CFI Binder Help
- Thread starter Miked3016
- Start date
TwoTwoLeft
o- - - - - - -l
Your CFI DOCs (student checklists, cheat sheets, endorsement ref's etc.) Abbreviated Course Outline, Syllabus, Technical Subject Areas, Lesson Outlines, Maneuvers.
I attached the table of contents of my personal curriculum. I break it down more than most syllabi, typically you'll see three core sections: Training toward solo (61.87), cross country training (.93), and checkride prep (.105/.107/.109). I split the first into three sections, added an EMT section (optional), split cross country into two and finishe with checkride prep.
If you send me a message I can link you to a website with all the information. There's no charge, but comments/suggestions are loved and appreciated.
Caelum Deus
Sky God
The easiest order is the way you would teach each lesson. Just copy the lesson order from a gleim or jeppesen syllabus. That's worked for me.
Here's a link to the king school syllabus
http://www.kingschools.com/cfi/documents/king-schools-private-pilot-syllabus.pdf
Here's a link to the king school syllabus
http://www.kingschools.com/cfi/documents/king-schools-private-pilot-syllabus.pdf
drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
Look at your own log book, the first few pages. Should give you a good idea of what the lessons will typically be. Salt and season to taste.
🦈💜
Well-Known Member
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
🦈💜
Well-Known Member
Heh heh heh ... I bet :\'What to do if you get confused?'
"Whatever you do...DO NOT STOP at O'Hare!"
Whatusername
Well THIS is awkward!
That kind of helped a lot. Thanks!
Minor venting: I haven't flown in two months no thanks to a life situation. But I have made it a habit of studying where needed. My issue is that no matter how much I *THINK* I know it seems like I'm missing bits and pieces. Then there is aerodynamics. An area that I just suck at. Hopefully I can find an easy way to do this (meaning learn aerodynamics). And trust me I tried everything even reading it after drinking some Spaten Optimator.
🦈💜
Well-Known Member
If you don't mind... what problems are you having with aerodynamics? Hint: It's -all- about AoA, always. Beyond that, maybe we can help.
-Fox
Whatusername
Well THIS is awkward!
Hmm well I understand Burniloi's principle, the four forces (well eight if you include that parody chart Autothrust Blue posted). It's just understanding the technical details that gets me. I tried reading Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators but I found it way too dry.
🦈💜
Well-Known Member
What about the PHAK? That's what you want to be reading.
Read the PHAK! Since I'm not doing anything at the moment, though, I might as well type this out.
My recommendation is to forget "what causes lift". Really.. just forget it. You can work on it later if you want, but in the end the absolute mechanics of lift is not a subject fundamental to controlling and understanding its production, and while we've managed to model it reasonably well, we haven't really reduced it to a "easy answer". There are many models for describing the generation of lift, from the "easy and simple" to the mathematically complex.
The key points of Aerodynamics According To Fox:
- Lift is created by altering the direction of airflow, resulting in a force.
- You can increase absolute lift by increasing the speed of the airflow, providing alteration is taking place.
- You can also increase lift by increasing the amount of directional alteration—AoA (angle of attack).
- Increasing the AoA also always increases drag.
- In a 2000lb airplane, you need to produce 2000lbs of lift (Plus a little for the tail-down force) to stay level.
Lift required:
At cruise speed, and 1° AoA, perhaps you're generating 2000lbs of lift in straight and level flight. Decrease the speed of the airflow, and you need to do what to stay level? Increase the AoA to compensate, of course. How do you increase the AoA? You produce additional tail-down force. How do you do that? By increasing the negative AoA of the horizontal stabilizer (or stabilator)... by pulling back on the yoke. What else does that do? Increases drag. What happens as you slow further? You need to progressively increase the AoA to maintain that 2000lbs of lift to stay level, which further increases drag.
What happens if we produce 1500lbs of lift? We descend. 2400lbs of lift? We climb.
