Attitude for speed ???
Guest
Posts: n/a
Attitude for speed ???
All flying schools in OZ teach on final it is attitude for speed and power to attain aiming point... I have discussed this with B767, B747, and Twin Otter drivers and all three disagree with this method...they go for hold attitude and aiming point and use power for speed control...Anyhow I have been using the latter method on C172 and PA28 and I find it much better........
Any thoughts on this ???
Any thoughts on this ???
Guest
Posts: n/a
T&G are you saying that your approaches are at a constant angle now, but you vary the speed as you fly down by altering the throttle? Apart from wondering why you want to vary the speed if your descent path is correct, I think you might actually be doing it the correct way without realising it. I always adjust my touchdown with the throttle, I keep the ASI steady with attitude while I'm doing it. Are you perhaps describing the same thing in two different ways...?
Guest
Posts: n/a
From what I have been told, and what I practice:
Attitude for speed, power for height is good in a light aircraft. Power for speed (constant attitude) is more like how it's done in a heavy.
Maybe this explains the response t&g received from the drivers of heavier equipment.
In a similar vain (but speaking very generally), in a light aircraft power is increased in a turn (esp. with increasing AOB), in a heavy aircraft it is generally
decreased??
Attitude for speed, power for height is good in a light aircraft. Power for speed (constant attitude) is more like how it's done in a heavy.
Maybe this explains the response t&g received from the drivers of heavier equipment.
In a similar vain (but speaking very generally), in a light aircraft power is increased in a turn (esp. with increasing AOB), in a heavy aircraft it is generally
decreased??
Guest
Posts: n/a
I started the 'attitude for speed, power for aiming point' approach at first, but then changed instructors to the other method. I must say the second method is much better than fiddling with a method which is not natural (you instinctively think power for speed, attitude for aiming point) after all - you point where you want to go!
Also, why learn the first way when you're just gonna have to change if you want to go for larger planes?? Might do it right from the start!
Still, everyone to there own I guess. . .
Wycombe - are you sure jets reduce power in turns? That just seems silly to me - induced drag (from angle of attack) increases in a turn whether you're in a C152 or a B747!
Also, why learn the first way when you're just gonna have to change if you want to go for larger planes?? Might do it right from the start!
Still, everyone to there own I guess. . .
Wycombe - are you sure jets reduce power in turns? That just seems silly to me - induced drag (from angle of attack) increases in a turn whether you're in a C152 or a B747!
Guest
Posts: n/a
I believe that "point and squirt" is taught in the RAF in readiness for conversion to fast jets where the aircraft is literally "aimed" as a projectile onto the runway!
I think I'll stick to the conventional method which does become second nature... imagine that you have a piece of string tied to the throttle and stick wrapped around the back of your neck.
I think I'll stick to the conventional method which does become second nature... imagine that you have a piece of string tied to the throttle and stick wrapped around the back of your neck.
Guest
Posts: n/a
First off congratulations on the new forum.
In regards to this topic, I was initally taught, as you all apparently were, attitude for speed, pwr for descent. A sideways view of my approaches probably looked similar to the NASDAC chart.
I was then taught the the other method,(also taught by the RAAF in Aus), pwr for speed, attitude for aimpoint, I found that my approaches were more stable and therefore less irrating for the pax and more importantly easier for me.
I have also taught both methods finding that the student generally coped easier and progressed faster with the the pwr for speed, attitude for aimpoint process.
I moved on to bigger and then even more bigger and have found that the training for anything bigger than a GA light single, was pwr for speed, attitude for aim point.
A search of the Instructors forum will also be worthwile as I think this was discussed there sometime ago. Another post worth looking for is the one on the "Jacobson Flare" ,another technique that uses the "point and squirt" (I like that)type of style.
Anyway, may I suggest find someone that knows how to do both methods and "Try it, you might like it".
Regards
In regards to this topic, I was initally taught, as you all apparently were, attitude for speed, pwr for descent. A sideways view of my approaches probably looked similar to the NASDAC chart.
