View Full Version : BoB: autocoordination off

07-17-2004, 08:08 AM
could we have it in BoB?
(to those that don't know what's about here: i mean autocoordination of rudder and airlons)

07-17-2004, 08:08 AM
could we have it in BoB?
(to those that don't know what's about here: i mean autocoordination of rudder and airlons)

07-17-2004, 10:38 AM
What exactly are you talking about?

RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

07-17-2004, 10:54 AM
I think that realism is the key to these sims and auto cooridination is nice for the beginner but this sim has hepled a lot of virtual pilots get their wings not by making it easier but by teaching a person how to really fly. I remember when I first got Il2 when it came out in I guess it was 2001, and I remember how frustrated I was because I could not hit a dam thing. I was so good at all of the other combat flight sims before howcome not now? Well the answer is REALISM. Just like you and your auto coordination I hated the gunnery at first in Il2 but I kept practicing over and over and over until I finally started to get good enough to call myself an Il2 combat pilot. All I am saying is that you should really try and learn to fly as close to the real thing and the real way as possible just so you get a little taste for what it must have been like for those pilots back then. That is a reason why I fly with full realism turn on. I do not fly with cockpits off or unlimited ammo, I fly the way those who fought in WW2 flew and we dont or could never feel what it was really like. We dont have to deal with the cold weather where we can hardly feel our fingers, or deal with seemigly endless missions inside of a cramped cockpit, we just sit in our comfy house and play war. I am a combat veteran myself and if I would ever see someone playing a computer game/simulation of the "situations" I was in and watched them do it even on full real do you think that they would still know what it was really like? All they can do is get to as close to real as possible. They will never hear the real sounds, or taste or smell or feel what it was like on the battlefield (at least not until the ultimate VR machine comes out. I hope that I am still alive by then)and certainly will never have the nightmares that I endure to this day because of battle. To make a really long story short just please try to learn to fly as real as possible and you will become an excellent pilot with much practice...

[This message was edited by Choctaw111 on Sat July 17 2004 at 10:03 AM.]

Bob the Pilot
07-17-2004, 11:41 AM
is that the thing they had in CFS3? auto rudder or something? omg that was terrible! :P

07-17-2004, 01:10 PM
This guy is confused with CFS3.

There is no auto correction for rudder and airlons in IL2 FB.
This option is available in CFS3 but you can turn if off if you want.


07-17-2004, 01:19 PM
When I look at the dash ball guage while flying at least one P-51, the ball
seems to center automatic without rudder input and deviates with any but the
smallest amount. Yet... the ball under the gunsight works and I do need to
use the rudder to get it centered on turns.

So is it the sim or the sim guage?

Edit-Add: At the right speed, every plane should run true straight and level.
So if you go faster, it should be coordinated for one direction and turn and
if you go slower then the other direction and speed-matched turn.


07-18-2004, 06:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

So is it the sim or the sim guage?

.Edit-Add: At the right speed, every plane should run true straight and level.
So if you go faster, it should be coordinated for one direction and turn and
if you go slower then the other direction and speed-matched turn


Anyway, this yaw effect in turn, is way too small in FB than it should be, compared to real life.

07-18-2004, 08:56 PM
I can tell you right now that the way the rudder coordination works in the game is very realistic - for a Cessna! I've flown a Cessna and it does indeed work this way. However, I tend to believe that there should be more rudder needed with bigger engines like those in warplanes. So yes, please make torque as realistic as possible in Battle of Britain.

07-18-2004, 09:57 PM
Low wing Cessna?

07-19-2004, 12:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Liosha:
Anyway, this yaw effect in turn, is way too small in FB than it should be, compared to real life.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is based on your experience with which aircraft?

The reason for asking, is that I used to be convinced that was the case. There's a difference in how much rudder is needed, but with all aircraft I had flown until recently, the amount of rudder input necessary was in the same ballbark (Piper PA28, Socata Rallye, Slingsby Firefly, Saab MFI-9.) That was until I tested a Pitts recently. I tell you, all I needed was to let my toes rest a little heavier on the pedal in a turn, and that was over doing it. I had absolutely no sense of pushing the pedal at all, and yet it was too much. Granted, that one is a monster in ways. The owner says you have enough rudder to be able to climb on the knife edge.

