i discovered the reason why everybody turns left after playing rof
 

if you fly a fokker dri you only turn right due to huge gyroscopic precssion from the rotary engine

so some how everybody in il2 game found subcouncioulsly the slight advantage of turning left over right and did so though they explained it rationally with nonsenses of stick ergonomy

so seems its good to let the heart rule over the mind

People generally like to turn left more than right, goes for aircraft, downhill skiing, skating etc... In a landing pattern at an airport the normal pattern is always turning left for final etc because of this. I remember taking my first flying lessons and at lesson four or so the teacher said "let's do some advanced flying, turn right" :)

Don't know if it's different in the southern hemisphere?

/mazex

In the southern hemisphere, they fly inverted of course ;)

Like it! Actually, I think flying left traffic patterns has more to do with the captain/student sitting on the left. Left turns generally give a better view of the ground. I agree with you though, I remember flying right hand circuits and not liking them nearly as much :grin:

That's exactly what pigeons do when they fly over Mexico...

And to clarify why I started talking about if it's the other way around down under is because I have always had a feeling it has something to do with the Coriolis effect that all pilots that has studied meteorology knows about (and many more certainly) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect

Looking around on the net there seems to be some understandning that the "normal" righthandedness has something to do with it. Look at golfers... Almost all do the swing in a rotation "to the left" where the club starts on the right. And like I said, go to the Alps and look at the standard "stop turn" for people going downhill skiing. Left in almost all cases.

And even though I have many hundreds of flying hours IRL it still feels better to turn left :)

Haha...i never noticed it, but that's right! I much prefer turning left :grin:
Even in ROF. But i don't fly DR1...
Here in southern hemisphere it's the same lol

Musashi recommended to "always chase your opponent to the left". That way you are advancing from your strength, and he's retreating into his weakness, along with several other advantages.

I once took a pistol class with a left handed Japanese guy. It seems that it's bad luck to be left handed in Japan, so all his life he had been forced to do everything right handed. He is now effectively ambidextrous. He embarrassed all of us in the weak hand drills.

Actually here in Australia, instead of flying circuits the traditional holding pattern is vertical loops with an Immelman onto final. its also traditional to do a low flypast to scatter any roos or sheep that have wandered onto the runway.

It reduces pilot boredom, one of the known factors in aviation accidents.

For the same reason we have banned turbines ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkcX0KGIBwk

As a result Aussie aviation is one of the safest in the world.

Lol :) I have practical experience that you should always expect unconventional stuff from aussie pilots :)

When I was taking my gliders pilot license at the age of 16 (in 1986 so it's been a while), I was going to have my first flight in a single seater (a Pilatus PC11 B4). I got the instructions to be careful with the horizontal stability as the elevator is extremely more sensitive than the Bergfalkes I had flown before that... Enters the Aussie tow pilot that is doing his first tow flight in Sweden, but with tons of flight hours. We take off and realizing how extremely sensitive the stick in the Pilatus was I tried to be a bit careful to not get into the horizontal oscillations I was warned of. I got a bit over the normal tow position but gently started to easy down the nose... This was right after take off so we where at 150 meters over an Industrial area that is next to the airfield...

And then suddenly "smack", I see the tow line getting disconnected from the tow plane... There I am, with 15 hours in my book having to decide the eternal "aborted take off" question. Shall I try to land ahead in the place where I have the best chances of survival, or make a tight 180 degree turn at low altitude an hope I don't stall and make it back over the ravine at the end of the airfield? I had not done a turn in the plane type so after a split second thinking I did a tight left turn (naturally ;)) and got back to the field for a downwind landing with 25 meters left when I passed the boundary of the field...

Still strapped into the aircraft my instructor who had been a voluntary fighter pilot in finish winter war briskly said: "Well done, don't get out of the plane, you are going up immediately again so you don't start having any funny ideas about flying being dangerous! ". At this moment the tow plane was landing as I naturally came down before him. The Aussie pilot seemed a bit shaked and wondered why the heck I had been 30 meters over my normal tow position? (this conversation screamed with the Pawnee still running and us both strapped in).

The instructor screamed: "Hey, you do realized we tow ABOVE the prop wash in Sweden? ".

