Learn to Turn

[Skyscraper]

The job of the rudder is to keep the tail lined up with the nose of the plane.
When you get too far over the rudder and elevator swap jobs.

It's not that complicated.

Exactly how I was taught. The rudder simply counteracts adverse yaw to keep the tail and nose aligned into the relative wind, not to turn the airplane.

Perhaps my understanding is not complete or is not entirely accurate (and I welcome clarification if that's the case) but the way I look at it is this:

If you are in knife edge flight, the rudders will move the nose up or down relative on the horizon (but left or right from the pilots perspective, same effect the elevator would in straight and level), and the elevator will move it parallel with the horizon either right or left (but up or down from the pilots perspective, same effect the rudder would have in straight and level).

Do I have this right? It feels simple to me, until I begin to over-think it...

 

[Clark1961]

the wings produce the lift which produce the turn (curved flightpath) but the lift on the wings is controlled by the elevator.

I thought the lift was controlled by the angle of attack which may or may not be controlled by the elevator...and the frankenkota doesn't even have an elevator but my office building does

 

[MAKG1]

It fails as an academic exercise as well. It assumes all lift comes from the wing, which is not true. It also completely neglects drag. Drag will affect turns as well. So will weight shift. Most of us have experienced pitch moments due to gear and flap deployment. The gear is 100% drag (and it moves the CG a little for some setups). Flaps are mostly lift at low angle and mostly drag at high angle.

Academic exercises like this work when they serve to simplify the model without adding confusion or excessive approximation. This one really doesn't. It draws an artificial distinction between controlling the direction of lift with flight controls (ALL of them) and the application of that lift, which serves only to obfuscate.

 

[noobJohn]

I don't want to appear to be piling on but I just finished this thread and agree with the prior poster. The video and commentary is interesting but I don't see how it will make anyone safer. After arguing that the elevator makes the plane turn, the video covers varying between a climbing, descending, or level turn by varying elevator trim. You know what those 3 have in common? They're all turns. What difference is the elevator making? Attitude adjustment.

As my user name says, I'm a noob so my 2 cents is worth even less.

 

[RoscoeT]

It fails as an academic exercise as well. It assumes all lift comes from the wing, which is not true. It also completely neglects drag. Drag will affect turns as well. So will weight shift. Most of us have experienced pitch moments due to gear and flap deployment. The gear is 100% drag (and it moves the CG a little for some setups). Flaps are mostly lift at low angle and mostly drag at high angle.

Academic exercises like this work when they serve to simplify the model without adding confusion or excessive approximation. This one really doesn't. It draws an artificial distinction between controlling the direction of lift with flight controls (ALL of them) and the application of that lift, which serves only to obfuscate.

You guys clearly don't know Rich, his experience teaching, and his unparalleled contribution to aviation in the form of stall/spin awareness. It's an elementary video aimed at dispelling the myths many pilots seem to have regarding the dynamics and requirements of performing a turn. This is the subtext for the video, and was stated right in the beginning. The video accomplishes this.

Most of the rest of you are not teaching professionals, and are just snowed-in weekend warriors who seem to take pleasure in complicating simple concepts to infinite degrees of ridiculousness. I think lots of you guys would argue with and criticize Michael Jordan's lessons on basketball...as if you knew better.

 

[noobJohn]

I think you have that backwards. The video is not simplifying anything. If snowed in weekend warriors aren't the target audience, who is?

I also think I'd have a hard time with basketball lessons from Michael Jordan. He's operating at a completely different level (flight level?) than us weekend warriors.

Most of the rest of you are not teaching professionals, and are just snowed-in weekend warriors who seem to take pleasure in complicating simple concepts to infinite degrees of ridiculousness. I think lots of you guys would argue with and criticize Michael Jordan's lessons on basketball...as if you knew better.

 

[MAKG1]

Actually, I've seen his columns in the AOPA magazines before.

