Talk:Adverse yaw

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

[edit] A nonsense statement

The statement, "As it is the downwards deflection of an aileron that causes aileron drag, a simple way of eliminating adverse yaw would be to rely solely on the upward deflection of the opposite wing to cause the aircraft to roll." doesn't seem to make sense to me. The upward deflection of the aileron casus a reduction of drag and therefore should still exhibit the effect (albeit a lessor effect), so I disagree that it would "eliminate adverse yaw". zimmhead 17:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You are right, edited. Meggar 04:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep, good call. --Peter Kirkland 00:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I found the statement "moreso on the lowered left side" confusing, because I was thinking in terms of wings, and of course moving the stick to the right lowers the right wing. It's clearer just to leave "lowered" out of the sentence. --Jrvz 12:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[additional comment by PDR]

I would say the author has made an excellent job of explaining the actuality of Adverse Yaw, and a couple of the techniques that have been used to reduce it, without straying into the often controversial area of what causes it. I am very pleased to see no references to the frequently perpetuated (but utterly incorrect) explanations relating to different air densities above and below a wing. That gets this article a "well done" from me!

I would also like to add the important point that Adverse Yaw is not (as often stated) a "fault" in the design of the aeroplane, wing, ailerons or whatever - it is a "feature" which will always be present when a lifting body is rolled.

Pete Rieden

[edit] Causes

I have removed the mention of induced drag. As zimmhead points out above, the idea that the up-deflected aileron has decrease drag is inconsistant with the explanation of differential aileron action. Some old NACA studies of the subject support the statement that the up-deflected aileron generally has positive or neutral drag change. There must be more involved that just induced drag. Meggar (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Additional comment

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. The ailerons produce a rolling moment by increasing the lift on one wing and decreasing it on the other. The increased lift on the up-going wing gives a greater induced drag, and vice-versa on the down-going wing. It is this difference which produces a yawing moment.

When rolling left, for example, this will yaw the aircraft to the right. By raising the up-going aileron further to increase the parasite drag on that wing, it tends to produce a yawing moment in the opposite direction. Likewise, reducing the travel of the down-going aileron will serve to reduce the induced drag on that wing.

I propose that the comment mentioning induced drag is returned to the article.

I don't understand your (Meggar's) reason for removal of this explanation. Induced drag is an inescapable consequence of lift generation by a wing. It is a fact that reducing the lift of a wing will reduce the induced drag and vv. All other possible causes of adverse yaw can be avoided by careful design, but the change of induced drag is the fundamental cause and is unavoidable. When I get a moment I will rewrite the cause section to reflect this. treesmill (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I will try to explain it better. Consider a case of extreme differential aileron action where the right alieron is deflected upward and the left remains at zero deflection. The lift on the right side decreases and the wing rolls to the right. Induced drag on the right side decreases along with lift producing a yawing moment to the left, an adverse yaw, proving that a differential aileron arrangement does not work. In fact it does work very well, telling us that there has been an incorrect assumption.

It is correct to say that induced drag is fundimental, inevitable, unreducable, and will always be a factor in yaw moment with any lifting wing while producing a rolling force. But it is not the predominant factor in the drag of wing with a deflected aileron. Actual wings and experimenental data show a more complex behaviour. If we must mention causes we will need a section covering more than a single insufficient explanation. Perhaps the article would remain more usefull as it is by stating the facts without going into causes. Meggar 03:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean when you say "proving that a differential aileron arrangement does not work". You state that "there has been an incorrect assumption" but you don't say what the incorrect assumption is. What you have forgotten is that any form of drag on the downgoing wing can be used to counteract the induced drag that causes adverse yaw. For example, spoilers can be, and are, used in some aplications for that purpose. In your example, the profile drag of the fully deflected aileron will do the job nicely, so it does work. You 'proof' depends on it not working, so the 'proof' fails. treesmill 12:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that we are in complete agreement. The edit that I reverted, if you will check the history, was a mention of induced drag only. As you have restated above, the drag of an up-deflected aileron can result in a favorable yaw moment, countering and swamping the adverse effect of induced-drag yaw, and making an induced-drag explanation insufficient by itself - which is why I removed it. A user PDR has commented on this talk page about avoiding the often controversial area of causes. The two of us have demonstrated the wisdom of this by arguing about nothing. Meggar 02:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood a couple of things. As I demonstrate above, you are wrong to say that you have proved anything. The idea with Wikipedia is to add information where you feel something is incomplete, not to remove good information. treesmill (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)