Attitude = speed control/power = pitch
EGKB: Think back to when your instructor was teaching you how to do forced landings. Here, elevator definately has to be used to control airspeed since power (by definition is not available) So, ingraining this connection is a safe basic technique which can ALWAYS be applied. Now, fast forward to circuit work and now you are adding power to achieve a desired glidepath angle to land.
As many others have pointed out, other techniques also work but in the early days the elevator/speed connection is the easiest consistant way to go to cover normal + forced landings.
As many others have pointed out, other techniques also work but in the early days the elevator/speed connection is the easiest consistant way to go to cover normal + forced landings.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My autopilot does an amazing piece of work flying the ILS of course it pitches for speed and I have to use thrust to control the descent 
As stated both arguments are not correct.
Take the situation where you are on the glide and hit a bad area of sinking
Air. You are now low and slow do you pitch further into the trees for speed or use power.
It is all about managing the energy available to you from the power unit and airframe and being aware of how to play both.
Pace
As stated both arguments are not correct.
Take the situation where you are on the glide and hit a bad area of sinking
Air. You are now low and slow do you pitch further into the trees for speed or use power.
It is all about managing the energy available to you from the power unit and airframe and being aware of how to play both.
Pace
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My autopilot does an amazing piece of work flying the ILS of course it pitches for speed and I have to use thrust to control the descent
As stated both arguments are not correct.
Take the situation where you are on the glide and hit a bad area of sinking
Air. You are now low and slow do you pitch further into the trees for speed or use power.
It is all about managing the energy available to you from the power unit and airframe and being aware of how to play both.
But the less engine power you have right down to no engine in a Glider the more pitching for speed takes dominance
Pace
As stated both arguments are not correct.
Take the situation where you are on the glide and hit a bad area of sinking
Air. You are now low and slow do you pitch further into the trees for speed or use power.
It is all about managing the energy available to you from the power unit and airframe and being aware of how to play both.
But the less engine power you have right down to no engine in a Glider the more pitching for speed takes dominance
Pace
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Aberdeen, UK
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by thing
I don't really understand the 'push forward for glideslope' point of view when it seems better to just reduce power and let the nose sink.
At 120 kts, with about 1900-2000rpm set on a 172, you definitely push for the glide. I flew an NDB-ILS at Dundee today at 80kts and flaps 10, and that let me use the more traditional way.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know, I'm wondering whether EGKB is suffering from the traditional "rush the student through Ex 4-9 scenario"?
If someone had really taught him about secondary effects, how to handle the aircraft at various speeds, how to manage energy and how to set-up and manage descents, maybe he wouldn't be in the position where he is still thinking about the basics during approach and landing.
I'm sure there are a load of instructors out there who, like me, cry when they find that their student has reached circuits about 5 hours too early.
If someone had really taught him about secondary effects, how to handle the aircraft at various speeds, how to manage energy and how to set-up and manage descents, maybe he wouldn't be in the position where he is still thinking about the basics during approach and landing.
I'm sure there are a load of instructors out there who, like me, cry when they find that their student has reached circuits about 5 hours too early.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We always fly them at cruise speed+ as well for the same reasons. Apart from anything else the control response is obviously better.
Must be hell of a 172 if it manages 120kts at 1900 rpm
Must be hell of a 172 if it manages 120kts at 1900 rpm
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 18nm NE grice 28ft up
Posts: 1,129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CGB has maybe hit it on the head.
Again I'll put it in the simplest terms. Cessna 152/172 final approach, full flap, trimmed for correct speed. Put on full power and it will pitch up and SLOW DOWN.
Get it now?
D.O.
Again I'll put it in the simplest terms. Cessna 152/172 final approach, full flap, trimmed for correct speed. Put on full power and it will pitch up and SLOW DOWN.
Get it now?
D.O.
I have owned shares in three that did that - a Thruster TST and before that a Eurowing Goldwing and an Ultraflight Spectrum. Both had very high thrustlines so increased power increased trim speed.
In the Thruster and Spectrum actually it worked rather well, the aircraft wouldn't quite stall with the throttle closed, but in level flight the aeroplane would generally stay roughly level with changes in power, changing speed only - at-least for around 50-80% power. In both to fly a glide approach, you did have to positively hold the stick forward to fly an appropriate speed - not an uncommon experience in weedhopper derived microlights.
The Goldwing was actually quite dodgy, and would never get certified now. If you stalled it with power at idle, it wouldn't recover without power - the elevator alone wouldn't do it. I tended to land it with moderate power then, leaving the stick in the middle, flare by closing the throttle which pitched it up towards the stall whilst it sunk onto the ground. (A glide approach in the Goldwing neeed the stick virtually on the front stop).
But still, in all of those, it was stick for speed and power for rate of descent on approach (Unless you wanted a very high speed approach in the Goldwind - very high in that deeply disfunctional aeroplane being anything above about 55 knots). But all three you tended to hold the stick forward to maintain approach speed. (None had pitch trimmers you'd want to take home to meet your mother.) Ditto the original Chotia Weedhopper that the Thruster was loosely based upon, and I've had the privilege of flying a few times, same again the AX3, AX2000 and X'Air which were later developments in the same family.
The advantage of all these aeroplanes is that at-least a full power go-around tends not to stall you into the ground.