I was then taught the the other method,(also taught by the RAAF in Aus), pwr for speed, attitude for aimpoint, I found that my approaches were more stable and therefore less irrating for the pax and more importantly easier for me.
I have also taught both methods finding that the student generally coped easier and progressed faster with the the pwr for speed, attitude for aimpoint process.
I moved on to bigger and then even more bigger and have found that the training for anything bigger than a GA light single, was pwr for speed, attitude for aim point.
A search of the Instructors forum will also be worthwile as I think this was discussed there sometime ago. Another post worth looking for is the one on the "Jacobson Flare" ,another technique that uses the "point and squirt" (I like that)type of style.
Anyway, may I suggest find someone that knows how to do both methods and "Try it, you might like it".
Regards
Guest
Posts: n/a
Both attitude and power determine descent angle and speed. There's no one-to-one relationship: like many things in flying there are many parameters.
The 'gearing' between the outputs (descent angle and speed) and the inputs (attitude and power) depend on the shape of the drag curve. If you're up at maximum cruise speed, putting the nose down a little will not change the speed much, but it will produce a significant descent. At best lift/drag speed, the same change in attitude will alter your speed, but it won't put the aircraft into much of a descent.
So whether you use attitude or power for glideslope control depends on your aircraft and the part of the flight envelope you're operating in. I suspect the difference you perceive between light aircraft and military/commerical transport aircraft is a consequence of the different types and envelopes.
The 'gearing' between the outputs (descent angle and speed) and the inputs (attitude and power) depend on the shape of the drag curve. If you're up at maximum cruise speed, putting the nose down a little will not change the speed much, but it will produce a significant descent. At best lift/drag speed, the same change in attitude will alter your speed, but it won't put the aircraft into much of a descent.
So whether you use attitude or power for glideslope control depends on your aircraft and the part of the flight envelope you're operating in. I suspect the difference you perceive between light aircraft and military/commerical transport aircraft is a consequence of the different types and envelopes.
Guest
Posts: n/a
'Point and Power' works just fine in a SEP Class ac......so long as you're more or less in the right place to start with.
It was enthusiastically recommended to all those FIs who attended the ETA seminars this year.......and it's so easy. To correct using P&P you need to be able to spot an IAS error, to correct using the 'other' technique you need to be able to spot a glidepath error, which is much more difficult!
It was enthusiastically recommended to all those FIs who attended the ETA seminars this year.......and it's so easy. To correct using P&P you need to be able to spot an IAS error, to correct using the 'other' technique you need to be able to spot a glidepath error, which is much more difficult!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Wycombe, somebody has given you some duff gen. Bigger aircraft just have more inertia, so will not, initially, appear to lose speed as much as a light aircraft, but, believe me, more thrust is still required.
Just remember the diagram of forces in a turn. For the same reasons as in a light AC, so the big ones need to increase the lift to maintain level flight. We do that by increasing the angle of attack, and countering the increase in drag by adding thrust.
Pure GeeWhiz info follows: the B737-200, requires 2-4% additional N1 in a 45' bank turn, at 250 KIAS, than in level flight. (we train this at FL150, but the figures are pretty constant up to FL310)
Just remember the diagram of forces in a turn. For the same reasons as in a light AC, so the big ones need to increase the lift to maintain level flight. We do that by increasing the angle of attack, and countering the increase in drag by adding thrust.
Pure GeeWhiz info follows: the B737-200, requires 2-4% additional N1 in a 45' bank turn, at 250 KIAS, than in level flight. (we train this at FL150, but the figures are pretty constant up to FL310)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Often on short final to runway 20 at my home airfield we encounter some quite nasty sink usually only 100ft or so agl,which I quite naturally correct with a big squeeze of power as I have been taught the conventional method of power for height, so if I am unexpectedly going down too fast it is a natural reaction.I was just wondering what a low time pilot would do if he were trained in point and squirt,would he naturally pull back on the stick to regain the glideslope,and leave the power until a visible drop in airspeed occurred,thus quite probably inviting a stall at low level?
