Sendary effect of rudder
Moderator
Are the basic rules of aerodynamics (use of aileron on a fully stalled wing causes that wing to drop) re-written
Refer to the FAR requirements and the relevant AC - state of the art design has moved on somewhat since Austers and Tigers ...
King Air 'stall' for certification purposes not a 'stall' as such but an incipient stall?
I suggest not
One of the essential exercises in training is (used to be!) to demonstate wingdrop if aileron is used on a stalled wing.
There are various disconnects betwixt certification and operational views of life, death and the universe. This one, I suggest, is a carry over from the days of Austers, Tigers and those wonderful old military piston Types.
Does the KingAir have roll spoilers perhaps?
No
A 'standard' basic aircraft will definitely enter an incipient spin if aileron is used and this lesson needs to be re-inforced.
Depends on the certification basis - perhaps we should just agree to differ ?
It will be highly dangerous if the new pilots go away with the idea that aileron is 'ok'.
As above. I note that
(a) use of the control doesn't necessarily require full deflection for recent certifications, only that the bank and heading requirements can be met with normal sense use.
(b) the main concern of the discussion relates to using more rudder than is necessary to control yaw in the stall.
Refer to the FAR requirements and the relevant AC - state of the art design has moved on somewhat since Austers and Tigers ...
King Air 'stall' for certification purposes not a 'stall' as such but an incipient stall?
I suggest not
One of the essential exercises in training is (used to be!) to demonstate wingdrop if aileron is used on a stalled wing.
There are various disconnects betwixt certification and operational views of life, death and the universe. This one, I suggest, is a carry over from the days of Austers, Tigers and those wonderful old military piston Types.
Does the KingAir have roll spoilers perhaps?
No
A 'standard' basic aircraft will definitely enter an incipient spin if aileron is used and this lesson needs to be re-inforced.
Depends on the certification basis - perhaps we should just agree to differ ?
It will be highly dangerous if the new pilots go away with the idea that aileron is 'ok'.
As above. I note that
(a) use of the control doesn't necessarily require full deflection for recent certifications, only that the bank and heading requirements can be met with normal sense use.
(b) the main concern of the discussion relates to using more rudder than is necessary to control yaw in the stall.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
state of the art design has moved on somewhat
Anyone know how it is done? Differential aileron? Black magic? S&M?
Anyone confirm that you will not get a wing drop with aileron at the full stall on a 'standard' puddle jumper?
Moderator
Points to be noted - one needs to know
(a) the certification basis to have an idea of what might have been what
(b) the OEM's history for particular certification FT work so that one knows just what was what
For some aircraft, the certification stall work indeed involved the use of aileron to control bank angle within the required limits for the stall demonstrations.
Reference to a "standard" puddle jumper misses the need to check what the certification basis might be for the particular Type/Model.
I fear you are endeavouring to generalise from the particular, perhaps ?
(a) the certification basis to have an idea of what might have been what
(b) the OEM's history for particular certification FT work so that one knows just what was what
For some aircraft, the certification stall work indeed involved the use of aileron to control bank angle within the required limits for the stall demonstrations.
Reference to a "standard" puddle jumper misses the need to check what the certification basis might be for the particular Type/Model.
I fear you are endeavouring to generalise from the particular, perhaps ?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....and I fear, John, you are trying to extrapolate from certification testing to 'normal' aviation. I have yet to see a stall accident where the pilot approached the stall at 1kt/second, not trimming beyond Vs1g + x%. Further, I never managed to watch or achieve a proper 'stall' on 737 airtests since back stick ran out before stall. My concerns lie with the 'average' pilot, not cert/airtesters who should know better.
I would like you to try your next KingAir in approach config in a descending turn (at a safe height please) pull through any buffet until a wing drops and then 'pick it up' with aileron. I would be amazed (and impressed) if you did not over-speed the flaps....
I agree with
and wonder whether our OP will understand. I would include in a) what the definition of the stall is, and of course how 'normal use of controls' is defined, since your quote mentions roll and yaw.
