How come the wings bank when I use the rudder

On Oct 21, 7:14 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Jay Honeck writes:
In my case, my instructor NEVER discussed theories about flight. He
was a stick and rudder guy, could fly anything (and did), taught me
volumes, but rarely spoke about *why* certain things happened in
flight. I guess he just figured I would learn these things when
studying for the written.

I never did learn a lot of the subtle stuff (like why a rudder input
banks the wings) until much later. I suspect Paul is in the same boat.

Most skills can be learned in a number of ways. Many skills are taught in
rote manner, i.e., "to accomplish x, do y," or "when the aircraft does x,
react with y." This is easy and fast to learn but makes exceptions harder to
handle. Skills can also be taught by teaching theory and then letting the
student apply the theory, but this is rather tedious and slow, and the student
must have good reasoning ability in order to succeed. To address the largest
possible audience, rote learning tends to be preferred, but that does
occasionally leave competent and curious students wondering about certain
things.

I feel Bertie about to make an entrance,,,,, ;)

" wrote in
oups.com:

On Oct 21, 7:14 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Jay Honeck writes:
In my case, my instructor NEVER discussed theories about flight.
He was a stick and rudder guy, could fly anything (and did), taught
me volumes, but rarely spoke about *why* certain things happened in
flight. I guess he just figured I would learn these things when
studying for the written.

I never did learn a lot of the subtle stuff (like why a rudder
input banks the wings) until much later. I suspect Paul is in the
same boat.

Most skills can be learned in a number of ways. Many skills are
taught in rote manner, i.e., "to accomplish x, do y," or "when the
aircraft does x, react with y." This is easy and fast to learn but
makes exceptions harder to handle. Skills can also be taught by
teaching theory and then letting the student apply the theory, but
this is rather tedious and slow, and the student must have good
reasoning ability in order to succeed. To address the largest
possible audience, rote learning tends to be preferred, but that does
occasionally leave competent and curious students wondering about
certain things.

I feel Bertie about to make an entrance,,,,, ;)



Ta da!


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Jay Honeck writes:

In my case, my instructor NEVER discussed theories about flight. He
was a stick and rudder guy, could fly anything (and did), taught me
volumes, but rarely spoke about *why* certain things happened in
flight. I guess he just figured I would learn these things when
studying for the written.

I never did learn a lot of the subtle stuff (like why a rudder input
banks the wings) until much later. I suspect Paul is in the same
boat.

Most skills can be learned in a number of ways. Many skills are
taught in rote manner, i.e., "to accomplish x, do y," or "when the
aircraft does x, react with y." This is easy and fast to learn but
makes exceptions harder to handle. Skills can also be taught by
teaching theory and then letting the student apply the theory, but
this is rather tedious and slow, and the student must have good
reasoning ability in order to succeed. To address the largest
possible audience, rote learning tends to be preferred, but that does
occasionally leave competent and curious students wondering about
certain things.




You are an idiot.

You don't fly and you never will.


Bertie

On Oct 21, 4:44 am, wrote:
I'm puzzled as to how you could be doing a solo X country and not know
this. Did you first lesson not include "effect of controls"? what
about your theory?

Cheers

He probably did, but that was in 1967... :-(