Best CPL Theory Books

[sseeker]

Question for all you CPL holders.

 

What are the best CPL theory study books? I'm not talking best book to make you pass the exam, but I mean most explanation and detail etc... I've previously read Bob Tait books for BAK and I found he uses quite complex ways of explaining things and teaches in a rather 'old fashion' manner. I've found Aviation Theory Centre to be quite good in explaining stall spin theory (which is apparently quite a complex concept to master properly)

 

What are your recommendations?

 

-Andrew

 

 

[Ryanm]

Hi Andrew. I would recommend both Bob Tait and ATC. I generally studied using the bob tait books... enough detail to get through the exam, but in some areas I wanted more information. ATC was a good place to look for that extra bit of info, but some times went a little too in depth for what I needed to know.

 

I guess what Im getting at is try not to limit yourself. If you can get a copy of both, you will be in for a good chance!

 

 

[sseeker]

Hi Ryan,

 

Thanks for the recommendation, you're totally right about not limiting myself to one book.

 

Thanks,

 

Andrew

 

 

[djpacro]

and if you buy Bob's books you'll get access to his forum where he will answer any queries.

 

 

[sseeker]

Why do I need Bob when I have you guys? :big_grin:

 

-Andrew

 

 

[djpacro]

Forgiven but not letting you off your soapbox!

 

Lots of very knowledgeable people here - eg consider the recent post by John Brandon.

 

My advice to instructor trainees is to keep their theory briefs consistent with whatever theory book they recommend. Since I rarely read either ATC or Bob's books I am sometimes challenged to explain. The answer is invariably that we are both right.

 

 

[Hildy]

You know what's a bit sad? I don't think I've ever had a theory brief, at three different flying schools.

 

can someone tell me more about the theory of flying wings? is it possible to have a symmetric flying wing that is longitudinally stable? can you do aerobatics in a trike?

 

 

[djpacro]

You know what's a bit sad? I don't think I've ever had a theory brief, at three different flying schools.

Are you invited to see your progress sheets (training records) and to sign after each flight lesson which is your certification that you have received the training per the syllabus? Some flight lessons have long briefings associated with them - take a look at the syllabus sometime.

 

... the theory of flying wings? is it possible to have a symmetric flying wing that is longitudinally stable?

Theory is identical to an aeroplane with a tail - but more simple as there are fewer parameters to consider - distance between cg and aerodynamic centre (or c.p.); elevator (perhaps called an elevon) on the wing trailing edge. I once saw a neat aerobatic display by a plank at an airshow in the UK.

[facthunter]

It's more than sad Hildy. You're getting short-changed.

 

Theory of flying. Anytime you deflect air, you get a reaction . If the wings do it, we call it lift. Nev

 

 

[Hildy]

Are you invited to see your progress sheets (training records) and to sign after each flight lesson which is your certification that you have received the training per the syllabus? Some flight lessons have long briefings associated with them - take a look at the syllabus sometime.

No, I'm not.

Is it a requirement that you receive the ground theory training as per the syllabus, or just that you are taught / know enough to pass the exams?

 

Theory is identical to an aeroplane with a tail - but more simple as there are fewer parameters to consider - distance between cg and aerodynamic centre (or c.p.); elevator (perhaps called an elevon) on the wing trailing edge. I once saw a neat aerobatic display by a plank at an airshow in the UK.

is that elevon really an elevon, or more of a flaperon? it effectively changes the aoa of the wing and thus the location of the CP as well as the amount of lift, right?

 

what I don't understand is, on an airplane with a tail, these usually form a couple that needs to be balanced by the tail. what happens with a plank? what provides the balance?

 

 

[sseeker]

Good point Andrew, especially uncle Dave (DJP) he is a wealth of information and he wont tell you that he is an Aeronautical Engineer as well and used to work for the major aircraft manufactures. If you want to know anything about stall / spin recovery theory and practice he is your man. He has added immense value to discussions on this forum.Then there is Uncle Nev of Facthunter fame, he has forgotten more than I will ever know. He used to fly those big aircraft with large round engines and more than two of them. Great guy to talk to.

 

Immense knowledge and experience on this forum, I wish there were forums when I was your age. This is an incredible way to get first hand knowledge and experience.

 

I will now step down from my sentimental soap box and ask for forgiveness from Uncle Dave and Uncle Nev .

 

David:ban me please:

David, you're 100% correct. We're all very fortunate to have members such as those listed above and others! Thank you to those who put a consistent effort into giving us the most accurate information :thumb_up:

 

No, I'm not.Is it a requirement that you receive the ground theory training as per the syllabus, or just that you are taught / know enough to pass the exams?

You are permitted to self study for all exams. No theory lessons are required.

 

-Andrew

 

 

[djpacro]

I wasn't referring to ground theory training for the exams. A CASA-approved school would have a syllabus of flying training and there would be some flight lessons which have long briefings associated with them so you are at least entitled to them. Most of these schools (I can understand that CASA has maybe not yet got all schools to update their processes) should get the student to sign the bottom of the page for each flight lesson - it will detail elements of that lesson which were performed, progress achieved, remedial training required.

 

If you are not asked to sign these then at least ask to see them - for the whole syllabus.

 

If you do sign them - take a look at what you are signing.

 

Those records will exist and we are not perfect so schools won't exactly follow the planned syllabus however you will see what was intended and you should see what was actually done.

 

 

[ajy29]

I used the Dyson-Holland books and found them quite good. Plenty of detail, and more than one explanation for some aspects. ie Aerodynamics explained with an example, but also explained mathematically for those that might be that way inclined.I skipped over the maths formulas as it was too much for me, but could see that they might be helpful for people that are good at maths.

 

 

[Tomo]

don't know where you get the 'sign on the line' stuff from djp.....any student needs to believe they are getting value for 'the hard earnt'....

The GA schools I fly at you sign the line... Under the particular lesson or whatever.

 

My RAA school has all the stuff we did when I learnt there written in his file of me also.

 

I guess it's just courtesy to the student to know what he is getting taught is from the syllabus.

 

 

[sseeker]

Same with me Tomo. I've just got back from Jandakot with my ATC Aerodynamics Book and I'm surprised, I was expecting it to be a fairly thick book but it's fairly thin... Heaps of text but. Going over it briefly, it looks like most of the stuff I've already learned from school, I don't think the aerodynamics exam is gonna be too hard for me to get an excellent result in.

 

-Andrew

 

 

[Mazda]

I used the ATC books for CPL and found them to be OK.

 

For more detail on aerodynamics, Mechanics of Flight by Kermode is good. Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators is not that easy to read and it is a bit disjointed. The Fly Better texts can be downloaded free and they are good.