Stick & Rudder

[Powerin]

You can read a reasonable amount of the book at Google books. Of course there are some fair chunks of the book missing but there is enough to give you an idea of the style....

 

Stick and Rudder - Google Books

 

Peter

 

 

[Mazda]

I don't think Stick and Rudder gives very good theory explanations at all. I found Stick and Rudder to waffle around without explaining a great deal. I guess Kermode's Flight Without Formulae tries to be practical too, again it states things without explaining why, but Kermode's more technical volume Mechanics of Flight is better, and it is a much easier read than Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators.

 

However, starting with Mechanics of Flight might seem a bit over the top - at least initially, but it is valuable volume to have for reference. What's wrong with the standard BAK type books? Like the ATC one, and the more practical Flying Training Manual?

 

There's a lot of information out there in published form and online. All people need to do is keep on reading. Look at all the books in libraries and pilot shops!

 

There's nothing wrong with reading Stick & Rudder of course, there's just better (more detailed) information available.

 

Yes, I would hope that flight instructors do pass on such information, and I would hope that students who are unsure of anything ask their instructors! I suppose there's only limited time for that though and it is up to all of us to keep learning! :thumb_up:

 

What is it about aeronautical theory that people are having trouble understanding?

 

 

[Powerin]

What is it about aeronautical theory that people are having trouble understanding?

I consider myself to have a good understanding of science, but I found the whole Angle-of-Attack concept of lift a difficult one to come to terms with, mainly because the "low-air-pressure-above-high-pressure-below-the-wing" (Bernoulli) concept of lift is so widely taught in school and popular science.

 

The online book See How it Flies is the one that set me straight. I found it a good read.

 

Peter

 

 

[facthunter]

Stick and Rudder

 

wouldn't attempt to dissuade anyone from buying it. It was out there at a time when a "different" approach to understanding what makes a plane do what it does, attracted some interest. You still get books/sites that treat the subject as though the author/proponent is the first person to have a proper insight into the dark art of piloting, to this day.

 

Mathematical formula's are not going to be much help in a real inflight response to something happening. They are useful at the design stage. These formulas approximate relationships between lift/ drag ,velocity etc, and "work" well enough over specified ranges to do a lot of designing on paper. Enough of that. Getting back to books..

 

Some books will work better for some people than others. WE all come from different experience (knowledgebase) backgrounds. This is constantly being modified as we LEARN more. We TEND to like books that reinforce what we already think.( rather than contradict it) This is more comfortable with us. IF we are not on the right track this may not be the best way to go. Broadening your general knowledge of aeronautics/ structures/ engines/etc is fine, but you might find that the holding of a recent degree in aeronautics might be a problem in the early stages of flying training, as the student might bring in theoretical complexities that confuse the process of learning BASIC flying. (make the instructors job much harder).

 

Example. I was taught how to hold a golf club by a professional. That improved my golf. It might take a lifetime to analyse the muscle movements and joint motion to work out WHY

 

(I don't play golf now, but that has nothing to do with it). Flying is a bit like that, especially in the early stages.

 

.... It's almost enough to know things like. Wings produce lift, by deflecting air. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

I don't think Stick and Rudder gives very good theory explanations at all. I found Stick and Rudder to waffle around without explaining a great deal. I guess Kermode's Flight Without Formulae tries to be practical too, again it states things without explaining why, but Kermode's more technical volume Mechanics of Flight is better, and it is a much easier read than Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators. However, starting with Mechanics of Flight might seem a bit over the top - at least initially, but it is valuable volume to have for reference. What's wrong with the standard BAK type books? Like the ATC one, and the more practical Flying Training Manual?

 

There's a lot of information out there in published form and online. All people need to do is keep on reading. Look at all the books in libraries and pilot shops!

 

There's nothing wrong with reading Stick & Rudder of course, there's just better (more detailed) information available.

 

Yes, I would hope that flight instructors do pass on such information, and I would hope that students who are unsure of anything ask their instructors! I suppose there's only limited time for that though and it is up to all of us to keep learning! :thumb_up:

 

What is it about aeronautical theory that people are having trouble understanding?

DarkSarcasm asked where she could get a cheaper copy of "Stick and Rudder" and it seems to have turned into a literary review.

 

But this is a book relating to facts, not fiction, so we shouldn't be overconcerned with the writer's laborious style.

 

Facthunter is quite right about the early stages - too much information leads to too many possible wrong choices.