Flight controls:
How do all the flight controls work? They increase the effective angle of attack of an airfoil, resulting in an increase or decrease in lift from that control surface. Rudder, aileron, elevator. What happens if you alter lift asymmetrically, ergo using the ailerons to enter a bank? You increase drag on the wing with the section of increased angle of attack and decrease drag on the wing with the section of decreased angle of attack. This causes the airplane to yaw opposite the direction of the bank, as the wing with the 'increased' AoA is generating more drag.
What happens if we pull back on the yoke? We deflect the elevator upward, increasing the negative AoA of the horizontal stabilizer, resulting in an increase in the downward force produced by the horizontal stabilizer. When the fulcrum (balance point) is the CG, this results in a rotation around the CG, an increase in pitch, and consequently an increase in angle of attack.
How do we fix the tendency of the airplane to yaw in the opposite direction of bank? Rudder.
Angle of Attack:
Everything can be tied to AoA. Controlling AoA controls lift. You will stall at a specific AoA, period. A symmetrical airfoil produces its lift by changing angle of attack only, and thus will stall at (approximately) the same AoA positive or negative. A cambered (asymmetrical) airfoil is equivalent to having a symmetrical airfoil with a slight net positive AoA at all times (With some small caveats).
If you're flying an airplane with a symmetrical airfoil with atmosphere but no gravity, what AoA will ensure level flight? Well, you need zero pounds of lift, so you need to ensure that you're not redirecting air, so you need to fly at 0° AoA. What if it's a cambered airfoil? You'll need a negative AoA.
With gravity, suddenly you need to produce significantly more lift. The symmetrical airfoil will be between ~2°-16° AoA to produce enough lift to maintain level flight, and the cambered airfoil will be between ~0°-15° AoA to produce enough lift to maintain level flight ... depending on the speed of airflow over the airfoil.
There are aerodynamic factors built into some aircraft that cause them to be more controllable at high angles of attack, such as wing twist/washout, where the wing root is at a higher angle of attack than the wing tip, thus allowing the stall to progress from root to tip, allowing aileron effectiveness deeper into the stall. That said, if the section where the aileron is right at the critical angle of attack, what happens when you try to 'lift' that wing with aileron? You increase the effective AoA of that section of airfoil and... yep, increase it right past the critical AoA.
All that clear as mud? Good, let's see if I can confuse you further (Or, hint, hint: You can just read the PHAK, which has pretty pictures and nice, easy to follow diagrams)
Stability and controllability:
You can picture the airplane as a balance scale ala "the scales of justice". The airplane is suspended from its center of lift somewhere in the front-middle of the wing, and the weight on both ends must be equal—that is, the weight of everything forward of the Center of Lift must be offset by an equal force in the tail... the tail down force produced by the horizontal stabilizer*. If you increase the weight on the nose... say, by shifting weight forward... you increase the force that must be produced by the horizontal stabilizer. That increases the weight that must be supported by the wing, which increases... you guessed it, the angle of attack needed for level flight... which increases... drag. Which decreases... cruise speed. It also decreases the amount of remaining up elevator, since increased up elevator is required for level flight, which is why it can mean insufficient ability to pitch up in the landing flare. Of course, moving the center of gravity forward also increases the effective arm of the controls... and as we know, a force applied at a longer arm (distance from the fulcrum) has a stronger resultant effect than the same force applied at a shorter arm... so you'll have more rudder and elevator authority, within the remaining range.
Increase the weight in the tail, say by shifting weight aft, and you decrease the amount of tail down force required, decrease the weight the wing has to carry ... but you also decrease the "arm" between the CG and the tailplane control surfaces, which decreases their effectiveness.
You can also look at this relationship a different way, by considering the relationship of the "Center of Gravity" to the "Center of Lift". The center of lift is the string from which the airplane is suspended, mind you. With no tail-down force the nose will always drop in almost all airplanes, because the center of gravity is forward of the center of lift. This provides an important stabilizing effect. As the center of gravity moves aft, closer to the center of lift, the stability is decreased in the same way as if you move the legs of a tripod together.
There are other design criteria built into airplanes to effect stability around their axes, such as dihedral, which contributes to positive dynamic lateral stability. (As a CFI applicant, and thus a commercial pilot, I'll assume you understand the stabilities well, as I assume you understand W&B well.)