G
In the Thruster and Spectrum actually it worked rather well, the aircraft wouldn't quite stall with the throttle closed, but in level flight the aeroplane would generally stay roughly level with changes in power, changing speed only - at-least for around 50-80% power. In both to fly a glide approach, you did have to positively hold the stick forward to fly an appropriate speed - not an uncommon experience in weedhopper derived microlights.
The Goldwing was actually quite dodgy, and would never get certified now. If you stalled it with power at idle, it wouldn't recover without power - the elevator alone wouldn't do it. I tended to land it with moderate power then, leaving the stick in the middle, flare by closing the throttle which pitched it up towards the stall whilst it sunk onto the ground. (A glide approach in the Goldwing neeed the stick virtually on the front stop).
But still, in all of those, it was stick for speed and power for rate of descent on approach (Unless you wanted a very high speed approach in the Goldwind - very high in that deeply disfunctional aeroplane being anything above about 55 knots). But all three you tended to hold the stick forward to maintain approach speed. (None had pitch trimmers you'd want to take home to meet your mother.) Ditto the original Chotia Weedhopper that the Thruster was loosely based upon, and I've had the privilege of flying a few times, same again the AX3, AX2000 and X'Air which were later developments in the same family.
The advantage of all these aeroplanes is that at-least a full power go-around tends not to stall you into the ground.
G
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis
A lot of jets pitch down too
But going back to the original question you pitch for potential energy from the airframe which has to mean a loss of altitude to get that energy and you power for energy from the engine.
In my minds eye elevator and throttle are both connected to an energy source which is available to the pilot.
In some situations you need more from one less from the other or max from both.
So both pitch for speed or power for speed are false statements unless you happen to be a glider pitching for speed.
I think it is misleading to not train pilots to use all the controls and energy sources available to them.
Using one method is false training although I fully understand pitching for speed with students in low powered aircraft but it is still incomplete training.
Pace
A lot of jets pitch down too
But going back to the original question you pitch for potential energy from the airframe which has to mean a loss of altitude to get that energy and you power for energy from the engine.In my minds eye elevator and throttle are both connected to an energy source which is available to the pilot.
In some situations you need more from one less from the other or max from both.
So both pitch for speed or power for speed are false statements unless you happen to be a glider pitching for speed.
I think it is misleading to not train pilots to use all the controls and energy sources available to them.
Using one method is false training although I fully understand pitching for speed with students in low powered aircraft but it is still incomplete training.
Pace
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SE London
Age: 29
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
D.O.
But obviously if you apply full power you'd OBVIOUSLY stop it pitching up by pushing on the yoke. Who does things 1 by 1? It's all simultaneous!!
But obviously if you apply full power you'd OBVIOUSLY stop it pitching up by pushing on the yoke. Who does things 1 by 1? It's all simultaneous!!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The runway is at 4000 ft msl, aircraft is at gross weight and the air temperature is 35 C.
. This is England after all...I do appreciate that people from different parts of foreign land have to fly under those conditions.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DO
Doing lots of glide approaches ? Other than practicing forced landings I never see the logic or benefit of glide approaches in SEP.
There are far more benefits to a powered approach even in SEP!
Pace
Doing lots of glide approaches ? Other than practicing forced landings I never see the logic or benefit of glide approaches in SEP.
There are far more benefits to a powered approach even in SEP!
Pace
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 18nm NE grice 28ft up
Posts: 1,129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You will be doing lots of glide approaches. You will have to control your speed with the elevator. As one poster has already pointed out this must be second nature.
If the pilot in the AF Airbus had remembered that all these people would still be here today.
D.O.
If the pilot in the AF Airbus had remembered that all these people would still be here today.
D.O.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SE London
Age: 29
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
D.O.
I know how to control the speed using the elervator, I'm just saying it's a waste of time and very backward when you're engine is on and giving you power. Yes, glide approaches it wil be mandatory, as I've done a couple so far. And decents as well, maintaining 65 knots requires nose up/down movement... not hard
But that's not my point, my point is when the engine is working and you have power, why not use it...
I know how to control the speed using the elervator, I'm just saying it's a waste of time and very backward when you're engine is on and giving you power. Yes, glide approaches it wil be mandatory, as I've done a couple so far. And decents as well, maintaining 65 knots requires nose up/down movement... not hard
But that's not my point, my point is when the engine is working and you have power, why not use it...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EGKB
Its NOT a waste of time using pitch to control speed or than it is to use power to control speed.
You have two energy sources pitch for that energy power for that energy ignore one at your peril!
Pace
Its NOT a waste of time using pitch to control speed or than it is to use power to control speed.
You have two energy sources pitch for that energy power for that energy ignore one at your peril!
Pace
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You've had about 100 posts of valid reasons to learn and use the tried and tested, standard, taught technique rather than devising your own methods on the basis of zero experience. Here's another one.
- You want to develop instinctive reflexes for controlling the aircraft correctly under all circumstances. You can't be switching from one method to another under times of stress like an engine failure.
- Speed control of SEP type aircraft is far more directly and responsively controlled by pitch attitude than by throttle.
- Pitching up to correct vertical profile in a low and slow situation in an SEP aircraft is potentially dangerous.