Apologies, I should have mentioned this in that first post. The points made here apply to all aircraft, but I speak in terms of general aviation flight instruction. Not for military or commercial.
Originally Posted by jungle
I can easily change the speed at a fixed power setting(climb or descent) with pitch.
Wouldn't this change in speed with pitch cause the climb or descent to no longer be constant? Why would the climb or descent happen when you use pitch to change AOA to change speed?
Originally Posted by jungle
I was reading Aerodynamics For Naval Aviators(on the way to becoming a Naval Aviator) when you were still in diapers, or perhaps a gleam in your fathers eye. I also have years of instructor time in Military jets.
I am unsure the point. Does this mean you understand it better because you read it 30 years ago?
It's funny, you read that entire post (maybe?) and got nothing out of it. You'll never get anything out of something if you approach it with this kind of attitude. Dismissive and pompous.
You quote the 2 rules I listed that come directly from formula's that I will show and work through if necessary. Then you go off on a rant on how you can break those simple rules. You cannot say it doesn't happen like that, that is how it happens and I will post multiple sources and more books if necessary. How you want to apply it is up to you, like I've said many times now, but the rules for what happens from each input remain constant.
Originally Posted by
NoyGonnaDoIt
That statement displays an invalid assumption (aka "belief") on your part. There's a touch of arrogance in the statement as well.
Not an assumption. I've discussed this topic at least 5 times in the last 6 months. Every time this cycle repeats.
Originally Posted by noygonnadoit
In my case, I think I understand the concepts fairly well.
Did you read the bolded misunderstanding #1? Let me repeat one key section, "This group often will give an example that demonstrates their academic understanding of the topic." I believe you understand the academics, but I think you might take some of that knowledge for granted.
Originally Posted by noygonnadoit
But I'm not arrogant enough to think that mine is the only right way to reach that goal.
I think you have the right way to do it. So long as you ensure the student understand the reality of a control input, not just the perceived reality.
Originally Posted by noygonnadoit
So I don't argue the issue with zealots.
So what was this post? I said, "Keep in mind I am still presenting a case and doing so with conviction." I don't get why many of you seem so offended. Maybe I'm just crazy?
Originally Posted by noygonnadoit
Compare...edited for brevity...
They give techniques and appear to avoid aerodynamic reference. Hmm...are they FAA books? If you read my post you would know my argument has nothing to do with the technique used. Teach any technique you want, but in the process ensure your student knows the reality of the input.
Originally Posted by ual t38 phlyer
This type of thrust-to-weight ratio did not exist when Aero for Navy Guys was written: an airplane that can generate more thrust than drag, at any airspeed or AOA.
Do you think that changes the two questions I used that text to answer? Would you mind explaining how?
Originally Posted by singlecoil
So what do you tell the student who is flying a Lake Amphibian (with the propeller far above the wing) is happening when he adds power during stable, level flight?
Explain the thrust lines relationship to the cg line.