We have discovered to our cost that perceived attempts to re-write basic aviation 'lore' - eg Airbus - 'will not let you stall - just keep pulling back on the stick and she'll look after you' - have come to a sad end. I am concerned that it is just possible that west1218 might (if still reading) go away with the wrong concept of 'normal use of controls at the stall'. You have not answered "I understand from your last line that you believe it ok to teach use of aieron on a fully stalled wing?". It is important to clarify.
I would like you to try your next KingAir in approach config in a descending turn (at a safe height please) pull through any buffet until a wing drops and then 'pick it up' with aileron. I would be amazed (and impressed) if you did not over-speed the flaps....
I agree with
(a) the certification basis to have an idea of what might have been what
(b) the OEM's history for particular certification FT work so that one knows just what was what
(b) the OEM's history for particular certification FT work so that one knows just what was what
We have discovered to our cost that perceived attempts to re-write basic aviation 'lore' - eg Airbus - 'will not let you stall - just keep pulling back on the stick and she'll look after you' - have come to a sad end. I am concerned that it is just possible that west1218 might (if still reading) go away with the wrong concept of 'normal use of controls at the stall'. You have not answered "I understand from your last line that you believe it ok to teach use of aieron on a fully stalled wing?". It is important to clarify.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately I think most if not all modern planes have washout designed into them so they do work.
But if we go back to the OP's initial question.
He is confused because it is over simplistic and pretty much rubbish.
For any one with even a milligram of engineering sense it is obviously
So why are people even mentioning this rubbish?
But if we go back to the OP's initial question.
Hi all, I am little confused about this phrase.
I do know what happens but do not know why...in details...
The secondary effect of yaw is roll due to the outer wing travels faster than the inner wing.
I do know what happens but do not know why...in details...
The secondary effect of yaw is roll due to the outer wing travels faster than the inner wing.
For any one with even a milligram of engineering sense it is obviously
So why are people even mentioning this rubbish?
This thread has long since departed from the OP's original question, which was:
So any reply which cannot start with the words "The outer wing goes faster than the inner wing because" is probably heading in the wrong direction.
But how does it travel faster?? Is it because of the outer wing is more exposed to the Relative Airflow than the inner wing? If so, what is exposing got do with increase in velocity?
So any reply which cannot start with the words "The outer wing goes faster than the inner wing because" is probably heading in the wrong direction.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So any reply which cannot start with the words "The outer wing goes faster than the inner wing because" is probably heading in the wrong direction.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Not far from the edge of the Milky Way Galaxy in the Orion Arm.
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am with fox moth on this one. Guys - per favore! On his last post, the one above this one. but I don`t like the bit about:
"""but you do NOT pick the wing up, wings are rolled level - with aileron, once OUT of the stall."""
You see fox moth - I don`t like recovering from a stall when the aircraft is banking to the left, with the nose down at the same time, say, because I have been too damned lazy to pick the wing up with the rudder as I so irritatingly put it. I would like a nice straight aeroplane - then when the speed picks up as I have applied forward pressure to lower the nose and make the aircraft go down hill thus increasing the airflow over the wings due to an increase in airspeed then I can raise the nose to/or above the horizon applying full power and climbing away (at the proper speed). Putting it simply.
Your way - taught `today` or not - making me do all that with a dropped wing and a low nose, uh uh - I wanna recover from a stall first - and catch it first - if that means applying opposite rudder to the wing drop then so be it - I will do that, because I was trained to do that - it works, beautifully, and I have trained others to do it this way - and neither of us are dead yet, ok? Anyway, it seems nicer (and saner) to go hurtling downhill in order to recover from the stall Straight -
Taking it a stage further - if the wing dropped nastily - as they sometimes do - then we hardly have time to p--s about with e"enough rudder to prevent further yaw - what in Jesus`s name is that going to do - well, I`ll tell ya! You wing is low so is your nose - you may very well be picking up speed so - by your theory or modern training techniques - you leave the wing where it is - we are descending in a descending turn which is quite a loo-loo as you have insisted on letting it stay there- ah well - lets wait for your "stall recovery" - ah, there is the nice juicy airspeed that you need - brilliant - we are now hurtling down at the start of a spiral dive due to our attitude, due to our attitude - which you put us into as you could not be bothered to pick up the wing.
