MTV and I fussed about using rudder primarily in upset recovery in the "Wake Turbulence " tread. It is a tough concept when we think of rudder only as a coordination control to be balanced with aileron in a turn.

This misconception can be corrected with many iterations of hands off the stick or wheel approaches in no wind and crab, straight and level cruise in no wind and crab, stall recovery, slow flight, and small upset recovery. In a crab, we use rudder only to make our butts fly a directed course to a target, numbers, or compass heading.

If you try it on a couple A to B flights, you will like it. Once comfortable with it, rudder primarily for upset recovery will be a natural reaction.

It depends on the aircraft and its characteristics. Most GA airplanes have fairly light wing loading and significant dihedral. In tise case, rudder will do a lot towards getting back upright.

However, in an airplane with higer wing loading and little to no dihedral, the rudder does very little. An example of such an airplane in my experience in the Yak 52.

BKK wrote:It depends on the aircraft and its characteristics. Most GA airplanes have fairly light wing loading and significant dihedral. In tise case, rudder will do a lot towards getting back upright.

However, in an airplane with higer wing loading and little to no dihedral, the rudder does very little. An example of such an airplane in my experience in the Yak 52.

Or Luscombe or C170A.

The Luscombe, because of light wing loading, does not like rough air. But it definitely needs a lot of rudder to bring the wing back up after a steep turn or during during Dutch Rolls.

I have taught crop dusting with most Cub models, Citabra, Aeronca 7AC, Luscombe, Cherokee, all PA22s, all small Cessnas, and a homebuild two place Callair. All these airplanes respond to rudder only control in the same way. Every airplane I have flown responds to rudder only control in the same way except the Ercoupe and Ultraflight Challenger II. The Ercoupe full adverse yaw control engineering took good care of me and the Challenger II rudder didn't work at all and tried to kill me.

Rudder only is a hard sell, but all normal manufactured airplanes and homebuilds built to those high standards of control benefit from full rudder utalization. In an upset this can be life saving.

contactflying,
I spend alot of time reading you techniques topics (if I may call them that). Thanks for posting them.

Thanks MountainFlyerN22,
I appreciate the support.
Contact

Mister701 wrote: Or Luscombe or C170A.

Even though they might have no actual dihedral angle, airplanes can experience "dihedral effect" to steady or dynamic sideslip. A rolling moment caused by differing air pressure against the fuselage at the wing root (a positive response in high wrong airplanes), and another moment caused by an increase in dynamic pressure on the advancing wing during rudder inputs.

But I've never flown either of those two planes. It might be a weak response.

I don't know, there were lots of times I used rudder only to level the wings when in rough air while flying my Luscombe. Years ago someone posted a video of a pilot getting dual instruction in a P51 and the main thing I picked up on was that the instructor had the student level the wings with rudder. I thought it was weird so I went and tried it and it worked quite well. After that I started using much more rudder during aggressive dutch rolls which helped quite a bit.

If any of you guys fly rc, unplug the aileron servo and go for a fly. It gives you a great visual of rudder only control. The more neutral stable an airplane is, the less effect rudder will have on the roll axis. Aerobatic type airplanes with mid-wing design like the extra and edge are what come to mind. Different types of planes surely respond different. That's why the aerobatic guys aren't competing with 180's

I have found it useful to teach general principals based on the vast majority of airplanes built to normal control response standards. The designers have done an amazingly thorough job of this. The design of the airplane is to fly. I just paid attention to what Wolfgang taught, to pay attention to what the airplane wants to do. Wow! You can learn in one trainer and apply that knowledge to another. Specialty airplanes are cool, I guess. I just never cared to be a test pilot. I like knowing, responding, and teaching what the vast majority of airplanes want to do.

contactflying wrote:I have found it useful to teach general principals based on the vast majority of airplanes built to normal control response standards. The designers have done an amazingly thorough job of this. The design of the airplane is to fly. I just paid attention to what Wolfgang taught, to pay attention to what the airplane wants to do. Wow! You can learn in one trainer and apply that knowledge to another. Specialty airplanes are cool, I guess. I just never cared to be a test pilot. I like knowing, responding, and teaching what the vast majority of airplanes want to do.