 

After new speedway drivers were given reams of advice from rivers, relatives etc. I would calm them down out on the track, then tell them to remember one thing and one thing only - to hold their line. There were a lot that crawled around in utter fear, but none that ever caused an accident.

 

I would think DarkSarcasm is about at the point where more knowledge would be a good thing.

 

I always felt one of the danger periods was after solo, where you could try something clever, but there wasn't the wise brain beside you.

 

Mazda, the Kermode books look like good reading. I have been to the Flight shops and I have scoured the shelves, but all I really came up with was the Naval book, so in my opinion there is a scarcity of reading material and an opportunity for a switched on contemporary author.

 

The RA Aus material owes a lot to hard work by John Gardon, and I don't want to criticise that, but it would be good if a more advanced section could be added.

 

I went through GA BAK and the reference materials there and didn't find eanything wrong with them until I started reading Aviation Safety Digests, and Stick and Rudder.

 

During training, Instructors tend to say "Never touch that", "Don't do that when you're turning", or "Don't do that, it's bad", and the quality of instruction in GA and RAAus varies from very good with a pre-briefing and after briefing to one guy I had who was nothing but a passenger and wasted a couple of thousands of dollars of my money.

 

In the Safety Digests, the accident was dissected, and the summary might be, "the Pilot In Command", who lacked experience, but had shown a tendency for pressing on and showing off engaged in an operation which could never have been successful, and cosequently....."

 

As someone on this site sale recently, they only made you depressed - you couldn't say "Ah, That's what he did, I nearly did the same recently - I'll now make bloody sure I don't push it that far"

 

In stick and Rudder, Langewiesche gets to the bottom of it.

 

I had reached Unrestricted licence stage, had several long distance flights under my belt, was racing cars at the time, so was very cocky in the Warrior, swooping down on properties, doing what I thought were spectacular steep turns (no one on the ground ever identified I was doing something different, or were impressed by the way), and I would carve back into the Moorabbin circuit like a hot knife through butter.

 

Then I read Stick and Rudder, and the two life changing things I took away from that were that it is easy to spin in turning final, and I must have been a fraction away from it many times, and although I knew Angle of Attack was critical to a stall, the explanation about how G force pushes you out and the principle of relative wind and how it changes angle of attack, and, for example, leads to stalls in fast steep turns, cured my from being a cowboy overnight.

 

Sure there's a need for a better book, but students have to go on what they can obtain, and many of the posts on this forum indicate a failure to communicate on the part of instructors, and a failure to educate by advising their students on suitable further reading.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Someone may be able to assist me here. With Amazon UK, there appears to be no way out of paying the VAT,17%. When I get special tyres from there the export price is quoted and used, and VAT is not paid. You should not pay VAT on articles sold out of Britain. Who is copping all this money? Nev

VAT isn't charged on books in the UK so the export price is the same as the advertised one

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[robinsm]

Ordered on ex UK, No VAT!

 

Cheers

 

 

[Mazda]

Wow, what an eye opening thread. It is amazing to me that such things are not being taught.

 

Turbo, you are spot on about communication. I'm reallly shocked that you had not been taught those things! Stalling is ONLY due to exceeding the critical angle, it has nothing to do with speed. You can stall at cruising speed, or have the ASI reading zero and not be stalled. During a level steep turn the angle of attack is higher than in S & L flight, so you are closer to that critical angle (and one wing has a higher AoA). All of that stuff is covered in BAK books as well as the more technical ones, and it should be covered (at least in the GA syllabus) before people go solo.

 

I agree that if this information is not being taught, maybe people should read Stick and Rudder. As I said I didn't find it particularly helpful, but I'd been taught the contents of the book along the way.

 

As for formulas, there are hardly any used anyway for learning to fly. Instructors may talk about how things are derived, but the main one is the lift formula, which when broken down into what we can actually change really just means that lift is a function of angle of attack and airspeed. Increasing angle of attack = increase in lift. Increase in airspeed = increase in lift. So if we want to maintain the same lift and fly level, if we slow down we must increase the angle of attack. That's what the lift formula means.

 

I haven't yet read all of that link but it looks like it could be interesting. There is good information out there.

 

For Peter - Angle of Attack & lift.

 

The simple way to explain it is to think of putting your hand out of a car window, with your hand flat (horizontal) - i.e. no angle of attack. It cuts through the air. But if you tilt your hand so it has an "angle of attack" it is forced up and back. The greater the angle, the greater the force.