Left turning tendencies:
The airplane (in US-built aircraft) wants to torque roll to the left. All else being equal, it would. There are some design considerations applied to compensate for this trend.
When the airplane is at a high angle of attack, the oncoming air strikes the propeller disc at an angle. The descending blade has a "headwind", and the ascending blade has a "tailwind". The descending blade produces more lift, creating a yaw to the left at high power and high angles of attack.
How do we fix left turning tendencies? Rudder.
Lessee... did I miss anything (Aside from pictures and diagrams
? Too simple? Not simple enough? That's most of the aerodynamics you need to know, as a CFI. Not all, but most. Knowing that trim tabs "fly" their control surfaces, that the balance tabs on a stabilator resist the motion of the control surfaces to prevent overcontrolling, etc.. all useful, depending on the airplanes you're flying. But for aerodynamics, that's pretty much the core of it. Unlike naval aviators, we don't yet need to really worry about compressible flow, what happens to swept wings, mach anything, etc. Just basic low-speed aerodynamics.
If any of this is useful and you want any clarification, I'd be delighted to try... just let me know.
If none of this is useful... well ... sorry. I tried! ^.^
~Fox
🦈💜
Well-Known Member
Also...
Total Drag Curve:
As you increase lift by increasing the AoA, you create a corresponding increase in drag. This is called 'Induced drag'. It is highest at the critical angle of attack, and decreases exponentially as the angle of attack decreases. There's another type of drag, known as parasite drag, which increases exponentially as the speed increases from zero. Given that there are two ways to generate lift—increasing the airflow over the wing or increasing the angle of attack—it is clear that, in level flight, the slowest speed you can fly is determined by the lift produced at the critical angle of attack, which is on the low end of parasite drag scale. Thus as speed increases from that minimum speed, induced drag—and thus total drag—decreases accordingly... until parasite drag passes it and begins to increase the total drag curve again.
That point on the "total drag curve" is called LDmax—the best lift/drag ratio.
Want pretty pictures like this:
[X]
See the PHAK. ;>
Best Glide:
Given what we said above, what do you think your best glide speed ... that is, the speed which your glide ratio (feet forward per feet of altitude lost in zero wind conditions) will be?
Ground Effect / Wingtip vortices:
Induced drag can be considered to be caused by rotational flow about the wing, similar to the buffeting area of low pressure behind a tractor trailer. This flow (it's a mathematical component—no air actually rotates around the wing) results in a spanwise (wing root to wingtip) flow, which washes off the tips of the wing and creates vortices, similar to the wake of a planing hull (speedboat). Induced drag = vortices. High AoA = vortices. Heavy airplane climbing? Huge vortices.
What happens when the wing is in close proximity to the ground? The ground interferes with the formation of vortices, reducing induced drag.
In closing:
If any of this is confusing, use real numbers!
In level, unaccelerated flight, in a 2000lb airplane, we're producing (say) 100lbs of tail-down force*.
This means we must be producing 2100lbs of lift to maintain level flight. We're also producing X lbs of thrust and Y lbs of drag, and these must be equal as well.
There are some esoteric cases when you consider steady climbs and descents, where thrust/drag are taking part of the job of lift, respectively... but again, PHAK.
In the end, it's all about energy.
-Fox
*(Remember, you're not offsetting the full weight of the airplane, or all the weight forward of the nose—you're offsetting the delta between the center of gravity and the center of lift).
Total Drag Curve:
As you increase lift by increasing the AoA, you create a corresponding increase in drag. This is called 'Induced drag'. It is highest at the critical angle of attack, and decreases exponentially as the angle of attack decreases. There's another type of drag, known as parasite drag, which increases exponentially as the speed increases from zero. Given that there are two ways to generate lift—increasing the airflow over the wing or increasing the angle of attack—it is clear that, in level flight, the slowest speed you can fly is determined by the lift produced at the critical angle of attack, which is on the low end of parasite drag scale. Thus as speed increases from that minimum speed, induced drag—and thus total drag—decreases accordingly... until parasite drag passes it and begins to increase the total drag curve again.