Anyway, now knowing how balanced the ailerons can be in some planes (and don't forget this is a 1944 design!) I really don't know what to think about the required rudder input in the planes in IL2/FB/AEP.

07-19-2004, 02:42 PM
I also wonder if the amount of rudder needed in a turn is a liitle off.

The plane I fly, a C-177RG, has got Frise ailerons and cross coupled controls, so it only requires the lighest touch on the rudder to maintain coordination. If you were lazy, you could fly all normal manouvers with your feet on the floor. The question then is how many of the planes in FB came equipped with Frise or differential ailerons, or cross coupled controls? Right now all of the planes seem to handle pretty much the same, requiring very little rudder. Surely some of the older designs wouldn't have such features?

Even with Frise ailerons and cross-coupled controls, the C-177 does not begin to turn until the ailerons are neutralised, while in FB the planes start to turn as soon as the ailerons are deflected, regardless of what you do with the rudder. I used only keyboard control for rudder in IL2 before getting a twisty stick with no problems. Didn't mind the auto-coordination then!


07-19-2004, 02:53 PM
I would expect to have to use more rudder in a tighter turn than a wider one just
because the wider the turn, the less the body of the plane has to change angle.
In a plane with a top end of maybe 120-140mph... how much tighter will your turns
be? Or does it take a good bit of rudder to turn a Cessna in a wide radius? Or
is the radius not a big part of the reason for needing rudder? Is it all from
bank? Is it mostly from wing speed differences, which also arise with turn radius?


07-19-2004, 05:07 PM
A C-177RG tops out at 180mph, so it's turning radius is going to be larger then a 172's for any given angle of bank. Once the plane has reached it's bank angle for the turn, very little rudder is needed to keep the ball centered. The ball is basically never more then a half ball width out of center. During left turns a touch of top rudder is usually required to keep perfectly coordinated.

When using steep angles of bank ie. 60 degs, the speed differential on the wings will cause the plane to overbank, which is corrected by adding a little opposite aileron. A well designed and rigged plane should not require much in the way of rudder use during turning. The problem seems to be that many of the planes in FB don't require any corrections to be made. It is almost like the ball is glued in place on many of the planes. I can't believe that would be correct for every plane.


07-19-2004, 10:57 PM
I look at the ball on the dash on one of the P-51D's and while it stays either center
or really close, the ball under the gunsight does not. I do suggest guage modelling
may not be true for all of these and we have seen that before, tested. Watching
where tracers go can reveal the situation better, especially with nose guns.


07-21-2004, 11:30 PM
But the thing is, why use rudder? Really, the way it is in IL-2 now, there is no reason to use the rudder in normal flight. Although I am lately attempting to coordinate my maneuvers, the only time I ever actually need to use rudder is when in combat. And even then, I only truly need it for specific maneuvers or gunnery.

My flight instructor didn't teach me anything about coordination, which is bad. He said that a Cessna is so well balanced that coordination is not necessary. He's right, but I still wish he would have taught me about coordination. It's like car gear shifting - automatic is nice, but you should still know how to use manual. Or gun sights... Scopes are nice, but you should get good with iron sights first.

I'm having to teach myself rudder coordination through IL-2, and I don't think it's a very accurate model to be learning on. As I said, the planes in IL-2 handle just like a Cessna in that they don't really need rudder for coordination. I've always been under the impression that World War Two aircraft needed a lot of rudder input, and were not perfectly balanced like a Cessna.

So, both in a real life Cessna and in IL-2's warbirds, why use rudder? I really don't know what the benefits of coordination is, because I notice no difference.

07-21-2004, 11:33 PM
Try turning hard and watch the ball. At least the ball under the gunsight on the P-51D.

07-21-2004, 11:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
So, both in a real life Cessna and in IL-2's warbirds, why use rudder? I really don't know what the benefits of coordination is, because I notice no difference.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simply, because the "Cleaner" you fly when turning, the faster you stay because there is less drag caused by adverse yaw. And in IL2 this is true.

There seemed to be more effect in the earlier days of IL2 (Pre FB) but there still is a noticable difference, especially when trying to reach top speeds.

Some aircraft seem to be less affected by this, and I suspect that it was the same way in real life. The 109, for example, has a little yaw at 100% power and has to be compensated for with opposite rudder since there is no rudder trim. Same goes for the 190, but it was much more pronounced prior to FB.


