quote:

---

> Turns out that the V tail, which I have never flown, does indeed roll out,
> it's a design flaw according to my source.

quote:

---

> With credentials like that, I'm not comfortable debating him. I would like
> to hear from others.

quote:

---

> that the majority of V-tail models of which I am share

quote:

---

> of
> back pressure, add throttle, or trim for 0 stick pressure to maintain
> altitude in the turn, and return the yoke to center. If the plane does
> anything other than stay where you put it, it is out of trim in the roll
> axis.

quote:

---

>
>
> From the real world studying I have been doing, in steep turns the plane
> will continue to bank unless you apply adverse aileron. Anything less than
> thirty degrees (I think...? maybe wrong) will maintain the bank, but even
> less bank (say, 5-10 degrees) may require continuous aileron to maintain
> bank. Just my two cents based on what I know. I'm sure this may vary
> between AC...
>
> Mike

quote:

---

> From the real world studying I have been doing, in steep turns the plane
> will continue to bank unless you apply adverse aileron

quote:

---

>
> "Mike"
>
> I'll skip the low wing part of this conversation, but someone will have to
> explain how a high wing like a Cessna continues to bank with the bulk of
> the
> aircraft's weight below the wings acting like a pendulum leveling the
> wings.
>
> Dallas
>
>

quote:

---

>
> "Mike"
>
> I'll skip the low wing part of this conversation, but someone will have to
> explain how a high wing like a Cessna continues to bank with the bulk of
> the
> aircraft's weight below the wings acting like a pendulum leveling the
> wings.
>
> Dallas

quote:

---

> You are determined to get me into an aerodynamic's conversation, aren't

quote:

---

> lol

quote:

---

> Here ya go, easy reading to understand some basic's about flying
> http://www.av8n.com/how/#contents

quote:

---

>
> "PPS" <
>
> Easy reading? Hell, the index is more than I can cope with. :-)
>
>
> Dallas
>
>

quote:

---

> Now you know why I'm not getting into that 'other' discussion :-)

quote:

---

> .........and whatever you do, don't EVER get involved when someone asks,
> "What causes lift?"
> :-)
> Dudley Henriques
>
>
>

quote:

---

> Perhaps with the bulk of the weight under the wings, centrifugal force

quote:

---

> into play.

quote:

---

> .........and whatever you do, don't EVER get involved when someone asks,
> "What causes lift?"

quote:

---

>
> "Dudley Henriques"
>
> Magic fairies and Pixie dust?
>
>
> :-)

quote:

---

>
> Actually, lift demons.
> My good friend Mary Shafer, engineering specialist on the SR71 has
> written;
>
> "Subject: Lift demons
>
> Mary Shafer (sha...@ferhino.dfrf.nasa.gov) explains lift:
>
>
> OK, here it is--the real, intuitively-obvious-even-to-the-lay-person
> explanation of lift.
>
>
> People, lift is caused by lift demons. These little, invisible demons
> hold on to the leading and trailing edges of the aircraft and lift it
> into the air by flapping their wings (so, in a reductionist sense,
> lift is actually caused by feathers). Some of the demons are a little
> confused and they hold on backwards, causing drag.
>
>
> The reason that planes stall at high alpha is that the leading edge
> demons get scared and let go when they can't see the ground anymore.
>
>
> Lift demons have good taste and don't like to look at ugly aircraft,
> so they hold on backwards on ugly planes. That's why gliders have
> so much lift and so little drag and why F-4s have lots of drag.
>
> This is the explanation I always use as the subject of Bernouli and Newton
> heats up on Usenet. Has kept me out of trouble for years!! :-))
>
> Dudley Henriques
>
>
>

quote:

---

> ROFL!!! Can I use that? :-)

quote:

---

>
> "Mike"
> comes
>
> Excellent point. Yes, centrifugal force would swing the fuselage outward.
>
> But, I'm thinking 1 G of gravity is always there. If you are *not*
> holding
> the bank angle with ailerons, then gravity will pull downward with some
> effect.
>
> As it pulls downward against the centrifugal force, the bank lessens and
> the
> turn deteriorates; then the centrifugal force lessens. Gravity will
> continue to win the battle and the wings will become horizontal.
>
> Take for example the design of Lockheed Galaxy. The pendulum effect of
> the massive fuselage under the high wing configuration makes the aircraft
> so
> resistant to bank that the wings have a pronounced anhedral to cancel the
> massive roll stability.
>
>
> Dallas
>
>

quote:

---

>
> "Mike"
> comes
>
> Excellent point. Yes, centrifugal force would swing the fuselage outward.
>
> But, I'm thinking 1 G of gravity is always there. If you are *not*
> holding
> the bank angle with ailerons, then gravity will pull downward with some
> effect.
>
> As it pulls downward against the centrifugal force, the bank lessens and
> the
> turn deteriorates; then the centrifugal force lessens. Gravity will
> continue to win the battle and the wings will become horizontal.
>
> Take for example the design of Lockheed Galaxy. The pendulum effect of
> the massive fuselage under the high wing configuration makes the aircraft
> so
> resistant to bank that the wings have a pronounced anhedral to cancel the
> massive roll stability.
>
>
> Dallas
>
>

quote:

---

> Nope, not gonna do it....*sniffs the bait and swims by*

quote:

---

>I was thinking........ gravity

quote:

---

>Anything less than
> thirty degrees (I think...? maybe wrong) will maintain the bank, but even
> less bank (say, 5-10 degrees) may require continuous aileron to maintain
> bank.

quote:

---

> Nope, not gonna do it....*sniffs the bait and swims by*

quote:

---

>
> "PPS"
>
> Ok.. homework done. I'll thank you PPS and Dudley for assisting me in
> obtaining the correct understanding of wing dihedral and lateral
> stability.
>
> I was a victim of totally incorrect information from a 1981 Jeppesen
> Sanderson book. Their explanation, as it turns out, is a common but
> erroneous explanation for how dihedral works:
>
> They said:
> "When an aircraft with dihedral rolls so that one wind is lower than the
> other, the lower wing will have more effective lift than the raised wing
> because it is not tilted from the horizontal as much. The imbalance in
> lift
> tends to raise the lower wing and restore level flight."
>
> To my credit, I never thought this made any sense but I assumed the
> premise
> must be right... after all it's in a book.
>
> Now that I do understand how it works, I can't believe anyone writing
> about
> aerodynamics could write such a nonsensical explanation.
>
> Today's wisdom: Just because it's in a book doesn't mean it's right.
>
> Dallas
>
>

quote:

---

> Actually I am not sure that is exactly correct.

quote:

---

> So do you agree or not with what is in that book?

quote:

---

> No - sorry. Once you turn the G level goes up.

quote:

---

> "PPS" <jgardner@nitroREMOVETHISgraphix.Kom> wrote in message
> news:eA1Qf.1128$C7.294@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
>
> .........and whatever you do, don't EVER get involved when someone asks,
> "What causes lift?"
> :-)
> Dudley Henriques
>
>
>

quote:

---

>
> Today's wisdom: Just because it's in a book doesn't mean it's right.
>
> Dallas
>
>

quote:

---

> Dallas wrote:
>
>
> But remember - Now you can look on the Internet to get the correct
> explanation.
> --

quote:

---

> "AT" == "Andreas Tschoeke" writes:
> AT> On my system the Flight1 C172R requires _opposite_ aileron from
> AT> the slightest bank on to prevent the bank becoming steeper; not a
> AT> normal behaviour, for sure?
> AT>
> AT> The RealAir Cessna doesn=B4t act this way.
>
> Well are you sure that on the Flight1 C172R when you are turning,
> that you are balanced?
>
> If you have too much rudder, you will continue to roll.

quote:

---

> Now I've got this problem: If the outside wing is traveling faster in a
> bank and creating more lift, will it not also yaw the aircraft? Why then
> in
> a bank, when you return the ailerons to neutral, do you also neutralize
> the
> rudder?

quote:

---

> So, having said that:
>
> If you are turning RIGHT, the wings are banked to the right, and the
> CG is moving to the LEFT. This keeps the turn.
>
> ** Being a balanced turn ofcourse. **
>

quote:

---

>
> "Jarod (the puppy)"
>
> Absolutely not! It's assumption is that a horizontal wing creates more
> lift
> than a banked wing. Kelly Johnson would be rolling in his grave if he
> heard
> that.
>
> Dallas
>

quote:

---

> Dallas... did you find any good sites that suggested the opposite from the
> Jepp book?

quote:

---

> "boB" <psycho.puppyXXXX@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%ibQf.3504$%X2.1373@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>
> You forgot the "S" ..... "Now you can look on the Internet to get the
> correct explanations". ;-)
>
> Steve
>
>

quote:

---

>
>"PPS" <jgardner@nitroREMOVETHISgraphix.Kom> wrote in message
>news:eA1Qf.1128$C7.294@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
>
>.........and whatever you do, don't EVER get involved when someone asks,
>"What causes lift?"

quote:

---

> Understand these 4 things, and flying
> becomes much easier.

quote:

---

>I swore I wasn't going to do this but after seeing some of these posts, I
>just gotta! However I'm going to try to keep it short and as simple as
>possible...Aerodynamics 101 :-)
>
> There are 4 forces that act on any airplane, thrust, drag, weight, and
> lift. I am not going to get into each one because there are books out
> there for that.
>
> Suffice it to say that as long as these 4 are 'balanced', and no external
> forces are applied, or any of these changed, a plane will stay exactly
> where you put it, until you make it do something else.
>
> For the sake of flying, there is no such thing as 'gravity' per se, in a
> plane gravity is actually weigh, and is counteracted by 'lift'. Drag is
> counter acted by thrust. When thrust = drag and lift = weight, you are
> stabilized. When you changed any one of these, the plane will change
> 'attitude'.
>
> When you use a 'normal' plane, and I have to qualify that because of what
> I learned about 'V tails' (sorry B45 :-), if you set the attitude and
> 'trim' for that attitude, the plane will stay where you put it until you
> change one of those forces acting on it.
>
> Since the 172 in FS seems to be the reference here, and since I have never
> actually flown it in FS, I just took it up for a test, and it flys damn
> close to the real thing, as long as you are aware of some FS quirks.
>
> The first thing I noticed is that the aileron trim is not correct, at
> least on mine. And since I use the default trim button on my yoke for
> other things, I didnt adjust it, just compensated for it. This may in fact
> be part of the problem with understanding, if everyones is the same as
> mine, the plane wants to roll to the right, even in level flight.
>
> Try this, and see for yourself......
>
> 1 Make a normal TO in the 172 and climb to 1000ft AGL
>
> 2 Accelerate to your normal cruise speed and reduce power to maintain it,
> then trim for straight and level flight.
>
> 3 Take your hands off the controls and see if it maintains S+L flight. If
> it does, your plane is balanced and trimmed correctly, if it doesn't, then
> you need to adjust trim or compensate.
>
> 4 Once you can let go of the controls, and the plane continues straight
> and level, you are ready to try this test.....roll into a standard rate
> turn (the first 'tic' on the turn and bank indicator. Use both aileron and
> rudder to keep the 'ball' centered.
>
> 5 Watch the ROC indicator and use trim to stop any altitude loss. With the
> ROC at 0, take your hands off the controls, and be sure you keep the ball
> exactly on center. You are now in a standard rate turn, maintaining
> altitude, and hands off. The plane will continue that turn until either a
> wind gust, control input, weight shift, or running outa gas forces a
> change in attitude.
>
> Try it at different bank angles, and left and right, if you have
> configured correctly, you will see there is no difference.
>
> In short, pendulums, asymetic thrust, gravity, unequal lift, and nebulas
> and black holes, have nothing to do with any of this :-) Unless you study
> and understand the 4 forces, then understanding how and why airplanes do
> what they do will remain complicated. Understand these 4 things, and
> flying becomes much easier.
>

quote:

---

> Which,
>
> Would result in less VERTICAL lift from that wing.
>

quote:

---

> Now it's up to Dallas to deliver...

quote:

---

> Would result in less VERTICAL lift from that wing.

quote:

---

>
> "Jarod (the puppy)"
>
>
> Vertical to the earth or vertical to the wing?
>
> I'd say the direction of the wing's lift vector doesn't change when an
> aircraft is rolled.
>
> Discussing it this way might help:
>
> What if the aircraft didn't roll but flew straight and level. What if
> instead of rolling we could move the direction the force of gravity is
> coming from.
>
> Let's say we shifted the gravity vector from straight down to more
> sideways?
> Why would that affect the lift on the wings?
>
> That's what the incorrect 1981 book is saying... It's stating that there
> would be more lift created when the gravity vector is straight down than
> sideways.
>
>
> Dallas
>
>

quote:

---

> There are two vectors to life, horizontal and vertical...keep reading
> Grasshopper :-)
>
>
> "Dallas" <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote in message
> news:7GGQf.3844$Bj7.2924@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>

quote:

---

> Let's say we shifted the gravity vector from straight down to more sideways?
> Why would that affect the lift on the wings?
>
> That's what the incorrect 1981 book is saying... It's stating that there
> would be more lift created when the gravity vector is straight down than
> sideways.
>
>
> Dallas
>
>

quote:

---

> is an illustration showing the aircraft in a bank that shows a decrease
> in total lift because of less horizontal wing

quote:

---

>
> "boB"
>
> Here's an illustration from the book:
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...2/Misc/book.jpg
>
> "More effective lift" is just silly.
>
> Why would the more horizontal wing have more lift?
>
> The real answer is that the aircraft sideslips when put into a bank and
> dihedral creates a high angle of attack on the lower wing.
>
>
> Dallas
>
>

quote:

---

>On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 22:18:14 GMT, Dudley Henriques wrote in
>alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim:
>
>
>No problem. Lift was invented by Wolfgang Langewiesche in the 1940's.
>Far as I know he still holds the patent on it, so if anyone wants to
>discuss lift, he or she must send the appropriate royalties to Wolfgang
>or to his agent (that would be I).

quote:

---

> You can apply that
> approach to oil, missing rivets, you name it, but it all comes back to
> money.

quote:

---

> "Jarod (the puppy)"
>
>
>
> Absolutely not! It's assumption is that a horizontal wing creates more lift
> than a banked wing. Kelly Johnson would be rolling in his grave if he heard
> that.
>
> Dallas
>
>

quote:

---

> When you puppies have quit yapping, consider lift vectors rather than
> just lift.

quote:

---

> "Gregg"
>
>
>
> What's your point?
>
> Dallas
>
>

quote:

---

> When the plane is banked, some of the lift is pushing the plane
> sideways, leaving less lift holding the plane up.