That point on the "total drag curve" is called LDmax—the best lift/drag ratio.
Want pretty pictures like this:
[X]
See the PHAK. ;>
Best Glide:
Given what we said above, what do you think your best glide speed ... that is, the speed which your glide ratio (feet forward per feet of altitude lost in zero wind conditions) will be?
Ground Effect / Wingtip vortices:
Induced drag can be considered to be caused by rotational flow about the wing, similar to the buffeting area of low pressure behind a tractor trailer. This flow (it's a mathematical component—no air actually rotates around the wing) results in a spanwise (wing root to wingtip) flow, which washes off the tips of the wing and creates vortices, similar to the wake of a planing hull (speedboat). Induced drag = vortices. High AoA = vortices. Heavy airplane climbing? Huge vortices.
What happens when the wing is in close proximity to the ground? The ground interferes with the formation of vortices, reducing induced drag.
In closing:
If any of this is confusing, use real numbers!
In level, unaccelerated flight, in a 2000lb airplane, we're producing (say) 100lbs of tail-down force*.
This means we must be producing 2100lbs of lift to maintain level flight. We're also producing X lbs of thrust and Y lbs of drag, and these must be equal as well.
There are some esoteric cases when you consider steady climbs and descents, where thrust/drag are taking part of the job of lift, respectively... but again, PHAK.
In the end, it's all about energy.
-Fox
*(Remember, you're not offsetting the full weight of the airplane, or all the weight forward of the nose—you're offsetting the delta between the center of gravity and the center of lift).
Whatusername
Well THIS is awkward!
Doh how did I miss the PHAK! Well at least I got my vacation reading.
Thanks for the write up too.
Thanks for the write up too.
Whatusername said:
Oh god no, pleaaassssse NO! Do not read anything FAA for aerodynamics. Even the few times it's right it uses more non standard phraseology than any other source I've read. If you want to truly understand aerodynamics reading the PHAK will only make it harder down the road when a student asks a question requiring you to dig deeper. You'll wind up stumbling around like baffoon because you're stuck on FAA pseudoscience. The only FAA source that's even worth a crap is AFNA, which, agreeably, is quite dry.
Pick up the book "The Illustrated Guide to Aerodynamics" By H.C. 'Skip' Smith. This book is an easy read, highly accurate, and will give you a good footing to start any future endeavors into the realm of aircraft dynamics. It is light on math as well, only a few simple algebraic formulas.
Another option is the Flightwise series. However, it is a far more intellectually strenuous read that goes way beyond the detail an instructor needs. On the plus side this text gives that detail while remaining free of almost any math. I'd recommend this only if you find yourself craving more after reading the first book.
AFNA is a great source, but as you noted it is dry. However, use it as a fill in/refresher as you read the first book. The index in AFNA is incredibly complete and just about any topic you run into you can pull up that index and reference a 2-3 page section on the topic in a matter of minutes.
Finally, ask questions here. I know myself and a few others here are pretty well read on this subject matter. What we don't know we can almost always find out for you. Good luck and aerodynamics is fun stuff, don't fear it!
This is going to sound like I'm trying to beat you down, but by no means do I wish it to be taken as such. FWIW the majority of what you wrote is accurate and I imagine most of what I write below you already know. However, reading your explanations as a laymen I would draw conclusions I'm not sure you would intend the reader to draw. So, apologies in advance and without further ado:
Temporarily, yes. However, IMO it's more important to realize the airplane wants to seek equilibrium. That is, it want's to return to a lift = to weight and thrust = to drag condition. Any time we discuss AOA, lift, and speed, an explanation of lift's important relationship to weight should be the precursor.
Center of lift is Center of Pressure (CP) to everyone but the FAA. And, for stability analysis Aerodynamic Center is used as the former changes with AOA making analysis disgustingly complicated.
Paragraph 2 and 3 under AOA is explaining zero lift AOA. Symmetrical airfoils produce zero lift at zero degrees AOA, cambered produce zero lift at some negative value.