Some of what he says is useful. This particular article isn't. Reputation is important, but it simply doesn't trump the actual situation. In this particular case, he's drawing a distinction that doesn't work.

Ask yourself what you are supposed to do with his video to prevent the loss of control accidents he describes at the start of the video. There isn't an answer.

 

[RoscoeT]

I think you have that backwards. The video is not simplifying anything. If snowed in weekend warriors aren't the target audience, who is?

Did you not gather from the video what flight control SHOULD be used to turn an airplane, and which flight controls are NOT NEEDED to turn an airplane?

I also think I'd have a hard time with basketball lessons from Michael Jordan. He's operating at a completely different level (flight level?) than us weekend warriors.

I guarantee you MJ could teach solid basketball fundamentals.

Actually, I've seen his columns in the AOPA magazines before.

Some of what he says is useful. This particular article isn't. Reputation is important, but it simply doesn't trump the actual situation. In this particular case, he's drawing a distinction that doesn't work.

Ask yourself what you are supposed to do with his video to prevent the loss of control accidents he describes at the start of the video. There isn't an answer.

He's showing that bank angle and elevator turn the airplane. People lose control by mis-using the controls during the turn - as in those pilots who think rudder and/or aileron needs to be used as a primary control during the turn. The video illustrates that. Maybe your frame of reference is that of someone who already understands this. If you were a pilot who misperceives the dynamics of a simple turn, the video should cause the light bulb to come on. But that paragraph you wrote about him neglecting drag, gear, flaps, "weight shift", etc. during a turn was total nonsense and characteristic massive irrelevant overcomplication when simple subjects get discussed on forums like this.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Weak sauce. Claims of expertise uber alles and that the people whom you disagree with are amateurs will win every time in a political debate. On a forum it just makes you look the wounded guy left behind with a few bullets while everyone else retreats.

You guys clearly don't know Rich, his experience teaching, and his unparalleled contribution to aviation in the form of stall/spin awareness. It's an elementary video aimed at dispelling the myths many pilots seem to have regarding the dynamics and requirements of performing a turn. This is the subtext for the video, and was stated right in the beginning. The video accomplishes this.

Most of the rest of you are not teaching professionals, and are just snowed-in weekend warriors who seem to take pleasure in complicating simple concepts to infinite degrees of ridiculousness. I think lots of you guys would argue with and criticize Michael Jordan's lessons on basketball...as if you knew better.

 

[Velocity173]

Actually, I've seen his columns in the AOPA magazines before.

Some of what he says is useful. This particular article isn't. Reputation is important, but it simply doesn't trump the actual situation. In this particular case, he's drawing a distinction that doesn't work.

Ask yourself what you are supposed to do with his video to prevent the loss of control accidents he describes at the start of the video. There isn't an answer.

I agree. There's nothing in this video that would help prevent a loss of control situation. There's nothing enlightening in the video either. It's basic control inputs, basic aerodynamics, and beside the aerobatics, it's all taught to PP students.

If you bank the aircraft with ailerons and apply enough opposite rudder, yeah it won't turn. One component of lift is countering another one. Pull back on elevator and you just tipped the scales in the horizontal component's favor. You also just created a pitching moment around the lateral axis, thus increasing the turn rate. This is all aerodynamics 101.

Don't get me wrong, other than not accepting that the horizontal component of lift turns the aircraft, it's dead on. I also agree that when in an emergency we botch our turns. Problem is, in an emergency or high concentration situation, our brain sometimes prevents us from executing the proper recovery techniques. Plenty of air show pilots know exactly what turns an airplane and they've managed to lose control.

 

[noobJohn]

Ok... I give. The video is pure genius. I have seen the light! No longer will all my flights be in a perfectly straight line. I now know how to turn! Amen!

Did you not gather from the video what flight control SHOULD be used to turn an airplane, and which flight controls are NOT NEEDED to turn an airplane?