So - next time you go stalling for exercise - you just go and see if you can live with a wing dropped - and leave it there (in your descending turn - and you WILL be descending like the clappers!) - and then proceed with stall recovery - and then . . . . roll your wings level. - So why do it all pointing down there at the ground in a steep banked turn to the left, which is what it would become. Why dramatize a simple, but simple wing drop with a mess. When, all you have to do is to P I C K U P the dropped wing by applying opposite rudder - slight me as ye may - but I am right.
the OP was:
"The secondary effect of yaw is roll due to the outer wing travels faster than the inner wing"
Then we all (me included) go on about stalling, incipient spins and recovery or prevention thereof -sigh, (sorry)
Excuse my impromptu launch into logical thought, but: why not? Why is it not, simply that:
When you do cause a yaw, due to pushing on a rudder pedal the aircraft - as you are forced to agree - will rotate around the normal axis or neutral axis - by mere physics of leverage and direction and rotation the (right rudder pedal pushed) aircraft . . will yaw to the . .right and subsequently the left wing travels comparatively faster than the right wing which is now travelling comparatively slower than the left wing - stand with your arms outstretched, just as you did in the school playground when you playing at being aeroplanes. If you rotate your body to the right the left arm goes forward and the right arm goes back - its not NASA!
The same thing happens when you apply rudder to cause a yawing . . . moment around the neutral axis . . of the aeroplane.
So - it figures that the left wing has more lift than the right wing -
and by the same point
the right wing has comparatively reduced its forward motion somewhat, and therefore has less lift, slightly, but there is more, oh yes, by the mere application of the right rudder (say) you have in fact accelerated the left wing anyway because you have pushed it forward - more, into the relative airflow = more lift - (if only due to the acceleration)
left wing lifts, right wing does not, (. . . .have this increase in lift)
- da da!!
= Roll.
Its not pish.
Grab a b------g aeroplane and go and try it out yourself then.
Everyone else comparing Provosts and King airs - I was not referring to you guys who obviously have previous more technical experience with these types.
-(nor was I referring to an A320, watch this space - under construction)
Thank you for your call, Nats is not here right now, if you would like to leave your name and number, I`ll get right back to you as soon as I can
"""but you do NOT pick the wing up, wings are rolled level - with aileron, once OUT of the stall."""
You see fox moth - I don`t like recovering from a stall when the aircraft is banking to the left, with the nose down at the same time, say, because I have been too damned lazy to pick the wing up with the rudder as I so irritatingly put it. I would like a nice straight aeroplane - then when the speed picks up as I have applied forward pressure to lower the nose and make the aircraft go down hill thus increasing the airflow over the wings due to an increase in airspeed then I can raise the nose to/or above the horizon applying full power and climbing away (at the proper speed). Putting it simply.
Your way - taught `today` or not - making me do all that with a dropped wing and a low nose, uh uh - I wanna recover from a stall first - and catch it first - if that means applying opposite rudder to the wing drop then so be it - I will do that, because I was trained to do that - it works, beautifully, and I have trained others to do it this way - and neither of us are dead yet, ok? Anyway, it seems nicer (and saner) to go hurtling downhill in order to recover from the stall Straight -
Taking it a stage further - if the wing dropped nastily - as they sometimes do - then we hardly have time to p--s about with e"enough rudder to prevent further yaw - what in Jesus`s name is that going to do - well, I`ll tell ya! You wing is low so is your nose - you may very well be picking up speed so - by your theory or modern training techniques - you leave the wing where it is - we are descending in a descending turn which is quite a loo-loo as you have insisted on letting it stay there- ah well - lets wait for your "stall recovery" - ah, there is the nice juicy airspeed that you need - brilliant - we are now hurtling down at the start of a spiral dive due to our attitude, due to our attitude - which you put us into as you could not be bothered to pick up the wing.
