Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28

Thread: Ailerons: Yea of Nay

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    2
    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).

  2. #12
    cluttonfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    World traveler
    Posts
    457
    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.
    *******
    Matthew Long, Editor
    cluttonfred.info
    A site for builders, owners and fans of Eric Clutton's FRED
    and other safe, simple, affordable homebuilt aircraft

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    918
    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)

  4. #14
    cwilliamrose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    SW Florida
    Posts
    217
    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.

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Columbus Ohio
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Dana View Post
    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

  6. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Columbus Ohio
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by lsearl View Post
    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

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Columbus Ohio
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by CHICAGORANDY View Post
    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
    Last edited by JohnnyB; 08-25-2018 at 08:41 AM.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    918
    "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.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Clarklake, MI
    Posts
    2,461
    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.

  10. #20
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,947
    Quote Originally Posted by martymayes View Post
    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.



    Ron Wanttaja

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •