Stick & Rudder

[Mazda]

Exactly Maj Millard, as I've said all along power and attitude = performance. If you need to increase power for speed, you'll need to lower the attitude to point where you want to go.

 

Well David, I can tell you a story there. I know a fast jet pilot who wanted to fly a Chipmunk. Off you go they said, take that one. Here's the book, read that before you go. That's as much tailwheel training as he had. No dual, no instruction, and he didn't have a problem at all. Took plenty of people flying in that Chippie over hundreds of hours. There weren't any people sitting around expecting blood, they knew anyone with his training wouldn't have a problem.

 

What makes people think because something is published it is law? Even Naval Aviators says something a bit odd about adverse yaw. You or I could publish anything, does that make it right? As for Stick and Rudder, it says the same as Trevor Thom to use elevator to control speed. It's not wrong, it works, but so does doing it the other way (and it has better results). Power and attitude = performance.

 

I was taught the Trevor Thom/Stick & Rudder way, that's the way I started, but I've been shown a better way.

 

For the doubters, have you actually TRIED both ways?

 

 

[DarkSarcasm]

To be honest, I'm a little confused by the level of debate going on here. Ignoring glide approaches (where you don't have a throttle to worry about anyway), when on approach you use a combination of throttle and elevator to keep on approach path.

 

Let's say I'm on approach in my Jab and I'm a bit low, a bit below the approach path. Now, being a 'point and power' sort, I would add a bit of power (to maintain my airspeed) and raise the nose using the elevator to climb and rejoin the approach path. If I was the other sort, I'd add power to climb and use elevator to maintain my airspeed. As far as I can tell (in my comparative inexperience to most on here) I'm doing the same thing -adding power and raising the nose. It's all a question of how I think about it.

 

Basically it seems to me we're all doing the same thing, it's just how we think about it.

 

And with the windshear example, personally I think instinct and self-preservation would take over. If it were me suddenly in danger of ending up in a tree, I'd immediately think 'power up and raise nose and let's get OUT of here!'. I'm not thinking 'power for speed, raise nose for height', I'm just instrictively knowing I'm going to need BOTH to do what I need to do. Does it really matter that much which one I associate with which thing (airspeed or height), isn't it more important that I know I need both to get out of there?

 

Out of curiosity for the instructors out there, when teaching approach do you tell your students that the other technique exists or just talk about the one you teach? When I was briefed about approach I was told about the other technique (not actually taught it, but told about it), so I knew it existed but have been taught the 'point and power' technique.

 

Also, don't worry gang, I'm not going to suddenly change my technique because of what people are saying on here, so you don't need to worry about affecting the mind of an 'impressionable student' or anything

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Mazda, What about when you don't have the power side of the equasion..??

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Darky, No problem, sounds like your on top of it, what you say is fine.

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

Regarding sink, I don't like the sudden, hefty sink thing, its only happend a few times to any serious degree and each time I found myself instantly firewalling the throttle and pushing the stick to gain speed and authority, once I had the thing flying properly with plenty of energy, I then flew out of there.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Your response was correct Querty, you wanted climb and you applied power, then made the secondary adjustments.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

qwerty. I said to get it gliding, put out full flap, and point it below the horizen, as in an approach attitude..oh, there's that word again,... it will not accelerate..

 

 

[turboplanner]

Regarding sink, I don't like the sudden, hefty sink thing, its only happend a few times to any serious degree and each time I found myself instantly firewalling the throttle and pushing the stick to gain speed and authority, once I had the thing flying properly with plenty of energy, I then flew out of there.

Qwerty, at least you've experienced what I'm talking about, and fortunately had it ingrained in your system to make the right reaction.

 

Major you also have a clear understanding

 

Mazda - you won't answer questions, and it is ridiculous and misleading to equate training on Recreational Aircraft, which I note you don't seem to have anything to do with, to RAF or RAAF training where the student in very short time will be progressing to aircraft where the principles of flight move to unique wing sections, compressibility and combat activity, or to aircraft like the 767. You can certainly suggest that a book (Stick and Rudder) isn't correct just because someone wrote it, but you need to do a bit more than make some unsubstantiated assertions.

 

Motzart, the Jab and Cessna 172 are two aircraft which seem to have flaps like barn doors. I use full flap, but I've noticed a lot of people shy away from that because of what you're saying. The example you give, to me, seems to suggest just a slight nose down attitude.

 

However aerodynamic principles haven't changed.

