Stick & Rudder

[DarkSarcasm]

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

Whilst I have to admit I've slightly lost the plot of this thread (so this response may be entirely irrelevant), I am just going to point out that I fly a Jab and have been taught power for airspeed, elevator for altitude on approach and it works for me...

 

 

[Mazda]

Turbo if you read my post you would have seen that both ways can work, and most schools these days teach power for speed - as confirmed by Darky who is learning right now.

 

Turbo I'm not going to enter a contest as to which high power to weight ratio aircraft I have flown but I can assure you that the technique works. Point the thing where you want it to go and control speed with power. Anything will fly with enough thrust, even a Reliant Robin.

 

Djpacro an interesting post which I'm thinking about. I'm familiar with the NASA website and a number of various publications but am trying to think of Newton being the only source of lift. I'm on good terms with a member of the RAeS who does not share the view that the principles of Newton's third law are the sole source of lift. He does say this is a time honoured argument which aerodynamicists have been debating for decades and the Society recognises Bernoulli's contribution.

 

Anyway, could it be that they just fly because they want to? Perhaps we should consider the Richard Bach theory about aircraft sometimes performing beyond the numbers as though they have a soul!

 

 

[Spin]

Whilst I have to admit I've slightly lost the plot of this thread (so this response may be entirely irrelevant), I am just going to point out that I fly a Jab and have been taught power for airspeed, elevator for altitude on approach and it works for me...

Geez Darky you're going to fit right in with your chosen profession, if you'd really wanted to put the boot in, you could perhaps have prefaced your comment with; "With the greatest of respect, my learned colleague....."

 

 

[DarkSarcasm]

Geez Darky you're going to fit right in with your chosen profession, if you'd really wanted to put the boot in, you could perhaps have prefaced your comment with; "With the greatest of respect, my learned colleague....."

I don't even know I'm doing it now, it just comes naturally...

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

I think you are all being a bit harsh with old Wolfgang. Remember the book is somewhat dated now, having been superseded by later, and more up to date books on the subject. 'Stick and rudder' however, will always have stuff in it, that will always be applicable. The air doesn't change much with time.

 

It was also a german to English translation, and does make you stop and study at times, to actually see what it was he was trying to say.

 

I have an original copy laying around somewhere that I read in the 80s, at the beginning of my flying career. The one thing I remember getting from the book is ..."the throttle is the up and down control, and the stick is the airspeed control". This made a lot of sense to me at the time as the aircraft back then had little power, and lots of drag. It certainly filled in a few boxes for me at the time, and may well have saved my life a few times.

 

If you can read a book and take one thing with you, which leads to a safe and long flying experience, then the book has indeed been a good read..............

 

As far as filling in boxes, I was very lucky whilst living in California in the 80s and 90s, to witness many times at local airshows, the flying of the master R.A. 'Bob' Hoover.

 

To study his legendary 'Energy management routine' many times and to view his effortless and highly experienced flying did indeed fill in many boxes also...............................Maj

 

 

[dazza 38]

Hi major, happy new year, i was also lucky to see bob hoover, fly his display at archerfield, years ago, in the shrike commander(i think). I was amazed, how he flew his routine, with the engines off. Cheers

 

 

[turboplanner]

Whilst I have to admit I've slightly lost the plot of this thread (so this response may be entirely irrelevant), I am just going to point out that I fly a Jab and have been taught power for airspeed, elevator for altitude on approach and it works for me...

That's also hypocritical Darky, you were the one posting that you were having trouble landing.

 

I'll stick with what I was taught

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Thanks Dazza, same your way, The partner and I were lucky enough to witness that routine many times over twelve years in California. Even at the Reno air races each year, he did it once a day. It got to the point where we would head for the head, or grab a fresh beer when old Bob came on.

 

Always educational however, and what a pilot and showman.

 

Only saw him mess it up once, at Oshkosh 87. It was blowing a gale and when he shut both engines down, he got pushed off show center, and out toward the lake. I said to the missus he is going to need some power here, and he did. Fired up both for about 10 seconds, very quietly, just to put himself right again. I doubt if many there were even aware he did it. He still did his trademark one main at a time landing, in a crosswing that had grounded many lesser men.

 

Once at a small airshow (Hamilton Field CA) where I was lending a hand, I had the pleasure of helping him push his P-51 'Old Yella' out of the hangar one morning. The pilots had hit the turps the night before, and he wasn't saying much, but I still enjoyed every second !!........................................maj

 

 

[DarkSarcasm]

That's also hypocritical Darky, you were the one posting that you were having trouble landing.I'll stick with what I was taught

My landings are working at the moment! (let's see how they go after this Christmas break )

 

Ok, how about this, the method I'm being taught works for my instructor (is that better Turbo? :))

 

 

[turboplanner]

Yes, Darky - although the answers to your thread starter came early, the thread drift has certainly produced some revelations!

