Ailerons: Yea of Nay

Hi Fellow Fliers,
This is my first post here so excuse me if I get a thing or two wrong.

I have been a Pvt Pilot flying GA since the 80s and have about 400 hours. Recreational flyer only.
Lately I don't fly Cessnas and Pipers as much but have gotten interested in Ultralights.
I flew a couple weeks ago in a Quicksilver MX II with an experienced instructor and it was all
I had hoped it would be. I'm continuing my training and am starting to look at planes,
and I'm seeing just as many 2-axis [lanes out there as I see 3-axis ultralights out there.

The instructor said more than once "Ya don't need ailerons on these ultralights" (even tho we had ailerons.)

My question is what is your opinion on the necessity of ailerons and why?

It should be noted that I will likely buy a Quicksilver because of their long history and proven quality.

Thanks all
John - Columbus Ohio

It is simple enough to design an aircraft to not need ailerons...thousands of RC planes, for example, have rudder and elevators only. It really depends on the aircraft.

Ron Wanttaja

The two-axis planes are fine. Another ultralight from that era, the Skypup used 2 axis control.

Since I do not know and have not flown a 2 axis. What is the recovery from wind conditions that would be making the 2 axis roll suddenly?
Would this be the time one wished they had ailerons .
I have told people I do not need an item. Because I would not be using under specific conditions etc.
Assuming the 2 axis would behave the same as my plane when flying at 90 degree to the prevailing wind condition.
Is the answer as simple as do not fly a 2 axis in windy conditions ?
Norm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by martymayes

The two-axis planes are fine. Another ultralight from that era, the Skypup used 2 axis control.

---

And the Weedhopper as I recall

JohnnyB, I've never flown a 2 axis airplane but I have owned 2 ultralights. A Nomad Honcho and a Phantom, both had 3 axis control. I like the idea of being able to cross control, as in a slip, even though, airplanes that don't have a solid fuselage, like the Weedhoper, Quicksilver, Honcho, Phantom, etc. trying to slip just isn't the same. There's nothing to slip against, so to speak. Since I learned to fly in a 3 axis airplane, that's what I would go with, just my openion. Just like I would not want to TRY to fly a weight shift, I feel better doing what I know ! Of course, you can adapt to most anything I suppose. Anyway, that's all I got !
Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robert l

Since I learned to fly in a 3 axis airplane, that's what I would go with, just my opinion. I feel better doing what I know ! Of course, you can adapt to most anything I suppose.
Bob

---

Thanks for the reply Bob. I guess it's human nature to want to stick with what I know.
It seems that crosswind correction while both on the ground and in the air would be harder without ailerons.
Also slipping to lose altitude would be off the table and that comes in very handy at times. But then I see
hundreds of videos of 2-axis planes and talk with many people that feel they're not necessary in an UL
that I just felt some more opinions would be in order.

I definitely think that the "preference" would be a 3-axis for me but would I give up a great deal on a 2-axis plane?
I dunno, I guess the next time I fly I'll attempt to leave the ailerons out of the mix to see if I can adapt.
I can't ignore that people have been flying 2-axis since the dawn of aviation and that with the increased dihedral
of the 2-axis UL it may be fully adaptable clean flying without ailerons.

Thanks again for the reply Bob
John - Columbus Ohio

Keep us informed.
Bob

My preference would definitely be for ailerons. Without them, the ability to make a cross controlled wing down landing in a crosswind is lost, limiting the weather conditions you can fly in. That said, the rudder in a Quick is much more powerful than the ailerons... Full aileron one way and some rudder the other way, you're going to roll in the direction the rudder says.

Slipping for crosswind landings, yes. Slipping to lose altitude, no. A slip is an effective altitude loss technique in a conventional airplane because the side of the fuselage is presented to the relative wind, increasing drag. A Quick has no fuselage, so in a slip the plane just flies sideways.

A self taught ultralight pilot might be somewhat safer in a 2-axis because it normally can't enter a cross controlled spin.
A trained pilot that thoroughly understands the possible dangers of cross controlled skids might prefer 3-axis.

I've put a few hours on a Weedhopper. As mentioned before this is a 2 axis plane. The one time I wished that I had ailerons was on hot, sunny afternoon. The wind on the ground was light and seem pretty steady. But once I got to 1000 ft I encountered the edges of thermals that would cause some significant roll of the Weedhopper. Until I got past the edge of the thermals it would NOT want to roll back to neutral. This was pretty unsettling and resulted in a short flight. I wanted to get back on the ground pretty quick. After that I never flew the Weedhopper on a hot, sunny afternoon but still had many hours of pleasant evening flying.

I think a 2 axis plane is fine as long has you know its limitations and fly according to its limitations (and yours).

I think that last line is key. The amount and speed of roll-yaw coupling varies from one two-axis design to another, but thousands of Ercoupe, Sky Pups, Flying Fleas, Quicksilvers, Weedhoppers, etc. have shown that two-axis aircraft can be safe and a lot of fun.

