2017 Going out with a bang.....Flat Turns

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

Dana

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
10,683
Location
CT, USA
Stick and Rudder explains the rudder pedals will be removed from airplanes in 10 yrs because they are unnecessary, all in black and white.

Copyright 1944 + 10 yrs = 1954. 2018 -1954 = 64 yrs later and rudder pedals are still there.......okay, maybe Stick and Rudder is more for entertainment and less of a textbook.
No, it's still a great textbook for those obsolete planes that do have rudder pedals.

I believe you are putting words in the authors mouth. He did not say all airplanes would be rudderless and I never read one time where the author said the rudder was unnecessary. He did ask when do you use the rudder? anytime you use the aileron's was his answer. So how could airplanes be rudderless if one uses the rudder when one is using the ailerons?
He said rudder pedals. An Ercoupe has rudders but no rudder pedals. Langeweische thought very highly of the Ercoupe.

I don't think so, if you follow Langewiesche you'll know he was a proponent of no rudder because adverse yaw can be designed out of the airplane, stall-proof / spin proof airplanes and couple other advancements that to this day have still have not happened.
But we can make no adverse yaw, stall-spin proof airplanes. But airplane buyers have shown that they don't like the performance and handling compromises that come with such a design.

Dana
 

Rockiedog2

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2012
Messages
2,598
Yup. Slow airplanes have low wing loadings. That makes flight in turbulence really uncomfortable, and actually dangerous if it's bad enough. Such turbulence would be a minor inconvenience in an airplane with a higher wing loading. And, as you say, crosswinds keep such airplanes on the ground; they'll just blow away uncontrollably. Crosswind components get pretty big with STOL airplanes.

The Fieseler Storch has a wing loading of 9.9 pounds per square foot, a little higher than my Jodel's 8 and a bit. That Jodel jumps around real good in the wind. The Storch has 240 HP and a maximum speed of 109 MPH, so it's safe to assume a cruise of maybe 95. 240 HP will burn about 11 or 12 GPH, giving a fuel mileage of about 8 MPG. Definitely not the economical machine for a long cross-country, and it carries two people. Seat mileage gets even worse. That airplane has been made obsolete by helicopters like the Robinson R-44, which carry four people, cruise at 130 MPH, and gets at least as good fuel mileage as the Storch. It can land in far smaller places that the Storch, too. It's no wonder no manufacturer is producing Storchs or anything like them. The Storch was an airplane for a very specific role at a time when helicopters weren't available.
My 701 has a 10# wing loading at MGW. The vicious turb like we might hit when trying to sneak around a squall line will tear it up if we aren't slowed up. The PIC will only let it happen one time...the sudden nasty gust loads on the airframe and the near uncontrollable attitude changes...the power automatically comes way back. Survival instincts.
 

Dan Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
6,986
only airplane I ever flew that I didn't like and knew I never would was a rudderless Ercoupe
I flew an Aircoupe, the last iteration of the Ercoupe. 1967 model. It had rudder pedals, but the rudder control wasn't very effective. They were originally intended to combat adverse yaw, so they were small and had limited travel. Trying to slip the airplane was a joke; there just wasn't much rudder there. Didn't need slip anyway--just get it slow and it would come down real quick. Not stalled, just sinking, and that alone hurt some Ercoupe owners. Being stall-proof isn't everything, as someone else pointed out here a bit earlier.
 

Dan Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
6,986
I never did figure out how an A300 got off the ground walk up to it and look at it and "ain't no way that thing will get off the ground"
Economies of scale, sort of. Double the size of the airplane and you get four times the wing area. Triple it and you get nine times. Go faster and you generate far more lift; I haven't the formula handy but I believe it runs along the same lines as drag: double the speed, four times the drag.

But all that sure doesn't seem intuitive when you watch a million pounds of 747 rise off the ground, does it?
 

Pops

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
10,668
Location
USA.
only airplane I ever flew that I didn't like and knew I never would was a rudderless Ercoupe
I have owned Ercoupes with rudder pedals and without rudder pedals. The rudders on an Ercoupe moves to the outside only except for a very few degrees to the inside. I do like flying the Ercoupe except for being so under powered as most factory airplanes are. I do find myself stomping on the floor when flying one with no pedals . You can do a very, very mild slip with an Ercoupe with rudder pedals. For the worse flying airplane, I'll vote on the Piper T-tail Arrow. I would take one if it was given to me, if I couldn't sell or scrap it.
 

Pops

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
10,668
Location
USA.
I flew an Aircoupe, the last iteration of the Ercoupe. 1967 model. It had rudder pedals, but the rudder control wasn't very effective. They were originally intended to combat adverse yaw, so they were small and had limited travel. Trying to slip the airplane was a joke; there just wasn't much rudder there. Didn't need slip anyway--just get it slow and it would come down real quick. Not stalled, just sinking, and that alone hurt some Ercoupe owners. Being stall-proof isn't everything, as someone else pointed out here a bit earlier.
That wasn't the best flying Ercoupe. The best ones are the lightest ones with fabric wings, flat windshield, with a C-85.
 

Dan Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
6,986
That wasn't the best flying Ercoupe. The best ones are the lightest ones with fabric wings, flat windshield, with a C-85.
I can believe that. Fabric is smoother and slippery. I have read that the ragwing Cessna 170 was faster than the 170A or B, which had metal wings. Even so, that Alon had a C-90 and outran/outperformed any 100-hp 150 I flew. Took off shorter, climbed faster, cruised faster. I found it a bit less comfortable and a lot noisier than a 150.
 

Pops

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
10,668
Location
USA.
I can believe that. Fabric is smoother and slippery. I have read that the ragwing Cessna 170 was faster than the 170A or B, which had metal wings. Even so, that Alon had a C-90 and outran/outperformed any 100-hp 150 I flew. Took off shorter, climbed faster, cruised faster. I found it a bit less comfortable and a lot noisier than a 150.
Out performing a C-150 is not saying much. I had a Ercoupe with a C-85 that would fly the same speed as a Continental 0-300 powered straight tail C-172 at the same rpm. The Alon went to the bigger engine because of all the extra weight and still doesn't perform as good as the C-85 powered lighter Ercoupes. Tried to make a more modern airplane and all they did was add weight. My daughter used to have a 1948 Cessna 170, dual struts, fabric wings on the early models.
 

flyinut

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 1, 2008
Messages
65
Location
GLD
I can believe that. Fabric is smoother and slippery. I have read that the ragwing Cessna 170 was faster than the 170A or B, which had metal wings. Even so, that Alon had a C-90 and outran/outperformed any 100-hp 150 I flew. Took off shorter, climbed faster, cruised faster. I found it a bit less comfortable and a lot noisier than a 150.
502.png

Love my Ragwing >>==> And yes, faster than A & B models - even with 8.50 x 6's on her!
 
Top