 

 

[djpacro]

Different things "click" with different people. The NASA stuff works with me, perhaps because the authors are engineers too.

 

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?

Yes, that's effectively the first thing I say to a prospective student. I take some people around to different schools to meet various instructors (not just the one who happens to be sitting behind the desk when we walk in) before taking the next step.Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators is, I believe, still the "bible" for CASA. How much does a pilot need to know?

 

1. The CASA Day VFR Syllabus - doesn't mention Newton and Bernoulli doesn't feature at all at PPL level.

 

2. Enough. Will be different for different students.

 

Newton is not a lot of use to engineers so never mentioned in stuff like Applied Aerodynamics, A Digital Textbook

 

My favourite old text for pilot theory is Mechanics of Flight by Kermode.

 

"All attempts to fly in heavier-than-air machines must embody some means of forcing the air downwards so as to provide the equal and opposite reaction which is to lift the weight of the machine." (No mention of Newton at all by the way) It then goes on to tackle the stuff which happens to be required by CASA's syllabus.

 

Stick & Rudder doesn't work for me but I strongly recommend it. It'll be a while before I get to the chapter on landing approach but I had a sneak look. I see that Langewiesche agrees with me: "What has just been described makes ratehr hard reading. It is the sort of thing which the average man does not wnat to visualize through his own mental effort, but would rather be "shown" by an instructor."

 

The technique used by most schools these days is to apply, on approach, power for speed and elevator to point the aeroplane to where you want to go. Works for most aeroplanes most of the time. Especially for airliners where the short term response to elevator is definitely altitude and short term response to throttle is definitely speed.

 

Near the other end of this scale is something like a Decathlon - no flaps, approach at best glide speed. Elevator for speed and throttle for height as us old guys were taught works better there in my opinion. Page c73 See what happens if you find yourself slow and high during the latter stages of the approach as Turbo noted. Of course the trick is not to let it get that bad in the first place - just use the technique to continuously adjust perspective and airspeed.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Page c73[/url]

My point is the Decathlon would be closer to Recreational Aircraft flight characteristics than a Heavy Aircraft is.

 

No Instructor I've had has ever suggesting using power for speed and elevator for height, and they weren't old, and one of them is the best in the business, so I don't agree with terms like "most" or "used to", and while the "throttle for speed" method may be easier because there's no need to unlearn the association between speed and throttle in a car, I see some big negatives.

 

I've previously mentioned dutifully studying theory on wind shear, and idly thinking I probably should get around to landing longer, to give myself a better margin of safety but never experienced wind shear for about 20 years.

 

Then I copped two in a period of less than six months, where the aircraft was on late final and just dropped like a rock, requiring IMMEDIATE corrective action (throttle to the wall to gain altitude) to avoid picking mangroves out of my teeth for weeks.

 

Mazda, DJP or any other proponent of this "throttle is speed" method - what would you do in a case like this - you're on short final at maybe 70 feet, you can see the end of the strip just over the mangroves and fence, and you instantly drop what seems like 30 feet?

 

 

[Spin]

[quote turboplanner

 

Mazda, DJP or any other proponent of this "throttle is speed" method - what would you do in a case like this - you're on short final at maybe 70 feet, you can see the end of the strip just over the mangroves and fence, and you instantly drop what seems like 30 feet?

 

Like most pilots I suspect, I'd have the throttle against the dash and stick as far back as was consistent with maintaining flying speed. To be honest, it has always seemed a bit silly to insist on one OR the other method of controlling speed and altitude, when in actual fact, other than in a glide approach you will use a combination of inputs to maintain your desired approach path. The secondary effects of the relevant controls make this inevitable.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I agree with you David.

 

Spin, I think you are on to it - maybe these people are just using different working.

 

However, I'd be interested in the specific question I asked just to see how they would handle it with their method. I'm always ready to learn.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Yep, throttle for speed and stick for height and aiming point. Its the easiest way to teach, and the safest. The nose is "always" pointing down at the threshold.

 

With an attitude approach things can get a little difficult to detect early enough for a "student" to apply the correct timely changes. There is nothing wrong with an attitude approach, and it certainly is covered later in the syllabus ie short field apporaches etc, but for students trying to learn to land an aeroplane, aiming point solid in the windscreen is the go.

 

Turb's, the answer would be similar for both method's encountering windshear at low level, power up, nose up, flaps up, go and have a another crack at it.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Just an interesting bit of info. Im just watching a RAAF training vid for the pc9. And they are teaching throttle for speed, stick for aim point. A cool vid it is too, don't tell anyone i have it though..lol

 

 

[turboplanner]

Yep, throttle for speed and stick for height and aiming point. Its the easiest way to teach, and the safest. The nose is "always" pointing down at the threshold. With an attitude approach things can get a little difficult to detect early enough for a "student" to apply the correct timely changes. There is nothing wrong with an attitude approach, and it certainly is covered later in the syllabus ie short field apporaches etc, but for students trying to learn to land an aeroplane, aiming point solid in the windscreen is the go.

