PDA

View Full Version : Rudder Trim vs Alieron Trim?



MisterMark
08-28-2008, 11:52 PM
Seems to counter the torque of single engine planes everyone talks about rudder trim... Wouldn't aileron trim be a better remedy for this?

Thoughts?

Bratsk_Station
08-29-2008, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by MisterMark:
Seems to counter the torque of single engine planes everyone talks about rudder trim... Wouldn't aileron trim be a better remedy for this?

Thoughts?

Aileron trim affects the roll axis; rudder trim affects the yaw axis.

Better to maintain roll stability by not fiddling too much with aileron trim and use rudder trim to counter torque (which also acts in the yaw axis). One might intuitively get rid of aileron trim in combat anyway because it would impede the roll rate of the aircraft in one direction.

WTE_Galway
08-29-2008, 01:24 AM
More to the point the talk of "torque" is a bit of a gamers misnomer.

There are a number of factors at work.

Probably the biggest one at lower speeds is the prop wash spiralling around the fuselage and hitting the tail plane. This induces yaw and hence is best countered by rudder.

During the takeoff roll the main effect of the torque is to push one wheel harder into the dirt and .. you guessed it .. induce yaw ... rudder trim again.

A related point is that at low speed you are taught to fly with the rudder. If a wing dips you correct with rudder as using aileron to pick up a stalled wing will just stall it worse.

This is all noticeable in game. The 109 for example does not have a particularly bad tendency to roll at high power but it definitely does yaw ... enough to throw off your aim by a wing width or two.

lesterhawksby
08-29-2008, 04:22 AM
Also, have you *tried* doing this with aileron trim? I did so once, by accident and almost unconsciously... never again. A good way to turn a docile, friendly bird into a rampaging, full-stick-deflection-just-to-not-crash monster; I'd rather let the Germans do that to me than do it for them!

Incidentally, a fun way to play with trim is to fly a fully-trimmable craft vs. no enemies, take your hand off the stick, and put time compression up to 8x. Then fly using the trim controls alone. It will become painfully obvious when you aren't getting it right! It also gives the clearest explanation you will see of the effects on speed, slip etc...

(when you learn to fly real planes they drill trim into you 'til it's totally second nature; anyone else here ever have an instructor who just said "I'm not happy" over and over with no further explanation 'til you remembered to trim? :-) However, the effects of real trim controls are much more instantly understandable than they are in a sim with a computer joystick. The x8 compression gives you a sort of crude substitute for the instant feedback of stick force and gut feeling IRL)

M_Gunz
08-29-2008, 05:58 AM
When you use aileron trim or push the stick to the side then one wing will have a higher AOA
than the other... it will stall before the other will if you get into a stall region of flight.

Having that happen close to the ground is not a good thing.

Rudder will keep you level at times when side stick will only make things much worse.

Stingray333
08-30-2008, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by MisterMark:
Seems to counter the torque of single engine planes everyone talks about rudder trim... Wouldn't aileron trim be a better remedy for this?

Thoughts?

The torque of the engine is causing a yawing motion. The yawing motion causes one wing to be going slower than the other, and this results in one wing losing lift, the net result being that the slower wing dips, and it seems like the engine torque is causing a roll, but it is the yawing motion.

Rather than dealing with the roll with the trim, the solution is to deal with the yaw, and the roll won't happen.

There is also the spin of the prop wash, but AFAIK, that only happens at slow speeds?

Stingray

M_Gunz
08-30-2008, 08:09 AM
Wings and tail are twisted to handle propwash exactly at some speed, usually cruise.
It's most pronounced at takeoff and landing speeds.

By the same way that yaw causes roll, roll causes yaw. The term is slip-roll coupling.
So you can deal with both with rudder which may be why not so many planes then had aileron
trim. In fact, some had no rudder trim. But it's there on some so has a proper purpose.

Stingray333
08-31-2008, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Wings and tail are twisted to handle propwash exactly at some speed, usually cruise.
It's most pronounced at takeoff and landing speeds.


What do you mean "twisted", does this mean the wings, fuselage and tail are not symmetric, but designed in such a way to handle the prop wash?

Thanks,

Stingray

M_Gunz
08-31-2008, 03:39 AM
Yes, the tail not being exactly straight in line with the roll axis and the wings not being
exactly straight either, though some of that may be due to washout to prevent the whole wings
from stalling at the same time.

