Debunking Lift Theories Still Taught

[completeaerogeek]

Interesting with all this knowledge being thrown around and challenged that wing profiles advancements haven't exactly seen anything substantial.

Well SC wings were a real change maker. Curved on the bottom and flat on top. Messes with some people's heads!

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

.....Angle of incidence is usually 3 degrees which equates to three degrees of AOA.

Too much of a generalisation, your statement is only correct in level flight.

 

You have to lower the nose to about 3 degrees to reach zero lift pitching angle.

Hmmmm professor, a little more specificity wouldn't go amiss.

 

I have a plane with 3 degrees set angle of incidence and it flies with a full range of AoA, not 3 degrees all the time, or very much of the time come to that.

 

If I lower the nose three degrees I very rarely reach the zero lift angle. I think you need to bring relative airflow into the discussion or your statements are a nonsense.

 

 

[completeaerogeek]

the fabric on top of the wing on my Corby is concave between the ribs, aft of the spar. Proof that there is no lift from the air there, or maybe there is a theory that the inside of the wing is at lower pressure than the surrounding air.

Too much of a generalisation, your statement is only correct in level flight.

 

Hmmmm professor, a little more specificity wouldn't go amiss.

 

I have a plane with 3 degrees set angle of incidence and it flies with a full range of AoA, not 3 degrees all the time, or very much of the time come to that.

 

If I lower the nose three degrees I very rarely reach the zero lift angle. I think you need to bring relative airflow into the discussion or your statements are a nonsense.

Be nice now. Being narky can prove embarrassing when you find that you are wrong.

 

What is your point about a full range of AOA? As long as you have elevator authority why wouldn't it?

 

Most aircraft have 3 Degrees of Incidence. This is an effective AOA but fixed. If you lower the nose by 3 Degrees you will negate this. Then lower it further by the amount of upper surface camber (also effective AOA) you reach Zero Lift Pitching Angle... = No Lift. Simples...

 

 

[facthunter]

To remove confusion perhaps we could use the term zero lift AoA and "riggers angle of attack" where appropriate. ( not suggesting they are the same). The air is also viscous, otherwise there would be no lift. It also has density. If the object moves air in any direction the effect is for the reaction to provide a force in the opposite direction. When you use the term deflect, some get confused and think it only refers to he lower surface of the wing. Nev

 

 

[metalman]

Be nice now. Being narky can prove embarrassing when you find that you are wrong.What is your point about a full range of AOA? As long as you have elevator authority why wouldn't it?

 

Most aircraft have 3 Degrees of Incidence. This is an effective AOA but fixed. If you lower the nose by 3 Degrees you will negate this. Then lower it further by the amount of upper surface camber (also effective AOA) you reach Zero Lift Pitching Angle... = No Lift. Simples...

You've really hit the deck running here mate, tell us a bit about yourself, what you fly, where you studied , whether your RAA or GA or both. What your posting is correct ,but also can be a cut and paste job( google is god) ,it would be nice to know a bit about such a learned person?

 

 

[turboplanner]

I like those SC wings; the lower, curved surface would be a big advantage in outback conditions when you were landing in thick heath or even gidgee because the curved surface would push through better, keeping the nose up.

 

 

[completeaerogeek]

You've really hit the deck running here mate, tell us a bit about yourself, what you fly, where you studied , whether your RAA or GA or both. What your posting is correct ,but also can be a cut and paste job( google is god) ,it would be nice to know a bit about such a learned person?

I'm blushing now. I am just a nerd. I have been in the industry 33 years. Started off in the RAAF (cadets before that) Aircraft Maintenance Engineer and then went on to train as Flight Engineer on P-3s. Later worked at QF on B747/767 RB-211 and JT-9/CF6 80C2. Got out of MX and went to the US and worked for one of the big carriers as an Operations Supervisor/Manager in Airport Ops, Corporate training for a while and then Airport GM in Chicago. Came back and consulted to Virgin for 3 years when they started up. Lots of AV consulting here and in the Middle East. Got an MSc tech in Aviation from UNSW in 2008, taught BSc Aviation ATPL/CPL Systems and Aerodynamics at UNI for 3 years . 6 years as Squadron CO in the Air Force Cadets.

 

Written a few books on leadership and human hahaviour. Latest one out next year is on how Human Factors investigations of airline accidents can be applied to the corporate workplace.

