pitch=airspeed; power=altitude

js0305

js0305

Well-Known Member
I am curious what cfi's think, or teach, about pitch for airspeed, power for altitude.

I worked for a fairly large school whose chief pilot (with many thousands of dual given) was set on pitch for altitude, power for airspeed.

I was taught the opposite and believe the opposite is true. My belief on it is if the aircraft is trimmed, it is trimmed for an airspeed. If you are in level flight at 90kts and you pull the power the a/c will descend until a speed of greater than 90 is reached, then stability will force a pitch up to just below 90 and continue to oscillate until a descent of 90 kts is reached.

I may be wrong but my former boss had convinced many of the cfi's of his theory (most of whom had in the thousands of hours dual). Some co-workers I talked with say that a combination of pitch and power is required. I may be mistaken but I am just not convinced of this. Any thoughts?
 
This is one of those "I'm smarter than you" arguments that does nothing to really further your understanding of what the airplane is doing.

For those that have a raging hard on for pitch only controlling airspeed. Go to the end of the runway and only push forward on the yoke and see how fast you go.
 
I go with both. They have their places and should be taught as such. Seems though that the heavier the plane the more useful pitch becomes for altitude and power becomes for speed.





3 pages by tomorrow night.
 
I don't believe any one method should be taught over the other.

A combination of the two are used depending on the maneuver/phase of flight. Autoland uses pitch for descent rate and power for airspeed.

I think what should be stressed is that the yoke is the angle of attack control. And really emphasize talking about angle of attack over just knowing stall speeds - and the relationship between load factor, airspeed and how both relate to AOA/induced drag.
 
SuperCubRick said:
I don't believe any one method should be taught over the other.

A combination of the two are used depending on the maneuver/phase of flight. Autoland uses pitch for descent rate and power for airspeed.

I think what should be stressed is that the yoke is the angle of attack control. And really emphasize talking about angle of attack over just knowing stall speeds - and the relationship between load factor, airspeed and how both relate to AOA/induced drag.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
js0305 said:
My belief on it is if the aircraft is trimmed, it is trimmed for an airspeed.
Click to expand...

You're quite correct. You will find the following mathematical formula in every introductory aerodynamics book:

airspeed.png



Everything on the right hand side of the formula is a constant, except for CL, and that's controlled by the elevator. Therefore, you control the airspeed of the airplane via the elevator.

The quantity of thrust or power doesn't even enter into the mathematics.
 
I do believe this is the most common thread topic in the CFI CORNER.

and it really is...

My students brain speed can pitch my attitude inversely with altitude and that is all that matters. yo.
 
What tgray said is 100 percent correct. What it falls back on, for me, with a private pilot, is what will kill you.

No pilot, I repeat, no pilot, will ever die (in any light piston) if you teach them pitch for airspeed and power for altitude. That is physics/math and it works every single time, without fail.

A pilot taught to pitch for altitude can easily find themselves in a stall spin accident when the engine fails. Without that engine they can pitch till they bend the yoke, and according to the book stick and rudder, some have, and they won't gain any altitude after their momentum burns off.

The goal with a private pilot is primacy and instinct, in other words safe habit patterns.

Unfortunately these big boy pilots with 50 million hours and an aircraft that operates primarily on the premise of momentum drill into newbie pilots that pitch can control altitude. It cannot. Even the big boys change airspeed when they pitch. However, momentum from said pitch gives altitude, and in a small aircraft that runs out very quickly since momentum rests on an objects mass and velocity. Both of which are much greater in a 737 than a 172, something these brainiacs fail to consider, IMO.

So again, pitch for AS/power for alt, in any small piston, will never kill a pilot. Period.
 
shdw said:
No pilot, I repeat, no pilot, will ever die (in any light piston) if you teach them pitch for airspeed and power for altitude. That is physics/math and it works every single time, without fail.
Click to expand...

I disagree...to many times I see pilots pitch for airspeed instead of altitude on stalls. They pitch for an airspeed instead of pitching for minimal loss of altitude and the end up pulling zero g's and lose 200-500ft which is not a minimal loss of altitude. I'm kinda half hazardly playing devils advocate here but you can get the point. There is no right or wrong answer to this thread, that's why I like to settle in the middle. Pitch+Power=Performance.
 
Is there are requirement that this question be debated every quarter on JC?

To the OP, ever considered using the search function?

Hopefully if I can get the Oklahoma City meet-and-greet sorted out, some of you can come on out and try the "pitch=airspeed; power=altitude" technique out in the T-38 sim and see how it works out firsthand.
 
I was that on one side of the fence, then the other side, Now I teach both. I do like students to have the same pitch down attitude all the way down to the threshold, and power for their speed though, but, they know that pitching up will cause a reduction in airspeed as well or vise versa, etc.
 
One of the ONLY times I will tell students that pitch does one thing and power does another is on approach to land.

In that scenario, I wish the student to control the glide path or glide slope with the pitch and control the airspeed with the power. I emphasize that they both work together like ying and yang and are inseparable like conjoined twins; however I want them to make initial corrections and inputs with this method in mind.

There are so many different ways to prove on is right, and the other is wrong, and vice versa.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top