You won't get the same in a jet or in a glider.

The upshot is that close to and at the design speed the rudder can be at neutral and no yaw
due to propwash but faster than that you have to trim or hold it to one side and slower than
that you have to hold it to the other. Galland and some other Germans would joke that Erich
Hartmann walked in circles (because one leg was so much stronger than the other from how hard
you had to push the rudder at high speeds). Even changing prop speed or power should have
some effect that needs to be trimmed or compensated for as that changes the propwash!

Prop planes, at least the single engine variety have their funny twists. In WWI is was the
Riggers who had to compensate for it; fly, tweak, fly again.

Bela2008
08-31-2008, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Wings and tail are twisted to handle propwash exactly at some speed, usually cruise.
It's most pronounced at takeoff and landing speeds.

By the same way that yaw causes roll, roll causes yaw. The term is slip-roll coupling.
So you can deal with both with rudder which may be why not so many planes then had aileron
trim. In fact, some had no rudder trim. But it's there on some so has a proper purpose.

All wrong!...there is directional roll from propellor torque around the horizontal axis. The only thing that turns it into the yaw axis is the presence of a wing providing lift that counteracts the force of propellor torque...hence the aircraft veers into the yaw axis...take the wing away or stall it sufficiently and you would be in a spin...rolling like crazy.

Wings and tail are twisted to counter propwash? Proof please...models. Such a thing would detract alarmingly from airframe performance; all to counter a comparatively benign force such as propwash.

Hartmann and all other 109 pilots in a 109 were suffering RSI from the 109's landing configuration not twisted tail and wings.

WTE_Galway
08-31-2008, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by Bela2008:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Wings and tail are twisted to handle propwash exactly at some speed, usually cruise.
It's most pronounced at takeoff and landing speeds.

By the same way that yaw causes roll, roll causes yaw. The term is slip-roll coupling.
So you can deal with both with rudder which may be why not so many planes then had aileron
trim. In fact, some had no rudder trim. But it's there on some so has a proper purpose.

All wrong!...there is directional roll from propellor torque around the horizontal axis. The only thing that turns it into the yaw axis is the presence of a wing providing lift that counteracts the force of propellor torque...hence the aircraft veers into the yaw axis...take the wing away or stall it sufficiently and you would be in a spin...rolling like crazy.

Wings and tail are twisted to counter propwash? Proof please...models. Such a thing would detract alarmingly from airframe performance; all to counter a comparatively benign force such as propwash.

Hartmann and all other 109 pilots in a 109 were suffering RSI from the 109's landing configuration not twisted tail and wings. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting.

I sincerely hope you are a gamer and do not really fly.

M_Gunz
08-31-2008, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by Bela2008:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Wings and tail are twisted to handle propwash exactly at some speed, usually cruise.
It's most pronounced at takeoff and landing speeds.

By the same way that yaw causes roll, roll causes yaw. The term is slip-roll coupling.
So you can deal with both with rudder which may be why not so many planes then had aileron
trim. In fact, some had no rudder trim. But it's there on some so has a proper purpose.

All wrong!...there is directional roll from propellor torque around the horizontal axis. The only thing that turns it into the yaw axis is the presence of a wing providing lift that counteracts the force of propellor torque...hence the aircraft veers into the yaw axis...take the wing away or stall it sufficiently and you would be in a spin...rolling like crazy.

Wings and tail are twisted to counter propwash? Proof please...models. Such a thing would detract alarmingly from airframe performance; all to counter a comparatively benign force such as propwash.

Hartmann and all other 109 pilots in a 109 were suffering RSI from the 109's landing configuration not twisted tail and wings. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bellator back and still as uninformed as ever?
Or is this just the latest "they can't ban me" troll, aka_StupidAllOver?

Maybe you should spend time reading what prop aircraft designers write before you run off again.

WTE_Galway
08-31-2008, 06:28 PM
Getting back on topic.


Another significant factor at high angles of attack (for example takeoff) is that the ascending and descending halves of the prop bite the air at different angles meaning one side of the prop generates more thrust than the other.

