Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
On the contrary, it's just about time for another crop of new CFIs to roll in and tell us all 'how it is'.
Pitch=Airspeed Power=Altitude ?
- Thread starter APACHEpilot
- Start date
On the contrary, it's just about time for another crop of new CFIs to roll in and tell us all 'how it is'.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
Or tell you how to fly your airplane? Umm, lemme try, you have to be in a 4g inverted dive in the Eagle in order to properly sequence waypoints in the FMS.
Mike H
Well-Known Member
You could just be overreacting here. I mean nobody's even brought up "negative lift" yet, let alone shock-cooling
Negative Lift/ Negative Stall are at least a legit aerodynamic topics.
Now shock cooling....
///AMG
Well-Known Member
Great link....that was an amusing read :laff:
Kind of relevant here, and lightly dusted over in the previous thread re: Aero for Naval Aviators; it is not used at API anymore, and has been replaced with a much more straightforward and dumbed down workbook. Probably most of the same info (I haven't looked at either book for a while).
I've heard good arguments for both schools of thought, but I'll say that it was nicely explained to me by an old sim instructer (former A-4 driver).....pitch=airspeed at or around on-speed/approach speed, and power = airspeed at anything above that. Not sure if there is aerodynamic theory to back this up, but it works in practice. But in terms of during an approach, all our LSO's (and other IP's as well) teach throttle for GS corrections, and stick for AoA/airspeed corrections, so this indeed is the technique taught to USN pointy nose jet types. Influencing the nose to correct for glideslope deviations is considered to be bad juju, problem being that moving the nose also moves the tailhook point, which could (when correcting nose down) result in a bolter or hook skip, and at the other end of the spectrum (heavy nose up) could cause an in-flight engagement of the arresting cable. If we weren't worried about proper placement of the tailhook, then I'd say you could just as easily (and actually more efficiently) correct GS deviations with the nose/stick.....when I fly an ILS it is much easier to place the velocity vector right where I want it with the stick (we have the ILS needles repeated in the HUD), and then smoothly correct the throttle to bleed back to on-speed. Compare this with my throttle movements while flying the ball, in which my left hand is moving nearly constantly in small little corrections in order to keep that ball centered on or above the datums. Just thought I would add that since it didn't seem like anyone really followed up on that discussion.
Kind of relevant here, and lightly dusted over in the previous thread re: Aero for Naval Aviators; it is not used at API anymore, and has been replaced with a much more straightforward and dumbed down workbook. Probably most of the same info (I haven't looked at either book for a while).
I've heard good arguments for both schools of thought, but I'll say that it was nicely explained to me by an old sim instructer (former A-4 driver).....pitch=airspeed at or around on-speed/approach speed, and power = airspeed at anything above that. Not sure if there is aerodynamic theory to back this up, but it works in practice. But in terms of during an approach, all our LSO's (and other IP's as well) teach throttle for GS corrections, and stick for AoA/airspeed corrections, so this indeed is the technique taught to USN pointy nose jet types. Influencing the nose to correct for glideslope deviations is considered to be bad juju, problem being that moving the nose also moves the tailhook point, which could (when correcting nose down) result in a bolter or hook skip, and at the other end of the spectrum (heavy nose up) could cause an in-flight engagement of the arresting cable. If we weren't worried about proper placement of the tailhook, then I'd say you could just as easily (and actually more efficiently) correct GS deviations with the nose/stick.....when I fly an ILS it is much easier to place the velocity vector right where I want it with the stick (we have the ILS needles repeated in the HUD), and then smoothly correct the throttle to bleed back to on-speed. Compare this with my throttle movements while flying the ball, in which my left hand is moving nearly constantly in small little corrections in order to keep that ball centered on or above the datums. Just thought I would add that since it didn't seem like anyone really followed up on that discussion.
PFGiardino
Well-Known Member
Trade power for heading, and speed for phenylalanine. Everything effects everything. If one of my primary CFIs started this with me, it would have been another 50 hrs before I could land. Let them spend enough time in slow flight, stalling, and learning the airplane, then you won't need to broach this whole mess. It will become something they do without thinking.
-Sub 1000 hr CFI telling you all how it is
-Sub 1000 hr CFI telling you all how it is
tlove482
Well-Known Member
Like someone said earlier, you can fly the plane either way. Just do what works for you. Personally, I use both at different times. If I'm fast on final but on glide slope, then I pull power back. If I'm high on final at proper airspeed, I pull power back. I wish people would just admit that both techniques work.
BUT THEY DON'T! Fly the airplane their way, or it's dooooooooooooooommmmmmmm! You will for sure shock cool the engine, because you have been running it oversquare for so long the damn kanueter valve is going to fall right out the exhaust pipe!
:beer:
Agreed. However, I wouldn't be so quick to chalk up number 3 to bad planning. In an approach we try to hold airspeed, to stabilize the approach. If AOA isn't changed, airspeed will not change. Few people, if any, will turn base to final without ever needing to adjust their descent rate to land on the intended point.
Now one last question: Look at your answers for these, you have 4 good reasons to teach a constant pitch approach: it is doable, better sight picture, easier to see trends, and safer for preventing stalls at low altitude. So why chalk it up to, "it is only for the big boys."?
subpilot said:
Does it really? You have never seen a student adjust their pitch to keep the aim point in the same place on the windscreen? The location of the horizon, kept constant, will give you a constant pitch, not the aim point.
tlove482 said:
Changing power is all you do? Are you sure you don't pull back, increasing the AOA to stop the descent rate increase caused by lowering the power?
subpilot
Squawking 7600
Lol, This stuff is funny to read. If someone wants to compare flying techniques with me then come to Bakersfield some time and we will go get into a plane together but I am not going to waste anymore time throwing volleys over the internet on this topic. This debate is pointless and has already been beaten to death here countless times before.
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
As I said in the other thread, the power primarily controls the speed on approach in the aircraft I fly. We also fly aggressive profiles that are well on the front side of the power curve. Other aircraft may not take well to this technique. If you're teaching in training aircraft stabilized at 65 KIAS on final, the technique shdw uses above is probably the best bet.
Anyway...
:deadhorse:
Anyway...
:deadhorse:
APACHEpilot
New Member
I think that in most cases students and instructors will use a combination of the two techniques to get the desired result, is either one right or wrong ? I think it mainly depends on which side of the power curve your on and what your trying to accomplish. The Examiner was saying to get rid of it all together. Not sure I agree. I could be wrong, it's happened before and will definitely happen again !
Thank you.
Douglas
Old School KSUX
poser765
Well-Known Member
I think the more important questions is can the hard speed limit of the universe of Warp 10 ever be exceeded?
I say It can cause there was that episode of TNG where the Enterprise D goes into the future and Riker shows up in the Enterprise F or something and he says it can go warp 13.
Then there is the episode of Voyager where Harry Kim Makes the little shuttle thing that can go warp 10. Tom, and Belona then take it for a joy ride and then turn into slugs. Or something like that.
I say It can cause there was that episode of TNG where the Enterprise D goes into the future and Riker shows up in the Enterprise F or something and he says it can go warp 13.
Then there is the episode of Voyager where Harry Kim Makes the little shuttle thing that can go warp 10. Tom, and Belona then take it for a joy ride and then turn into slugs. Or something like that.
tlove482
Well-Known Member
Is it sad that I saw all of those episodes?
poser765
Well-Known Member
NO it would be sad if you remembered the names of those episodes without looking it up. Would also be sad if you got mad because I am talking star trek and pitch/power is a serious scientific discussion.
