Learn to Turn

[Shepherd]

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...

You have done well, grasshopper.
BTW: We call it "top" rudder, when you feed in rudder to keep the nose up level with the horizon.

 

[rstowell]

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.

Once again the discussion diverges from the central thesis, which started with the question: "What is the primary control surface you use when turning an airplane?"

Anecdotes about using rudder, asymmetric thrust, and even opening doors to turn are nice, but off point. To get things back on point, please look up the definition of "primary" (hint: it does not mean "exclusive").

It is also curious that when I advanced the notion that the pilot dictates turning (primarily) with elevator inputs, Henning spent a lot of time advocating that vector diagrams were the answer and that it was all about horizontal component of lift, nothing else. Yet against his own argument, here he is now attributing turns to the rudder. I suppose I should take the opposite viewpoint and argue that rudder doesn't turn the airplane -- lift vectors and the horizontal component of lift do.

So what is it -- can we control turning flight with our choice of control inputs, or is it merely the whim of lift vectors?

 

[MAKG1]

So what is it -- can we control turning flight with our choice of control inputs, or is it merely the whim of lift vectors?

It is both.

Do you turn your car with the steering wheel or the ground?

This idea of "primary" seems devoid of meaning. You use all three attitude controls for every maneuver, even flying straight and level.

 

[Henning]

Once again the discussion diverges from the central thesis, which started with the question: "What is the primary control surface you use when turning an airplane?"

Anecdotes about using rudder, asymmetric thrust, and even opening doors to turn are nice, but off point. To get things back on point, please look up the definition of "primary" (hint: it does not mean "exclusive").

It is also curious that when I advanced the notion that the pilot dictates turning (primarily) with elevator inputs, Henning spent a lot of time advocating that vector diagrams were the answer and that it was all about horizontal component of lift, nothing else. Yet against his own argument, here he is now attributing turns to the rudder. I suppose I should take the opposite viewpoint and argue that rudder doesn't turn the airplane -- lift vectors and the horizontal component of lift do.

So what is it -- can we control turning flight with our choice of control inputs, or is it merely the whim of lift vectors?

That would make you correct, because the rudder doesn't turn the airplane, the rudder creates a force through a lever arm which changes the angle of the wing, the wing then turns the plane. Same thing the elevator does, same thing the ailerons do. NONE of these is primary to controlling the turn, they are all required in conjunction to each other to control the wing, the wing is primary in controlling the turn.

 

[rstowell]

It is both.

Do you turn your car with the steering wheel or the ground?

This idea of "primary" seems devoid of meaning. You use all three attitude controls for every maneuver, even flying straight and level.

Under normal circumstances, the car does not turn until commanded to do so; ditto the airplane. The driver and the pilot use their controls (definition of control: "the power to influence or direct ... the course of events") to manipulate forces for the desired result. Without these controls, the operator cannot manipulate the forces/direct the outcomes. Not sure why some see a disconnect between the controls and the forces over which they exert influence.

Once the bank angle has been set in the airplane, the type, shape, and quality of the resulting turn (and there are many turns the pilot may be able to choose from) is primarily (sorry you don't like that word) determined by elevator actions.

Of course we use all three controls, and here's exactly what they do:

1. Aileron controls roll/bank (head-to-hip movement of the nose and wingtips relative to the pilot, regardless of the attitude)
2. Rudder controls yaw (ear-to-ear movement of the nose and wingtips)
3. Elevator controls pitch = AoA = G-load = lines and arcs (head-to-foot movement of the nose and wingtips).

There are secondary effects associated with each control, too: rolling comes with adverse yaw, pitching can have gyroscopic effects in roll and yaw, yawing comes with secondary rolling and possibly gyroscopic effects in pitch. But let's ignore those for the sake of simplicity here.

If I want or need to bank, I use ailerons. If I want the banking to occur in coordinated flight, I also use the rudder. If I want to manage the curving flightpath, I use the elevator.

Coordinated level turn, smooth air, properly rigged airplane, clockwise turning prop (pilot's POV):

Cruise Config: Roll to 30 degrees of bank with coordinated aileron and rudder. Once achieved, aileron and rudder are neutralized and will stay there until time to roll out. Elevator -- need to pull +1.15 G on the elevator for the desired curve.