Aussie tow pilot : "Argh, sorry, I'm not used to that so I disconnected as I thought he was going to pull my tail up so I was going to crash... "

Ex finish winter war veteran instructor: "OK, we can talk about that tonight over a beer, let's get the reserve tow line connected - you both stay in your aircraft and don't think more about this now! " (last part with "it's an order " tone).

Off we went and it went well the second time :) To the tow pilots defense I was a bit above the swedish tow position so for him it nust gave been scary... But... I would not be surprised in the future if an Aussie pilot did a looping holding pattern ;)

And had it been today I would have landed straight ahead trying to minimize the damage... Tight 180 turns at zero altitude are dangerous stuff!

/mazex

Interesting story mazex. I had a similar thing happen to me on a glider flight. The instructor had me convinced that we were going to release at 2000ft, but right after we passed 200ft he pulled the release on me. He didn't say a word, just sat back and rode along. I put the nose down a little to maintain speed as the tow plane peeled away and I made a right-hand turn into the wind, which was by his earlier instruction, and I did a 180 back to the field for a 'down wind' landing. It was more of a cross-wind down- wind landing. After we came to a stop, he got out and said "Its all yours, take it up" and I was off on my first solo. Just had to get it golfcart-towed to the tow-plane again. What a day.
But I always thought that the left pattern was most common from the traditional stick and rudder planes of the old days and becasue most people are right handed and its just more natural to turn left with your right had on the stick and the other controls are normally on the left side anyway with that setup. But I am right handed and I don't mind right-patterns or right-turns, it doesnt seem to bther me that much.
Intersting thread.

Doesn't Aussie have the largest airfield in the world? Otherwise known as the Outback? :-P

I consider the effects of the Coriolis effect in Call of Duty very often.

200ft? What a bastage ;) My instructor did it the same way as you describe before the incident I described but then we where at 300 meters when we where supposed to tow to 700m :) Saying "Oups, it seems I pulled the release handle?" ;) Gave me way more time to think than you...

I read somewhere that, especially with a stick, that there's a certain degree of 'human nature' involved as well. It was something to to with people subconsciously preferring to push in the direction that their palm / forearm is facing as opposed to pulling with their fingers when it's a reflex action.

It makes sense because if you pull right there's always the possibility of losing your grip. Left has the full weight of your arm behind it.

Can't remember where I read it. But it was definitely fighter pilot related.

If stick forces are high, then right handed pilots will obviously be able to roll into a left hand turn faster. Also, as was mentioned earlier, almost everything else is managed with the left hand so moving to a left hand grip or assist is not without risk. Since all military pilots from the era are right handed pilots (because there were no left handed cockpits) that's the way it was.

Engine torque and P-factor are also issues but center stick pilots would still tend to turn left even if they weren't.

Such a simple explanation that has nothing to do with the subconscious.

Also, precession occurs no matter what direction you turn. The only difference is the direction of the precession.

Rolling against the torque is just that, rolling against the torque, and it causes no precession. The roll against the torque is what was so difficult in the old rotary engined aircraft.

--Outlaw.

yes but modern joysticks theres no problem twisting them right, youre not gonna lose grip yet in modern air games people still turns left

imho is gyroscopic precession as a matter of fact i used to turn right with some rusians planes with reverse sense of propeller

edit:

the disasvantage of turning right with gyro precession the opposite way is that when you stall plane aims up while if you turn left and stall it aims down

the advanatge is evident losing speed vs gaining it in a stall

... actually when landing a 172 I have my left hand on the yoke and right hand on the throttle.

More to the point, many or even most GA aircraft have a yoke with a central throttle quadrant, nearly all twins do and most commercial aircraft do.

Hence, most non-military aircraft are flown with the left hand with the right hand on the throttle.

Unless they are in a single seat or tandem layout.
one of the reasons I like being an instructor and a First Officer is that I sit on the right.

There has been no change whatsoever in, "modern joysticks" for "modern air games", that would affect any decision to turn left vs right. I've been playing multiplayer WW2 combat sims for the last 23 years and the only significant change has been force feedback. I can't remember when I got my first TM F-16 stick but it was almost 20 years ago.

