I shall also assume good intent:
At normal flying speed, ailerons produce mostly roll, and some adverse yaw (secondary effect). The rudder produces yaw, and eventually roll (secondary effect). I'm sure you know that.
Near the stall, (i.e. at high angles of attack) the ailerons will produce a far more pronounced yaw, and reduced roll response. The rudder will produce less yaw, and a more pronounced rolling tendency. In some types you will find that at some speed near the stall, the secondary effect becomes the dominant. Not to mention the already made point that in many types, aileron use at the stall will create a wing drop in precisely the opposite direction to the roll 'commanded' by the ailerons. That may have nothing to do with stall entries, but it has everything to do with your assertion that:
Originally Posted by barrow
Ailerons are used for roll control and rudder for yaw. Using rudder alone to keep wings level during entry is poor form.
Bjorn,
What you say makes sense to me in the main, but I didn't like the idea of the roll damping 'catching' the roll. Unless I'm mistaken, damping is just a resistance to movement (in this case the roll), an inertia if you like. It will not actively restore the wings level, rather make the aircraft less susceptible to the 'fine detail' level of the wings stalling *exactly* at the same time? I'd still suggest they need to stall substantially together.
I'm also interested in the definition of slip and particularly yaw. Does an aircraft in a stable, straight line sideslip have yaw? It definitely has slip, and I know the fuselage is not pointing in the direction of travel, but I'm inclined to suggest it doesn't have yaw, and if it does, it doesn't have a rate of yaw - all parts of the wing move at the same speed, and in terms of direction and space, it is not moving around the yaw axis. In a sense it's no different to an oblique wing
NASA AD-1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia flying in a perfectly straight line.