Ace the Pilot Technical Interview/interview books; Faulty issues?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Denmark
Age: 43
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ace the Pilot Technical Interview/interview books; Faulty issues?
Hi guys
I do a bit of reading/brushing up just to stay sharp, and I do so by picking up Bristow's "Ace the Pilot Technical Interview". Before purchasing the book I was well aware that it contained some errors/untrue statements, and I found a few.
So I guess you just have to be that much sharper when you read it
So far I generally think that its a nice study aid for brush-up, and I know that a lot of my friends has used or are using it.
Perhaps we could make it better by using this thread to come up with our wrong-findings or simply ask explanatory questions, that be as well for any similar interview study book.
I have a few myself:
1) Regarding CS/VP propeller he gives the following statement, of course taken from a larger context:
"A variable-pitch propeller maximizes the propeller's efficiency through a large speed range by maintaining a constant blade angle of attack that thereby produces a constant thrust value."
In a sentence above this one, he states the complete opposite using almost the same words.
What are your thoughts on that statement?
- My own would be that a CS prop changes its propeller PITCH constantly to maintain a given revoultion setting, correcting either for increased/decreased airspeed or MP.
- I just started wondering if the statement was correct in the sense that when the factors airspeed or MP are changed, in effect the propeller AOA also changes, and to maintain a given RPM setting it changes it's pitch to maintain that AOA creating the same amount of propeller drag giving the same resistance to maintain the set number of revs.
2) What is the TRUE defintion of induced drag?
Bristows:"Induced drag is caused by creating lift with a high angle of attack that exposes more of the aircraft's surface to the relative airflow and is associated with wing-tip vortices."
My own is that ID is the vertical (rearward) compontent of Lift, opposing thrust, cannot remember if it includes vortex generated drag?
Please correct all my wrongs, as I have probably been "overthinking" the issues...
I do a bit of reading/brushing up just to stay sharp, and I do so by picking up Bristow's "Ace the Pilot Technical Interview". Before purchasing the book I was well aware that it contained some errors/untrue statements, and I found a few.
So I guess you just have to be that much sharper when you read it
So far I generally think that its a nice study aid for brush-up, and I know that a lot of my friends has used or are using it.
Perhaps we could make it better by using this thread to come up with our wrong-findings or simply ask explanatory questions, that be as well for any similar interview study book.
I have a few myself:
1) Regarding CS/VP propeller he gives the following statement, of course taken from a larger context:
"A variable-pitch propeller maximizes the propeller's efficiency through a large speed range by maintaining a constant blade angle of attack that thereby produces a constant thrust value."
In a sentence above this one, he states the complete opposite using almost the same words.
What are your thoughts on that statement?
- My own would be that a CS prop changes its propeller PITCH constantly to maintain a given revoultion setting, correcting either for increased/decreased airspeed or MP.
- I just started wondering if the statement was correct in the sense that when the factors airspeed or MP are changed, in effect the propeller AOA also changes, and to maintain a given RPM setting it changes it's pitch to maintain that AOA creating the same amount of propeller drag giving the same resistance to maintain the set number of revs.
2) What is the TRUE defintion of induced drag?
Bristows:"Induced drag is caused by creating lift with a high angle of attack that exposes more of the aircraft's surface to the relative airflow and is associated with wing-tip vortices."
My own is that ID is the vertical (rearward) compontent of Lift, opposing thrust, cannot remember if it includes vortex generated drag?
Please correct all my wrongs, as I have probably been "overthinking" the issues...
Last edited by Madder; 7th Sep 2010 at 22:30.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: england
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding of induced drag,
Due to the pressure differential above and below the wing the wing suffers from a spanwise flow of air. Air beneath the wing flows out and air above flows inwards. Where these airflows meet again at the trailing edge and most significantly at the wing tip, vortices are generated. The bigger the pressure differential (aka lift generated) the greater the vortices. These vortices induce a downwash to the airflow behind the wing. The downwash has a net effect on the relative airflow of giving it a vertical componant and as a result the effective airflow is now no longer parallel to the aircraft flightpath but is angled down as you look at a cross section of the wing from leading edge to trailing edge. The lift generated is perpendicular to the effective airflow and therefore has a rearward component compared to the direction of travel of the aircraft. This rearward component of the lift vector is the induced drag.
Bit wordy, but a brief definition would be the rearward component of the lift vector. If I've got it right.
