Yaw Ready for This?

[michal 44]

Please list some examples- I'm looking out for the best ones to buy.

Fligth1 products: ATR and Cessna 172. PMDG products: 747 and MD-11 (in case you don't mind 'heavies'). Though this C172 is very good I would never use it to practice stalls or spins, it is very good within confines of flying with passengers aboard.

[Guest Padesatka]

I think you misunderstood. I don't want a simulated RV pitching up----because it should pitch down.

Right you are, and my mistake.

And I want to see a simulated Cessna pitch up.

Yes, it should. That way, virtual high-wing Cessna drivers can learn the power& flap combinations that remove the need for any trimming while slowing- I've used that technique from 150s to 208s. High wings with conventional tails have certain advantages regarding trim moments. I like them all, but my favorite quip when I take a side in the endless high-wing/lowing debate is this one: "Did you ever see a low-wing bird?" I guess RVers can fire right back with "Ever roll inverted?"

I certainly don't fly an RV like a Cessna

I am so glad to hear that- RVs really deserve to be appreciated throughout their amazingly-broad flight envelope.

...and have done many spin recoveries in a Pitt's.

Wahoo! Did you ever do the inside-to-outside (still spinning) "wha-happened" move when you started out? Pitts teach so much, and they're really not the monsters they're made out to be (within operating and CG limits).

When possible, I'll see how close your observations regarding slow flight....are.

That's great! Van's wings are so controllable and predictable at high alpha- where the adverse yaw is unmistakable. I think "adverse" is an unfortunate term- It comes in so handy in other situations too, sacheting into a slip, or responding to a crosswind gust near touchdown. Or in other planes- sailing a seaplane down a lake, or taxiing a grand ol' crate in, that was built in the days when brakes and tail-steering weren't very effective- way back then, there were ailerons that could tug a Jenny's wing back with "opposite" stick, and aviators who knew how to use them.

I'll use the term "lead", because sometimes it's just the way it is. If I automatically add in some rudder in the RV as I move the stick for aileron, I must just get the "wrong" result, due to the previous stated facts, regarding less adverse yaw.

There are so many ways to express it- in slowflight maneuvering, you'll displace the rudder more than the ailerons, to keep the ball centered. To keep it the ball unwaveringly centered (and not just put it back) both rudder and aileron must move together from the instant of first input- with the proportionality and dominance of rudder or aileron depending on the angle of attack: high AoA, rudder dominant; low AoA (or even ballistic flight) aileron dominant. This is why the Pitts does not have differential rigging and Frise ailerons- if Curtis had tried to remove adverse yaw in one flight condition, pilots would have to over-ride the tweak in other conditions to fly straight. I think that relates to the trouble with approximating yaw response in the virtual world: Approximations that might go unnoticed in feet-on-the floor flying doesn't work for crosswinds, slips, spins, slow rolls, knife-edge, and all the infinite permutations of yawing flight. In reality, you've got an airplane that is a wonderful blend of spirit and traveling comfort. In reality (and someday in VR, when the yaw dimension is reasonably simulated at last) the ultimate coordination trick will always be a pilot keenly in touch with all 3 axes. Don't think I'm proclaiming that I'm always keenly in touch, but it's what I strive for.

The same applies to pitch in a turn. Should I automatically apply some back pressure, such as I would in a typical Piper or Cessna................the RV will just usually climb. Therefor, I'll lead the turn with aileron, and only maybe use back pressure..............if required.

You're right, learning what's required is part of getting to know the airplane. We may not express it the same, but in this case you're describing the RV-6A's unique stick-force-per-G: Every airplane requires comparable additional lift-generation in a comparable level turn. Different airplanes have lighter or heavier control pressures, which can be perceived as less need for extra lift to extract an identical turning component of lift. But much like rudder coordination- if you really want to nail the altitude and bump your wake in every 360 you make in smooth air; if you want to consistently carve the perfect O in smoke, then the elevator must come in proportionally but simultaneously with the coordinated bank. I believe you when you say that much of this is automatic for you, but I can guarantee you this: The more we think and compare notes about these things the better we get, and the more satisfying our flying becomes. The more we ponder and talk about such things, the better grasp we get of what's going on, which puts so much more life and learning into our real and simulated flights.I'm not trying to come off as preachy about this- hopefully just giving you some good ideas for when you're intercom is done. Describing in detail how your RV flies, you never know- you could be contributing to a fabulous future RV-6 simulation model in the future. I know how you must miss having it flying, but a break can make the heart fonder. My Citabria is mostly apart (it was down to the last bolt at one point). I've been giving here a complete and much-too-protracted overhaul in my spare time, and now she's slowly starting to look like a purposeful airplane again. When she's finally ready to go again... we're really gonna have some fun.Cheers!

[Guest Padesatka]

Just reviewing some of what I missed on my last pass, I'm reminded of how even the most disparate opinions don't really contradict, but shed a different light on the same thing, and when we pursue them far enough to see where they meet, there's more understanding for the taking.

Exhibit A

Geofa: "...increasing reality and what is important is different for every person. For the op-it is greater reality of rudders. For me it is constant speed prop sounds/reaction. For others it is wing views with oil stains on them, and virtual flight attendants walking the aisles....One thing that is certain though-no matter how they improve it, someones pet wish will get left out, and we will hear about it. But when you put it in a historical perspective and look how things have change in the last 18 years we have much to be happy about."

Exhibit B

LuisFelizTirado: "...there is quite a difference between hands-on experience in an airplane, where one can immediately see the way an aircraft handles, and attempting to reproduce that on a computer....Aerodynamics is such a complex field that reducing it to variables and re-creating flight characteristics on a computer will, and always has for other simulators as well, give unrealistic results. It is simply too hard to reproduce reality because reality is so complex....First, and before all else, it is entertainment software, a computer game. It satisfies in some way the urge to fly for millions of people who will never really fly in the real world, and have no interest in doing so. It would be nice if the game were very realistic, but on the other hand real flying is somewhat complex and would probably not be very entertaining."I'm personally closer to Geofa's perspective (Viva la Realisme) but I can see the convergence. Worlds of work and play are obviously coming together in VR. That includes the engines and platforms being developed. We have already refined virtual environments to the point where they exceed real environments for many training tasks. It's happening similarly in all sorts of fields of endeavor- Aviation, medicine, engineering, etc. Through every new generation of hardware and software, the sophistication of simulations is increasing exponentially. Likewise, popular accessibility, aptitude, and enthusiasm all follow suit. Developers have lots to be happy about, especially those who consider wider market horizons, through the continuing convergence of virtuality and reality. LAdamson: "pilots/ instructors have numerous different opinions, and they all think they're right! You'll often get opposite opinions on many subjects, and leave as confused as ever.Examples are.... what causes lift, ROP/LOP, power & pitch, etc, etc..."Coming away confused is always just cause for further study. There are no cogent, opposing theories when it comes to flying basics. When it seems that way, we have a valuable opportunity for a small epiphany. Aerodynamic lift is a Newtonian reaction, in the most general sense: Equal and opposite reaction. Our wings sweep through the sky, leaving a swath of air lowered behind us, much like the visible wake of a ski or float planing on water. The reaction component of that entire continuous, roiling induced wake (the reaction component perpendicular to the flight path and the span) is the generated force we call Lift. We can understand and predict the magnitude of that force, of and of drag, and more. We can imagine or even calculate the sum vectors and locations for these, for any given airfoil, speed, and angle of attack. We can look still closer, and examine the details of flowing air's pressure gradients, velocity vectors, vortices, elasticity, compressibility, and more. It's true that more variables (say, air density and airfoil contamination) can be added. But with greater detail there aren't really any contradictions. Relating the finer details with their place in the big picture, the trees don't contradict the forest. There is no equivalent of a flat-earth vs. spherical-planet debate raging in aviation today- No real contradiction in how basic aerodynamics are described. However: We're all prone to errors in context, when we skip over continuity of thought. Perceived contradictions are opportunities for filling in the gaps. Exploring apparent contradictions is an intuitive and interesting understanding tune-up. Untying these knots is nothing so difficult or intricate as Einstein's elusive Unified Theory. In practical aviation, breaking through the seeming contradictions is worthwhile- like grasping the important perceptual understanding of what's behind the earliest aviation admonitions about the dreaded "Downwind Turn"- looking at that hazard from the sky down (or like a swimmer might look at a riverbed scrolling by) there's another way to look at things that can sometimes make all the difference.The appearance of contradiction most often really comes down to errors in context. Like in the context of airplanes whose available thrust does not exceed their weight: What's the dominant, most immediate and effective controlling variable concerning airspeed in slow (or slow-ish) flight? Of course it's pitch- Pitch is primary (elevator/elev. trim) at the slow end, and power (and variable-drag) primary, or dominant, at the fast end. Or putting it a little more precisely: From the stall to speeds approaching Best Glide speed, the angle of attack dominates airspeed. Speeding up from there (beyond the gliding regime where thrust/parasite drag vs. alpha/induced drag are equally effective) the relationship crosses on over, and gets more and more power-dominant, all the way up to VNE and beyond. So a change in thrust is by far the stronger influence of airspeed at high speed, an a change in angle of attack is the dramatically-stronger influence at low speed (again, for "low"-powered aircraft like P-51s and RV-6s and C-150s). This is further reflected when we look at an airplane's Velocity-Drag curves: Induced Drag is biggest at the slow end, Parasite Drag is biggest at the high end, crossing each other at the sweet, skinny Best Glide Speed. Putting these curves (and their sum) into correct context, all debate about which control (power or pitch) most influences airspeed is gone. "It depends" is not a contradiction, and not a complication. It's just plane talk. When it seems like something I've heard about flying contradicts something else, I've come to expect that it means I haven't considered the question in the correct context on which understanding depends. A contradiction between pitch/power dominance in airspeed control, and the Pitch+Power=Performance mantra is that kind of illusion. Doing the math (or just visualization/thought experiment) in full context reveals these relationships change in an intuitively-predictable way, as we learn our way around the flight envelope. I've had my experience get ahead of my academics enough times to realize it may even be for the best, when I finally run the academics I learned by rote through mental replays of flying. A greater context to keep in mind when explorations like this seem merely academic or overly technical, is the reality that a pilot who understands fundamental physics-of-flight relationships (in both an intellectual and visceral way) is much safer in the air than a pilot who does not. A common or even clich

[Guest jshyluk]

Definitely an interesting topic. In the wake of recent news, well, maybe we're just re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.In most of my flight sim time, I never had rudder pedals. I always found it annoying when I would lose control of a flight sim aircraft because I was missing rudder control. Now I do have pedals, and I like them a lot. But I also look like a space cadet with my TrackIR hat, joystick and my rudder setup. Once, I even accidentally wore one of the old stick-on TrackIR reflectors out into public, and that was embarrassing. So I know that as far as my computer hardware is concerned, I am in a small, geek-o-trope minority.The flight models in FSX are dumbed down for us desktop joystick jockeys. Or put more succinctly, they can be easily dumbed down. There is even a switch for "co-ordinated rudder", very useful if you don't have or want rudder pedal controls. You can adjust the "realism" of the controls on sliders, and there's plenty of plausible argument even among professional pilots whether Medium or Hard settings are the most realistic (the answer depends on your hardware, I figure).That being said, I've encountered more than a few models that had crazy yaw settings. I remember a 777 I tested that turned like a fighter plane when you applied some rudder. I could do box canyon turns in that thing. The developer was assuming that the sim pilot did not have rudder pedals (maybe the developer themselves didn't have rudder pedals), in which case the automatic co-ordinated rudder turns came out reasonably well. But manual rudder control was miserable.I also think part of the issue lies with how FSX treats aircraft tires on the ground. Ground handling characteristics are also dumbed down for sim-pilots. Tire traction is not what I would consider realistic, but it does solve the problem of taxi in crosswinds among other things. The way the tires react to pavement allows for the sim pilot to use rudder controls to steer the plane on the ground. In some ways that works well, in others its a blatant conceit. Anything that makes taxi easier in flight sim is welcome to me, although I am sure there are others that would want to see more fidelity in their taxi (those who call for de-icing in their FS2Crew checklists and then sit through 20 minutes of it without advancing the time, I am thinking of you here). Finally, there are a wide range of aircraft in FSX, made by different teams. Their standards are not all the same. I guess if FSX had only one aircraft, then I'd expect the yaw to be spot-on perfect. But seeing as there is a 747, a Bell helicopter, a Piper Cub, an Extra, a floating DH2 Beaver and more, I would expect some leeway in the models, especially given that the game came in a $50 box that sat on the shelf at my local game store. It's nice to ask for more, though. I hope that there could be some positive results for asking!Jeff ShylukAssistant Managing EditorSenior Staff ReviewerAVSIM