 

Oh and if my students used Wiki without reading and using the references at the bottom--FAIL! Google/WIKI is full of opinions and less that the ideal number of facts...

 

 

[completeaerogeek]

To remove confusion perhaps we could use the term zero lift AoA and "riggers angle of attack" where appropriate. ( not suggesting they are the same). The air is also viscous, otherwise there would be no lift. It also has density. If the object moves air in any direction the effect is for the reaction to provide a force in the opposite direction. When you use the term deflect, some get confused and think it only refers to he lower surface of the wing. Nev

Yeah- not so much. Younger readers may assume the' rigger' is some kind of political operative. The correct terms are Incidence, AOA and Camber.

 

Yes the air is viscous that is why the mathematics of Bernoulli don't accurately describe lift. He describes inviscid flow. If you watch the video in my first post (page 1) you will see the streamlines pulling each other in the direction of motion of the wing. And yes the contributor that used the term 'deflect' should perhaps describe it more correctly as 'bend'.

 

As NASA states- Lift is caused by turning a fluid. (no magic required)

 

The wing bends the air over both surfaces downwards. The lower surface in particular also pushes the air forwards (in the direction of wing movement) and downward. This makes a mockery of the point in the CASA Day VFR CPL syllabus that says 'explain why the upper surface creates most of the lift) If that was true an A380 wouldn't get off the ground with its big supercritical wing.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

..... Most aircraft have 3 Degrees of Incidence. This is an effective AOA but fixed. If you lower the nose by 3 Degrees you will negate this. Then lower it further by the amount of upper surface camber (also effective AOA) you reach Zero Lift Pitching Angle... = No Lift. Simples...

I wasn't being narky, just pointing out that your explanation is nonsense. Raising or lowering the nose doesn't necessarily make any specific change to the AoA, for example if I raise the nose and increase speed as well the AoA will remain much the same or if I increase the speed more then the AoA will reduce whereas your (incomplete) explanation suggests it will increase. Similarly if I lower the nose but also reduce speed significantly then the AoA will increase rather than reduce, contrary to what you stated.

 

The AoA is the angle between the chordline and the relative airflow, as you're well aware, but from what you're saying you'd have your students believing that AoA is somehow related to the attitude of the aircraft, which it isn't.

 

You may well know your stuff but wading in and suggesting that instructors don't, and that they're misleading their students is a bit rich when you lack specificity in your own explanations. Just sayin'

 

 

[completeaerogeek]

I wasn't being narky, just pointing out that your explanation is nonsense. Raising or lowering the nose doesn't necessarily make any specific change to the AoA, for example if I raise the nose and increase speed as well the AoA will remain much the same or if I increase the speed more then the AoA will reduce whereas your (incomplete) explanation suggests it will increase. Similarly if I lower the nose but also reduce speed significantly then the AoA will increase rather than reduce, contrary to what you stated.The AoA is the angle between the chordline and the relative airflow, as you're well aware, but from what you're saying you'd have your students believing that AoA is somehow related to the attitude of the aircraft, which it isn't.

 

You may well know your stuff but wading in and suggesting that instructors don't, and that they're misleading their students is a bit rich when you lack specificity in your own explanations. Just sayin'

Ouch-Nonsense again? You have introduced another factor. Changing airspeed. (Physics does not allow for a steady state with such changing parameters. F=Ma)

 

Do you understand the definition of AOA? AOA by definiton is Angle of Attack that is the relative angle of the chord line to the relative airflow.

 

Now sit back and think for a second: If raising the nose doesn't cause AOA changes- do you want to explain why we rotate at Take off? Or how we typically demonstrate a stall?

 

If you do what you say, you absolutely will change your AOA and it won't stabilise until your increased power/thrust reaches a steady state i.e. a stable climb.

 

Also I have provided very specific information and references in my first post. I suspect you are suffering from confirmation bias. Read/watch my first post and you will be fully informed.

 

And again, I did not state that flying instructors don't know their stuff. My point is that those people teaching pseudo Bernoulli principles like 'the wing is a venturi, and equal transit time don't know their stuff.

 

However, just being a pilot or a flying instructor does not give you any 'special knowledge'. What most pilots have is a fairly basic level of operator level knowledge. ( I know I have been teaching CPL/ATPL aerodynamics for years) A racing driver can very competent at handling their car but that does not mean they understand the physics involved. For that-you have to educate yourself...

