Wolfgang understood energy management and what the airplane wants to do. Great book too often displayed but not read. Good for you.

As a helicopter Is in the Army, I used to watch guys beat the hell out of the cockpit with both the stick (cyclic) and the pedals (anti-torque). To try to get them to stop, I would hold my hands about 2” from the cyclic, and have them try to fly a co,plate traffic pattern without touching my hands. Of course, they would fail, and tell me it just wasn’t possible to do it, that no-one could fly within those limits. So, of course, I would tell them that EVERY pilot in our unit could do it, and so would they before I signed the, off... I would then demonstrate that to them by flying the pattern with them holding their hands even closer to the cyclic.

The we would to the same exercise with the pedals - feet 2” from the pedals, and you can’t move them any more than that. The thing is, ALL of them would initially be using “dynamic, pro-active gross over-controlling” movements of both cyclic and anti-torque, and believing with all their hearts that it was the only way they could fly... Then the light would go on, and they would stop “fighting with themselves” and relax - only moving the controls a tiny bit to compensate for the small movements the helicopter made - catching them BEFORE any significant momentum would develop.

The clincher for me, however, was to get them stabilized at a 3-foot hover, and demonstrate that “rowing” the cyclic stick around the cockpit would waste enough power (torque) to cause the helicopter to descent 3 feet and land. It’s wasnt a real pretty landing, but it made the point. Then we would re-establish the 3-foot hover, and repeat the exercise, using stabbing left/right pedal inputs, and again we would descend and land. It was 100% repeatable in every helicopter I ever flew.

I can’t help but think that “proactive” (meaning before a response is required) rudder movements are wasting energy, and placing unnecessary stress on the rudder, cables, and pilot. I’m in the school of “just enough” applied “just as the undesired movement begins, before any “trend” (think “momentum”) develops. But then I’m a mid-time helicopter pilot, and a fairly low-time tailwheel pilot... So I could be wrong - but it makes more sense to my analytical engineering mind than making seemingly random motions, in hopes that it all averages out to what I really need at that time...[/quote]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yep, you nailed it Jim!

Our orientation/indoctrination is somewhat set in stone with umpteen iterations. If young and flexible try dynamic proactive. While it is advantageous for a beginner to start gross and then refine, the distance of movement doesn't matter so long as it is dynamic and proactive. The amazing brain, knowing that we actually want to point at the target, works with amount and length of input each way. Within minutes you will look just like the big boys and can tell all you have found the hover button.

If we make our student put the rudder pedals to the floor each way, we won't make it to the run up area at the end of the taxiway without him getting out and firing us. Let him try half pedals and then less. As he quickly moves to finer rudder dynamic and proactive movement, he will lose the yellow line and return to greater distance of movement. Indoctrination complete. He has learned by experience an important lesson. Not that more is better, just that what is needed is better and the way to get what is needed quickly is to keep moving. At the few iterations level, we will need more. At solo level, less, and so on. We are better when we move. This is true at any level.

CamTom12 wrote:In skid gear helicopters we would apply pressure/counter-pressure on the pedals when picking up from unimproved surfaces to ensure the skids weren’t snagged and the nose stayed on heading - especially important in tundra/muskeg/mud. No real perceptive movement of the pedals, but a constant pressure/counter-pressure. Maybe that’s the type of dynamic/proactive movements that Jimmy’s talking about.

I just can’t see Jimmy saying that you need to wag the rudder just because. That seems like a lot of wasted motion. My interpretation of his comments is to make continuous small corrections to ensure the nose points in the direction you want it to. In other words - don’t be a passenger on your airplane. Command its movement, and many small inputs work way better than a few large ones.

If that’s the case, then I agree wholeheartedly with his technique.

I think CamTom nailed it. There is a difference between constant pressure/counter-pressure on the rudder pedals and actually wagging the tail. On takeoff and landing I have both feet engaged but when I do it right it looks like I don't. Many small adjustments, fewer big ones.

Yes, to me the idea is that if you always have some control input in you will have a better feel for how much control authority you have, plus you have the advantage of already being in control of what the aircraft is doing instead of waiting for something to happen and then trying to react.

contactflying wrote:Did I miss something. Are these students or fully trained Army aviators? If experienced aviators, we can expect them to be quick but not hurried (finess.) Lots of little dynamic proactive movement that looks like no movement at all. Makes some believe there is a hover button. No! Static reactive don't get it. Hover button is an illusion. God doesn't work that way.

Yes/No on the "fully trained Army aviators"... These were mostly brand-new graduates of the Ft Rucker curriculum, but had never flown anything except Hueys (after Primary in the TH-55s, which was long-forgotten)... So they were used to fully-boosted hydraulic controls and a large, heavy, slow-reacting helicopter. Putting them in an OH-58A/C was like learning to fly all over again for most of them, given the far more responsive nature of the Kiowa. (Like driving a manual-transmission Porsche after learning to drive in your grandpa's Oldsmobile Delta-88...) The "hands around the stick" thing was trying to teach them to use "control pressures" rather than "control movements" to fly the aircraft. Yes, you technically "move" the cyclic, collective, and pedals, but so smoothly that a casual observer might not detect the motion.

