wind correction wings level

[rcaerobob at cox.net]

And - there are those who DO, and those who DO NOT, then those who CAN, and those who CANNOT.  Believe me, KNOWING it, DOING it, and *SEEING* IT are all very differnet things!!!!

Great discussion topic!  Great reply Wayne/Don!
Question - were we doing it??

Bob P.

> 
> From: "Wayne Galligan" <wgalligan at goodsonacura.com>
> Date: 2004/08/09 Mon PM 01:58:45 EDT
> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> Subject: wind correction wings level
> 
> Jim,
> 
> Don Ramsey and I where having this very conversation on the way back from
> Lubbock this weekend.  Where the wind never blows....heh!  heh!  Actually
> Saturday(some wind late in day)and Sunday there was absolutely beautiful
> weather with a light wind blowing out.  I was asking him about how to make
> that correction with out losing the wings level.  Seems we both came to the
> same conclusion that in order to make the maneuver look right was to roll
> adjust all the way through the arc of the maneuver, else I would be on a
> different heading due to the crab that occurs before entering the looping
> segment.  OR  I could rudder correct going in to the looping segment and
> risk a downgrade because of smoothness and a possible change in attitude of
> the airplane as it passes through the loop.   In other woods I agree with
> you.  I was under the impression that straightening the plane prior to the
> looping segment was the way to keep wings level in the arc of the loop but I
> have found using the roll correction that you described works best.
> 
> Wayne Galligan
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Jim_Woodward at beaerospace.com
>   To: discussion at nsrca.org
>   Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 12:39 PM
>   Subject: Wind correction / wings level take 2
> 
> 
> 
>   Hi All,
> 
>   I think discussion about 1 single maneuver will address everything I sent
> initially below.  P05, Reverse humpty-bump, 2/4 down, 1/2 roll up:
> Scenario.  The wind is blowing 20 mph 90 degrees out.
> 
>   1.  Entry;  the plane is flying a horizontal inverted track at the top of
> the box right to left, the fuselage is yawed 10 degrees  inward to
> compensate for the wind.
>   2.  Entry Radius:  Pilot pulls up elevator while simultaneously adding
> aileron and rudder to transition the plane to a vertically tracked downline,
> fuselage is angled into the wind to maintain vertical track.
>   3.  2/4 is performed maintaining track (still angled in to compensate for
> the wind)
>   4.  Bottom radius:  The pilot pushes around the bottom adding rudder to
> maintain track, ailerons to level the wings around the bottom, then opposite
> rudder to lean "into" the wind on the upline. (obviously, pilot nor judge
> wants to see banked wings at the bottom this maneuver which would result if
> no aileron was added due to downline cant/angle of fuselage to maintain
> track).
>   5.  1/2 roll is performed still angled in somewhat.
>   6.  Pilot switches rudder input to still compensate for the wind on the
> upline.
>   7.  Exit radius:  Pilot pushes out, using rudder to maintain heading, and
> aileron to create wings level across the top of the box.  Blended in with
> the exit, the plane is now wings level angled "in" to compensate for the
> wind, heading into the reverse double I.
> 
>   There is a lot of "flying" going on in the 3 different radii of this
> maneuver.  The wings/plane MUST actually roll to achieve the various
> "wings-level" positions of the: downlines, bottom radius, upline, and upon
> exit.  Is this amount of "flying" done in the radii simply addressed in the
> wind correction statements like:  "each maneuver must be wind-corrected to
> preserve the overall geometry"?
> 
>   My contention again is that the plane MUST perform a blended rolling
> element during the radii to create a cross-wind corrected maneuver.  I think
> the best looking thing to do is move the wings at a rate proportional to the
> arc of the radii - thus, you don't "see" a discreet aileron fix.  A discrete
> aileron fix at the end of the radii would be a certain queue to downgrade.
> I believe I've learned the correct way to fly a cross wind condition, but I
> have not heard anyone really discuss the amount or "flying" going on in the
> various radii to handle a cross wind condition.
>   Thanks,
>   Jim W.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   ----- Forwarded by Jim Woodward/BEA on 08/09/2004 01:05 PM ----- 
>        Jim_Woodward at beaerospace.com
>         Sent by: discussion-request at nsrca.org
>         08/09/2004 09:12 AM
>         Please respond to discussion
> 
> 
>                 To:        discussion at nsrca.org
>                 cc:
>                 Subject:        Wind correction / wings level
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   Hi All,
> 
>   I want to bring up a discussion point about wind correction.  This may
> seem obvious to some but I want to ensure I have the right picture in my
> mind (started thinking about this since Don S. posted his comments about
> Q.S. flying wind correction in finals, and confirmed during some practice
> yesterday).
>   1.  Wind correction is supposed to be done while maintaining wings level.
>   2.  You are supposed to use the yaw angle to correct for the wind.
>   Situation:  Pilot is flying a square loop ( at center).  Wind is blowing
> 90 degree out 20 mph.  Pilot fly's past center at a some yaw angle in to
> compensate for the wind blowing out.  The pilot pulls a 90 degree radius to
> a vertical upline.  The fuselage is canted in to the wind to compensate for
> the wind blowing out.  *Point of discussion:  If the pilot were to pull
> another 90 degree radius, the wings would become "unlevel" as the plane
> reaches the top leg of the square loop.  *Point of discussion:  So, if the
> pilot is using the correct technique for wind correction (wind correcting
> force being yaw angle), then every time the pilot creates a radius, you
> should definitely "see" the ailerons moving the wings through the radius to
> ensure that as the radius is finished, the wings are level for the next line
> and the fuselage is yawed for wind correction.  Same thing next radiu s;
> The pilot adds pitch, mov es the wings,  and adds the correct rudder to
> transform the top of the box line to the next downline (wings level, yawed
> into the wind), etc.
> 
>   *Point of discussion:  We spend a lot of time concentrating on wings level
> for normal pattern flying and usually "any" type of aileron or wing movement
> is a visual key for a downgrade using the 1 pt / 15 degree rule.  However,
> this is false to accurately judge flying on a windy day.  In order to fly in
> a crosswind, nearly EVERY radius will have some amount of roll induced (and
> necessary) to ensure that the "lines" can be flown with wings level and in
> order to utilize yaw as the wind-correcting force.
> 
>   That said/ when and how much roll should be used?  I would guess that you
> would want to seamlessly input the pitch, aileron, and rudder so that the
> plane just appears to go from one wind corrected line to the other
> magically.  What is the judging criteria for inputting a roll function in
> the radius to ensure the wings stay level & fuselage stays canted (yawed)
> into the wind from one wind corrected line to another?  Should the amount of
> aileron needed to go from one wind corrected line to another line start and
> finish corresponding to the actual duration of the radius?  What if the
> pilot only correct s the wing as the plane is nearing the end of the radius,
> is this some downgrade because the correction was placed near the end of the
> radius instead of "evenly-througout" the radius?
> 
>   I'm sure I'm exaggerating this situation and I am purposefully, to
> stimulate some talk on the subject.  Again, my contention is that for some
> wind conditions, in order to maintain the overall geometry of the maneuver
> that there MUST be roll correction during radii to seamlessly move from one
> wind corrected line to another, and this roll correction should not be
> downgraded.
> 
> 
> 
> =====================================
> # To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
> and follow the instructions.
> 
> 

Bob Pastorello, El Reno, OK, USA
rcaerobob at cox.net
www.rcaerobats.net

=====================================
# To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.