I would very much like to give point and squirt a go,but would appreciate some feedback on my concern first.
keep safe,
El Cid
I would very much like to give point and squirt a go,but would appreciate some feedback on my concern first.
keep safe,
El Cid
Guest
Posts: n/a
That is a very good point.
I have found Runway 02 at Rochester to be a perfect example with a sheer chalk embankment with the accompanying rotors.
Last time I "arrived" from that direction i must have come over the fence with about 75% power to beat the sink!
It was a trained natural reaction.
I have found Runway 02 at Rochester to be a perfect example with a sheer chalk embankment with the accompanying rotors.
Last time I "arrived" from that direction i must have come over the fence with about 75% power to beat the sink!
It was a trained natural reaction.
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is an old hairy hoary one!
Perhaps the best way to sum it up is this:
1. When power is fixed elevators control speed;
2. When the flight path is fixed Power/
Thrust controls speed
In case 1 consider climbing at climb setting which is fixed. The only way to control speed is by changing pitch attitude with the elevator.
Similarly when descending on idle Power/ Thrust speed is controlled by attitude adjustment with the elevators.
In case 2 consider the condition of level flight and also when following a fixed approach angle whether it be by ILS or visually to a runway aim point. In both these cases the desired flight path is fixed and is controlled by elevator and speed is maintained by appropriate thrust adjustments.
Suppose you are on approach speed on slope on an ILS Glide path (same as a fixed angle visual approach)and the speed suddenly drops 5 kts. There will be a tendency to sink below the glide path. This is immediately prevented by elevator to maintain on glideslope and power is added as generously as necessary to regain desired speed. If on the other hand you lower the nose to regain speed you go below your desired glideslope and now you have two things to set right instead of one. You will still need to increase Power/Thrust. In the meantime you have allowed a higher sink rate to develop close to the ground which may be difficult to correct before ground contact.
On approach to land it is usual to carry an additional speed increment to allow for variations in windy and turbulent conditions this speed is for just such a purpose and should be "used" on a short term basis to achieve a stable approach path.If you make no claim on this extra speed increment it is equivalent to paying for insurance and not making a claim.
[This message has been edited by pterodactyl (edited 29 August 2000).]
Perhaps the best way to sum it up is this:
1. When power is fixed elevators control speed;
2. When the flight path is fixed Power/
Thrust controls speed
In case 1 consider climbing at climb setting which is fixed. The only way to control speed is by changing pitch attitude with the elevator.
Similarly when descending on idle Power/ Thrust speed is controlled by attitude adjustment with the elevators.
In case 2 consider the condition of level flight and also when following a fixed approach angle whether it be by ILS or visually to a runway aim point. In both these cases the desired flight path is fixed and is controlled by elevator and speed is maintained by appropriate thrust adjustments.
Suppose you are on approach speed on slope on an ILS Glide path (same as a fixed angle visual approach)and the speed suddenly drops 5 kts. There will be a tendency to sink below the glide path. This is immediately prevented by elevator to maintain on glideslope and power is added as generously as necessary to regain desired speed. If on the other hand you lower the nose to regain speed you go below your desired glideslope and now you have two things to set right instead of one. You will still need to increase Power/Thrust. In the meantime you have allowed a higher sink rate to develop close to the ground which may be difficult to correct before ground contact.
On approach to land it is usual to carry an additional speed increment to allow for variations in windy and turbulent conditions this speed is for just such a purpose and should be "used" on a short term basis to achieve a stable approach path.If you make no claim on this extra speed increment it is equivalent to paying for insurance and not making a claim.
[This message has been edited by pterodactyl (edited 29 August 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Another chestnut...
correcting wing drop on final approach.
I have been trained to use opposite rudder, again not natural at first but much safer at low speed.