So - next time you go stalling for exercise - you just go and see if you can live with a wing dropped - and leave it there (in your descending turn - and you WILL be descending like the clappers!) - and then proceed with stall recovery - and then . . . . roll your wings level. - So why do it all pointing down there at the ground in a steep banked turn to the left, which is what it would become. Why dramatize a simple, but simple wing drop with a mess. When, all you have to do is to P I C K U P the dropped wing by applying opposite rudder - slight me as ye may - but I am right.
the OP was:
"The secondary effect of yaw is roll due to the outer wing travels faster than the inner wing"
Then we all (me included) go on about stalling, incipient spins and recovery or prevention thereof -sigh, (sorry)
Excuse my impromptu launch into logical thought, but: why not? Why is it not, simply that:
When you do cause a yaw, due to pushing on a rudder pedal the aircraft - as you are forced to agree - will rotate around the normal axis or neutral axis - by mere physics of leverage and direction and rotation the (right rudder pedal pushed) aircraft . . will yaw to the . .right and subsequently the left wing travels comparatively faster than the right wing which is now travelling comparatively slower than the left wing - stand with your arms outstretched, just as you did in the school playground when you playing at being aeroplanes. If you rotate your body to the right the left arm goes forward and the right arm goes back - its not NASA!
The same thing happens when you apply rudder to cause a yawing . . . moment around the neutral axis . . of the aeroplane.
So - it figures that the left wing has more lift than the right wing -
and by the same point
the right wing has comparatively reduced its forward motion somewhat, and therefore has less lift, slightly, but there is more, oh yes, by the mere application of the right rudder (say) you have in fact accelerated the left wing anyway because you have pushed it forward - more, into the relative airflow = more lift - (if only due to the acceleration)
left wing lifts, right wing does not, (. . . .have this increase in lift)
- da da!!
= Roll.
Its not pish.
Grab a b------g aeroplane and go and try it out yourself then.
Everyone else comparing Provosts and King airs - I was not referring to you guys who obviously have previous more technical experience with these types.
-(nor was I referring to an A320, watch this space - under construction)
Thank you for your call, Nats is not here right now, if you would like to leave your name and number, I`ll get right back to you as soon as I can
Last edited by Natstrackalpha; 15th Jun 2014 at 23:07.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Oz
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I decided to have a look at what my BAK books says. IT says the adverse roll is due to difference in wing speed. However after a lot more research on the engineering side I would Have to say that mad_jock is on the money with this one, and my book is technically incorrect.
Here is some simplified explanations of the reasons: 9 Roll-Wise Torque Budget
Here is some simplified explanations of the reasons: 9 Roll-Wise Torque Budget
Moderator
I'm not persisting to prove a point at all .. but this thread has a very pertinent training value ...
you are trying to extrapolate from certification testing to 'normal' aviation
Not at all. Indeed, the more the two diverge in critical areas, the more risk we accept.
(a) the relevant certification Standard for a particular Type puts a line in the sand regarding what the aeroplane should, and should not, be expected to do. Unfortunately, it is a well-known observation amongst the FT community that whatever capability is possessed by the aircraft offered to the Industry .. the Industry often, in ignorance, expects something different
(b) the Standards have evolved with Industry capability so one MUST review the particular set of Standards pertinent to a particular Type/Model rather than generalising in the usual operator manner
(c) the philosophical approach to stalling protocols amongst the operator fraternity often tends to ignore the delta between what the OEM provides and what the operator industry presumes.
I have yet to see a stall accident where the pilot approached the stall at 1kt/second, not trimming beyond Vs1g + x%
Quite so .. but that ignores the purpose of that requirement. Furthermore, the certification program does examine less benign protocols and, for the military, much more formally and rigorously.
since back stick ran out before stall
This is quite acceptable under the certification requirements .. same thing, for instance, applies to the KingAir as a matter of interest (and seeing we had mentioned that machine previously).
I would like you to try your next KingAir in approach config in a descending turn (at a safe height please) pull through any buffet until a wing drops and then 'pick it up' with aileron. I would be amazed (and impressed) if you did not over-speed the flaps....
Actually, I don't fly the bird .. I only used it as an example. However, the certification requirement for its stalling work does require appropriate introduction of aileron input. More importantly, there is no requirement to pick up the wing .. only to constrain the bank angle within the required certification demonstration parameters.
since your quote mentions roll and yaw.