M_Gunz
08-31-2008, 06:36 PM
As you note, Galway and for those who want to be sure:

av8n.com - 8 Yaw-Wise Torque Budget (http://av8n.com/how/htm/yaw.html#toc151)


8.5 P-Factor

The term P-factor is defined to mean "asymmetric disk loading". It is an extremely significant effect for helicopters. When the helicopter is in forward flight, the blade on one side has a much higher airspeed than the other. If you tried to fly the blades at constant angle of attack, the advancing blade would produce quite a bit more lift than the retreating blade.


And....


8.4 Helical Propwash

One of the very first things that people find out about when they start learning to fly is that it takes right3 rudder (sometimes a lot of right rudder) to keep the airplane going straight at the beginning of the takeoff roll. The physics of the situation is portrayed4 in figure 8.2.
cork-rudder
Figure 8.2: Helical Propwash

It would be nice if the propeller would just take the air and throw it straight backwards, but it doesn't. The propeller airfoil necessarily has some drag, so it drags the air in the direction of rotation to some extent. Therefore the slipstream follows a helical (corkscrew-like) trajectory, rotating as it flows back over the aircraft.

The next thing to notice is that on practically all aircraft, the vertical fin and rudder stick up, not down, projecting well above the centerline of the slipstream. That means the helical propwash will strike the left side of the tail, knocking it to the right, which makes the nose go to the left, which means you need right rudder to compensate.

You don't notice the effect of the helical propwash in cruise, because the aircraft designers have anticipated the situation. The vertical fin and rudder have been installed at a slight angle, so they are aligned with the actual airflow, not with the axis of the aircraft.

In a high-airspeed, low-power situation (such as a power-off descent) the built-in compensation is more than you need, so you need to apply explicit left rudder (or dial in left-rudder trim) to undo the compensation and get the tail lined up with the actual airflow.

Conversely, in a high-power, low-airspeed situation (such as initial takeoff roll, or slow flight) the helix is extra-tightly wound, so you have to apply explicit right rudder.

Things to note are that the effects will not always be the same or even in the same direction
so don't think the FM must be wrong when they aren't!

The prop torque -will- always be in the same direction but the yaw will not.

Widowmaker214
08-31-2008, 08:40 PM
To make this simple.. keep an eye on your slip/turn indicator (the instrument with what looks like a level.. with a ball/bubble in it)

When the aircraft is not parallel with the flow of air/direction of travel, the bubble will be offset left or right. This is called slipping.
Sometimes you slip the aircraft on purpose (like when burning speed for a combat landing). You kick rudder and apply opposite aileron to slip the aircraft.. forcing the air flow to hit the side of the fuselage and induce drag.

Under regular flight conditions when you are not trimmed, you will see that bubble to the left or right of center.
The normal phrase is "step on the ball"
if its to the left, add left rudder pressure (or trim)
While you are in this state and not trimmed, you are adding drag to your aircraft and keeping yourself from max performance/speed.
You COULD counter with aileron trim, but the aircraft would STILL be yawed and slipping.. inducing drag.
So its better to use the rudder. You then reduce the slip and will get the best performance out of the aircraft.

Bela2008
09-01-2008, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
As you note, Galway and for those who want to be sure:

av8n.com - 8 Yaw-Wise Torque Budget (http://av8n.com/how/htm/yaw.html#toc151)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">8.5 P-Factor

The term P-factor is defined to mean "asymmetric disk loading". It is an extremely significant effect for helicopters. When the helicopter is in forward flight, the blade on one side has a much higher airspeed than the other. If you tried to fly the blades at constant angle of attack, the advancing blade would produce quite a bit more lift than the retreating blade.


And....


8.4 Helical Propwash

One of the very first things that people find out about when they start learning to fly is that it takes right3 rudder (sometimes a lot of right rudder) to keep the airplane going straight at the beginning of the takeoff roll. The physics of the situation is portrayed4 in figure 8.2.
cork-rudder
Figure 8.2: Helical Propwash

It would be nice if the propeller would just take the air and throw it straight backwards, but it doesn't. The propeller airfoil necessarily has some drag, so it drags the air in the direction of rotation to some extent. Therefore the slipstream follows a helical (corkscrew-like) trajectory, rotating as it flows back over the aircraft.

The next thing to notice is that on practically all aircraft, the vertical fin and rudder stick up, not down, projecting well above the centerline of the slipstream. That means the helical propwash will strike the left side of the tail, knocking it to the right, which makes the nose go to the left, which means you need right rudder to compensate.

