The
point you make about seperating controls with seperate functions is an
interesting one, but becomes hazy in the realm of aircraft
control. In an aircraft, the
simple 'single' intent to execute a level turn requires control inputs from
elevator, rudder, and ailerons, every time, no exceptions, if you want your
turn to be coordinated and aerodynamically efficient. So thinking
of these controls as being 'separate' because they control separate surfaces on
the aircraft doesn't quite fit. When I take people flying in my
little two seater taildragger, novices are always amazed that a
simple turn requires the application of three coordinated control
inputs.
Lift,
Scobie in
Seattle
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 5:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [RCSE] Re: Soaring V1 #890
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 5:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [RCSE] Re: Soaring V1 #890
In a message dated 9/23/2002 07:48:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Because you're pulling the aircraft's nose back towards the pilot's
head. Couldn't be simpler.
Ah, except the pilot is on the ground, not in the airplane! It isn't intuitively obvious for models.
Your point about bicameral dexterity is a good one, though one of the general rules in controls design is to separate controls with separate functions to the extent possible.