FTG ACs are the place to delve into this material for the detail .. as well as privileged conversation with NAA certification/FT and/or OEM certification/FT folks. Keep in mind that, for the certification exercise, the bank and yaw limits permitted are modest as in FAR 23.201
You have not answered "I understand from your last line that you believe it ok to teach use of aieron on a fully stalled wing?". It is important to clarify.
If the relevant frozen Design Standard so requires, I would expect use of aileron to be conventional through the stall. For some aircraft, whether you might wish to accept that or not, aileron use is required to obtain the OEM AFM stall data.
I don`t like recovering from a stall when the aircraft is banking to the left
That's perfectly fine .. but it might put you at odds with what the OEM FT team did during the development and certification of the wee beastie. That, in turn, might erode some of the fat built into the certification and intended to look after the line pilot's tail in the heat of the moment.
For instance, I can recall a presentation by a very experienced TP trainer who related a tale concerning a military (not that that is important - it could have just as well been a civil) student who wished to push a particular twin well into a stalled condition, contrary to the certification basis.
All went well until the aircraft departed into an inverted spin .. apparently somewhat to the surprise of the student. The TP instructor, on the other hand, had seen it all before I guess.
I would like a nice straight aeroplane
Might I suggest the best way to do that is to use just sufficient rudder to constrain yaw ?
and my book is technically incorrect
There are many not-quite-right pilot training explanations in this Industry. However, to be fair, as with any technical arena, it is appropriate to pitch an explanation at a level suitable for the student. Sometimes, that might best be done by using an explanation which is a tad simplistic. Post grad engineering stuff really is not necessary for a pilot to gain sufficient understanding of what's what for the purpose at hand. Then again, the occasional book content is just plain wrong when the author is not up to it.
you are trying to extrapolate from certification testing to 'normal' aviation
Not at all. Indeed, the more the two diverge in critical areas, the more risk we accept.
(a) the relevant certification Standard for a particular Type puts a line in the sand regarding what the aeroplane should, and should not, be expected to do. Unfortunately, it is a well-known observation amongst the FT community that whatever capability is possessed by the aircraft offered to the Industry .. the Industry often, in ignorance, expects something different
(b) the Standards have evolved with Industry capability so one MUST review the particular set of Standards pertinent to a particular Type/Model rather than generalising in the usual operator manner
(c) the philosophical approach to stalling protocols amongst the operator fraternity often tends to ignore the delta between what the OEM provides and what the operator industry presumes.
I have yet to see a stall accident where the pilot approached the stall at 1kt/second, not trimming beyond Vs1g + x%
Quite so .. but that ignores the purpose of that requirement. Furthermore, the certification program does examine less benign protocols and, for the military, much more formally and rigorously.
since back stick ran out before stall
This is quite acceptable under the certification requirements .. same thing, for instance, applies to the KingAir as a matter of interest (and seeing we had mentioned that machine previously).
I would like you to try your next KingAir in approach config in a descending turn (at a safe height please) pull through any buffet until a wing drops and then 'pick it up' with aileron. I would be amazed (and impressed) if you did not over-speed the flaps....
Actually, I don't fly the bird .. I only used it as an example. However, the certification requirement for its stalling work does require appropriate introduction of aileron input. More importantly, there is no requirement to pick up the wing .. only to constrain the bank angle within the required certification demonstration parameters.
since your quote mentions roll and yaw.
FTG ACs are the place to delve into this material for the detail .. as well as privileged conversation with NAA certification/FT and/or OEM certification/FT folks. Keep in mind that, for the certification exercise, the bank and yaw limits permitted are modest as in FAR 23.201
You have not answered "I understand from your last line that you believe it ok to teach use of aieron on a fully stalled wing?". It is important to clarify.
If the relevant frozen Design Standard so requires, I would expect use of aileron to be conventional through the stall. For some aircraft, whether you might wish to accept that or not, aileron use is required to obtain the OEM AFM stall data.
I don`t like recovering from a stall when the aircraft is banking to the left
That's perfectly fine .. but it might put you at odds with what the OEM FT team did during the development and certification of the wee beastie. That, in turn, might erode some of the fat built into the certification and intended to look after the line pilot's tail in the heat of the moment.
For instance, I can recall a presentation by a very experienced TP trainer who related a tale concerning a military (not that that is important - it could have just as well been a civil) student who wished to push a particular twin well into a stalled condition, contrary to the certification basis.
All went well until the aircraft departed into an inverted spin .. apparently somewhat to the surprise of the student. The TP instructor, on the other hand, had seen it all before I guess.
I would like a nice straight aeroplane
Might I suggest the best way to do that is to use just sufficient rudder to constrain yaw ?
and my book is technically incorrect
There are many not-quite-right pilot training explanations in this Industry. However, to be fair, as with any technical arena, it is appropriate to pitch an explanation at a level suitable for the student. Sometimes, that might best be done by using an explanation which is a tad simplistic. Post grad engineering stuff really is not necessary for a pilot to gain sufficient understanding of what's what for the purpose at hand. Then again, the occasional book content is just plain wrong when the author is not up to it.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: where the north starts
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trevor Thom Volume 1 (my copy is the 2005 edition) on p 37 presents two bullet points under the heading of Yaw causes Roll summarised below:
Both bullets seem entirely plausible to me as a non-expert in aerodynamics. But my inference, because of the order in which they were presented in the book, was that the first bullet was the more significant one, and that (first bullet) was how it was explained to me when I was briefed on effects of controls - no mention of bullet 2.
I note that the OP has not reappeared - probably even more confused now!
- the outer wing moving faster than the inner wing, and
- the stuff about dihedral
Both bullets seem entirely plausible to me as a non-expert in aerodynamics. But my inference, because of the order in which they were presented in the book, was that the first bullet was the more significant one, and that (first bullet) was how it was explained to me when I was briefed on effects of controls - no mention of bullet 2.
I note that the OP has not reappeared - probably even more confused now!
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The speed thing is a constant battle due to people not wanting to leave go of it because its nice and easy for them to visualise.
That fact its transitory and very little effect is neither here nor there.
And it is the correct order. Initially there is a very small effect due to a slight difference in wing speed.
As the yaw comes in it is superseded by the main effect.
Now that's not to say the speed thing can be ignored. In situations like dutch roll it needs to be taken into account because this is a dynamic situation not a static one like when a aircraft is setup in a sideslip.
If you teach the thing properly from the start there is zero confusion about the difference between the two situations.
That fact its transitory and very little effect is neither here nor there.
And it is the correct order. Initially there is a very small effect due to a slight difference in wing speed.
As the yaw comes in it is superseded by the main effect.
Now that's not to say the speed thing can be ignored. In situations like dutch roll it needs to be taken into account because this is a dynamic situation not a static one like when a aircraft is setup in a sideslip.
If you teach the thing properly from the start there is zero confusion about the difference between the two situations.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NATS
As an instructor I have not only tried it myself but can demo both methods, what you say about
is not correct, if you put the stick forward the stall is recovered very quickly and the wings rolled level immediately - I think you need to find an instructor who knows what he is doing and get him to show you. I CAN recover using your method of picking the wing up, but it actually takes longer to recover - and there are certainly a number of aircraft where you are highly likely to end up in a spin in the "recovery" direction!
Grab a b------g aeroplane and go and try it out yourself then.
You wing is low so is your nose - you may very well be picking up speed so - by your theory or modern training techniques - you leave the wing where it is - we are descending in a descending turn
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Oz
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mad_jock
just had a look at that link Andy posted.
Well worth a read by everyone.
Well worth a read by everyone.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Oz
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyway thanks mad_jock for pointing that out. As a result of investigating that (I guess thats the problem with us engineering types) I have also discovered a lot of other myths from Denker's site.
So now I understand most of the aspects of roll due to yaw, I am stunned at what is written into both of the basic text books I have. I am yet to refer to 'stick and rudder', only because I cant find it due to moving house.
So now I understand most of the aspects of roll due to yaw, I am stunned at what is written into both of the basic text books I have. I am yet to refer to 'stick and rudder', only because I cant find it due to moving house.