You don't notice the effect of the helical propwash in cruise, because the aircraft designers have anticipated the situation. The vertical fin and rudder have been installed at a slight angle, so they are aligned with the actual airflow, not with the axis of the aircraft.

In a high-airspeed, low-power situation (such as a power-off descent) the built-in compensation is more than you need, so you need to apply explicit left rudder (or dial in left-rudder trim) to undo the compensation and get the tail lined up with the actual airflow.

Conversely, in a high-power, low-airspeed situation (such as initial takeoff roll, or slow flight) the helix is extra-tightly wound, so you have to apply explicit right rudder.

Things to note are that the effects will not always be the same or even in the same direction
so don't think the FM must be wrong when they aren't!

The prop torque -will- always be in the same direction but the yaw will not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another Papal Bull with flashing sauce/source?

Such a banal conversation.

You make no conclusions from the sources just utter them (the way you did this BTW was, as usual, selective quoting outside context)

Your aircraft designers may have, but need not build in torque counter by angling the tail...a dorsal fin compensates for swing adequately even if not totally. Then one need not go to operational extremes to counter torque at high and low speeds as you wierdly suggest they ought do in some aircraft you have in mind.

I believe the 109G6 or around that Mark installed a dorsal fin to counter torque (the 109's tail had already been mangled enough with its landing configuration).
After the G2 the 109 dispensed with cabin pressurisation. So 109 pilot comfort and easing off of cockpit workload by reducing any need to anticipate torque was not a priority. Pilots just flew the thing with torque.

In fact the G6 had to be flown with an overloaded cockpit workload and to be flown at high power settings. This is where the dorsal fin was of benefit because while not reducing workload it made the workload easier; torque was and is not an urgent or prime consideration for real pilots except near the stall...they just flew the thing.

BTW...a quiz for you and you supporters: does the rudder operate in the yaw or the roll direction?

Regards,
Bela2008 aka Bratsk_Station aka numerous other aka KrashanTopolova

WTE_Galway
09-01-2008, 02:01 AM
The cessna I used to fly every week definitely has a slight angle on the tail to compensate and that is only a 100 odd hp aircraft, most if not all prop aircraft do.

Aside from which prop related yaw occurs because of many factors and torque is not that significant.

Perpetuating misinformation, in this case a flightsim/gamers myth that attributes prop related yaw to "torque" when anyone that has done even the very basics of flight training knows that this is incorrect is not helpful and in fact could be dangerous.

M_Gunz
09-01-2008, 02:37 AM
Originally posted by Bela2008:

You make no conclusions from the sources just utter them (the way you did this BTW was, as usual, selective quoting outside context)

I made those in the previous post which you challeneged.

As for the rest of your BS, if you could comprehend the text then you'd STFU.


BTW...a quiz for you and you supporters: does the rudder operate in the yaw or the roll direction?

Regards,
Bela2008 aka Bratsk_Station aka numerous other aka KrashanTopolova

At least I don't create multiple logins to support myself. No one is supporting ME, just
agreeing on reality. Too f-ing bad you have some kind of obsession to disagree with me and
anyone who points out your errors, even to the point of you making more and more of the same,
even to the point of violating the BAN YOU GOT FROM THE SAME BEHAVIOR. So just repeat what
doesn't work, it's the sure sign of your real problem.

M_Gunz
09-01-2008, 02:46 AM
Originally posted by Stingray333:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Wings and tail are twisted to handle propwash exactly at some speed, usually cruise.
It's most pronounced at takeoff and landing speeds.


What do you mean "twisted", does this mean the wings, fuselage and tail are not symmetric, but designed in such a way to handle the prop wash?

Thanks,

Stingray </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

BTW, not every prop plane has the same to the last features but then I never said they do.
The better the design, the better it flies!

When Macchi went from the 200 to the 202 they countered the higher 'torque effects' (which
includes propwash) by lengthening the left wing a few inches instead of redesigning the
wings. That had to make transition in production easier but it did leave some other effects
that were noted. Still, it was a very good plane. I don't know of any other plane that had
one wing lengthened to counter a more powerful engine though -- it does show freedom in
design though!