 

It is true that most people are just taught lift is produced by Bernoulli - perhaps because it is the easiest way to explain it - but it doesn't produce enough lift. There are a combination of factors such as Bernoulli, Newton & circulation theory. Coanda has its place but in some ways is a bit of a red herring. The main ones are Bernoulli & Newton.

 

From Bernoulli, when a river narrows it goes from slow to fast flowing water. The "dynamic" pressure increases. Bernoulli's principle states that the pressure is constant (think of the same amount of water being pushed down the river) and when dynamic increases, static pressure must decrease. The narrower the section of river, the faster the water, the higher the dynamic pressure, therefore the lower the static pressure.

 

At low speed air acts like a fluid. The wing causes the air to be deflected and to an extent the freeflowing air above causes a restriction like that in the river. The air flowing over the wing is faster, the pressure is lower. Meanwhile the air flowing below is slowed, resulting in a higher pressure. The pressure differential results in an upward force. The greater the angle of attack, the greater the "restriction in the river", the greater the pressure differential, the greater the force.

 

As well as that, there is Newton's third law of motion that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The airflow leaving the top surface of the wing does not have the same angle as that ahead of the wing, it is deflected down, it has downwash. The air hitting the underside of the wing is also deflected down, it has downwash. The greater the angle, the more the downwash. Think about your hand out of the car window. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. That downwash creates a force upwards and backwards - lift and drag (induced drag, from the production of lift!) So the greater the angle of attack, the greater the lift, and the greater the induced drag.

 

Does that help at all? (I need the feedback!! :))

 

 

[slartibartfast]

Well explained Mazda.

 

I was definitely taught this stuff during RAA training. Not all instructors are created equal. I've noticed the same during GA training. It isn't the syllabus that's lacking, it's the implementation of it during training.

 

While finishing my RAA cert requirements with Peter Wilson, one of the most useful things he did was simply ask me to make the stall warning go off at 60 knots. No clues, just that simple request. I immediately put the J160 into a 60 degree turn and pulled back the stick while easing off the throttle - intending to increase the back pressure and decrease the speed until the stall warning sounded - but it actually went off at 90 knots. He was impressed (I think - it's hard to tell with Peter) and I gave myself an excellent lesson in how stalls can occur at any speed.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Mazda - Slarti's example is getting into the area which I don't think is covered well in the BAK paperwork and practical training.

 

Also,a lot of Craig's examples in "The Killing Zone" indicate the pilot had missed the basics during training and zigged when he should have zagged, and most examples are applicable to Australia.

 

 

[Mazda]

It's really interesting Slarti and Turbo, I wonder why that stuff isn't being taught (and demonstrated)?

 

For those who are currently learning, do you think you being shown these sorts of things - such as Slarti's example of stalling at 90 knots? If it is not being demonstrated to you, do you think such things are being explained? :)

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

Mazda, You are on the right track but your river analogy while useful is not quite correct. I'm a River Engineer and I'm afraid that you got a bit off track.

 

Eugene Reid explained lift during training in a simple and effective manner. Bernoulli is only a small part of the lift story but needs to be discussed so that at the least pilots know what it is. The major proportion of lift comes simply by the wing deflecting enough down that the aeroplane stays/goes up.

 

The best way to get a grip on this is by pure Newton. As for equations, here is a simple one for straight and level flight,that anyone (I hope) can understand.

 

Aeroplane mass (Kg) x acceleration due to gravity, (9.81 m/s2)

 

= Mass of air being deflected downwards (Kg) x vertical acceleration of the air (m/s2)

 

(The wings impart the vertical acceleration.)

 

More speed or more AOA gives more deflection and/or more air mass, simple

 

Slarti's demo is a ripper to demonstrate AOA, better yet, lay it right over, pour the coals on, and pull it into a tight turn....added bonus, some spin recovery practice.

 

BTW air is a fluid.

 

I know I'm a PIA but I love thermodynamics and I think that if the general population (and pilots in particular) had even a little bit better understanding of it, the world would be a better place.

 

 

[djpacro]

That's pretty much it Qwerty.

 

Bernoulli simply provides a relationship between local velocity and local static pressure.

 

See How It Flies is excellent, as is Flybetter.com and the NASA website.