07-22-2004, 02:54 AM
Ah! Speed...

The other thing I thought of is what happens when you stall. If you're coordinated, you'll probably get a stall. If you're not, then it's spin city for you.

I wish that they'd give us realistic torgue.

07-22-2004, 03:51 AM
What I have never understood is in a steep turn if I were to centre the ball in FB/AEP I would actually be losing altitude.

Lets say I'm in a steep right bank with my right wing pointing at the ground, to centre the ball in FB/AEP I would have to use right rudder, of course I don't do this as I lose altitude this way. To make tight steep turns to the right you use left rudder to maintain altitude but the ball is no where near the centre.

Now is this the same in real planes as I would have thought by holding opposite rudder in a bank the ball would stay in the centre indicating that I am flying level with the horizon in a steep bank?


07-22-2004, 04:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
What I have never understood is in a steep turn if I were to centre the ball in FB/AEP I would actually be losing altitude.

It depends on how steep the turn is. If you're at 90degree bank, there's no way you can maintain altitude with the ball centered.

With prop planes, you use the rudder at least as much to counter prop effects as you do to counter adverse yaw. In a left turn, near stall, it's not strange at all to require right rudder to keep the ball centered.

As for how much is needed... as I said, I was surprised that almost none at all was needed in a Pitts (much much much less than in a PA28 or similar aircraft.) Later today I'll most probably get a test ride in a Steen Skybolt, I'll come back with reports on its rudder requirements.

07-22-2004, 10:59 AM
Well, having had 30mins in the skybolt now, I can say that it has more normal rudder requirements. Far less than a PA28, but definitely enough to feel that you are pushing the pedal. Actually quite similar to the feel I get in this game, except that you can give A LOT or rudder, should you want to. I overcompensated wildly in my first attempt at a slow roll.

07-22-2004, 04:38 PM
Just as Lindy says, in steep banks you may not be able to keep alt and centered ball.

When you bank and turn, some of your lift that used to be downpointing only now faces
inward, that is the force that turns the plane. The steeper the bank, the more for turn
and the less for holding you up. How much is cosine of bank angle for turn and sine for
hold you up, sine of 90 degrees is zero.

But you get adverse yaw that pulls the nose up and turns the fuselage across the direction
of flight. More drag but also a kind of body-lift there (body makes poor, inefficient
"wing") that holds or shoot the plane upward... all if not corrected by rudder.

Solution is to rise for climb, then roll and turn if you don't mind slowing down and
chancing stall/spin or having to moderate the turn G's if you don't have speed to lose.
Keeping energy can be as simple as climb to preserve it and turn sharp when/where you
are going slow and either more efficient turning or just have less energy to lose and
the portion lost is gained back in thrust as you drop back down regaining speed invested
in the climb at start.
Other solution is to turn nose low in a slight dive and rise from halfway or later,
after the turn itself. You stay fast but perhaps in the highspeed turn you lose more
total energy in the inefficiency times the amount of highspeed energy you poured in
the turn itself. But if you are followed, you stay fast at least... if the enemy does
rise and turn sharper/quicker above you then you may have trouble if you rise at the end.
Best not to be followed closely?


07-22-2004, 11:32 PM
I guess my problem with coordination is not so much what happens once the turn is established, but with the roll into the turn. While rolling the plane, there does not seem to be much of an adverse yaw effect going on. Now, I am not expecting these planes to behave like a WW1 vintage plane, ie roll right, turn left, but some adverse yaw effect would still be nice. Even in a plane designed to minimize adverse yaw, the nose won't start yawing until the ailerons are brought to neutral, something which dosen't happen in FB. Right now there it is not much of a disadvantage in flying a slow rolling plane vs a fast rolling one. I know it is mostly nit-picking, but it would be nice to see it incorporated in a future release.


07-23-2004, 01:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fred_77:
While rolling the plane, there does not seem to be much of an adverse yaw effect going on. Now, I am not expecting these planes to behave like a WW1 vintage plane, ie roll right, turn left, but some adverse yaw effect would still be nice. Even in a plane designed to minimize adverse yaw, the nose won't start yawing until the ailerons are brought to neutral, something which dosen't happen in FB.