I have noticed that not all light aircraft pilots use this technique using aileron instead.
correcting wing drop on final approach.
I have been trained to use opposite rudder, again not natural at first but much safer at low speed.
I have noticed that not all light aircraft pilots use this technique using aileron instead.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Please explain how on earth making rudder movements at low speed is in any way safer than using aileron to maintain wings level and rudder to maintain balance.
Large rudder inputs at low speed to correct for 'wing drop' is positively inviting a spin.
Hoping to read your reply whilst you're still alive.
Large rudder inputs at low speed to correct for 'wing drop' is positively inviting a spin.
Hoping to read your reply whilst you're still alive.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I too correct an unexpected wing drop with rudder as this is how I have been taught.I have always been taught that opposite rudder and neutral aileron is the way to avoid a spin as this prevents the dropping wing from stalling further.I am not saying that this is correct,but we can only follow what we have been taught so I would be really grateful if you could explain the reasoning behind correcting it with aileron as I am always interested in learning how to make my flying safer.
Thanks,
El Cid
Thanks,
El Cid
Guest
Posts: n/a
The primary effects of controls apply at all stages of controlled flight. 'Picking up a wing with rudder' is an archaic myth which is total rubbish. At the stall, rudder should only ever be used to maintain balanced flight (ball in the middle). NEVER should any attempt be made to use the further effect of rudder to attempt to return the aircraft to wings level flight, neither should any attempt be made to recover to wings level using aileron until the wing has unstalled.
The Standard Stall Recovery is ALWAYS 'FULL POWER and control column CENTRALLY forward until an attitude is reached which results in stall identification ceasing, at which point maintain that pitch attitude. THEN roll wings level using aileron whilst keeping the ball centred. THEN recover from the descent!!'
On an approach you are sufficiently far from the stall to use the flying controls in the conventional manner. So, if you suffer a wing drop due to a gust of wind, roll back to wings level using aileron, but KEEP THE BALL CENTRED!! Older aeroplanes had considerable adverse yaw with large aileron deflexion and it was VITAL to use the rudder to balance the aircraft as a result. This gave rise to the myth that these large rudder movements gave the primary corrective force needed to return to normal wings level flight.
LOW+SLOW+COARSE RUDDER=SPIN=DEATH!!
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 26 August 2000).]
The Standard Stall Recovery is ALWAYS 'FULL POWER and control column CENTRALLY forward until an attitude is reached which results in stall identification ceasing, at which point maintain that pitch attitude. THEN roll wings level using aileron whilst keeping the ball centred. THEN recover from the descent!!'
On an approach you are sufficiently far from the stall to use the flying controls in the conventional manner. So, if you suffer a wing drop due to a gust of wind, roll back to wings level using aileron, but KEEP THE BALL CENTRED!! Older aeroplanes had considerable adverse yaw with large aileron deflexion and it was VITAL to use the rudder to balance the aircraft as a result. This gave rise to the myth that these large rudder movements gave the primary corrective force needed to return to normal wings level flight.
LOW+SLOW+COARSE RUDDER=SPIN=DEATH!!
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 26 August 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks for your advice BEagle,makes me wonder what other stuff people have been taught that could end up killing them.Chilling thought.
Take care and many thanks,
El Cid
p.s. Do you think that it is ok to prevent the wing dropping further with rudder if it drops at stall,rather than try to raise it completely?
[This message has been edited by El Cid (edited 26 August 2000).]
Take care and many thanks,
El Cid
p.s. Do you think that it is ok to prevent the wing dropping further with rudder if it drops at stall,rather than try to raise it completely?
[This message has been edited by El Cid (edited 26 August 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Absolutely NOT!! If a wing drops at the stall, don't do anything to try and stop it until you've unstalled the wing - otherwise you might be lucky, but you might depart into an incipient spin. The rudder is used purely to keep the aircraft balanced UNLESS you are recovering from a fully-developed spin.