 

 

[Mazda]

Sort of. Bernoulli was the one who actually observed rivers to come up with a concept of a constant pressure. I believe Eucla was the one who did the work with measurement, and named it after Bernoulli who carried out the initial observations on rivers. The principle does work for aerodynamics, but only up to a point. Bernoulli is one of the reasons why aircraft fly, not all, and Newton does not explain it fully either. The lift produced by Bernoulli is not enough. The lift produced by Newton is not enough. Lift is a function of a number of principles, using one explanation doesn't fully cover it, but going into all of them would be beyond the scope of the basic aerodynamics required. This is why most basic briefings just go into Bernoulli and Newton.

 

Air only acts like water (i.e. is non-compressible) at low speeds. Up to CPL level it is assumed that air cannot be compressed and therefore it acts in a similar way to water. However air can be compressed, so the basic explanation given up to CPL level is not entirely correct, but correct enough for practical use at low speed. Air sure doesn't act like a non-compressible fluid (i.e. water) at high speed.

 

This is why there were so many problems encountered by middle 20th century aerodynamicists as aero engine power increased and enabled the wing and other surface designs to approach the speed of sound (including of course the prop). Instead of using the Spitfire etc which is well covered in books and google I'd like to use an example the aerofoil section of the Jet Provost (a modified NACA 23015 section at the root and NACA 4412 at the tip but known to the students as RAF 35) which encountered mild wing buffet at Mach 0.73. When this occurred RAF student pilots were taught that this was caused by compressibility and was known as the "cobblestone effect" - that's what it feels like. Interestingly the Victa Airtourer has a very similar aerofoil section to the Jet Provost (NACA 23012 at the root and NACA 4412 at the tip) but (in my one at least ) doesn't have the engine power to encounter the 'stones! :big_grin:

 

Again, this is way beyond the scope of what is being covered here.

 

 

[djpacro]

That's pretty much it Qwerty.Bernoulli simply provides a relationship between local velocity and local static pressure.

See How It Flies is excellent, as is Flybetter.com and the NASA website.

Seems like I should expand on this (with a bit of help from NASA).

Lift occurs when a moving flow of gas is turned by a solid object. The flow is turned in one direction, and the lift is generated in the opposite direction, according to Newton's Third Law of action and reaction. Because air is a gas and the molecules are free to move about, any solid surface can deflect a flow. For an aircraft wing, both the upper and lower surfaces contribute to the flow turning.

More at this NASA webpage.Whether it is a flat plate at an angle of attack, or camber, or flapping the wings or rotating the wings or carrying a vacuum cleaner in the cockpit and sucking the air from the upper surface of the wing or spinning a cricket ball - any method of developing lift (thinking off the cuff here but I can't think of anything where it is otherwise) does it per Newton.

A common explanation of how a cambered wing develops lift is via the analogy with a venturi (or half venturi). People seem to easily accept that the velocity increases in the venturi. That is not Bernoulli (yet). More here at this NASA webpage.

 

Knowing that there is an increase (or decrease) in velocity, application of Bernoulli will tell you what the change in pressure is.

 

The static pressure integrated along the entire surface of the airfoil gives the total aerodynamic force on the foil. This force can be broken down into the lift and drag of the airfoil.

For a plain wing, doing the sums with per both Newton and Bernoulli will give the same answer. It is only Newton which explains the development of lift. Bernoulli only shows the distribution of pressure over the wing. (In the case of the vacuum cleaner, Bernoulli won't quite work because energy is being added to the airflow)

 

The air molecules have further to travel over the top of the airfoil than along the bottom. In order to meet up at the trailing edge, the molecules going over the top of the wing must travel faster than the molecules moving under the wing

For an explanation of why that statement is wrong and to see an interesting little Java simulator at this NASA webpage.I can remember a lecturer many years ago explaining that there were male and female air particles. The females went below the wing and the males went the long way so to catch up to their girlfriends they had to travel faster. True! There is no other reason why the particles need to be at the trailing edge at the same time.

 

 

[Mazda]

Who says the particles at the trailing edge are there at the same time? :devil:

 

 

[Powerin]

Thanks all for the great discussion! It'd probably be better to start a new thread (sorry Darky), but I'm the king of off-topic so...

 

So far my understanding is that lift is all about Newton (as you are all saying)...in level flight your wings are throwing down (deflecting) a mass of air equal to the weight of your aircraft. The Angle of Attack of your wing is how you adjust how much air is deflected, and your elevators are used to control that AoA. Bernoulli and Coanda et al probably have some bearing on the process but the end result is the same.

 

Before you worry about which girl and boy molecules are chasing each other, I think you have to remember that some aircraft have symmetrical airfoils (equal curve top and bottom). So the whole idea of air above and below the wing travelling at different speeds doesn't really apply, but they still fly.