Wrong. Two wrongs.

First, the effect is there in FB, and while not strong, it's perfectly noticeable. Fly straight and level and point your nose at a landmark. Now move the stick left-right-left to wave. Does the nose stay on the same spot? No, it yaws back and forth. Can you stop that, and fix the nose on the landmark with the rudder? Yes you can. The only way I've found that to differ from other planes I've flown, is that only the Pitts has the effect less pronounced than the planes in AEP.

As for when the adverse yaw begins, it's the moment you move the stick sideways. At that very moment one aileron will provide more lift, and thus more induced drag, and since it's the wing that goes up that gets the extra drag, the plane yaws outwards.

07-23-2004, 09:20 AM
I think you misunderstood me a little bit. Yes, adverse yaw occurs when the ailerons are deflected, and dosesn't abate until they are brought back to neutral, but when I fly in FB, the nose will yaw in the direction of the turn. In RL, the plane won't begin it's turn until the roll is completed and the ailerons on brought back to neutral. For example, pick a landmark under the nose, and watch what the nose does while rolling the plane. It will stay put as long as the ailerons are deflected due to adverse yaw. Only when the ailerons are brought back to neutral will the plane begin it's turn. A good way to demonstrate adverse yaw, at least in a 172, is to bring the plane down into slow flight, where you can make big aileron deflections, but the roll rate will remain slow. When rolling the plane to the right at this speed, you can see that the plane nose will yaw slightly to the left. I can not duplicate this behaviour in FB.


07-23-2004, 02:11 PM
It depends on the plane, don't it? What does Lindy say about flying the Pitts?
The Pitts has less than the sim.

Also Oleg included a thing called slip-roll coupling, would that have any bearing?
If the planes will roll into a turn then....?

I bank a plane steep and pull elevator, the ball moves in planes where the ball works.
That is not from ailerons. I think it is because the vertical component and elevator
are lifting the nose.


07-23-2004, 04:31 PM
Well, first off I would like to start off with a partial recantation. I did some more tests and I was able to observe some adverse yaw in action. It was only observable at really slow speeds, ie less then 200km/h, and the nose would only move at most 1 or 2 degrees the opposite way. There was also a small delay in the start of the turn, but not much. It seems about on my par with my Cardinal, which has Frise ailerons and cross-coupled controls. I can still get more adverse yaw out of a 172. It seens the effect is there, but I still can't help but feel that it is watered down.

As far as rudder use during a turn, the main thing you need it for is to combat adverse yaw when rolling into your bank and then rolling back out of your bank. If your plane does not suffer much adverse yaw, then all you need the rudder for is to compensate for torque effects. Since neither effect is very strong in FB, you don't really even need rudder control. Would be nice if the planes were a little more challenging to fly at their limits.


07-23-2004, 06:24 PM
Well, a 172 is a light highwinged plane so maybe not a good yardstick for the
planes in the sim anyway.

The P-51D has a working ball under the gunsight which is why I use it for example.
Lay that into a high banked turn and pull the stick till it's coming around but not
bleeding speed badly at say 60% power, 60% pitch. I see the ball move then. Is
that something you think should not happen?


07-23-2004, 10:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fred_77:
In RL, the plane won't begin it's turn until the roll is completed and the ailerons on brought back to neutral.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting! I've only had ten hours, all in a Cessna one fifty two, and I've never noticed this. Mostly my banks have been fairly steep, and unless the five years elapsing since my last flight have completely befuddled my memory, then what you say is not true once your bank is greater than a certain angle. I am nearly one hundred percent certain that I rememeber the Cessna one fifty two starting to turn before I had centered the yoke and when I was still slowly rolling, when my bank was about thirty or forty degrees.

I will look for this effect in shallow banks if I ever get back up in the air again.

07-23-2004, 11:45 PM
The effect is really very subtle, and you will only see it when fully deflecting the ailerons, and neglecting to use the rudder. Demonstrating adverse yaw is always pretty difficult I have found. The only really good way I have found to do it is from slow flight. You are right in that there does seem to be an angle of bank in which lift manages to overcome the effect of adverse yaw, at least in Cessna.