 

When you lower full flap on a Jab, the wing chord changes very substantially so to correct the speed decay you need to get the AoA of the new chord to the relative wind reduced, by more stick forward (the word attitude might be creating a red herring here).

 

When you do this, you will regain approach speed.

 

If your engine failed just as you applied full flap, you've have to do this anyway - if you just sat there with a nice gently attitude you'd soon drop like a rock, so if you're trained this way, your relexes, like Qwerty's will kick in within 50/100 second rather than a couple of seconds.

 

When you've done this you regain glideslope by applying power, and even with the nose pointed down at this steep angle, you will increase altitude through Resultant Forces.

 

 

[djpacro]

The point and shoot method is certainly counterintuitive for existing pilots. Seems to be a good technique for instructors to use to teach new students (note my disclaimer that I don't teach in RAA a/c). Once the approach has been set up (recall step #1 is to reduce power use the elevator to hold the nose up until the speed decays to ... I wonder which method that is by the way, doesn't matter - read on) at the appropriate airspeed and what is judged to be the appropriate glidepath - trim. From then on the trim is doing a lot of the work of using elevator to control airspeed. The student is then told to focus on the aiming point. Fly the aeroplane to where they want to go by aiming it there using the stick. Perhaps its like a computer game and the kids pick it up quickly, I don't know. The student is also told to monitor the airspeed and correct for any deviations using the throttle, keeping power changes small. In a controlled learning environment where the student is flying circuits and builds up to flying it all him/herself it works.

 

I believe it is a teaching technique which is useful to help the student develop the appropriate judgement.

 

From The FAA Airplane Flying HandbookThe objective of a good final approach is to descend at an angle and airspeed that will permit the airplane to reach the desired touchdown point at an airspeed which will result in minimum floating just before touchdown; in essence, a semi-stalled condition. To accomplish this, it is essential that both the descent angle and the airspeed be accurately controlled. Since on a normal approach the power setting is not fixed as in a power-off approach, the power and pitch attitude should be adjusted simultaneously as necessary, to control the airspeed, and the descent angle, or to attain the desired altitudes along the approach path. By lowering the nose and reducing power to keep approach airspeed constant, a descent at a higher rate can be made to correct for being too high in the approach. This is one reason for performing approaches with partial power; if the approach is too high, merely lower the nose and reduce the power. When the approach is too low, add power and raise the nose.

Sorry to get back to this subject but I was reading Stick & Rudder again last night. It had been so long since I started it that I flicked through the early pages which google has online.

 

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.............

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.

turbo, those high pressures provide all the lift, I agree, and it is Bernoulli who explains those pressures.From page 7 of Stick and Rudder:

 

"The angle at which the wing meets the air; what does it mean? To understand this, you have to go back to a simple idea of how a wing really manages to fly, how lift is developed. When you studied theory of flight in ground school, you were probably taught a good deal of fancy stuff concerning an airplane's wing and just how it creates lift. As a practical pilot you may forget much of it. Perhaps you remember Bernoulli's Theorem .... Forget it. ... doesn't help you the least bit in flying. While it is no doubt true, it usually merely serves to obscure to the pilot certain simpler, much more important, much more helpful facts.

 

Perhaps you also remember that rather highbrow concept of cicrulation ..... Forget that, too. It, too, is no doubt true, though of course an abstraction and it is no doubt useful knowledge for engineers. For a pilot it, too, is useless knowledge; it, too, can be actually harmfull if it is allowed to obscure the more simpler, more fundamental facts of flight.

 

The main fact of all heavier-than-air flight is this: the wing keeps the airplane up by pushing the air down."

 

It shoves the air down with its bottom surface, and it pulls the air down with its top surface; the latter action is the more important. But the really important thing to understand is that the wing, in whatever fashion, makes the air go down.

 

....

 

All the fancy physics of Bernoulli's Therorem, all the highbrow math of circulation theory, all the diagrams showinging the airflow on a wing - all that is only an elaboration and more detailed description of just how Newton's law fulfills itself. ...

 

trying to understand the piloting of airplanes by concentrating on Bernoulli and Prandtl is like trying to catch on to tennis by studying just exactly how the rubber molecules behave in a tennis ball when the ball hits the court and just exactly how the catgut behaves in the racket when the ball strikes: instead of simply observing that it bounces!"

 

How much does a student need to know?

 

But don't stop learning once you have your licence.