Same thing, but now 60 degrees of bank, need to pull +2.0 G on the elevator for the desired curve.​

Left Climbing Turn after take off, smooth air, properly rigged airplane, clockwise turning prop (pilot's POV): Coordinated roll to 30 degrees of bank. Once achieved, ailerons neutral, net right rudder needed to cancel the remaining slow flight engine effects. Elevator manages the climbing arc. Too much pull changes the arc and can lead to an accelerated stall while turning.

Commercial Chandelle to the left: Coordinated roll to 30 degrees of bank (no turn). Neutralize. Pull on the elevator sufficiently to arc the airplane upward and leftward to a ground ref 90-degrees from the original heading. Now need opposite aileron to prevent overbanking while aft elevator pulls the airplane through the climbing turn. Rudder as required for coordinated flight (note: as the airplane slows, adverse yaw from the continuous right roll is additive to the engine effects). From the 90 to 180 point, sufficient aft elevator is applied continuously to maintain the nose-up pitch attitude attained at the 90-degree mark. Continuous right aileron is applied to slowly roll from 30 degrees of bank to wings level at the 180 degree mark. Rudder is applied to maintain coordinated flight (note: engine effects continue to increase as speed decays in the last 90 degrees of heading change, adverse yaw from the right roll is still additive). Note this is a left climbing turn with right aileron/right roll applied throughout the climb. Ailerons managing the bank angle, rudder managing the yaw, elevator managing the climbing arc.

 

[EdFred]

Under normal circumstances, the car does not turn until commanded to do so; ditto the airplane. The driver and the pilot use their controls (definition of control: "the power to influence or direct ... the course of events") to manipulate forces for the desired result. Without these controls, the operator cannot manipulate the forces/direct the outcomes. Not sure why some see a disconnect between the controls and the forces over which they exert influence.

Once the bank angle has been set in the airplane, the type, shape, and quality of the resulting turn (and there are many turns the pilot may be able to choose from) is primarily (sorry you don't like that word) determined by elevator actions.

Of course we use all three controls, and here's exactly what they do:

1. Aileron controls roll/bank (head-to-hip movement of the nose and wingtips relative to the pilot, regardless of the attitude)
2. Rudder controls yaw (ear-to-ear movement of the nose and wingtips)
3. Elevator controls pitch = AoA = G-load = lines and arcs (head-to-foot movement of the nose and wingtips).

There are secondary effects associated with each control, too: rolling comes with adverse yaw, pitching can have gyroscopic effects in roll and yaw, yawing comes with secondary rolling and possibly gyroscopic effects in pitch. But let's ignore those for the sake of simplicity here.

If I want or need to bank, I use ailerons. If I want the banking to occur in coordinated flight, I also use the rudder. If I want to manage the curving flightpath, I use the elevator.

Coordinated level turn, smooth air, properly rigged airplane, clockwise turning prop (pilot's POV):

Cruise Config: Roll to 30 degrees of bank with coordinated aileron and rudder. Once achieved, aileron and rudder are neutralized and will stay there until time to roll out. Elevator -- need to pull +1.15 G on the elevator for the desired curve.

Same thing, but now 60 degrees of bank, need to pull +2.0 G on the elevator for the desired curve.​

Left Climbing Turn after take off, smooth air, properly rigged airplane, clockwise turning prop (pilot's POV): Coordinated roll to 30 degrees of bank. Once achieved, ailerons neutral, net right rudder needed to cancel the remaining slow flight engine effects. Elevator manages the climbing arc. Too much pull changes the arc and can lead to an accelerated stall while turning.

Commercial Chandelle to the left: Coordinated roll to 30 degrees of bank (no turn). Neutralize. Pull on the elevator sufficiently to arc the airplane upward and leftward to a ground ref 90-degrees from the original heading. Now need opposite aileron to prevent overbanking while aft elevator pulls the airplane through the climbing turn. Rudder as required for coordinated flight (note: as the airplane slows, adverse yaw from the continuous right roll is additive to the engine effects). From the 90 to 180 point, sufficient aft elevator is applied continuously to maintain the nose-up pitch attitude attained at the 90-degree mark. Continuous right aileron is applied to slowly roll from 30 degrees of bank to wings level at the 180 degree mark. Rudder is applied to maintain coordinated flight (note: engine effects continue to increase as speed decays in the last 90 degrees of heading change, adverse yaw from the right roll is still additive). Note this is a left climbing turn with right aileron/right roll applied throughout the climb. Ailerons managing the bank angle, rudder managing the yaw, elevator managing the climbing arc.

Nope, and nope. Try again.