Talking to some of the pilots of WWI replicas, I found out how bad adverse yaw could be in the extreme. It's so bad that many of them have to be pretty much flown with the rudder. Rolling into the turn and the plane will yaw badly the opposite direction. Trying to use the ailerons alone to roll out of the turn will cause the angle to steepen rather then decrease! Can't have lazy feet when flying one of those.

As for the mustang, as long as the angle of bank is constant, and ailerons neutral, you should only really need the rudder to counter the torque. Things rarely work out that easily in RL as planes are never in perfect rig, and in the case of rentals, can be rigged horribly. I had the unfortunate experience to get a rental plane that required half stick deflection just to fly straight. The jet's in FB have no torque to contend with, and the ball stays centered in them during turns, which seems correct.

After a little more research it seems that most of the planes in FB would have had Frise and differential ailerons, and would not have suffered from excessive adverse yaw. There seems to be a consesus that torque effects are undermoddeled in FB. I would have to guess then that torque effects in the turn would be undermoddeled as well.


07-24-2004, 12:01 AM
This thread is fascinating. I've never heard of adverse yaw. I wish that I could fly these unwieldy old birds.

07-24-2004, 12:40 AM
I know that during my flight training, this was a subject that was barely covered. When I was done with my private liscense, I knew *what* to do, but was frequently a little confused on the *why* part. Things got a little better by getting the commercial liscense, but it wasn't until I went for the instructor rating that the *why* part became more clear. It allowed me to look back at the holes in my previous training, which is probably a common experience. Shows how important it is to get a good instructor, and not one who has their eye on an airline job, and will feed you just enough info to get past the test.

Anyways, a good book to try would be "Stick and Rudder" by Wolfgang Langewiesche. It explains all this stuff a hell of a lot better then I ever could. Is a good read, dosen't come off as a dry textbook.


07-24-2004, 03:13 PM
I agree with the initial post, while there is the very slight oscillation that looks sorta like adverse yaw when FB aircraft are flown slowly and rolled, it is far less than there should be, at least on the highest available realism/difficulty settings.

The only aircraft that is in this sim that I have stick time in is the P-51, that said I have flown the primary and advanced trainers that were used to train and transition pilots to WWII allied fighters the PT-17 and the AT-6, I also have lots of aerobatic time in aircraft that were designed in more or less the WWII era, using more or less the same types of design philosophy, I also fly the most modern aerobatic designs as well. . . and of course most civilian trainers and XC machines, as well as doing plenty of hangar flying with pilots who own and fly many different WWII era fighters. The MOST adverse yaw you can find is in these older tailwheel designs, WWI was worse than those of WWII, of course, but the nature of the beast is inherent within the way we design aircraft, and unless particular tricks are used to reduce its effect, it is there. So there isn't much use in trying to suggest that the 109,190,yak, or P11 were profoundly different. . . they weren't they have ailerons mounted on the outboard portions of the wings, they have a conventional tail. . etc etc.

If you ignore or some of the new composite designs from Lancair and Cirrus, and any mechanical links between aileron and rudder, as some aircraft have, it is a pretty safe bet that all planes have sufficient adverse yaw, the 172 has plenty, in fact with the right type of input (repeated, fairly quick stick/yoke movement) you can turn right using only left aileron, the taildraggers in general require much MORE rudder coordination and have prodigeous adverse yaw (even many new ones are based on WWII vintage or older desings). Even those with the linkages will still need rudder coordiantion, but the linkage does reduce the load that must be applied to the rudder to be coordinated, when the speed gets low and the stick inputs fast, these linkages don't do much for you, and if you are in the stall regime, you better have your feet on the rudder and be coordinated (or at least slipping and not skidding)or you will spin just like always. The trouble is, many if not most pilots have "lazy feet" when they fly, this is poor airmanship, and while in cruise and normal pattern work this might not present much trouble to these pilots but that day that the aircraft bites willmost likely come. If these pilots fly a taildragger, or more aptly, do aerobatics or pattern work in one, they should see how lazy their feet have become. Many instructors have lazy feet, most trainer aircraft are forgiving in the stall regime, and have tricycle gear, and in a tricycle gear aircraft landings can happen with sideloads which would ground loop and destroy a taildragger. . . and most mosdern pilots are trike trained, and so the airplane also gives the impression that the rudder isn't that important as a flight control. This impression however is an incorrect one.