Limiting the discussion to games only, I've never played ROF and I tend to turn left simply because it's more comfortable to push than pull. If the stick was in my left hand I would turn right more.

If you're stalling you've lost already.

In a bounce situation the first item of business is to get out of the plane of flight as quickly as possible. Precession is the least of your worries. It's best to turn into the attacker if you can but if you waste time trying to figure out the direction before acting then it's usually too late.

I don't know who said it and I paraphrase but...

IMO, aside from bounce situations, players will turn in the direction that best suits them tactically (at least as far as they see the tactical situation).

--Outlaw.

the foe is running away from safety of base and youre in a slower plane

what you do?

this

D

you cut his way turning left

thats the way indian caught deer running

The above statements make no sense whatsoever.

The only "turn" in the letter "D" is the long way around so a slower plane won't catch anything.

If you're talking about cutting across the opponent's turn, that would be the straight portion of the "D" which does not involve a turn.

Of course, even glazing over the obvious ridiculousness, the answer to you question of "what do you do" depends on where I am relative to him and his flight vector relative to mine. For example, if he's on my starboard wing heading directly away from me AND I want to keep him in my forward hemisphere I would make a turn to starboard.

To simply say that someone would turn left in all situations is just stupid.

--Outlaw.

they will turn left if its indiferent as with friendly base behind

knowing this you can cut his way

whats stupid of this if even you admitted to have a tendency to turn left?

A "tendency" is not a sure thing and just because his base is directly behind him does not imply indifference. What if there is a bandit to his right that he wants to engage, or friendlies he would like to join with, or another friendly airfield at which he would like to land, or any one of a billion things that could make a right turn a more attractive choice?

The thought that he will make a 270° turn to the left just to change heading 90° to the right is pretty stupid.

--Outlaw.

i said base SOUTH not right

of course its a game of chances but dont you think to know people tendency to turn left its an advanatge, when you bnz for example you can predict him

or are you denying your tendency to trun left which yourself admitted?

I just farted and i smelled it with my left nostril first!!
So this is the proof that my fart turned to the left!!

What are you even talking about?

The word south does not appear in ANY of your previous posts. Of course, the actual direction is meaningless when you're simply talking about turning right or left.

Why are you suddenly mentioning a relative heading of south? It makes no sense whatsoever?

Have you considered asking the university to revoke your "filology degree"?


If it's a game of chances then you DO NOT KNOW they will turn left. If you don't know then you can't predict.


Show me ANYTHING in my posts that even comes close to making even the slightest implication that I denied my tendency to turn left.

--Outlaw.

Look at the shops you are visiting: Most of them are arranged in a way that you make a left turn when going trough it....

@Kongo-Otto: You always only use 1 nostril at the time...

oh god outlaw you look like a woman in argue mode, i have no time nor will for that, i think i made myself clear except for a contrarian

The spiral staircase in my old apartment spirals up to the RIGHT.

Though weirdly when you try and go down again it spirals to the LEFT.

The real question is how does the staircase KNOW whether you are going up or down and change its spiral to match.

Its a bit like how do mirrors KNOW to reflect left/right but not up/down.

Perhaps its to do with the way your DNA spirals :D

well i aslo ponder if its the force

according schauberger rivers which twisted in certain sense were full of life while those which did it opposite turned death

edit:

myself of course i tried both senses and i know perfectly the reason i turn left instead or right:

turning left= win
turning right = lose

of course there are those who didnt notice before i mentioned it and even thoguh criticize me, well probably that itself its the reason

theres this guy crazier than me, at least i dont look so

we always have nice conversations untill i mention im finishing my degree, then every time this happens he jumps all annoying swiss-bongodriver-aceoface-outlaw(used to) style

Actually in real life I prefer steep right turns in a Cessna because steep left turns from the left seat seem steeper than steep right turns, you get a lot more windscreen turning left, right feels more comfortable.

What if you are left handed though ?

an interesting article that hints dna as the answer:

http://askville.amazon.com/runners-r...estId=41064716

Then the author goes into how nature itself runs counter-clockwise (the orientation of ALL amino acids, throwing from doubt into impossibility the idea of random assembly of an amino acid), and suggests that this anti-clockwise running is just the "nature" of things.

