Thanks
wannabee for an interesting and illuminating article. I think his final thought is on the button;
While we do not feel that an angle of attack indicator is a cure-all, and certainly here, as always, the proponents of a new instrument seem to reach too far and demand too much of it, we’d still like to have one.
Why? Here's the last para of the add-on re flying a twin on one engine (BTW the pic is an Aztec, I think, which I did my twin rating on; I recall that achieving level, and straight, flight on one was a minor triumph at any altitude.)
Although an angle of attack indicator may not cure all of everybody’s problems, it can certainly take care of some of everybody’s problems, and tough ones at that. Besides it is comforting to know what every bird knows, i.e. the exact angle at which the wing is set to the relative wind, no matter where it’s coming from. That’s what counts.
I would prefer to say "...angle at which the wing meets the air..." because the wing goes through the air (perhaps motionless up to that point) and because I have a tiny mind. I agree 100% with what he says there.
PS; discussions like this always remind me of Alan Bramson's famous description of aircraft that could be flown with outrageous AoA; "Thrust-supported Contraptions". (NB I do mean AoA, as opposed to climb rate and angle.)