And interestingly enough, there was one guy who never made it through the transition training successfully. He just couldn't ever get "ahead of the airplane". VERY slow reaction time. Made me wonder (seriously) how he ever made it through flight school. A testament to the forgiving nature of the UH-1.

I also found that guy's inability to transition to the OH-58 kind of interesting, because I took every single one of our assigned 11D Aerial Observers through a training curriculum that included learning to do at least a passable running landing, in the event their pilot was wounded/killed in combat. (That was almost certainly not "officially" endorsed by the US Army training hierarchy, but since they didn't even create a syllabus for Aerial Observer training until after they saw the one I had developed, and since I had my CO's written approval for that "survival training", I didn't concern myself too much with Training Command's approval in advance. Different world back then...)

The problem with topics like this is that the discussion becomes marred by semantics that don't connect...

Everyone that is actively flying wags their rudder to some degree. Those that acknowledge it tend to master it, and so this movement becomes pretty much indiscernible, those that deny, never quite get it smooth, and consequently appear to be wagging their tail when they really do need rapid fire rudder input.
.... And yes, everyone driving a vehicle, shimmies their steering wheel to some degree. If you think you don't, I dare you to line your vehicle up on a lane, and attach a 'club' to the steering wheel and take off down the road, then see just how far you get before you need to unhook....Every ripple in the road, every change in the breeze, ad infinitum changes your path and you must correct. Bare in mind that driving is mostly two dimensional, the multitude of things that are going to affect your airplane are 3...

Just like riding a bicycle, it's all about the smallest corrections before you need big ones, and just like fishing it's all about having taught line to feel the fish fumble with your worm before he decides to spit it out. Take your hands off the stick, or feet off the rudder, and you have effectively numbed your feel of the controls. Leaving the controls completely slack is tantamount to having your hands / feet off them. Someone Cam? once remarked about an elevator wag suggesting potentially he was 'sampling' what he had left for authority. I agreed with that assumption, as I do it quite frequently myself. Knowing what you have for authority on any control surface is a good thing.

Perceiving upcoming necessary control inputs and making the tiniest ones ahead of time puts you in command of what is going on, waiting for a full blown input to be needed (reactionary) assures you are only one step ahead of your passenger .

In the end, if you indeed follow through to Jedi ism, your constant rudder inputs will end up so small, your rudder will move plenty, but the actual tail will not wag.



Take care, Rob

Interesting. The folks on here who initially argued that you have to constantly move the rudder have now concurred that in fact the rudder really doesn’t move much if at all in the “process” which they ascribe to. They now argue they are simply moving the rudder “proactively”, NOT “wagging the tail”.

Which is pretty much what those of us who argued against “wagging the tail” initially said in the first place.

Criminy Pete, folks, of COURSE you have to move the damn controls. That’s NOT what I argued against in the first place. My point was that some/many instructors teach newby tailwheel types to WAG THE DAMN TAIL. Routinely. And, that, IN MY OPINION, is counter productive, and pointless. And makes for poor technique until that pilot finally (if ever) learns to relax and FEEL what the airplane is telling him/her. Then and only then will they feel truly comfortable in the Plane.

Or, whatever winds your watch. I think we are splitting VERY thin hairs in this discussion.

MTV

Redbull or coffee?

Agreed MTV. We are splitting hairs at the trained pilot end and we all agree we need to move the controls.

It is not for good soldiers but I have found great speed of training and student confidence in exaggeration or large to small control movement, especially the rudder in tailwheel airplanes.

Starting a beginner on a bicycle, I would ask him to get the left pedal high for good acceleration to start. I tell him to try to fall right as he steps on the left pedal and moves his right foot to the right pedal. No, he will not fall right. He will come back down left on his right foot. Several times this will happen. When I get him to actually fall right or get up, there will be a catharsis. He will have learned to bracket the correct lean.

The same with the rudders, start taxi by putting them to the stop (a known quantity.) He will get to where he can bracket the yellow taxi line much quicker with the experience/knowledge that it doesn't matter so much how far you move the rudder so long as it is dynamic and you do actually move it. Waiting for misalignment, which will be greater before it is recognised at this stage, will not only be nasty, it will mask bracket or dynamic proactive recognition.

We all want finess, small and constant control movement. My unusual contention is that exaggeration makes it happen faster; certainly in less than ten hours.

We don't know where "is" is until we have moved too far. Both ways! And once we have gone too far both ways, we have learned to bracket. And once we have learned to bracket, we realize there is no "is." It is an unattainable illusion that we strive for. And in doing so we are in control.

Before leaving this topic I would like to encourage flight instructors. The FAA, Flight Safety, and Army Methods of Instruction are good professional organizations that contribute greatly to flight safety. Narrowing focus/orientation to standardization, compliance, and the procedural track, however, can cause them to miss left handed thinking and unusual technique.

I am not the only instructor who believes in and teaches differently than the norm. Those who don't keep their head down, like Ronnie Westmoreland and John Boyd and many others, never are allowed to make General. But they do things. Mostly teach others quickly and effectively.

Because of my disabilities, I will never teach another primary student, from the normal instructor seat anyway. I need your help. I am available any time to help you help others.