4 ms·
> I have flown inverted a few times, and to do so take a tremendous amount of forward pressure on the control stick to even try and attempt to hold altitude whi
by jonsen 10y ago
> I have flown inverted a few times, and to do so take a tremendous amount of forward pressure on the control stick to even try and attempt to hold altitude while inverted, in order to counteract the wings natural (slight) positive AoA and the tendency for the wing to move towards it upper surface.
I don't think that is right. The tail wing has a different angle of attack than the main wing. On the order of one degree I think. This is so to give a self stabilizing effekt. When flying upside down you have to compensate heavily to avoid what would be a destabilizing effect.
- samlittlewood 10y agoAs an aside, modern aerobatic aircraft are often rigged 0,0,0 (wing incidence, tail incidence, dihedral), so level flight will need equal elevator deflection in the appropriate direction. Less efficient - but makes for symmetrical performance.
- Zak 10y agoThe horizontal stabilizer of most aircraft has a negative angle of attack and produces downforce, not lift in straight and level flight. This allows the center of gravity to be forward of the wing's center of lift by moving the overall center of lift forward. The result is a tendency to pitch down if airspeed decreases without other control inputs, countering the reduced airspeed. Flying inverted in a relatively stable aircraft requires a lot of forward pressure because for the inverted aircraft's wing to have a positive angle of attack, the horizontal stabilizer has an even larger positive angle of attack. The pilot must counter this with the elevator to establish a stable ratio of lift to downforce.