Bela2008
09-01-2008, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bela2008:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Wings and tail are twisted to handle propwash exactly at some speed, usually cruise.
It's most pronounced at takeoff and landing speeds.

By the same way that yaw causes roll, roll causes yaw. The term is slip-roll coupling.
So you can deal with both with rudder which may be why not so many planes then had aileron
trim. In fact, some had no rudder trim. But it's there on some so has a proper purpose.

All wrong!...there is directional roll from propellor torque around the horizontal axis. The only thing that turns it into the yaw axis is the presence of a wing providing lift that counteracts the force of propellor torque...hence the aircraft veers into the yaw axis...take the wing away or stall it sufficiently and you would be in a spin...rolling like crazy.

Wings and tail are twisted to counter propwash? Proof please...models. Such a thing would detract alarmingly from airframe performance; all to counter a comparatively benign force such as propwash.

Hartmann and all other 109 pilots in a 109 were suffering RSI from the 109's landing configuration not twisted tail and wings. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting.

I sincerely hope you are a gamer and do not really fly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bellicose statement that hopes to be a slander. It is also accompanied by no counter argument...

Bela2008
09-01-2008, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by Widowmaker214:
To make this simple.. keep an eye on your slip/turn indicator (the instrument with what looks like a level.. with a ball/bubble in it)

When the aircraft is not parallel with the flow of air/direction of travel, the bubble will be offset left or right. This is called slipping.
Sometimes you slip the aircraft on purpose (like when burning speed for a combat landing). You kick rudder and apply opposite aileron to slip the aircraft.. forcing the air flow to hit the side of the fuselage and induce drag.

Under regular flight conditions when you are not trimmed, you will see that bubble to the left or right of center.
The normal phrase is "step on the ball"
if its to the left, add left rudder pressure (or trim)
While you are in this state and not trimmed, you are adding drag to your aircraft and keeping yourself from max performance/speed.
You COULD counter with aileron trim, but the aircraft would STILL be yawed and slipping.. inducing drag.
So its better to use the rudder. You then reduce the slip and will get the best performance out of the aircraft.

To make this even more simple: when you are 'slipping' as you call it, with aileron and opposite rudder as you suggest, you are actually losing height because of the AoA not merely countering torque.
Trim for torque in straight and level as you suggest.

Bela2008
09-01-2008, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
The cessna I used to fly every week definitely has a slight angle on the tail to compensate and that is only a 100 odd hp aircraft, most if not all prop aircraft do.

Aside from which prop related yaw occurs because of many factors and torque is not that significant.

Perpetuating misinformation, in this case a flightsim/gamers myth that attributes prop related yaw to "torque" when anyone that has done even the very basics of flight training knows that this is incorrect is not helpful and in fact could be dangerous.

You shouldn't get carried with M-Gunz. You can't talk about misinformation sine you (and M-Gunz) did not pick up the half-truth I placed in my post on the 109G in this thread about one of the G's having a dorsal fin. I placed that as a psychological test gor M0Gunz to see how he/she would react; I gave him/her plent of ammunition to comeback and point out the 'misinformation'. You can note the character of his response: The fact is that you (supporting M-Gunz who responded belligeretnly again)are wrong and this is probably a result of following M-Gunz on an emotional basis (like mob aggression - perceive a possible weak stance and attack).
In fact there was no 109G model that had a dorsal fin (as far as I know). There was an attempt in the 109G-5/R2 to handle torque effect by giving it a taller tail and a lengthened tailwheel leg.

I refer you again to M-Gunz response on this...there was nothing but diatribe. And he/she did not want to answer the quiz I gave him.
If you think your particular flight training equips you to follow M-Gunz into a sympathetic support of his/her misinformation overload on this forum then its you who have to recall and review your own training information.

I tried to point out the pyhsics of the situation by inferring the wing into the physics but once again was ambushed by M-Gunz with vagaries ful of information irrelevance.

So I will try again. Consider a former thread about a jet which lost a wing. Now a jet does not have much torque to worry about; it lost a wing; but could still fly even if the pilot stepped on the rudder.

I await the wisdom from M-Gunz and yourself if you wish.

M_Gunz
09-01-2008, 07:41 PM
Prove your point, hot air.

Bela2008
09-01-2008, 09:23 PM
the point?...you ask the point...?

Some don't see the points I make! That is not my fault and it got me kicked off this disillusioning forum as it stands now.