 

[Insane]

Now I remember why it's been so long since I participated in aviation forums like this. Those who want to learn and those who have something to share here are overshadowed by pseudo-intellectual bullies who have staked out these cyber-hangars as their own little fiefdoms.

P.S.: Insane -- thanks for pointing out specifics in your critique, you jerk.

How about this for specifics...

You control three axes and thrust and your job is to use those to manage the vectors acting on your plane. The orientation of those vectors and the net result is what turns the plane.

By the way posting a self-indulgent video of yourself playing with your toy does not make you an expert.



Not saying you aren't a really excellent pilot. You're just describing what you're doing incorrectly.

 

[noobJohn]

Are you looking in the mirror?

I was guessing you staked out a demonstrably false position in order to get people thinking about and discussing how an airplane turns. The discussion in the thread has been interesting. Wasn't that what you wanted?

Those who want to learn and those who have something to share here are overshadowed by pseudo-intellectual bullies

 

[MAKG1]

Those who want to learn and those who have something to share here are overshadowed by pseudo-intellectual bullies who have staked out these cyber-hangars as their own little fiefdoms.

I've only seen one poster that could be characterized as bullying. Maybe I missed others; it happens.

But there have been several folks, including me, that disagree with you.

I will not call you an idiot -- it's clearly not true -- but I do think you're drawing a distinction that doesn't add anything.

Maybe student pilots might need to think about setting the controls in some order, but I had stopped doing that by my check ride, and I don't think I'm anywhere near alone. I set my attitude and place the controls where I need them to do that. For a student, setting bank, then rudder to coordinate, then elevator to maintain altitude or descent rate makes a lot more sense, even if the elevator were "primary" (whatever that means). The base to final stall happens because students are told to limit bank, and that's terrible advice. Heck, at altitude, I've done 60 deg banked level turns at pattern speed. It's real close to stall, requires full power, and it does set off the stall warning, but that's where the limit is, not the usual 20 deg.

And let me be clear -- I know you've had many useful things to say in other contexts. I'm limiting my comments specifically to this thread and the video it references. Not a comment at all on your character, just the facts in this particular topic. And you could convince me that I'm wrong with a compelling explanation of what "primary" means in this context, and how it could improve the base to final stall scenario to treat the elevator as primary.

 

[Jaybird180]

It is both.

Do you turn your car with the steering wheel or the ground?

This idea of "primary" seems devoid of meaning. You use all three attitude controls for every maneuver, even flying straight and level.

Lets see if we can get FAA testing on board with primary and supporting instruments for Flight by Reference to Instruments

 

[Jaybird180]

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

Can do that with a SE too. Remember P-factor?

 

[MAKG1]

Can do that with a SE too. Remember P-factor?

Well, only if you're at moderate power and you don't care about your altitude.

You need elevator for P-factor (it's a function of angle of attack). But the changing engine load can roll the aircraft. Not very easily.

Much more straightforward in a twin, excepting wacko designs like a Cessna 337.

 

[RoscoeT]

It goes against my nature to say something unpleasant about a poster... but the OP in this case may clearly know how to fly but he really needs to stop analyzing it because his statements are so ludicrous and off base and just frankly wrong that he is just making a fool of himself.

Sorry Rich somebody has to say it. You're an idiot.

Most idiotic post yet. Why don't you go schedule a lesson with Rich in person and check his credentials. The true idiot has made himself known, and it is not Rich.

 

[Insane]

Most idiotic post yet. Why don't you go schedule a lesson with Rich in person and check his credentials. The true idiot has made himself known, and it is not Rich.

I don't need to check his credentials his retarded arguments say it all for me.

Would I schedule a lesson with some random crackpot who posts a video of utter tripe? I don't know anything about him other than this ridiculous video.

"Learn to turn" indeed.

I tell you what. Maybe YOU should schedule a lesson with ME, and I can teach you how to tell BS from logical arguments.



No offense and I hope Rich will accept my sincere apologies for calling him an idiot. He is simply grossly mistaken and confused. That is all. As are you it appears.

 

[RoscoeT]

I don't need to check his credentials his retarded arguments say it all for me.

Would I schedule a lesson with some random crackpot who posts a video of utter tripe? I don't know anything about him other than this ridiculous video.

"Learn to turn" indeed.

I tell you what. Maybe YOU should schedule a lesson with ME, and I can teach you how to tell BS from logical arguments.



No offense and I hope Rich will accept my sincere apologies for calling him an idiot. He is simply grossly mistaken and confused. That is all. As are you it appears.

At least your screen name is accurate.

 

[somorris]

I don't know most of the posters here, but I have met Rich and have a lot of respect for him and his abilities. I have read several of his books. Similarly, I have a lot of respect for other former posters here that have left because of uncalled for attacks. There are those who learn from more experienced pilots on this forum. There are others who think they already know it all and cannot learn from anyone. Attacks like Insane made do not contribute to the advancement of knowledge and it makes me sad that people like Insane find it necessary to do that and somehow think it adds to the discussion.

 

[EdFred]

And telling the rest of us that we don't know how a plane flies is respectful? OOOOOOOOOK.

 

[Henning]

I don't need to check his credentials his retarded arguments say it all for me.

Would I schedule a lesson with some random crackpot who posts a video of utter tripe? I don't know anything about him other than this ridiculous video.

"Learn to turn" indeed.

I tell you what. Maybe YOU should schedule a lesson with ME, and I can teach you how to tell BS from logical arguments.



No offense and I hope Rich will accept my sincere apologies for calling him an idiot. He is simply grossly mistaken and confused. That is all. As are you it appears.

Actually, you should, he is not mistaken and confused, I just think the explanation leaves out too much and generates an incomplete impression that he was not trying to give. He was trying to simplify something too far that the confusion it could generate is not really productive for a student trying to earn a license. It's much more geared at a pilot learning aerobatics and getting them to think about manipulating the plane in unusual attitudes. If the post had been in an aerobatics forum I wouldn't have commented, but for student pilots it leaves blanks in fundamentals, and those fundamentals are what are expected to be the answers when asked on a test.

Rich is far from an idiot or confused, I just think his presentation is not well formed and confusing for the target audience in "Pilot Training".

 

[Insane]

At least your screen name is accurate.

You win.

I have no comeback.

 

[Insane]

I don't know most of the posters here, but I have met Rich and have a lot of respect for him and his abilities. I have read several of his books. Similarly, I have a lot of respect for other former posters here that have left because of uncalled for attacks. There are those who learn from more experienced pilots on this forum. There are others who think they already know it all and cannot learn from anyone. Attacks like Insane made do not contribute to the advancement of knowledge and it makes me sad that people like Insane find it necessary to do that and somehow think it adds to the discussion.

I agree with what you say but let me explain why I think he deserves getting run out of here.

A little story if you will humor me…

Last summer I was sitting in my office at my house during the day working at home when I heard someone come to the door. My lovely bride answered the door, and a guy was at the door in running clothes, a little out of breath, and he said "Hey I was just running by and I noticed the two oak trees in front of your house are splitting, and there are signs of oak rot and I just wanted to let you know you should get that looked at. Here is the info of a great tree service I know…". Very convincing.

I heard all this so I got up, and headed out the door to ask him some more questions. He was already at the next house doing the same thing with a van hovering maybe two or three houses up as he went door to door with his scare tactics trying to drum up business.

So the way I see it, here Rich comes along in the training section which is frequented by lowly Cirrus pilots and students and a few professionals but mainly lower end pilots such as myself . He tells us we're going to die because we don't know how to turn and has some video to back this up. This video shows some acrobatics, all very impressive and bound to get someone like me all impressed. Oh my. I don't know how to turn. All this time I thought I did, but I don't! It is actually the ELEVATOR that turns the plane (even though ELEVATOR appears to come from the word ELEVATE but anyway). I'd better sign up and go get some lessons from him!

To me this is no different from some scummy dude running around my neighborhood scaring as many people as possible that the trees in their front yards are about to come crashing down with some bogus explanation.

He is here for business. He is advertising. Plain and simple. With distortions of the truth and scare tactics.

 

[Dav8or]

Once again the discussion diverges from the central thesis, which started with the question: "What is the primary control surface you use when turning an airplane?"

Anecdotes about using rudder, asymmetric thrust, and even opening doors to turn are nice, but off point. To get things back on point, please look up the definition of "primary" (hint: it does not mean "exclusive").

Primary too me would mean first, or most effective. The way to test for this is to try each flight control all by itself and see what it does.

• Elevator- If no ailerons, or rudder is used, input from the elevator will cause the plane to go up, or down, but no turn is initiated (other than the loop being labeled a vertical turn, which is an aside from this discussion IMO.)
• Aileron- If no elevator, or rudder is used, the plane does bank either left or right and a turn is started. It will however start descending.
• Rudder- If no elevator, or ailerons is used, input from the rudder will turn the airplane left or right. It will also start a bank.

