Stick and Rudder's 'Safety plane'

Jim Harper wrote:
Much excellent commentary snipped...


"Stick and Rudder" is not the revealed word of God on the subject of
aviation. There are mistakes in it, as well as some rather odd theories. The
bit about the rudder is just one of them. In fact, the aerodynamics
throughout the book are more than a little suspect. Neverhtheless,
Langewiesche makes some good points. He was often right in what should be
done, but just as often wrong in how. It is obvious that Langewiesche
understood almost nothing about how air flows around an airfoil. He knew
that airplanes stall when they rich a critical angle of attack, but I see
little evidence that he understood why that is so.

There are better books about flying. "Stick and Rudder" is valuable for its
historical insights into the development of modern aircraft, but little
else.


There are, no doubt, many other folks on this newsgroup who can better
address these issues, but I feel as if I should comment:

elevator limitation to prevent stalls. Nope, won't work. Well, not

snip

drop the nose. Another way of looking at it: Limiting elevator
authority to prevent stalls is similar to limiting steering in cars to
avoid roll-over. We cause a bigger problem than we are correcting.

aileron/rudder interconnect. Sure, you can do it. You can even

snip

Jim

So, I should just read it as I would read the diatribe of any
revolutionary thinker. Revelutionaries see problems with the status
quo, and see that the truth lies in a different direction. The problem
lies in their depth perception, so they tend to overshoot the mark. The
truth tends to lie somewhere between here and where they think it should be.

One of the problems, I think, is that "Stick and Rudder" was written in
1944. From the responses I've read, things HAVE moved toward
Langewiesche's ideas, even though they've not been taken at face value.

I still like the book. It explains much that I've experienced while
flying and found the instructors explanations lacking. But if there are
other ideas that are a little, shall we say 'overbaked', then I'd
appreciate a heads up.


--
----Because I can----
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
------------------------

"Ernest Christley" wrote ...
So, I should just read it as I would read the diatribe of any
revolutionary thinker. Revelutionaries see problems with the status
quo, and see that the truth lies in a different direction. The problem
lies in their depth perception, so they tend to overshoot the mark. The
truth tends to lie somewhere between here and where they think it should
be.

Revolutionaries are rarely right. In politics, they see an opportunity to
grab power in the name of "The People" and usually end up as an even greater
evil than the old regime. In engineering, they are people with half formed
ideas of how things work and they shout about it from the hill tops. Mr.
Langewiesche was reflecting the thinking of his time not pronouncing a "New
Truth".

Mechanical design is always evolutionary never revolutionary.

Rich