I guarantee you MJ could teach solid basketball fundamentals.



He's showing that bank angle and elevator turn the airplane. People lose control by mis-using the controls during the turn - as in those pilots who think rudder and/or aileron needs to be used as a primary control during the turn. The video illustrates that. Maybe your frame of reference is that of someone who already understands this. If you were a pilot who misperceives the dynamics of a simple turn, the video should cause the light bulb to come on. But that paragraph you wrote about him neglecting drag, gear, flaps, "weight shift", etc. during a turn was total nonsense and characteristic massive irrelevant overcomplication when simple subjects get discussed on forums like this.

 

[Lindberg]

Did you not gather from the video what flight control SHOULD be used to turn an airplane, and which flight controls are NOT NEEDED to turn an airplane?

Do you mean the elevator? So when I overshoot the centerline on my base to final turn, I should just haul back on the elevator?

Sure, if you're going to be uncoordinated, it's better to be Slipping than skidding. And in that sense, trying to turn the aircraft with only elevator is better than trying to turn it with only rudder. But isn't staying coordinated even better? (Aside from deliberate slips.)

I liked the video. I just don't think it's correct to say the Elevator is the primary or exclusive control for turning.

 

[MAKG1]

… And in that sense, trying to turn the aircraft with only elevator is better than trying to turn it with only rudder.

That is indeed the impression that the video gives. It's quite wrong.

A skidding turn at base to final is a fatal problem only if the aircraft stalls. Hauling back on the yoke will make it more likely to stall. The problem occurs because the excess rudder points the nose below where it was prior to the turn.

The argument about which control is "primary" seems silly to me. You need control on all three axes all the time to keep the aircraft under control. That's what the Wrights proved.

The truth is that the video doesn't address -- or even specify -- the loss of control accidents that it mentions in its introduction.

I think what the author is trying to say -- and it's important -- is that the airplane responds to its attitude relative to the direction of motion. However, it is not correct that only the elevator turns. If you don't constrain altitude, you can make descending turns with no elevator input. In fact, most of us are trained to do exactly that for accidental IMC. Hands off the yoke and turn (slowly, to keep roll under control and especially to minimize disorientation) with rudder only. You'll end up with roll and yaw in the same direction as the rudder, plus some descent.

If you do constrain altitude, there is exactly one set of correct rudder and elevator inputs for a given bank angle.

 

[Engine]

The tilting of the rotor is only to get established the bank angle just like ailerons are to get an airplane established in a bank angle. The disk doesn't stay tilted in the turn. You center the cyclic once established, just like an airplane pilot would center the yoke / stick. You then adjust from center for minor changes in AOB.

The same principle still applies. The vertical component counters the weight of the aircraft and the horizontal keeps the aircraft turning. Increase collective and increase the turn rate. Pull back on the cyclic and increase the turn rate further.

Yes but you quote what I said and I said:

I couldn't agree that it is the same as everything else. If that were the case then the entire wing could be tilted horizontal to turn irrespective of the airframe. There is that difference that you must acknowledge. On helicopters the rotors tilt then the frame follows. Here the rotors act as a wing, elevator, ailerons all in one.

What's the sense in restating what I said? I wasn't arguing that. I was saying that helicopters do not apply in this conversation because the method by which they accomplish the turn is not the same. The rotor is an elevator, aileron, and wing all in one. This is fact. Yes obviously we're doing the same thing - modifying the component of left - but the METHOD is different. Thus does not really apply in this conversation.

Also the cyclic/yoke does not return to center in a turn. Obviously you establish the turn/bank angle you keep the amount control wheel travel that will maintain that bank. Centering the cyclic/yoke will have the aircraft eventually go to level (if designed). I'm sure you know this but simply miss-stated or perhaps that is what you meant by "adjust from center."

 

[Everskyward]

I thought the lift was controlled by the angle of attack which may or may not be controlled by the elevator...and the frankenkota doesn't even have an elevator but my office building does

So does my office even though it's only two stories.