Within the CG range of a typical light airplane effects to lateral (roll) or directional (yaw) stability are negligible; so no need to mention either one. Only longitudinal (pitch). Forward cg is stabilizing, which means control is reduced. Aft is the opposite. Ground effect induces a nose down pitching moment while simultaneously increasing pitch stability, emphasis on stability increasing equates to control decreasing. Power is destabilizing. The forward cg critical design parameter, for these reason, is pitch force for a landing (low power, ground effect, and forward cg all decreasing control).
Wants to torque and yaw left. P-factor is a yawing mechanic. Torque is a rolling one. Gyro precess is yaw or pitch, depending on if the pilot is yawing or pitching. For non aero discussions, it's a yaw that occurs from pitch. Slip stream is a yaw.
Heavy airplane climbing = huge vortices. Climbing doesn't matter. Speed and weight matter. Weight because lift must equal weight. Speed because the lower the speed the greater the induced drag, which cause the vortices. It's easy to draw the climbing conclusion since jet's fly relatively similar approach and early takeoff climb speeds with the major difference being they depart at much greater weight than they land. In other words, a departing jet will almost invariably exhibit greater tip vortices than a landing one because their weight is much greater. Not because they are climbing.
"...you'reoffsetting balancing the delta pitching moment (m) between the center of gravity and the center of lift" Delta means small change of/in. This is not talking about a change of moments, but the balance between two pitching moments; wing & tail.
Induced drag is caused by tip vortices, not rotational flow about the wing. Rotational flow exists because tip vortices exist, not the other way round. Circulation, by the way, is why equal transit theory is invalid. For a mental challenge consider this: Does an infinite wing exhibit induced drag? Does it have circulation? Then what about lift?
Temporarily, yes. However, IMO it's more important to realize the airplane wants to seek equilibrium. That is, it want's to return to a lift = to weight and thrust = to drag condition. Any time we discuss AOA, lift, and speed, an explanation of lift's important relationship to weight should be the precursor.
Center of lift is Center of Pressure (CP) to everyone but the FAA. And, for stability analysis Aerodynamic Center is used as the former changes with AOA making analysis disgustingly complicated.
Paragraph 2 and 3 under AOA is explaining zero lift AOA. Symmetrical airfoils produce zero lift at zero degrees AOA, cambered produce zero lift at some negative value.
Within the CG range of a typical light airplane effects to lateral (roll) or directional (yaw) stability are negligible; so no need to mention either one. Only longitudinal (pitch). Forward cg is stabilizing, which means control is reduced. Aft is the opposite. Ground effect induces a nose down pitching moment while simultaneously increasing pitch stability, emphasis on stability increasing equates to control decreasing. Power is destabilizing. The forward cg critical design parameter, for these reason, is pitch force for a landing (low power, ground effect, and forward cg all decreasing control).
Wants to torque and yaw left. P-factor is a yawing mechanic. Torque is a rolling one. Gyro precess is yaw or pitch, depending on if the pilot is yawing or pitching. For non aero discussions, it's a yaw that occurs from pitch. Slip stream is a yaw.
Heavy airplane climbing = huge vortices. Climbing doesn't matter. Speed and weight matter. Weight because lift must equal weight. Speed because the lower the speed the greater the induced drag, which cause the vortices. It's easy to draw the climbing conclusion since jet's fly relatively similar approach and early takeoff climb speeds with the major difference being they depart at much greater weight than they land. In other words, a departing jet will almost invariably exhibit greater tip vortices than a landing one because their weight is much greater. Not because they are climbing.
"...you're
Induced drag is caused by tip vortices, not rotational flow about the wing. Rotational flow exists because tip vortices exist, not the other way round. Circulation, by the way, is why equal transit theory is invalid. For a mental challenge consider this: Does an infinite wing exhibit induced drag? Does it have circulation? Then what about lift?