From this one can deduce that the elevator is not the primary control surface because you don't use it first, nor can it turn the airplane by itself. (Loops aside) Because the ailerons have the most dramatic and immediate causation of a turn and for over a century, aeronautical engineers have been attaching the steering wheel, or yoke, to the ailerons and not the elevator, I would have to say that the ailerons are the primary control surface initiating a turn in the standard airplane.

Sorry, not buying the elevator as primary. Needed yes, primary no.

 

[somorris]

I understand what you are saying and why, Insane. It is just that I have seen a lot of people (Wayne Bower, Dr. Bruce and others) leave this forum who have a lot to contribute to various discussions. I just think it would contribute more overall if we can somehow discuss without getting down to cuss . Everybody has something to teach us if we listen. I appreciate your input.

 

[RoscoeT]

Primary too me would mean first, or most effective. The way to test for this is to try each flight control all by itself and see what it does.

• Elevator- If no ailerons, or rudder is used, input from the elevator will cause the plane to go up, or down, but no turn is initiated (other than the loop being labeled a vertical turn, which is an aside from this discussion IMO.)
• Aileron- If no elevator, or rudder is used, the plane does bank either left or right and a turn is started. It will however start descending.
• Rudder- If no elevator, or ailerons is used, input from the rudder will turn the airplane left or right. It will also start a bank.

From this one can deduce that the elevator is not the primary control surface because you don't use it first, nor can it turn the airplane by itself. (Loops aside) Because the ailerons have the most dramatic and immediate causation of a turn and for over a century, aeronautical engineers have been attaching the steering wheel, or yoke, to the ailerons and not the elevator, I would have to say that the ailerons are the primary control surface initiating a turn in the standard airplane.

Sorry, not buying the elevator as primary. Needed yes, primary no.

Now that you are equating semantics with your own intellectual superiority on a topic a 3-year old can understand, let me say this - you guys seem dead set on proving this "random interloper" wrong on this forum. Any 3 year old can understand - step one bank airplane. Step 2 - center aileron. Step 3 apply elevator to hold airplane in level turn. I guess now that you have proven that ailerons are used for step one, the elevator is not the primary control during a turn. Your theory that ailerons bank an airplane is quite astute and original. Angle of attack alone is ultimately what causes a turning path. What controls AOA? Again, semantics. Clearly Rich is not quite at the 3 year old level of understanding. I'm glad you piped in. Rich can now give back his '06 National CFI of the year award, since he clearly doesn't understand what causes an airplane to turn. Whew this thread has been enlightening.

 

[ClimbnSink]

I understand what you are saying and why, Insane. It is just that I have seen a lot of people (Wayne Bower, Dr. Bruce and others) leave this forum who have a lot to contribute to various discussions. I just think it would contribute more overall if we can somehow discuss without getting down to cuss . Everybody has something to teach us if we listen. I appreciate your input.

All those victims dished out plenty. The OP and the poster defending him have been the nastiest in this thread. How good an idea can it be if it takes nastiness to defend it?

 

[Silvaire]

Six pages and I haven't learned anything. The original post said that most people get killed in airplanes by losing control during a turn. I don't know if that's a fact or not but regardless it has nothing to do with whether or not they believe the elevator is the primary control in a turn or how they answered that silly question.

I think this is a classic case of far too much analysis of a fairly simple concept and a classic example of the fact that the more you say the more people will realize that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[RoscoeT]

All those victims dished out plenty. The OP and the poster defending him have been the nastiest in this thread. How good an idea can it be if it takes nastiness to defend it?

The OP was nasty? After responding to being called an idiot? Clearly he's just trying to impress everyone. No, he's just confused. Poor guy. Must have nothing better to do. I think he's learned his lesson on P!ss-ants Of America, though. Nice job feigning a non-troll post though.

 

[ClimbnSink]

The OP was nasty? After responding to being called an idiot? Clearly he's just trying to impress everyone. No, he's just confused. Poor guy. Must have nothing better to do. I think he's learned his lesson on P!ss-ants Of America, though. Nice job feigning a non-troll post though.

Maybe it was just you. No worries I still love ya.

 

[RoscoeT]

Maybe it was just you. No worries I still love ya.

