Stick and Rudder's 'Safety plane'

On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 23:59:15 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote:


"Stick and Rudder" is not the revealed word of God on the subject of
aviation.

Nor does it claim to be. The subtitle says "an explanation of the art
of flying"
I don't see any claim about science or maths of flying. It is an
excellent non mathematical treatment of what pilots should know about
how aircraft behave and why. The non mathematical treatment means it
is a little long winded is all.



There are mistakes in it, as well as some rather odd theories.


Please tell us more.


The
bit about the rudder is just one of them. In fact, the aerodynamics
throughout the book are more than a little suspect.

Really???


Neverhtheless,
Langewiesche makes some good points. He was often right in what should be
done, but just as often wrong in how. It is obvious that Langewiesche
understood almost nothing about how air flows around an airfoil. He knew
that airplanes stall when they rich a critical angle of attack, but I see
little evidence that he understood why that is so.

Do you know? Do you need to know to successfully fly an airplane?



There are better books about flying. "Stick and Rudder" is valuable for its
historical insights into the development of modern aircraft, but little
else.


I guess that's why it's still in print. And so often referred to.

And yes I do know the maths and science behind flight. On first
reading parts of the book I thought maybe some things were wrong or
odd but reading it properly I realised he had things right even if the
language was a little old fashioned.

Mike Borgelt

"C J Campbell" wrote:


There are better books about flying. "Stick and Rudder" is valuable for its
historical insights into the development of modern aircraft, but little
else.


I guess that's why it's still in print. And so often referred to.

And yes I do know the maths and science behind flight. On first
reading parts of the book I thought maybe some things were wrong or
odd but reading it properly I realised he had things right even if the
language was a little old fashioned.

Mike Borgelt
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Right on, Mike.
A measure of proper perspective aids one in appreciating
this book and many other things aviation.....
like the sometimes maligned Ercoupe. ;o)

Here on RAH, it seems there is a movement afoot to
discredit the very foundations of aviation's past while
embracing anything that moves, as long as it's not
approved for use by stodgy old certified aircraft or
those that worship at the 'altar of longevity'.

Revolution, not evolution appears to be the
mindset of many wannabees that I note here
jumping on that sort of bandwagon. Fortunately,
mostly all they do is talk. Those that go past
that point and have not survived have left me
and others more cautious behind to address
folly as we see it.

Barnyard BOb --


Barnyard BOb - 50 years of flight.

"The irony of the Information Age is that it has given new
respectibility to uninformed opinion."
John Lawton


Barnyard BOb -- wrote:

"C J Campbell" wrote:


There are better books about flying. "Stick and Rudder" is valuable for its
historical insights into the development of modern aircraft, but little
else.


I guess that's why it's still in print. And so often referred to.

And yes I do know the maths and science behind flight. On first
reading parts of the book I thought maybe some things were wrong or
odd but reading it properly I realised he had things right even if the
language was a little old fashioned.

Mike Borgelt
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Right on, Mike.
A measure of proper perspective aids one in appreciating
this book and many other things aviation.....
like the sometimes maligned Ercoupe. ;o)

Here on RAH, it seems there is a movement afoot to
discredit the very foundations of aviation's past while
embracing anything that moves, as long as it's not
approved for use by stodgy old certified aircraft or
those that worship at the 'altar of longevity'.

Revolution, not evolution appears to be the
mindset of many wannabees that I note here
jumping on that sort of bandwagon. Fortunately,
mostly all they do is talk. Those that go past
that point and have not survived have left me
and others more cautious behind to address
folly as we see it.

Barnyard BOb --

Barnyard BOb - 50 years of flight.

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
Ernest Christley misfired the following:

I asked this because all of the author's other explanations seem so
insightful, cogent and complete. I feel I now have a deeper
understanding of several phases of flight. But his complete misfire on
this rudder thing has me stumped.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Complete misfire....?

Yoo Hoo, Ernest...
You are the one who is "misfiring" on every count. ;o)

You have precisely described the ubiquitous ERCOUPE.
http://ercoupe.com/couphist.htm


Barnyard BOb - RV3 driver and Ercoupe aficionado

So these concepts are so important that the author goes on and on about
them, and there is exactly one plane that implements the concepts. I
would call that a misfire.

Never flown an Ercoupe, though I have seen one. The author even
mentions it in the book later on (past what I have read so far). But if
the ideas are so great, why aren't they used in every new design?
--
----Because I can----
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
------------------------

Complete misfire....?

Yoo Hoo, Ernest...
You are the one who is "misfiring" on every count. ;o)

You have precisely described the ubiquitous ERCOUPE.
http://ercoupe.com/couphist.htm


Barnyard BOb - RV3 driver and Ercoupe aficionado

So these concepts are so important that the author goes on and on about
them, and there is exactly one plane that implements the concepts. I
would call that a misfire.

You are so far down the learning curve it is utterly laughable that
you should even have an opinion at this point. Call it a 'BACKFIRE'
if you wish. Makes no difference to me.

Never flown an Ercoupe, though I have seen one. The author even
mentions it in the book later on (past what I have read so far). But if
the ideas are so great, why aren't they used in every new design?

You ask a very simple question with no simple answer.
Why is anything where it is in the fickle marketplace?
Take the canard for example. The Wright Bros started an
industry with it and yet it is considered at least as much of
an 'oddball' as the Ercoupe in its own way.

FWIW....
There are thousands of 'better ideas' that the public resists
for one illogical reason or another. Contrary to popular belief,
building a better mousetrap is no guarantee that anyone will
ever beat a path to your door.