 

However, Nev (the wise) brings up a good point about too much knowledge. I don't fly but I already have fairly firm ideas on how an aeroplane flies. For instance, in my mind a given AoA (or a given trim) equals a certain airspeed and playing with a flight sim seems to back this up. Add more power and you get more lift and climb while maintaining airspeed, decrease power and you descend and maintain airspeed. From what I read some instructors teach the opposite (power=airspeed, attitude=climb/fall).

 

So, when I (eventually) go looking for an instructor, is it best to find one that thinks like I do, or do I forget what I know and just learn to fly?

 

Peter

 

 

[djpacro]

and ... I bought Stick and Rudder early last year and found it hard going so only managed to get to page 41 where it sat for many months. This thread prompted me to open it up again and I've made it to page 73. I'm sure that if I had bought it 40 or 50 years ago I would've read right through it in one sitting. My new year resolution is to finish it by the end of January so you're welcome to borrow it then DarkSarcasm.

 

I much prefer the writing style and content of Noel Kruse in Aerodynamics and Other Stuff (apart from the chapter on spins).

 

 

[Mazda]

It doesn't matter if it is a symmetrical aerofoil, it will still have an angle of attack and most likely an angle of incidence. The aircraft I've flown with symmetrical aerofoils have a different attitude upright and inverted due to the angle of incidence.

 

Newton isn't enough to produce the amount of lift required which is where Bernoulli and circulation theory come in. Remember, if we only flew by Newton, wings could be flat plates, which they generally are not - they are cambered. Coanda does not produce lift, all that does is assist the air to follow a curved path.

 

Be careful with coming up with theories such as your angle of attack one. Angle of attack does have variables, such as weight and flap. That's why some aircraft have different glide speeds for different weights, it's a guide to the angle of attack for the best lift/drag ratio. Remember attitude does not equal angle of attack.

 

Power + attitude = performance. A combination of power setting and attitude will give you the result you want. Most schools these days teach constant attitude approaches. That's what you'll end up doing in airline aircraft, fast jets, and even single pistons with a bit more performance. That means point the thing where you want it to go, keep that picture, and control speed with power. Some of the books will say use power to control descent and attitude for airspeed. You can do it that way but it does end up sometimes with an up and down type approach, and it isn't comfortable in bigger aircraft due to inertia.

 

I agree not to overcomplicate things, you'll have a different perspective once you are doing it. Just find a good instructor and take guidance from them.

 

 

[Powerin]

Newton isn't enough to produce the amount of lift required which is where Bernoulli and circulation theory come in. Remember, if we only flew by Newton, wings could be flat plates, which they generally are not - they are cambered.

Yes, but a flat plate will fly won't it? It will have horrible stability and stall characteristics...but it would fly. Look at a paper aeroplane.

 

Be careful with coming up with theories such as your angle of attack one. Angle of attack does have variables, such as weight and flap. That's why some aircraft have different glide speeds for different weights, it's a guide to the angle of attack for the best lift/drag ratio. Remember attitude does not equal angle of attack. Power + attitude = performance. A combination of power setting and attitude will give you the result you want. Most schools these days teach constant attitude approaches. That's what you'll end up doing in airline aircraft, fast jets, and even single pistons with a bit more performance. That means point the thing where you want it to go, keep that picture, and control speed with power. Some of the books will say use power to control descent and attitude for airspeed. You can do it that way but it does end up sometimes with an up and down type approach, and it isn't comfortable in bigger aircraft due to inertia.

Yes, I guess I'll learn all about power+attitude when I do it. I don't quite get the attitude concept yet, except that it is a rough guide to angle of attack and that your reference to the horizon is what you have to use to judge everything. But to my mind AoA is everything...it is the measure by which you stall the aircraft. Attitude can be constant but your angle of attack can change by the position of flaps, ailerons, updrafts/downdrafts etc. Obviously I have a lot to learn:blush:Thanks for the informative posts.

 

Peter

 

 

[djpacro]

Newton's Third Law[/url] of action and reaction.

The only way to create lift is by doing that. You may choose a variety of ways to achieve that change in the air flow however Newton is all there is to produce all of the lift.

 

Lift from Flow Turning[/url]I am turning into an engineer so I wouldn't recommend that anyone read the following.

 

... which is where Bernoulli and circulation theory come in.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here Mazda?Bernoulli's theory does not describe a mechanism for generation of lift. i.e. it does not explain any change in velocity however it is useful for calculating the pressure distribution around an aerofoil so used in the advanced Java applet below.

