Ailerons: Yea of Nay

[robert l]

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

[JohnnyB]

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

[robert l]

Keep us informed.
Bob

[Dana]

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.

[Bill Berson]

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.

[lsearl]

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).

[cluttonfred]

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.

[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)

[JohnnyB]

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

[delta2ul]

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.