S-turns, I can somewhat agree, though I don't think they should be commercial maneuvers either (the comm ground-reference maneuvers are harder) - They're basically useless.
Turns around a point are a good way of demonstrating the effect of groundspeed on turn radius. I can see them not being part of the checkride, but they should be at least demonstrated and tried a few times (which is usually all it takes to master them anyway.) Unfortunately, as we know, there are enough bad CFI's out there that anything that's not on the PTS isn't going to be taught to everyone.
Steep turns, I vehemently disagree. Rolling in and out of a steep turn is about the only thing you really need rudder for in the private PTS, it demonstrates things like load factor and the fact that you can bank that much without stalling (think base-to-final spin, people are scared to bank!) plus it's about the only maneuver on the private PTS that requires you to demonstrate mastery about all axes of flight simultaneously. It's also a VERY useful maneuver. Why on earth would you not want private pilots to know how to do steep turns?
I never thought of steep turns as being particularly hard, even at the private pilot level. Truthfully I remember them as being easier and more fun than any of the ground reference maneuvers. They are also useful in getting a feel for a new airplane, and even if you disagree you'd better get used to them because they are something you will probably see on every checkride you take...
From my perspective, the ground reference maneuvers are very good stepping stones in the pre-solo stage of the syllabus.
As noted, quickest/tightest turn normally occurs at the limit g-load just above a stall, and stall speed goes up a lot between a 2-g load and a 3.8-g load -- 1.4Vs(1-g) versus 1.9Vs(1-g). If clean stall speed is 60 knots, you'd be doing 84 knots for the tightest 60-degree bank level turn, but at 74 degrees, you'd have to be doing 116 knots. Increasing the g-load decreases the turn radius, but the increased speed necessary increases radius, so in that range, the net difference is small, and you gain little by increasing bank angle beyond 60. However, unless you trade altitude for turn rate, the power required to sustain that turn goes up a lot between 2-g and 3.8-g, and I suspect a 182 (or any other light single other than an Extra 300 or the like) cannot sustain a nearly 4-g turn -- it would decelerate fairly quickly, requiring a reduction of bank angle to something with a sustainable g-load. For that reason, Kent's choice to use 60 degrees as his "dead-end canyon" target is a real good idea.
Actually, it does. It's far harder to make precise turns (especially small ones) without proper coordination. Just watch some flat-footer try to fly an ILS sometime, or try to line up on the runway in a crosswind, and you'll see what I mean.
Sadly, the accident statistics suggest otherwise -- poor basic stick-and-rudder skills seem to be a major cause of accidents.
The balance between more pilots and lower premiums from better trained pilots is rather like the L/D curve. It automatically self bottoms at what the market will take.
I disagree on both counts. Even interconnected Bonanzas require some footwork, especially for precise turns (like on an ILS) and at low speed and high power when the interconnect doesn't help position the rudder off-center as needed for proper flight even with the ailerons undeflected. And Cherokees, with their low aspect ratio wings (creating higher induced drag), need rudder, too.
The fact that a person gets lucky once or even ten times s/he does something wrong doesn't mean that person will be lucky on the second or eleventh, and the fact that one person is lucky doesn't mean the next person trying the same wrong thing will be equally lucky.
Jeanie, if you continue with your aerobatic lessons and enter aerobatic competition, you'll have to do a competition turn, which is described here:
Oh, bogus. The need for a rudder is a basic aerodynamic fact unless you want all planes to have yaw dampers and casterable wheels.
Not "yep" -- "usually."
Except that there are other forces, like those associated with dihedral, that work against the overbanking tendency. Those forces are stronger than overbanking at shallow angles, but weaker at large ones.
I do, as will any examiner worth his/her salt.
Yes -- for all of us. The Law of Exercise tells us that if we only use rudder when applying aileron at low speeds, we won't remember to use it then. Only if we make use of rudder along with application of aileron inputs a habitual/reflexive action will we do so in times of real need. Just take one of those flat-footed pilots up for a stall series to see why, and be sure your feet are near the rudder pedals at the stall break unless you want to test their spin-recovery techniques, too. BTDT -- too many times.
Or even a commercial pilot, who was at least required to have seen the "rate and radius of turn" equations for the written test, if he studied for it.Right, but the rate of turn is faster - And an Aero-E like yourself should be able to easily come up with an equation relating the differing wingtip speeds at differing bank angles in a level turn, right?
(FWIW, I'd like to see it! I'd do it myself but I'd have to find a couple of equations I don't know to start out with...)
You must not have studied
On the roll-in and roll-out -- long time with the ailerons deflected, and the ball should stay centered during entry/exit as well as in the stabilized turn. But that's not the issue to which I was responding.
Perhaps the way Howard "Eye of the Examiner" Fried does it in Ercoupes -- roll down the window and hang an arm and shoulder out the side needing drag.He and Langeweische both saw adverse yaw as the real cause of the need for rudders, and in turns i suppose it is, but I am curious about how well something like a Skyfarer would do landing with a direct crosswind...