 

I have had discussions with Boeing and Airbus pilots, some with many thousands of hours who attended my lectures still believing equal transit time... Amazing... Should have seen the look on their faces when I showed them the Cambridge video...

 

Now does that still deserve your nonspecific/nonsense tag???

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

.....Do you understand the definition of AOA? AOA by definiton is Angle of Attack that is the relative angle of the chord line to the relative airflow.

Yes, I do, see what I wrote in my previous post -

 

The AoA is the angle between the chordline and the relative airflow ....

 

..... Now sit back and think for a second: If raising the nose doesn't cause AOA changes- do you want to explain why we rotate at Take off? Or how we typically demonstrate a stall?

Would you like me to demonstrate a stall for you with the nose 3 degrees lower than the horizon, in the attitude that you suggested is zero degrees AoA?

 

..... I have had discussions with Boeing and Airbus pilots, some with many thousands of hours who attended my lectures still believing equal transit time... Amazing... Should have seen the look on their faces when I showed them the Cambridge video...

That's surprising, most of the experienced ATPLs I know are very knowledgeable on the subject, but it takes all kinds I guess.

 

.....Now does that still deserve your nonspecific/nonsense tag???

Yup, as long as your teachings suggest AoA is related to Attitude without further explanation or qualification, I'm afraid it does.

 

 

[completeaerogeek]

Yes, I do, see what I wrote in my previous post -I don't think you do...

 

Would you like me to demonstrate a stall for you with the nose 3 degrees lower than the horizon, in the attitude that you suggested is zero degrees AOA?

 

Love to! You can only do that if your airspeed decays below the point that your aerofoil can no longer turn enough airflow to support the weight of the aircraft... (or you introduce a load factor)

 

 

 

Physics again... Annoying isn't it?

 

You still don't seem to comprehend what is happening and you continue to misquote me. Perhaps you should go back and read what I said as opposed to what you think I said?. You have to lower the nose 3 degrees below level PLUS the equivalent angle related to the upper surface camber which is effective AOA as it turns the airflow downwards creating lift in a conventional aerofoil. Get it now? Then you reach Zero Lift Pitching Angle.

 

Drop your nose below the angle of incidence in a symmetrical aerofoil aircraft like an Extra and you will be making no lift...

 

That's surprising, most of the experienced ATPLs I know are very knowledgeable on the subject, but it takes all kinds I guess.

 

ATPLs get taught by instructors many of who don't understand aerodynamics correctly. I had an airline pilot on my BSc course that didn't realise he was sitting on top of a supercritical wing. Flat on top cambered on the bottom... Kinda freaked him out when I explained how it worked...

 

Yup, as long as your teachings suggest AoA is related to Attitude without further explanation or qualification, I'm afraid it does.

My goodness you are stubborn are you? At a fixed airspeed raise the nose- AOA increases... End of story. Controlling the aircraft around its pitch axis at a fixed airspeed changes the AOA. Even the initial pitch up into a climb changes the AOA until you have established a steady/balanced climb like a cruise climb.

 

 

 

I also not eyou didn't answer my question about take-off? OOPS. Kinda the essential concept don't you thing otherwise you are driving a car not flying a plane...

 

 

[completeaerogeek]

k don't think you do understand AOA...

 

Would you like me to demonstrate a stall for you with the nose 3 degrees lower than the horizon, in the attitude that you suggested is zero degrees AOA?

 

Love to! You can only do that if your airspeed decays below the point that your aerofoil can no longer turn enough airflow to support the weight of the aircraft... (or you introduce a load factor)

 

 

 

Physics again... Annoying isn't it?

 

You still don't seem to comprehend what is happening and you continue to misquote me. Perhaps you should go back and read what I said as opposed to what you think I said?.

 

 

 

You have to lower the nose 3 degrees below level PLUS the equivalent angle related to the upper surface camber which is effective AOA as it turns the airflow downwards creating lift in a conventional aerofoil. Get it now? Then you reach Zero Lift Pitching Angle.

 

Drop your nose below the angle of incidence in a symmetrical aerofoil aircraft like an Extra and you will be making no lift...

 

That's surprising, most of the experienced ATPLs I know are very knowledgeable on the subject, but it takes all kinds I guess.

 

ATPLs get taught by instructors many of whom don't understand aerodynamics correctly. I had an airline pilot on my BSc course that didn't realise he was sitting on top of a supercritical wing. Flat on top cambered on the bottom... Kinda freaked him out when I explained how it worked...