Since the Ercoupe originally had only a luke warm public acceptance
and currently has very low resale as a used aircraft due to supply and
demand.... why would any responsible manufacturer produce anything
akin to it brand new today unless they have a sincere desire for
bankruptcy?


Barnyard BOb -- nothing quite like an Ercoupe

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
So these concepts are so important that the author goes on and on about
them, and there is exactly one plane that implements the concepts. I
would call that a misfire.

You are so far down the learning curve it is utterly laughable that
you should even have an opinion at this point. Call it a 'BACKFIRE'
if you wish. Makes no difference to me.

Hey, Unk! You sound like a man who is altitude-deprived. How's
the "stick" for your "horse"?

Langewische does go on as though the rudder will be obsolete on
the new "safety airplanes" which will take over the fleet.

It's not unreasonable to call that a "misfire" or a "backfire"
or at least a faulty prediction.

You ask a very simple question with no simple answer.
Why is anything where it is in the fickle marketplace?
..
There are thousands of 'better ideas' that the public resists
for one illogical reason or another. Contrary to popular belief,
building a better mousetrap is no guarantee that anyone will
ever beat a path to your door.

Too true! I think it's called "marketing". It's not sufficient
to build a better mousetrap, you have to persuade everyone that
it really *is* a better mousetrap and capture the market share
fast before someone else gains sufficient of same to become the
standard.

Sydney (VHS over Beta, Windoze over Mac etc etc)

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:47:01 GMT, Sydney Hoeltzli
wrote:

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
So these concepts are so important that the author goes on and on about
them, and there is exactly one plane that implements the concepts. I
would call that a misfire.

You are so far down the learning curve it is utterly laughable that
you should even have an opinion at this point. Call it a 'BACKFIRE'
if you wish. Makes no difference to me.

Hey, Unk! You sound like a man who is altitude-deprived. How's
the "stick" for your "horse"?

Sydney (VHS over Beta, Windoze over Mac etc etc)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Me altitude deprived?
Nah.
Oxygen deprived is more like it, because....
Just got down from 30,000 feet returning from Sun n Fun.
Yeah, the Fly-In was back in April, but nobody told me!! g
However, the trip was not a total loss....

http://www.wac2003.org/
The 2003 WAC, World Aerobatic Championships, were most
enjoyable although the Russians ate our lunch at most every
turn - literally. Spent time at Kermit Weeks' Fantasy of Flight, too.
http://www.fantasyofflight.com/

Serendipity now sports a new metal Sensenich 70CM. No more
slowing down in the rain. Delivery from the Pennsylvania factory
was most excellent. Best price came by way of Stan Shannon
of Rondure Company of Fredericksburg, TX 830-997-8802.
Not only beat Van's price, but gave quick personal service.
The recommended pitch for the RV-3 was dead on, so....
all Serendipity needs is a first rate spinner to match the prop.
Anybody got a 12" spinner that would work and want to sell?

Barnyard BOb --

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 03:24:49 GMT, Ernest Christley
wrote:

I'm about halfway through this book. It is quite an eye opener. The
author's explanations seem so insightful, cogent and complete. However,
there's this one blemish. Printed in 1944, the author makes the claim
that the rudder will disappear in just a few years, as it is only there
to cover the designer's mistakes. He also goes into detail about
designing an airplane that won't stall by using mechanical stops to
limit the angle of attack, and one that eliminates the need for rudder
pedals by tying the rudder to the stick so that the turn to bank
automatically produces the correct rudder action.

The rudder has other uses besides correcting for yaw when the airplane
is banked. It also corrects for P-factor during takeoff and climb and
is needed to hold the airplane straight when power is reduced for
descent.

In addition, it comes in REAL handy during crosswind landings when you
cross control to hold the airplane straight while holding a wing down
into the crosswind.

Corky Scott

In addition, it comes in REAL handy during crosswind landings when you
cross control to hold the airplane straight while holding a wing down
into the crosswind.


I still have yet to learn how to do that. When I was training for my
license, my instructor told me I could either approach wing-low or crab
(with a kick of rudder just before touchdown to straighten out). I chose
the second option.

Now, of course, I need to learn wing-low to land our RV-6...

On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 13:49:10 -0400, "Bob Martin"
wrote:

In addition, it comes in REAL handy during crosswind landings when you
cross control to hold the airplane straight while holding a wing down
into the crosswind.


I still have yet to learn how to do that. When I was training for my
license, my instructor told me I could either approach wing-low or crab
(with a kick of rudder just before touchdown to straighten out). I chose
the second option.

Now, of course, I need to learn wing-low to land our RV-6...


The concept is pretty basic: A crosswind wants to blow you off the
runway, you have to counter that affect and you can do it either way,
crab to just above the runway or drop a wing into the wind.

If you choose to drop a wing, the airplane thinks you want to turn in
that direction. You don't, you just want to stop from being blown off
course. To prevent the airplane from turning into the wind, you apply
opposite rudder. The stronger the wind, the more rudder you must
apply. When you reach the rudder stop and are still being blown off
the runway you have discovered the maximum crosswind the airplane can
handle, and beyond. Then it's time to find another runway.

You can and do touch down with the wing still down into the wind.
First the upwind wheel touches down, then the downwind wheel.

The only problem with the crabbing into the wind landing is that once
you kick it straight, you have to get down on the runway right away,
or you'll be blown sideways again.

With the wing down method, you can fly a stabilized approach right to
touchdown without worrying about being blown sideways.

Gusting crosswinds of course make things more complicated.

Corky Scott