Do you know what it means to know something?

Wow, that's the pot calling the kettle black! Let's see, in the past you have argued that...

Placing your finger over the end of a water hose (water running of course) should produce infinite energy

The U.S. attack helicopter targeting systems track the eyeball and not the head

A water powered pump operated at an efficiency > 100%

The Messerschmitt engineers were stupid for not controlling the trim tab with the stick and the elevator with the trim wheel

You can launch a spacecraft at infinite acceleration while the occupants feel no acceleration

You can propel and control a spacecraft forever with nothing more than two counter rotating cannonballs on strings

The concept of angular momentum is a lie because you can wobble a rotating disc hanging from a string

A video of a fat kid jumping off a pier onto a floating platform and launching a kid on the other end into the air is fake because being shot with a handgun doesn't send people flying through the air similarly


As usual and like all of the cases noted above, when proven ridiculous, instead of admitting you're wrong you just stop talking and then weeks later bring up the same subject again.


That is the most awesome thing you've ever said!


Why don't you prove the above statement on the ATAG server?


--Outlaw.

outlaw i simply claimed that knowing your foes tendency to turn left its an advnatage if you disagree with this youre a contrarian

i confused behind with south and you made a big fuss of it, you understood me perfectly but prefered to argue as usual

yeah thats the thing with having original idas you often go wrong

oh and i remember well how you hide away when i finally found the method to stand high g by being sink in a breathable fluid , of course i got it many times wrong before getting it right

i rpoved you wrong with the wiki about satnding high g and you didnt admitt it, i admitted many times to be wrong i dont ever recall you doing so

currently im not flying but racing

im getting all the world top time atttacks in race room, have 3 by now the last one took me less than a day to get it, i think to recall you like racing games try to beat me there

even il sahre my secret with you:

i use 65º of lock in my g25

No you didn't. You stated that you knew the REASON they turn left. In fact, it's the TITLE of your thread.

I have NEVER disagreed with the claim above.

I do disagree with your assertion that if you always turn left, regardless of what you opponent does or where he is, you will always win.

You admit that your statements were confusing but somehow I was able to understand you perfectly. Remember you are the one who claims to be able to read people's minds, not me.

That is true, however, you are not wrong because your ideas are original.

You claimed your invention would allow INFINITE acceleration.

Unable to back your claim up with anything real you simply started talking about something else. In that case it was the suspension in a breathable fluid thing.

I did not, "hide away", I simply did not disagree that suspension in a breathable fluid would increase the amount of g-forces that a person could withstand. Since I did not disagree you did not prove me wrong. I do disagree with the magnitude of the claims and its usefulness in the real world but not the base statement.

I have admitted my mistakes on at least a couple of occasions. Just because you don't recall it does not mean it didn't happen.

As usual, you are simply changing the subject.

I play racing games too. In fact, I'm the world's best on all of them and I only turn right, even on counter-clockwise oval races. I win 100% of the time.

--Outlaw.

you take my words literaly, i studied feminist literautre not so much the language

for example i said 10000 g not infinite

and i said i "USUALLY" win turning left and lose turning right

obviously we BOTH turn left and we cant both win, oh and before you twinst it but we both i mean the persons who are having the duel

i dont know why people tendency to turn left, i dont know, you dont know but we both guessed

I use the joystick with my left hand and I generally break right - simples!

going slightly ot outlaw if you dont like my wild claims like i have read people minds online sometime i wont do it again

that was the reason to post with my picture as avatar, take the consecuences of what i say and be responsible with what i say

knowing someone who knows me may read my posts will make me behave just as real life

so ill bite my tongue more dont worry

anyway this can only be good, though im not, i appear as so insane as to not being taken seriously due to my past honesty

I must have missed this one. I was reading about this 20 years ago. Hardly original, like most of your "discoveries".

In fact, I don't think any of your "discoveries" have been original thoughts. Funny that.