I agree with you completely, I just think it's important to point out that not ALL airplanes will respond in the manner that you're describing. Every one is a different cat and should be treated as such, that said most basic techniques apply across the board. I have read Languishi's Stick and Rudder more than once. Hands down the most useful flying book I've ever seen!

Jered,

Point well taken, which leads me to another point:

When you climb in a "new to you" aircraft (note that I did not say "aircraft type" here) for the first time, especially one that you're going to fly a fair amount, get up to altitude and put the plane through it's paces.

Start out with some Dutch Roll (coordination exercise if you want to get picky with terminology), then a complete series of stalls....from the beginning: First stall is clean and power at idle, next try a LITTLE power, but still clean, then more power, clean. Now sequentially add some flaps, and alternate no power and power.

Now, rip out a few steep turns. I'm not talking about "steep" turns, I'm talking at least 45 degree bank, preferably closer to 50 or better yet 60 degree bank.

Now take the plane back to the aerodrome and try a few landings.

You'll have a much better "feel" for the airplane by doing this routine, or at least doing most of it.

Why did I suggest that you do this with each airframe (vs each make/model) that you're going to fly much?

An example: Where I taught for several years, we used two late model Cessna 172s for initial spin training. These two airplanes were virtually identical and came off the line very close to the same time. Neither had been damaged in an accident, nor had they been rebuilt for any reason.

One of those airplanes was a pretty happy spinner. It entered the spin with typical basic pro spin inputs and spun nicely as long as the pro spin inputs were held. I was able to keep it in a stable spin for over six turns. Recovery was completely normal and uneventful.

The other airplane HATED spins. In fact, so much so that you couldn't get the airplane to enter a spin without using some aggravating input, generally carrying a fair bit of power during the spin entry. It was also nearly impossible to hold the plane IN a spin for more than a couple turns. After that, it blew (rather violently) out of the spin and accelerated like a banshee in the ensuing spiral.

Identical appearing and equipped airplanes, yet their behavior was very different. Obviously, this was a rigging issue, that probably could have been fixed by maintenance, but I thought it was a great illustration to students that, just because airplanes look the same doesn't necessarily mean that they ARE identical.

FWIW.

Oh, yes, and back to Jim's primary point: I was fortunate enough early in my flying career to fly a Super Cub with wing extensions a lot. Most of this flying was done on or around Kodiak Island, where there is generally a fair bit of turbulence. When the mechanics extended those wings, they didn't move the ailerons out to the tips. That airplane had very little aileron effectiveness....you could wave the control stick around side to side to beat the band in turbulence, but the airplane still thrashed around as if you'd done nothing. Enter the rudder.....which nicely "fixed" all these minor upsets, and kept the plane on the straight and narrow.

Because of that airplane, I developed the habit of leading with rudder in upsets. And, viewing every aircraft as an individual. It was a wonderful airplane (though our maintenance eventually installed stock wings on it, which I viewed as dumb) and taught me a great deal.

MTV

The Stinson 108 is an absolute joy to fly with rudder only in cruise. A little rudder and it instantly and gracefully entered a turn.
Not so much in the 180, you feel the tail kick out and it grudgingly enters the turn.

Terry wrote:The Stinson 108 is an absolute joy to fly with rudder only in cruise. A little rudder and it instantly and gracefully entered a turn.
Not so much in the 180, you feel the tail kick out and it grudgingly enters the turn.

Ditto. The Stinson has nearly twice the dihedral that the Cessna has. That is one of the factors behind the difference in the ability to induce roll with the rudder.

The CFI that I started with was a old ag-pilot/ex-FAA guy. My first and only flight with him was on a terribly rough day, the T-craft was bouncing and flipping around all over. Right off the bat I'm sawing on the yoke, he smacks me in the leg and yells "use that rudder." I guess it really stuck because it seems to be second nature now.