 

list of aircraft with their aerofoil sections [/url]as a start.

[turboplanner]

list of aircraft with their aerofoil sections [/url]as a start.

No. I'm just out of date with the latest aerobatic wings, but you gave a good example.

 

 

[facthunter]

Elevator effect.

 

You will not get a speed increase/decrease from the effect of elevator till you descend, or climb You are THEN losing or gaining kinetic energy in a direct exchange with energy of position (Potential energy). You can convert one to the other You can increase airspeed by losing height more rapidly. If you don't want to lose height any faster you have to use the engine. You may already have a rate of descent (near the ground) that is high enough already. The response from power application is more RAPID and you don't have to put the aircraft through significant pitch changes. In gusty conditions the airspeed could not be controlled to close limits by attitude and rate -of-descent changes alone.

 

A desired approach keeps the airspeed controlled and a constant descent angle to the point where you want to touch down. ( Allowing a bit for the flare depending on your aircraft's habits)' The "aspect" that the field presents gives you the indication of whether you are low or high on the approach ( in the absence of a VASIS etc.) This takes a lot of developed judgement especially with approaches over water and sloping or odd shaped landing areas. I mention this because the idea of "pointing the aircraft" doesn't quite get it right.

 

If the field is on the short side, you may employ the precautionary landing technique so as to not touch down too far into the field. Has anyone ever done one of these without using power to control the lower than normal speeds with the reduced margin above the stall? I haven't and would not recommend it. The other advantage of using throttle control and being familiar with it is that you will react more quickly to an airspeed decay. You don't have to go to the "get out of here", mode so quickly, although if you are not happy, Do it!

 

 

[turboplanner]

And with the windshear example, personally I think instinct and self-preservation would take over. If it were me suddenly in danger of ending up in a tree, I'd immediately think 'power up and raise nose and let's get OUT of here!'. I'm not thinking 'power for speed, raise nose for height', I'm just instrictively knowing I'm going to need BOTH to do what I need to do. Does it really matter that much which one I associate with which thing (airspeed or height), isn't it more important that I know I need both to get out of there?

I missed this one Darky - I guess this would be a prime example of what might happen in the method you are using.

 

In my case I went for full power and NOSE DOWN.

 

The Nett forces take you forward and (if the wind shear isn't just too great), away from the ground - a bit like a helicopter for a minute.

 

Don't forget, the air's dead, you are not flying, you are dropping VERTICALLY - pretty much as you would be at the start of a take off, but if the shear hits you at 70 feet, if you react fast (a fractrion of a second - not 3 seconds) you've probably still got 50 feet to use for acceleration.

 

In Stick and Rudder, Langewiesche covers this type of recovery and the consquences of trying to pull your way out with elevator.

 

 

[Mazda]

Good on you Darky, you are spot on. Of course it is the same thing - power and attitude = performance. However keeping a constant attitude is a lot simpler and gives a good, stable approach. You can do it either way but I hate controlling speed with elevator now, it's such a clumsy way to do it.

 

Yes, I do think it is important to discuss both methods, especially as text books may show something different to the method being taught.

 

Maj Millard it's pretty obvious. Power and attitude = performance. If you don't have power, you only have attitude to control performance. You might remember back to your descending brief and the explanation of the forces once the thrust force has been removed.

 

David I don't have that much time in Austers, maybe 15 hours or so, but I can't see why you say they are so difficult. The fast jet gentleman in question did fly an Auster too (J4), without putting a scratch on it (or himself), flew a Storch with Nestor, and was invited to fly a Sea Fury in an air display (which he did, without a scratch), and he flew all of them with a stable attitude approach using power for speed. He believes the trickiest taildragger he flew was the piston Provost.

 

Turbo, spot on. Aerodynamics are aerodynamics. It doesn't matter if the aircraft is a fast jet, a GA lightie, or an RA-Aus aircraft. After all, if a Jabiru pilot has a GA licence does that mean they don't know how to fly an RA-Aus registered Jab? You are absolutely right that my background is in GA and I'm sure not ashamed of that. Have I flown RA-Aus aircraft? You bet I have, at the very light end of the scale. But that isn't important!

 

Sorry if I missed any of your questions, this thread has become a bit of an epic and I don't sit here all day reading it, I've been out flying (using power for speed on approach!) Please let me know if there's something I've missed.

 

I do hope this site remains a place for people to discuss issues and ask for advice without fear, not one involving personal attacks on others. There are other aviation sites for that. My opinion of people isn't based on whether they are a student pilot, RA-Aus pilot, GA pilot, airline pilot or military pilot - they all have knowledge which we can learn from. I just worry when people have not been taught the basics, such as the relative airflow/load factor/stall/spin stuff Turbo was not taught initially. We are all here to fly because we love it, we are all here to support each other - aren't we?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Mazda, I think your patient died with the nose in the air.

 

 

[Tomo]

Wow! What an interesting bunch of topics....!:thumb_up: (took a while to read through it all though!!)

 

But, I agree very worth while things to discuss.

 

From what I can gather from this attitude/power/stick/nose, approach thingo.... you are all saying the similar thing, but in a few vastly different ways!

 

Power does control descent/ascent, just as much as the elevator does, and power does control speed, just as much as the elevator does....

 

Without power (thrust), you ain't going nowhere - forwards or up while you're on the ground are you? Add power (thrust)... yeehaa we have speed! but someone pinched the elevator!! Oh man! ( No doubt you will eventually fly same way or another but with no control what so ever...;) )

 

Ok, so we survived the crash, and have fixed it up, making sure we have elevator this time! Add power (thrust) to increase speed (Oh dear we have speed with power only!) So we ain't going nowhere in particular (except toward the trees!) until we pull on the stick increasing AoA - Thrust + AoA/surface area (an all the other bits an pieces!) = Lift

 

This pilot having watched to many jets take off pulled back on the stick so much the nose (attitude:ah_oh:) is pointing way up... suddenly realizes his airspeed is decreasing dramatically.... (but we have full power!!?? (thrust) ) On a sudden impulse he pushes the stick forward and the nose (attitude) lowers to a more respectable position and we suddenly see the ASI winding up!:thumb_up:

 

Now having gotten over his first fright of the day, he starts experimenting.... Level flight he pulled the throttle off... nothing much happens.... ... ... ... then it suddenly starts to sink, Oh no! Quick, quick he thought push on the power (speed?)... only to find the engine had stopped completely :ah_oh:. The speed was getting awful slow.... ... ... ... Stick forward! that's it! Yay! we have speed.... but we are still descending??? (elevator controls speed AND descent?!)

 

He finally gets the engine going and pushes the power on full! Man!! that speed is going like crazy, and we're still descending?? (with full power?!) Quick pull back on the stick! Yay, we have lift... and look at that! our speed is decreasing to a normal rate!

 

So saying it like that, we need to use both together, not one or the other... just like aileron, rudder, elevator...... they all do their respective things, but are a ton more effective when working together.

 

Some aircraft are a lot more susceptible to it one way or another... the Drifter for example drops (almost) like a rock without engine (thrust), whereas the Jab has quite a lot of speed up its sleeve, and so when the engine stops, or go's to idle, you have quite a long time to figure out what to do... (In the Drifter on climb out with two up, you have about 1, maybe 2 seconds to lower the nose before you stall cold.)

 

So on finals, I have my aiming point, a rough guide to make a nice smooth approach (rather than going down a staircase). I see I'm undershooting it and the threshold, so I put a dribble of power on, but also pulling back a little to stop from speeding up... and also to change THE aircrafts aiming point to MY aiming point. Same if I was overshooting, I decrease power (if there is any to do that, otherwise sideslip), but not only do I decrease power but also lower the nose to maintain my approach speed, thus changing THE aiming point to MY aiming point.

 

So you can see we use both simultaneously, whether we are pointing the nose at the aiming point and using power/less power to get there, or just randomly flying an approach without undershooting!

 

So why does the aircraft pitch up (climb) when power is added? Go's back to the Thrust + AoA (and the other bits) = Lift. Adding thrust (speed) is going to (obviously) create lift, and because the aircraft was in a slower faze of flight before the power was added it had a larger AoA or higher nose attitude to start with to maintain altitude and airspeed, so with even more power (thrust) (speed) it will want to climb, making us push the stick forward 'decreasing' the AoA to maintain level flight.

 

Same with decreasing the throttle, it slows the aircraft (lessens thrust) so the AoA or attitude has to be raised to keep a level attitude, but the airspeed will decrease... So you can see where that is leading. So Power (thrust) DOES change altitude, Elevator DOES change speed. And Power (thrust) DOES change speed, Just like Elevator DOES change Altitude. But to render it effective you need to use both together, do you not?

 

Basically if you go with one way or the other you are agreeing with each other anyway, because one can't be used without the other. If you know what I mean! :big_grin:

 

Just my 2.35cents worth :big_grin:

 

 

[turboplanner]

Tomo, Mazda was criticising the book and started this debate at post #22 with:

 

"Point the thing where you want to land and keep it there, adjust speed with power"

 

 

[Tomo]

You can do it either way but I hate controlling speed with elevator now, it's such a clumsy way to do it.

How do you do it then? You are undershooting, and add power.... I did that for an experiment and just went faster, but still heading toward the same aiming point. It wasn't until I used a little elevator that the speed and original aiming point came back into perspective.

 

Don't try and think I'm being a smarty! I'm just very interested now in how you do it with power only?

 

We are all here to fly because we love it, we are all here to support each other - aren't we?

That's what's happening isn't it? I thought so anyway.:thumb_up::thumb_up:

 

 

[Mazda]

Turbo, be very careful about personal attacks on forums.

 

Tomo, you and Darky are absolutely right, of course it is all linked so I still can't understand what all the fuss is about. As I've said about a zillion times on this thread, power and attitude = performance. All you need to do with a constant attitude approach is to keep pointing where you want to go. If you do that and you are too high, the speed will increase so you reduce power to maintain speed (use flap/sideslip as required). If you are too low, just keep pointing where you want to go and if the speed reduces, increase power to maintain speed. (Delay flap)

 

It's absolutely pointless to go on. There's no point wasting time in offering any advice gained from experience or training to those who know it all anyway!

 

 

[Tomo]

Marvelous! Thanks Mazda...

 

Keep the nose pointed at the aiming point using 'elevator'... maintaining speed with engine.

 

 

[ossie]

Yep pretty much agree and becoming like other forums, and reminds me of those overbearing party dudes...................ahhhh why bother just wasting my time.

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

I gave up with this thread yesterday, I don't understand what is going on really, I don't understand some of the terms have been used to describe situations and actions. It all seems a bit pointless to me, I did ask for an explanation and I gave a detailed account of how I fly but it seems all I managed to do was upset Motzart and I still have no idea about what people are saying. I'd really like to understand what the issue is, I might learn something. I seem to fly OK, I got through countless (not quite) tests and BFRs OK and most of the time I can use the aircraft again after a landing.

 

I'd like to catch up with some of you guys and ladies at Temora and discuss this in person, I tend to be able to communicate less inefficiently faces to face.

 

 

[DarkSarcasm]

I don't really see why there's so much debate, when it all comes down to it we're all doing the same thing. We're all using a combination of power and elevator to control our approach path and descent to come to a safe landing where we can reuse the aeroplane. We may have different thought processes when we're doing it, but essentially we're doing the same thing.

 

For instance, clearly Qwerty and I think different things during the approach path but we're both clearly doing the right thing with the power/elevator to come to a safe and effective landing (more often for Qwerty than me at the moment, but I'm working on it! ) So, despite the fact we have different techniques/thought processes, we're both doing the same thing - a combination of elevator and power.

 

We're all flying planes safely and properly, does it matter what technique we use to do so? :big_grin:

 

 

[djpacro]

Sure Qwerty, if I get the Pitts there, come for a run and have a go from the front seat.

 

I find that most discussions about flying techniques are best done looking at the same view thru the windscreen. Either that or over a nice bottle of red in front of a computer running Matlab of a frequency domain response.

 

As for the comments about overbearing party dudes and personal attacks - seems that some us (me) get carried away and the text is more blunt than intended.

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

.........come to a safe and effective landing (more often for Qwerty than me at the moment, ...........

Don't be so sure, I've had a few instances where I couldn't use the aeroplane again. Still a good landing, I could walk away, but not that good that the aeroplane was reuseable. So I'm thinking that my % strike rate is probably below yours.

 

Oh dear, I just calculated my "failure rate" its 0.1% (1 in 1000, well 2 in 2000 actually)

 

 

[DarkSarcasm]

Don't be so sure, I've had a few instances where I couldn't use the aeroplane again. Still a good landing, I could walk away, but not that good that the aeroplane was reuseable. So I'm thinking that my % strike rate is probably below yours.Oh dear, I just calculated my "failure rate" its 0.1% (1 in 1000, well 2 in 2000 actually)

Pfft, don't worry, I think my strike rate would be a fair bit worse than yours if I hadn't had my instructor sitting there ready to save us (he's not doing that much at all now though :big_grin:)