 

Circulation theory? You mean the application of the Kutta condition at the trailing edge? This version of the Foilsim program at

 

FoilSimU Beta Version 1.5a (set it up for Shape/Angle as the Input)

 

enables it to be run with nil circulation therefore no lift is the result.

 

All that tells us is that we need to include circulation theory in the arithmetic otherwise the calculated flow does not represent real life. The real life mechanism is to have an aerofoil with our usual camber and angle of attack to turn the airflow. Panel programs use Bernoulli to calculate and integrate the pressures on the aerofoil. Far easier to do that than calculate the change in momentum of each air particle in the region (although I have seen software which does just that).

 

PS - I must stop this and get back to reading Stick and Rudder - not sure which is harder on the brain at this time of night.

 

[turboplanner]

I view the NASA site as a little bit like self-diagnosis from medical sites, there have been some misinterpretations from viewers, and poor/misleading presentations on the site.

 

I would have been happier seeing actual footage of a wind tunnel model than someone's theory.

 

High pressure below and low pressure above also provides lilft, so it is relevant to teach the theory of a venturi which comes from some of Bernouli's work.

 

If you study aerofoil design in the pre-jet era, you'll find that the heavy lifters such as bombers and freighters had a much bigger upper camber.

 

Pressure changes can produce quite a force. I've seen wool tufts on a truck running at 80 km/hr actually face forward towards a low pressure zone.

 

If you had unlimited power then yes, you could fly with a flat plate, but the pulling force from a prop in a recreational aircraft is amazingly small. Perhaps even a couple of people standing firmly on the ground could overcome it (don't try it though, I could be wrong)

 

So several principles are used and the nett result is stable flight.

 

An aircraft with a normal aerofoil can fly upside down if the low pressure zone is pressurised and the angle of incidence is neutralised by an increase in angle of attack, ie flying tail down.

 

The best aerobatic aircraft do have symmetrical wings, but they also have a huge power to mas ratio compared to a recreational aircraft - enough to keep the aircraft flying without the need for venturi effect.

 

If you want to study this in detail, and understand the complexity of the force/lift equations, I can recommend Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators, but it won't be much use to a recreational pilot.

 

Powein AoA is a very good alarm clock to keep in your pocket.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Some of the books will say use power to control descent and attitude for airspeed. You can do it that way but it does end up sometimes with an up and down type approach, and it isn't comfortable in bigger aircraft due to inertia.

This is the second time you've introduced this, so I'm intrigued as to why.

 

This is a recreational aviation site, and I'd suggest that only a verfy small percentage of the 10,000 RAA members are ever going to graduate to Heavy aircraft.

 

Further, in my experience EVERY flying organization has taught to control speed on the approach by attitude and altitude by power.

 

Have you flown a Jabiru and used this technique successfully over the full spectrum of cross winds and gusts?

 

I'll admit to having a lot of difficulty making good landings with a J170 in gusty conditions, but I used the elevators for speed, power for sink flying a Cherokee, and spot landed every time in an almost constant, smooth descent over a number of years, so it's not a technique I would give up easily, and I suspect changing in mid stream could create a human factors safety issue.

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

I think that you will find in reality, Bernoulli and venturi effect as it relates to the lift of aircraft, can be ignored.

 

As for approaches, the inertia of the aircaft dictates that smooth and effective speed and decent rate control is a learned combination of both inputs.

 

Langewiesche is strictly correct in his explanation of these controls but he does give conditions and limits which seem to be overlooked sometimes. He actually says that there is a ballooning (or other effect) before the described result can be observed.

 

The reality is that (in a longitudinal sense) during final and late final you are juggling a combination elevator and power to achieve a desired combination of arrival speed and arrival point. While you are doing this you will be making simultaneous adjustments to account for the inertia of the aircraft.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I've built model aircraft with flat blade wings when I didn't have the time to rebuild after a crash, and with venturi wings. With flat wings the aircraft was using all its power just to stay flying. Venturi effect gave it the cream.

 

Yes, Qwerty you are juggling all the way down, unless you turned final at the right point and the right altitude on a cam day in which case you can put your feet up and have a snooze in a GA AC, but what I was querying Mazda about was reversing the controls, and I'd love to see her in a high power to weight ratio AC like a Jab decide to pick up speed with a burst of throttle just before touch down, or pull back on the stick to gain altitude without one.