 

Yup, as long as your teachings suggest AoA is related to Attitude without further explanation or qualification, I'm afraid it does.

 

My goodness you are stubborn are you? At a fixed airspeed raise the nose- AOA increases... End of story. Controlling the aircraft around its pitch axis at a fixed airspeed changes the AOA. Even the initial pitch up into a climb changes the AOA until you have established a steady/balanced climb like a cruise climb.

 

 

 

I also note you didn't answer my question about take-off? OOPS. Kinda the essential concept don't you think otherwise you are driving a car not flying a plane...

 

 

[djpacro]

My point is that those people teaching pseudo Bernoulli principles like 'the wing is a venturi, and equal transit time don't know their stuff.

I totally agree but CASA's Part 61 MOS states, for CPL (it is not in BAK for RPL):

Apply Bernoulli’s theorem of constant energy flow to describe how an aerofoil produces lift, limited to the variation of kinetic energy (dynamic pressure) and potential energy (static pressure) as air flows through a venturi or over a aerofoil.

and that is now the law. The time to have that argument was when the MOS was a draft at the NPRM stage with CASA.

[completeaerogeek]

I totally agree but CASA's Part 61 MOS states, for CPL (it is not in BAK for RPL): and that is now the law. The time to have that argument was when the MOS was a draft at the NPRM stage with CASA.

Who was it once that said the law is an ass?

 

What kind of credibility does CASA have left anyway?More so when they are promoting myths.

 

See the NASA image attached. The venturi myth is simple rubbish because once you cut the top off a venturi it is not a closed system any more, so the conservation of energy is invalid...

 

As soon as they appoint a new director I will be writing to them. CLARC doesn't listen. This is just embarrassing...

 

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

k don't think you do understand AOA...Would you like me to demonstrate a stall for you with the nose 3 degrees lower than the horizon, in the attitude that you suggested is zero degrees AOA?

 

Love to! You can only do that if your airspeed decays below the point that your aerofoil can no longer turn enough airflow to support the weight of the aircraft... (or you introduce a load factor)

 

 

 

Physics again... Annoying isn't it?

 

You still don't seem to comprehend what is happening and you continue to misquote me. Perhaps you should go back and read what I said as opposed to what you think I said?.

 

 

 

You have to lower the nose 3 degrees below level PLUS the equivalent angle related to the upper surface camber which is effective AOA as it turns the airflow downwards creating lift in a conventional aerofoil. Get it now? Then you reach Zero Lift Pitching Angle.

 

Drop your nose below the angle of incidence in a symmetrical aerofoil aircraft like an Extra and you will be making no lift...

 

That's surprising, most of the experienced ATPLs I know are very knowledgeable on the subject, but it takes all kinds I guess.

 

ATPLs get taught by instructors many of whom don't understand aerodynamics correctly. I had an airline pilot on my BSc course that didn't realise he was sitting on top of a supercritical wing. Flat on top cambered on the bottom... Kinda freaked him out when I explained how it worked...

 

Yup, as long as your teachings suggest AoA is related to Attitude without further explanation or qualification, I'm afraid it does.

 

My goodness you are stubborn are you? At a fixed airspeed raise the nose- AOA increases... End of story. Controlling the aircraft around its pitch axis at a fixed airspeed changes the AOA. Even the initial pitch up into a climb changes the AOA until you have established a steady/balanced climb like a cruise climb.

 

 

 

I also note you didn't answer my question about take-off? OOPS. Kinda the essential concept don't you think otherwise you are driving a car not flying a plane...

Yes, well now you're introducing qualification to your original incorrect statements, which now makes them a bit more useful to the thinking man.

 

Yes, I'm stubborn, also very specific - and I haven't misquoted you anywhere, perhaps you might re-read what I wrote? I've read what you wrote very carefully and fully understand your meaning, there's no issue of "what you said, as opposed to what I think you said". I've never been one to accept something just because someone says it's so, and your explanation of the issues I picked on are flawed. I don't think you and I would get on in your lectures, I'd be the annoying one who keeps pointing out the flaws and inadequacies in your explanations. I don't doubt you understand your subject but you don't explain it well.

 

If you tell a student that flying with the nose 3 degrees below the horizon results in a zero AoA - as you did earlier - then he will believe that. However he would only have a zero AoA if he was in level flight, and you forgot to mention that. And yes, I am quite aware that you went on to describe a further reduction of the ATTITUDE, to reach the zero-lift angle, which in a (positively) cambered airfoil would be at a negative AoA.