Like most long term designs the Pitts designs are many and varied, from the first one built in 1947 to the ones being produced today, all require rudder to cordinate, but as engineers find ways to reduce stick forces and in the case of aerobatic or large engined aircraft, to enlarge the control surfaces and as such increase their effectiveness, this need is sometimes less of a chore in subsequent and more modern designs. . . until you get aggresive with the roll inputs, or slow down below cruise speed. While a 172 in a stall may not bite you very fast with feet on the floor, it will bite in certain cross controlled skids with more speed that anyone who has time in one will imagine. . . and this is usually fatal becasue it presents attitudes never seen before by anyone without aerobatics time, and mroe importantly, becasue many lazy footed pilots dont use the rudder up high, they just start down low, in the pattern, and here they don't have near enough altitude to recover from the spin.

It is a poor, no, terrible instructor who doesn't teach you about adverse yaw, and what the rudder is there for!

Even the aircraft with linked rudder and aileron have more adverse yaw than do those in this sim. . . add in the large stick deflections and fast inputs that we use in fighters, especially when at dogfight speeds, and you should have serious amounts of rudder force required (on on a computer I guess input is a better term).

To those who fly any plane that they think doesn't have much, try doing wing rocks from about 45 degrees of bank left then to 45 degrees to the right, do these fast, you dont need much stick travel, but the rate needs to be fast enough so that the yaw happens in shorter time periods so it is more obvious to you. Of course only do this at a speed that is 2/3 of your Va at your current weight to avoid airframe damage.

(Normally Va is calculated for aft stick pressures only, and neglects negative stick pressures or any rolling momments imposed on the airframe that if performed AT Va may cause structural failure, so you must use 2/3 of that Va value. Few instructors know this, let alone teach it, but I am sure the assumption that "full or abrupt use of controls" may be made at Va is a very common one, and one that most certainly has caused structural failures)

Also, to wake up those feet, it is a good excercise to practice deep oscilation or "falling leaf" stalls, with a good instructor of course, basically you enter a conventional power off stall at about twice the alt you use for normal stalls, and at the break bring the yoke all the way back to the stop and keep it there, now keep the wings level hile maintaining heading and keep the plane stalled for a 1,000 feet of descent or so until you are comfortable with this, and untill your feet work fast enough, and in the proper magnitude to keep on heading, and to keep the wings on an even keel. Beware though, that using aileron to l evel the wings, or skidding the rudder will require immediate corrective action to prevent the ensuing unusual attitude form turning into a spin. . . so as I said. . . do this ONLY with a GOOD instructor.

EDIT: oh and about maintaining alt in steep banks, you must continue to generate a vertical component of lift that is equal to 1G or the weight of the aircraft in addition to the horizontal component of lift used to turn, so at steep banks more and more elevator force is needed, more and more G forces are required and if you are up to 89 degrees of bank this is limited by the airframe and pilot's ability to handle the Gs, at 90 the only surface that can provide you with a vertical component of lift is the fuselage and the rudder so here top rudder is needed, o r at lower bank angles where you don't want, or arent able to pull the needed G loadings. Normally though banks up to 80 degrees are possible coordinated in an aerobatic or fighter aircraft. Here is a page that has a diagram that only goes up to 4Gs, but gives you an idea of the relationship between Gs and bank angle required to maintain level flight (coordinated) turn your popup blocker on first. . .

Black 1
TX Squadron XO

Member-Team Raven

Northern California Aerobatic Club

First Slot Pilot Aircraft #4 of the Virtual Haute-Voltige Team

Learn to fly, learn aerobatics, learn to fly a tailwheel at LVK.


[This message was edited by TX-EcoDragon on Sat July 24 2004 at 02:40 PM.]

07-25-2004, 02:41 AM
It's funny that you should mention instructors with their eye on an airline job - mine left for an airline at the same time as I quit my lessons for other reasons.

This is off topic, but I have to say that my last good day was five years ago - the day of my last flight. The only thing that approaches it is airshows, which I enjoy about as much as I enjoy flying. Some days as I work in the hole that I work in, and I pop my head outside at break and look up, I want to get away and get up so badly that I feel like screaming.

Uh, does any one of you have some extra money that they could donate to my flight lessons and medical expenses?