Hood

maybe not original but independent yes

for example i disover this independenlty, that is without prior knowledge of it, and of course i went many times wrong before hitting the right idea:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_breathing

Space travel
Liquid immersion provides a way to reduce the physical stress of G forces. Forces applied to fluids are distributed as omnidirectional pressures. Because liquids cannot be practically compressed, they do not change density under high acceleration such as performed in aerial maneuvers or space travel. A person immersed in liquid of the same density as tissue has acceleration forces distributed around the body, rather than applied at a single point such as a seat or harness straps. This principle is used in a new type of G-suit called the Libelle G-suit, which allows aircraft pilots to remain conscious and functioning at more than 10 G acceleration by surrounding them with water in a rigid suit.
Acceleration protection by liquid immersion is limited by the differential density of body tissues and immersion fluid, limiting the utility of this method to about 15 to 20 G.[53] Extending acceleration protection beyond 20 G requires filling the lungs with fluid of density similar to water. An astronaut totally immersed in liquid, with liquid inside all body cavities, will feel little effect from extreme G forces because the forces on a liquid are distributed equally, and in all directions simultaneously. However effects will be felt because of density differences between different body tissues, so an upper acceleration limit still exists.
Liquid breathing for acceleration protection may never be practical because of the difficulty of finding a suitable breathing medium of similar density to water that is compatible with lung tissue. Perfluorocarbon fluids are twice as dense as water, hence unsuitable for this application.[2]

In the past you have mentioned your degree when noting your mastery of the English language. Your new statement above explains a LOT.

I'm pretty sure you said infinite but, maybe not, so I'll acquiesce.

Regardless, it does not matter what number you actually stated. It is wrong because you denied that the astronaut would feel the actual g-forces.

Actually, you said this...
Nowhere did you say, "USUALLY". In fact, aside from the above, you have not used the word usually at all in this thread. Furthermore, aside from the above, I am the only one that has used the word usually in this entire thread.

I will reiterate, "THE TITLE OF THE THREAD STATES THAT YOU DO KNOW".

Do you wish to recant your statement?

--Outlaw.

so youre work having fun arguing right

well i respect you since you dont insult me as others but next time you say a thing as my degrees being imaginary plz have the manhood to retract your offensive for me statement when gieven proofs

if it helps i see you as a friend after all these years

oh and the proof of the world POSIBLY being satged and that in indiferent-neutral buyancy is like 0g even at erath where theres one G

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBL98p0wZ7g

Liquid immersion and body cavity filling does nothing to eliminate g-forces. It simply allows an astronaut to withstand the g-forces more easily.

Your previous claim was that an occupant of your craft would not experience any g-forces at all.

Regardless, I reject fluid immersion as anything more than a curious concept b/c it can't be used in the real world. Who in their right mind would submit to having all of their orifices and other empty spaces in their bodies pumped full of fluid?

--Outlaw.

I knew a girl like that.....

Nice bit of ass covering ambiguity there raaaid 'posibly'

well ive been thinking about it and youre right youll feel wheres down even in a breathable fluid since the way human balance works as a partially filled botle

anyway this idea is intended to shoot an astronaut to space jules verne style

dont you admit i found independently the solution after quite many tries as you can tell from ubi proving verne a visionary?

its not like he was stupid and simple with his cannon idea

maybe he could see the future as the cannon is a feasbale idea

there are many examples of visionary literature


gulliver with the exactitude on mars satellites

poe with the cannibal wrecage

the titanium which had identical ficttitious fate than the real titanic

hey i painted this as premonitory:

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e2...-09_170859.jpg

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e2...-09_205520.jpg

and this as my far away past

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e2...-09_124351.jpg
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e2...-09_124424.jpg
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e2...-09_124441.jpg
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e2...-09_124507.jpg
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e2...-09_124534.jpg
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e2...-09_124556.jpg
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e2...-09_124615.jpg

tobe continued some day

edit:

i just noticed, oh the subcouncious i swear it was not in porpouse

IiIith project

umm drugs are bad Mmkay?

oh i learnt as a kid that going to the country and positive nice thought and breathing gets you higher with more endorphines than anythjing

at this very moment im training my theoretically uncouncious eye lens and i can irrigate the center of the brain at will and learning to get superhigh NATURALLY, After all drugs just potentiate the natural functions of the brain