A point if any is that the original poster asked for clarification of flight forces and he got bombed with techno-babble and meandering.

You asserted carelessly that: '...yaw causes roll and roll causes yaw...' (I think that is what you claimed).

following on from Stingray333 which was a coherent post. If a wing drops and causes the aircraft to slip in the direction of the drop a sort of crosswind component comes into play on that wing and the lower wing meets the airflow at a greater angle of attack than the upper one and so provides increased lift moving the wing back into level flight again. Normally, this stability in the rolling plane is achieved by giving the wings a dihedral angle (like a shallow V).

A rudder provides similar stability in the yawing plane (vertical axis); but if a wing lift is not there - the starboard wing say - as in a stall, then it can be seen that the rudder then works normally in the rolling plane. This is why rudder is a 'turning' moment in the roll plane (not the elevators). It is why; when an aircraft is having trouble entering a spin the rudder is kicked to assist it enter into the rolling plane. In the yawing plane the rudder is more correctly termed a change of direction moment. In a 'turn' (change of direction) it works in the rolling plane and the yaw plane while the elevators maintain altitude to keep the aircraft level. This takes practice in real life and, yes, I am a flying pilot.

Another of my points missed in the conflagration of ideas posted in response is that I was trying to assist people think about why an aircraft such as the 109 had an attempt to counter torque by making the tail taller and the tailwheel longer in the airflow. Obviously, if the 109G6 after it did not have these features, the idea did not work sufficiently and so they went back to the former airframe and put up with all the normal forces acting on an aircraft. They don't seem to have wanted to vary the incidence of the fin to achieve counter-torque in a high-performance aircraft such as the 109; nor a dorsal fin (installed on other types to counter swing). However, they did install an aerodynamic balance weight on the top of the original 109 rudder and this is more likely the reason 109 pilots walked in circles after landing (as referenced in another post).

The 109 had drawbacks in the horizontal axis and the vertical axis having 'extremely poor lateral stability at high speed. Its landing configuration was countering lift forces. Its torque produced swing on both takeoff (high power) and landing (low power). it is a wonderful specimen in which to learn about the forces acting on an aircraft (as inferred by Stingray333).

The point, if any, is that the question was answered sufficiently by Bratsk_Station (KrashanTopolova) and pertinent comments were added by Stingray333.
The techno-babble and techno-babble sources in the posts that followed were not necessary. And such unwarranted vitriole against KrashanTopolova it was that got Krashantopolova kicked off the forum.

Still, I have been giggling.

Cheers'
KrashanTopolova

M_Gunz
09-02-2008, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by Bela2008:
Still, I have been giggling.

That much I'm sure about.

The technical term is Slip-Roll Coupling and no, you are no secret master except in giggles.
Too bad you can't discuss without the little lies and evasions you call half-truths baked up
for your own egotistic purposes.

I don't know Galway except on the board here. No PM's or emails or any other contact.
He presents his own views like most anyone else and AFAIK he is a pilot IRL.
You've insulted him, me, John Denker and anyone who might view your childish prattle as
being flawed or wrong and yet you expect to have your lying, multiple login, banned butt
kissed up to while presenting false info, outright BS and other forms of trolling.

It's very easy to understand why you have no friends. Maybe if you get professional help
then some day you will or at least you can imagine it so.

Bearcat99
09-02-2008, 06:38 AM
The only time I use aileron trim is when I have a damaged wing.

Altamov_Steppes
09-02-2008, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bela2008:
Still, I have been giggling.

That much I'm sure about.

The technical term is Slip-Roll Coupling and no, you are no secret master except in giggles.
Too bad you can't discuss without the little lies and evasions you call half-truths baked up
for your own egotistic purposes.

I don't know Galway except on the board here. No PM's or emails or any other contact.
He presents his own views like most anyone else and AFAIK he is a pilot IRL.
You've insulted him, me, John Denker and anyone who might view your childish prattle as
being flawed or wrong and yet you expect to have your lying, multiple login, banned butt
kissed up to while presenting false info, outright BS and other forms of trolling.

It's very easy to understand why you have no friends. Maybe if you get professional help
then some day you will or at least you can imagine it so. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's time to walk away patouchka...adieu

M_Gunz
09-03-2008, 01:45 AM
See if you can.