 

I really didn't think I needed to address your kindergarten question about a take-off, some of us were teaching flight theory before you even got involved in aviation ...

 

You say you had a student who flew an airliner and didn't know the type or characteristics of the airfoil? Was he Air Congo by any chance? Is it possible he just didn't want to argue with the teacher?

 

 

[completeaerogeek]

Yes, well now you're introducing qualification to your original incorrect statements, which now makes them a bit more useful to the thinking man.You are really giving me some sport today...

 

"Yes, I'm stubborn, also very specific - and I haven't misquoted you anywhere, perhaps you might re-read what I wrote? I've read what you wrote very carefully and fully understand your meaning, there's no issue of "what you said, as opposed to what I think you said". I've never been one to accept something just because someone says it's so, and your explanation of the issues I picked on are flawed. I don't think you and I would get on in your lectures, I'd be the annoying one who keeps pointing out the flaws and inadequacies in your explanations. I don't doubt you understand your subject but you don't explain it well."

 

If you tell a student that flying with the nose 3 degrees below the horizon results in a zero AoA - as you did earlier - then he will believe that. However he would only have a zero AoA if he was in level flight, and you forgot to mention that. And yes, I am quite aware that you went on to describe a further reduction of the ATTITUDE, to reach the zero-lift angle, which in a (positively) cambered airfoil would be at a negative AoA.

 

 

So what is your point? You seem to be meandering all over the place.It you are using the literal meaning of AOA (Chord line to relative airflow) as opposed to effective AOA as a reaction force, then lowering the nose to cancel out incidence gives you zero 'AOA' not zero lift unless you have a symmetrical aerofoil.

 

Now here is my original statement: Most aircraft have 3 Degrees of Incidence. This is an effective AOA but fixed. If you lower the nose by 3 Degrees you will negate this. Then lower it further by the amount of upper surface camber (also effective AOA) you reach Zero Lift Pitching Angle... = No Lift. Simples...

 

So what did I introduce? Not having a good day are you?

 

Your comment: I really didn't think I needed to address your kindergarten question about a take-off, some of us were teaching flight theory before you even got involved in aviation ...

 

Teaching it incorrectly apparently. Your statement about AOA was patently incorrect... "Raising or lowering the nose doesn't necessarily make any specific change to the AoA' Really? Guess you don't get off the ground much... He He...

 

You say you had a student who flew an airliner and didn't know the type or characteristics of the airfoil? Was he Air Congo by any chance? Is it possible he just didn't want to argue with the teacher?

QF actually... and I ALWAYS encourage my students to challenge me. It is the basis of Human Factors CRM.

 

 

I was not impugning the reputation of the pilot in question but instead, pointing out that it is a simple truth that if people (including CASA) are promoting myths like Equal Transit Time and Venturi theory even in their syllabus (CSA) how can they possibly understand a supercritical aerofoil which by definition invalidates their claims?

 

You are really dancing all over the place to extract your foot from your mouth. Perhaps a slow down and a cup of tea might do some good...

 

 

[turboplanner]

You are really dancing all over the place to extract your foot from your mouth. Perhaps a slow down and a cup of tea might do some good...

This is not looking good, our teacher is unravelling and the 'Debunking Lift "Theories" still taught' seems to be badly in need of some debunking itself instead of being propped up by constantly shifting stories.

 

 

[completeaerogeek]

This is not looking good, our teacher is unravelling and the 'Debunking Lift "Theories" still taught' seems to be badly in need of some debunking itself instead of being propped up by constantly shifting stories.

This is not looking good, people are speaking nonsense in attempt to support unsupportable views. I am having fun! Read my original post please, Aviation works on facts, evidence and science not opinions. When someone says that pitching an aircraft up doesn't change it's AOA you have to laugh...

 

Here are some educational documents I prepared earlier. Enjoy! Let me know if you have something factual to say. I'll be waiting!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

This is not looking good, our teacher is unravelling and the 'Debunking Lift "Theories" still taught' seems to be badly in need of some debunking itself instead of being propped up by constantly shifting stories.

Yes, I was suspecting another Troll so did a quick Google before heading off to the ignore list. I think I found out the reason for the apparent need to offer denigrating remarks and make it personal rather than accept and address the comment. It seems Prof geek is mainly used to lecturing ab-initio kids in the cadets and no doubt they're supposed to sit up and pay attention.

