Why do some aircraft have yokes - the steering wheel like control at the end of the stick, and why do some just have a stick? Any advantage to disadvantage to either one?
Well, here’s a mundane reason: It’s hard to fly an airplane with a stick when you’re wearing a skirt.
That was actually a concern years ago when airplane manufacturers were selling tens of thousands and were trying to sell the aircraft as a family vehicle.
Another is that it looked more ‘car-like’, and that was also thought to appeal to the new audience for airplanes.
But there were yokes around long before that. I imagine there are some advantages mechanically in some circumstances, and possibly easier connections to auto-pilots and such. But that’s just a wag.
Having flown both, I much prefer a stick.
Most aircraft today have yokes, as most aircraft do not need much pilot input to fly normally. The modern exceptions I can think of today are high performance aerobatic aircraft where a lot of input is needed to perform various maneuvers. Sticks allow for a lot of control surface movement in short amounts of time, more so than yokes.
Also modern aircraft have yokes that allow for the pilot to have free legroom for stretching out or what have you. Most sticks run straight into the floorboard, which limits pilot comfort and mobility.
I could think of more reasons, but im tired :o
A lot of it depends on the individual airplane. Here are some rambling thoughts on yokes and sticks:
Yokes take up some panel space. Not much, but some. In a plane with limited panel space (like a tandem) you will probably find a stick.
Sticks are usually easier to implement. That’s the main reason you see so many sticks in homebuilts. Off the top of my head, I can only think of one homebuilt with a yoke (Velocity SUV). Some airplanes only have one stick, located between the two front seats.
Yokes are more carlike. This appeals to some people. Turn the wheel in a car to turn, turn the yoke in the plane to turn.
I think ease of entry/exit is the main difference. I am pretty sure I could not get into a Cessna 172 if it had a stick. On the other hand, sliding into a low wing plane with a slide-back canopy and a yoke would be hard.
My RV-9A will have a stick. Feels more sporty, IMO.
I agree with all your points, but I must say that I owned a Grumman AA1 which had a sliding canopy and a yoke, and the yoke really didn’t get in the way at all. Same with the Grumman Tiger.
And just for the information aspect of it: The British Supermarine Spitfire (Battle of Britain fame) had a sort of hybrid between a yoke and stick. The stick between the pilots legs moved back and forth for pitch control, but had a circular yoke mounted on top that rotated side to side for aileron inputs.
FWIW
<<but had a circular yoke mounted on top that rotated side to side for aileron inputs. >>
Humm no.
the “round” part at the top of the stick is fixed.
It is there to allow a comfortable grip with both hands for better control and better strenght transfert during hard maneuvers.
The spits sitick is a regular sitck with a round handle.
NINJA
Sam, my first reaction to you mentioning the skirt thing was “you’ve got to be kidding”. Then I thought some more and realized that even today there are probably people who think women pilots should be in skirts, maybe even in high heels.
In truth, if you look at pictures from the 1930’s (or even earlier) you’ll find darn few (if any) women pilots in skirts or dresses - they’re all wearing jhodpurs or simillar attire.
Frankly, at the time of the stick/yoke changeover I don’t think anyone was marketing with women in mind.
I think the main impetus, at least on the small-scale level, was to make airplanes more “car like” to help sell them (the flip side of making the car interior more “airplane like”, which was also happening at the same time). Newer plane designs are being built more and more often with sticks.
I’ve flown both. I prefer sticks. Partly it’s because that’s what I started with. It’s not a huge difference, but given a choice I’d always use a stick
Re: Spitfire sticks.
Weren’t the Spit sticks split? That is, the lower part moved fore and aft and the upper part moved laterally? This would allow the pilot to use full lateral deflection without having to move his legs. It’s been a while since I looked in a Spit cockpit, so I don’t remember.
Entry/egress with a stick. The Schweizer 300CB I fly has a stick. You have to lift your leg over it when you get in or out. A bit of a pain compared to the Robinson, which uses a T-stick; but I like having a “real” stick (with electric trim!).
I got to talk to the last guy who flew a Pitts biplane (aerobatic) into our field. He told me that you have to handle the stick with thumb & forefinger only, otherwise you’d have too much control surface movement & be spinning all over the place.
I’m assuming the OP refers only to small aircraft and not airliners… Boeing aircraft have yokes, while Airbus’s have a joystick, since they employ fly-by-wire technology.
An alternative that is rapidly gaining in popularity is the side stick controller, both manual and fly-by-wire types. I believe the Lancair Columbia has a side-stick, as does the airbus and a few other aircraft types.
This is the best of all worlds. It frees up panel space, doesn’t take up space on the floor, and apparently is very comfortable to fly. The disadvantage is that you don’t have a lot of mechanical leverage, so the airplane has to be designed either fly-by-wire, or with extremely light control forces.
Having flown both a PT-26 and a PT-17 many hours over the years, I have to say that there’s no greater pleasure than grabbing your stick between your legs and making her fly!
Never got the same thrill from a yoke.
Where’s the “biting my tongue” smiley when you need it? 
About those Spitfires…
The British were sticklers for consistency in their airplanes during the war. According to my Smithsonian book of airplane cockpits here, the Brits were the first to implement the “basic six” instruments in all their planes - the same basic arrangement we see today.
As for the stick, it was called a “spade grip”, and functioned as any other stick controlled plane. I believe the reason was simply for a firmer grasp during abrupt maneuvering.
Another Brit plane with interesting controls is the Concorde. It has a “ram’s horn” yoke. Looks sort of like an upside down “w”. The reason given in “Flying Concorde” by Brian Calvert was for leg room. The Concorde front office is very cramped, and a standard flight yoke would have bashed into the knees of the pilots during turns.
Forgot to finish my thought on consistency in British planes…
The Hawker Hurricane and the Spitfire both had the spade grip sticks. Every British fighter I’ve seen from the WWII period had them.
Seems to me that the RAF spade grip stick design would have also allowed use of both hands in an “in-extremis” situation where heavy control input was needed.
I’ve yet to see ANY stick (or yoke, for that matter) where you couldn’t use both hands “in extremis”. It’s not like you have one tied behind your back!
Although, personally, I prefer to avoid the “in extremis” part of flying entirely.
One thing is curious to me. I’ve flown both stick and yoke-wheel planes. A stick is usually flown right handed (the throttle is on the left) and feels awkward to me left-handed. A control wheel in side-by-side seating is flown left-handed (the pilot’s seat is on the left) and feels awkward to me right-handed even though I am right handed.
My memory can be as bad as anyones. I think Johnny L.A. has the right stuff on Spit sticks. I recorded Battle of Britain the other night and a couple of cockpit shots tend to bear him out.
Ah, me. The ravages of time…
Just don’t get me started on downwind turns!
There have, however, been aircraft with ‘sticks’ that had yokes on the top of them. The ‘stick’ just moves back and forth, and the yoke is used for aileron control.
My guess is that this control system is used to harmonize control forces. If you’ve ever flown a plane where pitch forces are much higher than roll and yaw forces, you’ll know how difficult they can be to fly smoothly. So if the design of the plane makes it hard to get the elevator forces light enough, you can compensate by putting the elevator contol on a big lever (the ‘stick’), and the aileron controls on a yoke.
I’m pretty sure I’ve seen some control setups like that on some transport planes.