except for those parking spaces that are built on a turntable with a
large rudder on the back.

Neil

[Note Followup-To reset.]

In rec.aviation.student buttman wrote:

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

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

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

.... Alan

--
Alan Gerber
gerber AT panix DOT com

Alan Gerber wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Gary

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

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

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

On 10/18/06 05:21, Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2006-10-16, Neil Gould wrote:
The forces on a parked airplane would only be symmetrical if the plane was
always headed into the wind. Obviously, this will rarely be the case
except for those parking spaces that are built on a turntable with a
large rudder on the back.

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


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

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

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

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