Turb's, the answer would be similar for both method's encountering windshear at low level, power up, nose up, flaps up, go and have a another crack at it.

Where did this point and shoot thing come from?

 

You can't eat both sides of the biscuit Motzart, if you teach throttle for speed, elevators for altitude, then if you are dropping like a rock the student will immediately go for elevators - we're talking about only a split second to get it right or hit the mangroves here.

 

If you then teach the reverse later, you have a Human Factors tangle which will inevitably occur, and the wind shear doesn't know when the student has received the second lot of training.

 

Another interesting thing here - we've had a well above average amount of discussions on this site about aircraft losing directional stability on landing, and the raa magazine accident reports indicate it is common - I wonder how many of these people are just contining to do what they're told and point at the landing spot?

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Ok tubs.. How would you handle it?? More is the point, how would you teach it??

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

There has been a lot of talk about aiming point and aiming the aircraft. Please tell me how to aim an aircraft. For a start mine doesn't even have any sights.

 

Now before anyone starts to talk about flight path or perspective or moving inthe windscreen please remember that it is aiming points and aiming the aircraft that has been promoted. I want to know exactly how I am supposed to aim an aircraft.

 

BTW I can not understand what approach technique is being described, the description simply does not make any sense to me.

 

 

[djpacro]

Thanks motzartmerv. I don't teach in RAA a/c and I don't do much ab initio training these days but that is what I use these days - seems to get Cessna pilots there OK. Some stuff on the Jacobson technique here for those who want to get really technical. If I'm a proponent of anything it is the FAA way of doing things in general and as for landing approaches - see Chapter 8 of the Airplane Flying Handbook - probably what people end up doing themselves eventually.

 

Some pilots new to the Decathlon have trouble controlling the airspeed but a suggestion to use elevator gently soon sorts them out. One thing I have learnt is that Warrior pilots should stay away from Decathlons. Jabiru pilots do fine.

 

Two new year resolutions - I must get back to Langweische's book plus do some RAA instructing.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

You point the nose at the threshold.?? Whats so hard about that? surely you have a general idea where the nose of the aircraft is pointing??

 

Turbs. Your human factors comment has me confused.. What did you mean exactly??

 

 

[DarkSarcasm]

You can't eat both sides of the biscuit Motzart, if you teach throttle for speed, elevators for altitude, then if you are dropping like a rock the student will immediately go for elevators - we're talking about only a split second to get it right or hit the mangroves here.

I don't know about other people, but I wouldn't go straight for the elevator (and, as I said, I've been taught throttle=airspeed, elevator=altitude). I'd apply a fair chunk of power (no point moving the elevator if there's no power to actually do anything) and pull the stick back - basically, I'd power up and go around and have another stab at it.

 

If I was dropping like a rock I'd immediately go for the throttle. I'm sure some here will say 'ah ha! see, you're clearly doing throttle for altitude, you just THINK you're doing it for airspeed!' but that's not quite right either. Obviously, if you're dropping like a rock, you're going to need power to either get out of there or correct it so, to me at least, it would be fairly instinctive to add power to get a bit of power/speed up and then/at the same time pull the stick back to gain height.

 

Would anyone really go 'oh dear I can't touch the throttle because I've been taught elevator for altitude so that's what I have to do'? It seems people are saying that you have to do elevator OR throttle when really on approach you're constantly doing a combination of both.

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

Motzart

 

If you point the nose of the aircraft in your avatar or my jab at the ground you are going to arrive there too quickly to effect any sort of a landing. If you point the jab down hill it accelerates.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Yes it sure does. And the flight manual states to land with full flap. Problem solved.The attitude for speed with full flap on a 160 could get a low timer in some serious trouble very quickly. Once behind the drag curve its difficult to get it out.

 

The Rv is different, and when flying that aircraft i use attitude approach. But I don't teach in Rv's, and few people learn in them. I was responding to discussion on whats being taught. It is the stock standard ab initio approach method being taught these days.

 

 

[ossie]

Mazda, DJP or any other proponent of this "throttle is speed" method - what would you do in a case like this - you're on short final at maybe 70 feet, you can see the end of the strip just over the mangroves and fence, and you instantly drop what seems like 30 feet?

So how do you fly/or taught to fly straight and level ?

 

My guess would be the horizon at a certain spot up the windscreen with cruise power set, yes ! - "attitude flying" -. No need to look at your ASI, that'll be on the cruise speed numbers.

 

On approach is no different.

 

In the case you point out above and you were my student, I'd be out with you for more circuit training, your circuits are to big, you've not managed your speed all that well and you've been to slow to recognise any sink.

 

Most good schools teach what MAZDA, DJP and MERV have indicated.