Hi Maximum,
Yes, I think we agree on most of this.
One small point, which I think you are starting to realise:
I say again, from experience I know that the application of thrust has a much more immediate effect. (And yes it does pitch the nose up slightly on underwing engined types). So perhaps we're both really talking about the same thing here - an increase in AOA and a thrust increase - which would make sense. However, in piloting terms, I'm sure it's best thought of this close to the ground as an immediate increase in thrust that's needed.
If you read what you have written it actually says that it's the change in AoA caused by underslung engines: a secondary effect if you like. You have pitched up without elevator input. If you fly an aircraft without underslung engines, this technique has little or no effect. Also true of FBW types which take out the thrust/pitch couple (Airbus & B777 - what I fly now, so no I don't feel these effects
).
I still put forward that the only way to reduce the rate of descent
significantly near the ground in a jet is to increase the AoA (somehow).
You will eventually get more lift from the wing from the increasing IAS, as the airframe accelerates forwards but this will take quite some time to happen. Much longer than the effects of pulling back on the stick.
I'm not saying that adding thrust is a
bad thing but it isn't what is providing most of the reduction in descent rate. It just
appears that way.
It's basic Newtonian mechanics. You have a large mass of aeroplane moving towards the ground in the vertical plane. To reduce this rate of descent you must apply a similarly large force over a period of time in the opposite direction. Think about where this comes from...
Safe flying all