 

[Clark1961]

So does my office even though it's only two stories.

Which two stories?

 

[Dav8or]

You guys clearly don't know Rich, his experience teaching, and his unparalleled contribution to aviation in the form of stall/spin awareness. It's an elementary video aimed at dispelling the myths many pilots seem to have regarding the dynamics and requirements of performing a turn. This is the subtext for the video, and was stated right in the beginning.

You're right, I don't know Rich. I'm sure he's all you say he is, a wonderful instructor and a great guy. His video production and media communication skills need work though. A video like this should be a little like a thesis paper. It should have a purpose. It should put forth a thesis and then illustrate why this thesis is true. It should remain focused on the original thesis.

This video first states that the fact that pilots that crash often do so while turning. It then claims that most pilots don't know what aerodynamic control surface actually turns the plane. OK... but then it goes on to try to prove with a series of cockpit video that it's the elevator that turns the plane and not aileron, or rudder. The cockpit video is nice, but it doesn't fully communicate his ideas to the viewer. Like I said, power point graphics, or animations in conjunction with the "real world" video would be far better.

But wait... wasn't this video about pilots crashing in turns? What happened to that stuff?? How does knowing which control surface is primarily responsible for turning the airplane of any use to the pilot and how does it keep him out of trouble? It's kind of like asking the motorcycle student, "Which causes the motorcycle to turn, the handle bars, or the leaning?" How does knowing the answer keep him from crashing the motorcycle? Does it really matter?

Again, not a critique of the OP's flying skills, his teaching abilities, or his aviation knowledge. It's a critique of his video.

 

[dmspilot]

complicating simple concepts to infinite degrees of ridiculousness

Funny, I thought that was what OP was doing.

The rest of your post consists entirely of appeal to authority and ad hominem of everyone else.

 

[Velocity173]

Yes but you quote what I said and I said:



What's the sense in restating what I said? I wasn't arguing that. I was saying that helicopters do not apply in this conversation because the method by which they accomplish the turn is not the same. The rotor is an elevator, aileron, and wing all in one. This is fact. Yes obviously we're doing the same thing - modifying the component of left - but the METHOD is different. Thus does not really apply in this conversation.

Also the cyclic/yoke does not return to center in a turn. Obviously you establish the turn/bank angle you keep the amount control wheel travel that will maintain that bank. Centering the cyclic/yoke will have the aircraft eventually go to level (if designed). I'm sure you know this but simply miss-stated or perhaps that is what you meant by "adjust from center."

I think you're misunderstanding what Greg is talking about. It's not about what control surface is banking the aircraft or even what airfoil is providing the lift. It's about vector quantities that produce the turn during and after the bank is established. You could substitute an airplane in this picture and it would be the same:

 

[RoscoeT]

Do you mean the elevator? So when I overshoot the centerline on my base to final turn, I should just haul back on the elevator?

Don't know how you got to thinking anyone implied that. Who ever said that pilots overshooting base to final need to sharpen their turn? ...not that pulling back more would do that.

 

[Engine]

I think you're misunderstanding what Greg is talking about. It's not about what control surface is banking the aircraft or even what airfoil is providing the lift. It's about vector quantities that produce the turn during and after the bank is established. You could substitute an airplane in this picture and it would be the same:

I have no arguments there. None whatsoever. I agree. An airplane can replace the helo in that drawing and it would be correct.

What I am saying here is the method by which you do this in a helicopter is not, as Greg said "...same as everything else."

 

[ClimbnSink]

I have no arguments there. None whatsoever. I agree. An airplane can replace the helo in that drawing and it would be correct.

What I am saying here is the method by which you do this in a helicopter is not, as Greg said "...same as everything else."

Sure it is, you use the stick thing to tilt the lift vector. Helicopters turn same same. Everything flies the same(except lighter then air stuff.) Sure the sticks have different names but they all do the same thing. My flying machines do the same thing by pulling strings. All glory to the horizontal component lift.

 

[noobJohn]

???? The elevator is the main control you use to turn the airplane. Pull back and turn quicker. I just learned all this today by watching the video.

Don't know how you got to thinking anyone implied that. Who ever said that pilots overshooting base to final need to sharpen their turn? ...not that pulling back more would do that.

 

[Henning]

Tell you what, I can trim the plane out for level flight, touch nothing but the rudder pedals and make the plane turn. I will not maintain altitude, but the plane will turn.

 

[noobJohn]

I could have sworn you could turn with just the ailerons, as well. I guess I was wrong.

Tell you what, I can trim the plane out for level flight, touch nothing but the rudder pedals and make the plane turn. I will not maintain altitude, but the plane will turn.

 

[Henning]

I could have sworn you could turn with just the ailerons, as well. I guess I was wrong.

You can.

 

[noobJohn]

I don't want to argue with the guru. Elevator is the primary control for turning. Didn't you watch the video?

You can.

 

[EdFred]

Tell you what, I can trim the plane out for level flight, touch nothing but the rudder pedals and make the plane turn. I will not maintain altitude, but the plane will turn.

Depends how much reserve power you have.

 

[MAKG1]

Depends how much reserve power you have.

How so?

That seems to work in gliding flight as well.

Unless you mean that you're already climbing, and turning with rudder only just means you might climb a little less.

 

[Lindberg]

Don't know how you got to thinking anyone implied that. Who ever said that pilots overshooting base to final need to sharpen their turn? ...not that pulling back more would do that.

I think Rich said that in post #41.

 

[Henning]

Depends how much reserve power you have.

If I touch nothing but the rudder, I won't tap the reserve power.

 

[Henning]

Depends how much reserve power you have.

If I touch nothing but the rudder, I won't tap the reserve power. Heck, in my plane I can touch nothing except a throttle and make the plane turn.

 

[Everskyward]

Which two stories?

My stories and I'm sticking to them!

I see what Rich is getting at, but a blanket statement like "the elevator controls the turn" is going to get all kinds of people trying to poke holes in it... for various reasons.

 

[gismo]

I see where you are coming from in that you are calling any bend in the flightpath a "turn" even if it is straight ahead. But I can also see where this would confuse people who think of turns in the normal sense. So maybe when you ask "how does an airplane turn?" you need to define what "turn" means. Or is this something you are trying to get people to discover on their own?

Rotation and turning (curved path) are not synonymous.

 

[Everskyward]

Rotation and turning (curved path) are not synonymous.

I'm not sure why you mentioned this in relation to my post.

 

[EdFred]

How so?

That seems to work in gliding flight as well.

Unless you mean that you're already climbing, and turning with rudder only just means you might climb a little less.

I read it as he wouldn't touch the ailerons or elevator. But I now see he meant he wouldn't touch anything whatsoever save the rudder.

 

[redtail]

If I touch nothing but the rudder, I won't tap the reserve power. Heck, in my plane I can touch nothing except a throttle and make the plane turn.

So from a straight and level trimmed flight path, you can give me a 30° turn to the right using only the throttle

Edit: Oh I forgot, you fly a twin. I was thinking single engine

 

[Engine]

So from a straight and level trimmed flight path, you can give me a 30° turn to the right using only the throttle

He's in a twin.

 

[Henning]

So from a straight and level trimmed flight path, you can give me a 30° turn to the right using only the throttle

I can retard the right throttle or advance the left if I still have some to give and the plane will enter a right turn due to asymmetric thrust.

 

[redtail]

Ok so where do we go from here? Do we continue to argue about lift vectors, horizontal components, the elevator, throttle, etc. or do we agree that it's ALL of the above. It's just a matter of what does what at any particular moment in time. What control you use most, depends on the type and quality of turn you're trying to achieve.