 

Prof aerogeek - I came across another set of your cadets lecture notes and although I see they mainly consist of diagrams lifted from various publications (with appropriate credits) I am interested in what I think is your own statement on Page 36 about the purpose of rudder where it states -

 

Here the aircraft is rolling and turning to the left. Ailerons

 

work opposite to each other to roll the aircraft. Rudder is

 

used to assist the turn and prevent skidding.

 

I must have the whole idea of use of rudder during rolling and turning quite wrong. Can you explain how we are supposed to use it to assist the turn please?

 

 

[completeaerogeek]

Yes, I was suspecting another Troll so did a quick Google before heading off to the ignore list. I think I found out the reason for the apparent need to offer denigrating remarks and make it personal rather than accept and address the comment. It seems Prof geek is mainly used to lecturing ab-initio kids in the cadets and no doubt they're supposed to sit up and pay attention.Are you suggesting that I am trolling? The only person I have made tongue in cheek comments to was the person saying that pitching an aircraft doesn't cause AOA changes.

 

If you would like to please demonstrate where I am factually incorrect in any statement I have made,I would be pleased to take it on board.

 

Before you do, please read my comments in context starting from the first post. Then I will be happy for feedback.

 

And no, I have been lecturing to BSc CPL/ATPL students at University as I clearly stated. If you are going to be critical, at least be correct.

 

Prof aerogeek - I came across another set of your cadets lecture notes and although I see they mainly consist of diagrams lifted from various publications (with appropriate credits) I am interested in what I think is your own statement on Page 36 about the purpose of rudder where it states - Ahh no: that is from the FAA PHAK . feel free to tell, them they are wrong.

 

Here the aircraft is rolling and turning to the left. Ailerons

 

work opposite to each other to roll the aircraft. Rudder is

 

used to assist the turn and prevent skidding.

 

My friend-am I to assume that you have never heard of adverse yaw? ?

 

I must have the whole idea of use of rudder during rolling and turning quite wrong. Can you explain how we are supposed to use it to assist the turn please?

You probably do...

 

 

[completeaerogeek]

This is not looking good, our teacher is unravelling and the 'Debunking Lift "Theories" still taught' seems to be badly in need of some debunking itself instead of being propped up by constantly shifting stories.

Oh and I would be happy to know in which way I am unravelling. Any factual statements will do. I have all day...:)

 

 

[completeaerogeek]

This is not looking good, our teacher is unravelling and the 'Debunking Lift "Theories" still taught' seems to be badly in need of some debunking itself instead of being propped up by constantly shifting stories.

You are really dancing all over the place to extract your foot from your mouth. Perhaps a slow down and a cup of tea might do some good...

 

The above was my statement to someone being unpleasant...You may have interpreted it as someone else's... Have a nice day...

 

 

[turboplanner]

I suppose you can't do much harm with cadets.

 

 

[completeaerogeek]

Yes, I was suspecting another Troll so did a quick Google before heading off to the ignore list. I think I found out the reason for the apparent need to offer denigrating remarks and make it personal rather than accept and address the comment. It seems Prof geek is mainly used to lecturing ab-initio kids in the cadets and no doubt they're supposed to sit up and pay attention.

 

Are you suggesting that I am trolling? The only person I have made tongue in cheek comments to was the person saying that pitching an aircraft doesn't cause AOA changes.

 

If you would like to please demonstrate where I am factually incorrect in any statement I have made,I would be pleased to take it on board.

 

Before you do, please read my comments in context starting from the first post. Then I will be happy for feedback.

 

And no, I have been lecturing to BSc CPL/ATPL students at University as I clearly stated. If you are going to be critical, at least be correct.

 

Prof aerogeek - I came across another set of your cadets lecture notes and although I see they mainly consist of diagrams lifted from various publications (with appropriate credits) I am interested in what I think is your own statement on Page 36 about the purpose of rudder where it states - Ahh no: that is from the FAA PHAK . feel free to tell, them they are wrong.

 

Here the aircraft is rolling and turning to the left. Ailerons

 

work opposite to each other to roll the aircraft. Rudder is

 

used to assist the turn and prevent skidding.

 

My friend-am I to assume that you have never heard of adverse yaw? ?

 

I must have the whole idea of use of rudder during rolling and turning quite wrong. Can you explain how we are supposed to use it to assist the turn please?

 

You probably do...