Due to the pressure differential above and below the wing the wing suffers from a spanwise flow of air. Air beneath the wing flows out and air above flows inwards. Where these airflows meet again at the trailing edge and most significantly at the wing tip, vortices are generated. The bigger the pressure differential (aka lift generated) the greater the vortices. These vortices induce a downwash to the airflow behind the wing. The downwash has a net effect on the relative airflow of giving it a vertical componant and as a result the effective airflow is now no longer parallel to the aircraft flightpath but is angled down as you look at a cross section of the wing from leading edge to trailing edge. The lift generated is perpendicular to the effective airflow and therefore has a rearward component compared to the direction of travel of the aircraft. This rearward component of the lift vector is the induced drag.
Bit wordy, but a brief definition would be the rearward component of the lift vector. If I've got it right.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: at the whim of people I've never met
Age: 46
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The lift formula is wrong throughout the book - saying all the terms (density, co-efficient, speed etc) are added rather than multiplied.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: A place where something is or could be located; a site.
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just opened randomly on pg118.
The only thing this defines is 'bollox'.
He's obviously never seen water expand when frozen.
And never noticed that the titanic was sunk by a FLOATING iceberg.
Randomly pg23
Apparently mach number is expressed as a percentage. It then contradicts itself by saying (correctly) half the speed of sound is 0.5 mach, clearly NOT a percentage.
Not the biggest errors in the book but I only looked at 2 pages.
By definition, a block of gas is less dense than the same size block of liquid, which is less dense than the same size block of a solid
He's obviously never seen water expand when frozen.
And never noticed that the titanic was sunk by a FLOATING iceberg.
Randomly pg23
Apparently mach number is expressed as a percentage. It then contradicts itself by saying (correctly) half the speed of sound is 0.5 mach, clearly NOT a percentage.
Not the biggest errors in the book but I only looked at 2 pages.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every time somebody comes up recommending 'Ace the TPI', I will come on here and give my fair and honest personal review of the book, which goes along the lines of:
'This book is a half-arsed peice of crap, so full of errors that the editor should be slapped and the print run should be pulped and recycled into something more educational such as Razzle. The authors and publishers do not deserve your hard-earned money for such a poor publication which is fundamentally not fit for purpose. A 13 year old air cadet should be able to get the lift formula correct. Do not waste your money on this P.O.S.'
It irritates me to think of the author and publishers making a healthy profit from hard-up student pilots for such a dangerously erroneous attempt at a text book. Absolute dogs' eggs - and you can quote me on that.
'This book is a half-arsed peice of crap, so full of errors that the editor should be slapped and the print run should be pulped and recycled into something more educational such as Razzle. The authors and publishers do not deserve your hard-earned money for such a poor publication which is fundamentally not fit for purpose. A 13 year old air cadet should be able to get the lift formula correct. Do not waste your money on this P.O.S.'
(c) 2008, The Torque Tonight Literary Review.
It irritates me to think of the author and publishers making a healthy profit from hard-up student pilots for such a dangerously erroneous attempt at a text book. Absolute dogs' eggs - and you can quote me on that.
I have to agree with TT. Whilst the premise was a good idea, the execution of this book is a disaster. If the bloke who 'wrote' it isn't embarrassed about having his name plastered on the cover of this book, then he doesn't even rate as a a pilot's a***hole. Fact. 
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Denmark
Age: 43
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got the one with the lift formula...
Ill considder having a look at the other material suggested, but I guess I will finish this one first with a cautious mind.
Anyway, anyone have a good explanation to my question regarding constant speed principle?
Ill considder having a look at the other material suggested, but I guess I will finish this one first with a cautious mind.
Anyway, anyone have a good explanation to my question regarding constant speed principle?
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: in the mix muff
Age: 44
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lot of companies interviews still are based on the ACE in spite of these loads of mistakes.However can anyone here advise on how to go about studying it to prepare for upcoming technical interviews?like a study method,Any help is appreciated
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a multiple choice test at an interview a few years ago and the questions/answers came from the Ace book and one of the woolly/incorrect questions appeared. I was unsure whether to answer it wrong as per the book stated or pick the correct answer unsure if they had edited it.......Going by memory I think I circled the incorrect answer as per the book!
Sorry to deviate from the original topic...
....Going by memory I think I circled the incorrect answer as per the book!Sorry to deviate from the original topic...
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: london
Age: 45
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll tell you the biggest faulty issue with this book... the manufacture!!! I hadn't got half way through the inaccuracies in the book before the spine broke and pages wanted to fall out.... so brought it back to a different branch to where I bought it and swapped it for a new one and hadn't had it more than five days when the Met section decided to depart from the rest of the book!! 