Last edited:
🦈💜
Well-Known Member
I disagree as strongly as possible. He's preparing for his CFI examination, not going for an aeronautical engineering degree. He needs to have an understanding of aerodynamics to teach pilots. There's always more information available, if people want to read further, but the PHAK is -the- source that you will be tested on, and it's got a good, basic summary. What confuses people is crap like the 'equal transit' theory, which I've seen on countless training videos and in third-party books.
Tell me, what do algebraic formulas do for me when I'm flying an airplane?
For my part, I've developed a reasonable understanding of basic aerodynamics* via research in many different places, and reading the PHAK. Would I want to design an airplane? No, but I'm a pilot and flight instructor. Do I understand transonic airflow? Absolutely not, nor do I care at this point. Do I even know what I don't know? ... does anyone?
I don't think algebra has any place in flight instruction. Nobody's going to pull out a pen, paper and a calculator while flying to try and figure out what to do in a stall, given a mathematical model of the wing.
* -
I don't actually disagree with anything you've said here, and I'm not entirely clear on where I'm unclear in my previous post... but language is a funny thing, especially when trying to describe interactions with our physical reality.
Certainly. Did I not make that apparent?
Understood, and agreed; the imprecision was due to trying to make a lowest-common-denominator post on a forum, and encourage the reader to go to the PHAK. We can talk about that later, if you like, but that's still my strong recommendation. It doesn't do any good to start talking about, say, circulation theory if the examiner hasn't ever heard of it. "So you're saying that air rotates around the wing?" "Well, no... but it's a mathematical component." "What does that mean?" "Er..." "Is that how you're going to teach your students?"
Honest question—was this not what I said?
In my view, this is a supplemental addition.
I left out gyroscopic precession because I assume that the OP knows about it, but it's less significant to most people's flying.
Now, the one issue that I'm on the fence about is spiraling slipstream. I'm not sure I believe it. Call me agnostic. I'm willing to believe it exists, if given proof that isn't "It's real because we say it is." So I leave that out and only mention it in passing.
I don't fly big jets, but I was under the impression that when they're climbing, they tend to be heaviest, clean and slow. LEDs and takeoff flaps come out early—contrast with approach flaps and landing flaps ... so effective AoA of that wing segment and all that... thus bigger vortices. Yes, no, maybe?
I stuck the word "can be considered" in there as a caution against that, but you are correct that I spoke imprecisely. I think the real key is that I was writing informally for both of those posts, trying to paint a picture and draw analogies to supplement someone's reading of the source I recommended with intuitive examples (as the OP found aerodynamics texts too dry). This may have been an instance where I actually did indeed use the wrong term in an effort to convey an idea.
My main intent was to (as I do with my students) relate all terms to AoA, and relate AoA with tail-down force, and to convey the AoA model of control deflection for the purposes of developing a consistent mental map as an aid to memory. I'm still working on the presentation of this stuff, but I'm trying to fill what I perceive are gaps in the development of solid, intuitive mental models for the control of flight for students.
The PHAK will give him the bare minimum. Personally I didn't even read the PHAK before taking my CFI ride. A college aero course based out of Charles E. Dole's book Flight Theory for Pilots and AFNA were my primary sources of aerodynamic knowledge. Dole's book is another great resource by the way, a clean simple resource, but not great for a first read without some guidance.
In the airplane no. However, to understand, apply, and later correlate the analytical ideas affluently present in the field of aerodynamics knowing a little algebra won't hurt you. Why does angle of attack, wing area, air density, and speed cause variations in lift and how? Why does excess power result in a climb? Rote memorization of definitions to explain these answers doesn't give you the understanding or applicable ability that two simple formula's would.
Have you ever experimentally drawn a drag curve? I do it with every student, and boy do their eyes light up when they realize this stuff isn't just made up. It gives them a chance to play with a good lab experiment. Since I do it early on before their ability to fly the plane is precise enough I make them record the data and I fly. It takes about 5 minutes, fly at 40 50 60 75 90 105 and record the power settings for each speed. I usually do it with partial flap to really demonstrate the back side of the curve. If 105 isn't in your white arc use the highest speed in your white arc for the top speed. When you land graph the 5 points on a power/airspeed graph. Connect the dots. Drag curve.