As I understand it the Ercoupe is a three-axis airplane, it links the rudder and ailerons to the control wheel instead of having rudder pedals (an optional accessory)

One thing to consider is the general lack of rigidity of ultralight wings. Hanging ailerons on a flexible wing can be disappointing as the aileron forces can cause the wing to twist in the opposite direction which can make them ineffective or even cause an opposite roll response. The spoilers on the old Quicksilvers avoided this issue and still give a little roll response as long as you weren't in a hurry. Those airplanes had the rudders connected to the stick and the spoilers connected to the pedals so you tended to fly the airplane as a two-axis machine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dana

That said, the rudder in a Quick is much more powerful than the ailerons... Full aileron one way and some rudder the other way, you're going to roll in the direction the rudder says.

Slipping for crosswind landings, yes. Slipping to lose altitude, no.

---

This is great information and well described. Thank you
JB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lsearl

The one time I wished that I had ailerons was once I got to 1000 ft I encountered the edges of thermals that would cause some significant roll of the Weedhopper. Until I got past the edge of the thermals it would NOT want to roll back to neutral..

---

This is what my training in GA would cause me to expect. (Well put by the way - Thanks) I don't see why, with the cost being comparatively small between a 2-axis vs 3-axis QS, why I would want to limit my handling options. I'm leaning toward 3-axis because one never knows exactly what to expect with winds. Sure, we can get the wind info but it's general and not always accurate a couple hours later or when aloft. We need to be able to deal with thermals, or crosswinds on TO and landing, while taxing and so forth. Not every day is perfect wind straight down the runway, in fact, they rarely are. Why not be ready with 3-axis and the understanding of how to use it.
JB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CHICAGORANDY

As I understand it the Ercoupe is a three-axis airplane, it links the rudder and ailerons to the control wheel instead of having rudder pedals (an optional accessory)

---

I've flown Ercoupe and you're both right, and wrong (at least in the ones I have flown)
The runner and ailerons were indeed connected together, but the yoke still allows for *some* independent control of the ailerons with left/right yoke (or stick as in some versions). But you could certainly fly the plane with just the rudder pedals and usually turns were very coordinated. It was when wind picked up you used the ailerons more aggressively with the stick or yoke.
JB

"But you could certainly fly the plane with just the rudder pedals "

Only those models so equipped of course. Many, like the LSA qualified 415C's did not have any rudder pedals but there was/is a conversion kit available.

Originally the Ercoupe only had one pedal, a brake pedal like the one in a '47 Mercury. When it was windy, you just land in a crab and it would straighten itself out.

Fred Weick designed it to replicate driving a car so it has a steering wheel and a brake pedal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by martymayes

Originally the Ercoupe only had one pedal, a brake pedal like the one in a '47 Mercury. When it was windy, you just land in a crab and it would straighten itself out.

Fred Weick designed it to replicate driving a car so it has a steering wheel and a brake pedal.

---

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/52/46...4328b03a9e.jpg
http://www.airport-data.com/images/a...188/188488.jpg

Ron Wanttaja

The Ercoupe has the traditional aerodynamic control surfaces that could control pitch, roll, and yaw if connected to conventional controls but without the rudder pedals the pilot has only two axes of control, pitch and "turn" (coupled yaw/roll). The effect is the same as a Quicksilver or Sky Pup without any form of roll control surfaces and just a rudder, but Ercoupe's coupled controls reduce the initial skidding before dihedral effect takes over in a turn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CHICAGORANDY

As I understand it the Ercoupe is a three-axis airplane, it links the rudder and ailerons to the control wheel instead of having rudder pedals (an optional accessory)

---

]https://i.pinimg.com/originals/52/46...4328b03a9e.jpg






Those yokes in Cessna 12/140's were the same but different.

Aeronca Chief had that yoke also.

My first UL was a Quicksilver MX in the configuration that had the rudder on the stick and spoilers on the pedals. I'm a PPL and had to convert the rudder to the pedals to be comfortable. The spoilers didn't really do much, but if you normally fly coordinated then it will feel more natural. Crosswinds are a problem as the spoiler will not keep the upwind wing down. I actually landed across the runway several times. Not being able to handle much wind was why I sold the Quick and bought a CGS Hawk and got flaps in the bargain. So, with your GA experience I think you would be happier with three axis.

Just as food for thought here are a couple of photos of a Criquet Leger, one of the designs by the late Emilien Croses, probably the best-known "disciple" of Henri Mignet, who put his own spin on the two-axis Mignet tandem formula.

Attachment 7486

You can see here another example of a proven two-axis system. The wheels turn left and right to control the rudder, and they pivot on the bottom to actuate the pushrods that goes through the center hub to control the incidence of the front wing for pitch control. There are two pedals that you can just see but they only control brakes. The two levers on the side of the cockpit control tabs on the rear wing. They are are used together for pitch trim and differentially to dial in little bit of "aileron" when making a crosswind landing.

Attachment 7487

I came very close to buying this plane in France back in 2013, I had actually rented a truck to go see it in person and bring it home, but I chickened out in the end as it needed some work and I was about to go overseas again. Side note...my son in the picture is now 15 and taller than me.

If you do not have ailerons, wing dihedral is your friend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Berson

Aeronca Chief had that yoke also.

---

yeah, that yoke supplier was making a killing!

My first flights was in a MX with spoilers. I found in a cross wind of 5 mph or less you could land this aircraft. To me this was a lot of fun.