I guess extreme arrogant head-up-assery does brings out a bit of nastiness in me...and I'm not even talking about you.

 

[redtail]

Can do that with a SE too. Remember P-factor?

Well, only if you're at moderate power and you don't care about your altitude.

You need elevator for P-factor (it's a function of angle of attack). But the changing engine load can roll the aircraft. Not very easily.

Much more straightforward in a twin, excepting wacko designs like a Cessna 337.

Not only that, but I asked for a right turn, 30 degree heading change. P-factor is one of the left turning tendencies.:wink2:

 

[FastEddieB]

P-factor is one of the left turning tendencies.:wink2:

Yes, it is.

Usually.

But what about in my Sky Arrow - with a ROTAX 912 turning in the "normal" direction?

 

[MAKG1]

Not only that, but I asked for a right turn, 30 degree heading change. P-factor is one of the left turning tendencies.:wink2:

Umm, you can get left P-factor very easily with negative angle of attack. Of course, sustaining that for any length of time at the necessary high power setting might be problematic.

 

[EdFred]

Umm, you can get left P-factor very easily with negative angle of attack. Of course, sustaining that for any length of time at the necessary high power setting might be problematic.

Yep, a little left rudder needed on descent in certain planes.

 

[FastEddieB]

Umm, you can get left P-factor very easily with negative angle of attack.

How would that work?

 

[MAKG1]

How would that work?

Push the yoke over at high power...very briefly.

It reverses the sign of the yaw moment you get at rotation.

I guess it might be safer to try this by levelling out far too suddenly from a Vx climb. P-factor will be felt as the climb rate changes, not after.

You can feel right turning tendencies even in a 172 during normal descents, but it isn't P-factor. Mainly, the right turns require a lot less right rudder (I fly a lot of right patterns) than they do otherwise.

 

[Dav8or]

Six pages and I haven't learned anything. The original post said that most people get killed in airplanes by losing control during a turn. I don't know if that's a fact or not but regardless it has nothing to do with whether or not they believe the elevator is the primary control in a turn or how they answered that silly question.

I think this is a classic case of far too much analysis of a fairly simple concept and a classic example of the fact that the more you say the more people will realize that you don't know what you're talking about.

Completely agree. I haven't really learned anything yet, except that some people can get pretty riled up on the internet over nothing. Actually, no I already knew that.

 

[redtail]

Umm, you can get left P-factor very easily with negative angle of attack. Of course, sustaining that for any length of time at the necessary high power setting might be problematic.

Push the yoke over at high power...very briefly.

It reverses the sign of the yaw moment you get at rotation.

I guess it might be safer to try this by levelling out far too suddenly from a Vx climb. P-factor will be felt as the climb rate changes, not after.

You can feel right turning tendencies even in a 172 during normal descents, but it isn't P-factor. Mainly, the right turns require a lot less right rudder (I fly a lot of right patterns) than they do otherwise.

Yeah but in practical terms, that would be one hell of a way to get a 30 degree heading change to the right, when I can just bank with ailerons, offset adverse yaw with rudder and maintain altitude with the "primary" AOA manipulator.

God this thread is getting ridiculous.


On another note, it's a shame that some people felt the need to belittle Rich. I've only read one book of his...Emergency Maneuver Training, which I purchased shortly after getting my PPL in 1999. Thanks Rich Stowell, that book taught me an awful lot and I have the utmost respect for you!

 

[EdFred]

On another note, it's a shame that some people felt the need to belittle Rich. I've only read one book of his...Emergency Maneuver Training, which I purchased shortly after getting my PPL in 1999. Thanks Rich Stowell, that book taught me an awful lot and I have the utmost respect for you!

It's the manner in which his presentation was made. You can't imply everyone is wrong, you're smarter than them, and expect ticker tape parades.

 

[redtail]

It's the manner in which his presentation was made. You can't imply everyone is wrong, you're smarter than them, and expect ticker tape parades.

I didn't get that impression at all from him or his video. In fact, I got that from certain others here.

 

[QuiQuog]

It's amazing you people can even fly if you can't even agree on how to turn the damn plane! :wink2:

"IT'S COMING RIGHT AT US!!!"
"looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue."

 

[EdFred]

I didn't get that impression at all from him or his video. In fact, I got that from certain others here.

I didn't watch the video, because of his retorts on the first couple pages of this thread. I definitely got the "All pilots but me are stupid" vibe from him. After that I will never watch his videos, nor recommend them to any of my students based on that.