Last student I did it with responded with "Holy ..... that was cool!" Then proceeded to perfectly explain angle of attack, speed, drag, and the relationship between them all including explaining the region of reverse command without being taught it yet. I mentioned the words 'reverse command' and he linked the ideas to them. What a great moment.
Which is why scientific standards are so rigorously debated and subsequently used. We could learn a thing or two just from reading a college physics book. Even if you can't understand a bit of it, it is amazing how specific the explanations are. And how invariable they are from book to book (assuming the texts are well regarded).
Not from my perspective. Your conclusion screams "if you want to climb just increase lift."
This is a poor and all to often accepted excuse to teach something incorrectly. Why not teach it correctly with the caveat that giving too much detail to the examiner can be a slippery slope. Then the CFI applicate has ideas that properly link together and can choose how detailed to make his or her example. This is invariably better than fragmented ideas aimed to teach to the stupidest...erm lowest common denominator...level.
Yes, but you never said it. Two paragraphs to say zero lift AOA is the angle which an airfoil produces no lift. If the student ever got curious they could google zero lift AOA and find tons of information. Reading your reply what should they google? No gravity with atmosphere AOA?
I put it there to show you that mentioning CG's arm effects on rudder is an unnecessary addition. It's effects are negligible and worth mentioning only to mention that they are negligible.
True if you're not doing tail wheel or acro GP is relatively non existent. However, you describe p-factor in terms of head wind and tail wind. While I like that, it's only half the picture. Not sure if the DPE will even know that the down going blade is at both a higher AOA (bigger bite as is often said) and traveling at a faster speed. Slip stream is of the greatest effect in an aircraft during a wave off/go around. High power and slow speed. Here, page 294 out of AFNA:
"The single engine propeller airplane may have either the spin recovery or the slipstream rotation as a critical design condition."
OP if you skimmed all of this so far, read this paragraph. Thank you. FWIW The part of AFNA that I you and the OP might enjoy are the pages containing stability. Chapter 3. It's roughly 60 pages, skim past any presented formula the first read. If you're interested after you read it through you can go back and look at the formula's again, I think you'll be surprised to find most will now make sense to you.
Heaviest and slow. Exactly. Slats decrease AOA and flaps increase it. Speeds relatively the same at landing as climb (yes not identical). However, weight is dramatically lower after a long haul in a big bird. That's your difference, and that's what matters. Being in a climb is an irrelevant and unnecessary additions.
And sir I commend you for that. It's still a step above many, but you're selling yourself short by saying algebra has no place in the airplane. Sure, not in the plane. What about for a simple 3 or 4 variable formula to explain the analytical side? It can be, and should be, accompanied by words and pictures. Leaving it out though, no excuse IMO. I mean it's math the chinese learn in 5th and 6th grade. Surely we can expect a high school or college graduate to be able to comprehend it in it's simplest forms.
Keep in mind, to make your AOA discussion mean something you need to start with the desire to seek equilibrium between the four forces. Specifically that lift equals drag. All analysis should revolve around this concept, leave the instantaneous analysis' for a later discussion.
I stick this last because it is the most important part. And trust me when I say I speak imprecisely all the time. That said, when dealing with this topic it should be our aim to speak as precisely as possible. Stop and think before every word if you must. I've made students wait for 5 minutes while I look something up or write it down on scrap paper before presenting it just to ensure I didn't present it wrong. Worst case I take it home with me and figure it out for the next lesson. No I don't bill them for it!
With that said, one imprecise idea that is allowed to fester can really screw our ability to expand our knowledge when the opportunity to do so presents itself. So our job is to do as little harm as possible. Don't dumb it down just to make it easy. Figure out how to keep it accurate while making it easy. Might take twice as long, but your student will thank you for it one day.
Finally, pick up that Illustrated Guide to Aerodynamics book. I think you'll be surprised how much you enjoy it given you seem interested in this topic and certainly have a decent, albeit misguided, foundation. If you live near the NJ area let me know, I'll lend you my copy.
Last edited: