which way do you teach students
03-19-2009, 07:09 AM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: USAF
Posts: 1,398
which way do you teach students
Just curious which way any CFI/student prefers on approach to landing (in a recip) ----the age long debate------
1.) Elevator altitude: Pitching for touchdown point, using power to adjust for airspeed and using pitch for altitude - often used on instrument apps for glideslope control.
2.) AOA-Airspeed method: Using angle of attack for precision control of airspeed and using power to control rate of descent/altitude - often used for VFR short fields and "stick and rudder" back country flying
1.) Elevator altitude: Pitching for touchdown point, using power to adjust for airspeed and using pitch for altitude - often used on instrument apps for glideslope control.
2.) AOA-Airspeed method: Using angle of attack for precision control of airspeed and using power to control rate of descent/altitude - often used for VFR short fields and "stick and rudder" back country flying
03-19-2009, 07:58 AM
#3
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Why Either / Or?
Ryan:
Many decades ago, I read about this in aviation magazines before I took my first lesson, and wondered how there could be such a heated debate.
Most debaters seemed to approach this question as one or the other.
With a lot of time instructing in props and afterburning jets, I say it is always a combination of both. It depends on the moment in time that you need to make a correction...but if you correct one, you will have to adjust the other.
This concept always surpises my more-experienced USAF students who have several hundred or even several thousand hours in light aircraft. They think "Need to go faster....more throttle," but sometimes it is more throttle AND lower the nose, or vice-versa.
Many decades ago, I read about this in aviation magazines before I took my first lesson, and wondered how there could be such a heated debate.
Most debaters seemed to approach this question as one or the other.
With a lot of time instructing in props and afterburning jets, I say it is always a combination of both. It depends on the moment in time that you need to make a correction...but if you correct one, you will have to adjust the other.
This concept always surpises my more-experienced USAF students who have several hundred or even several thousand hours in light aircraft. They think "Need to go faster....more throttle," but sometimes it is more throttle AND lower the nose, or vice-versa.
03-19-2009, 08:29 AM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: USAF
Posts: 1,398
Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer
Ryan:
Many decades ago, I read about this in aviation magazines before I took my first lesson, and wondered how there could be such a heated debate.
Most debaters seemed to approach this question as one or the other.
With a lot of time instructing in props and afterburning jets, I say it is always a combination of both. It depends on the moment in time that you need to make a correction...but if you correct one, you will have to adjust the other.
This concept always surpises my more-experienced USAF students who have several hundred or even several thousand hours in light aircraft. They think "Need to go faster....more throttle," but sometimes it is more throttle AND lower the nose, or vice-versa.
Many decades ago, I read about this in aviation magazines before I took my first lesson, and wondered how there could be such a heated debate.
Most debaters seemed to approach this question as one or the other.
With a lot of time instructing in props and afterburning jets, I say it is always a combination of both. It depends on the moment in time that you need to make a correction...but if you correct one, you will have to adjust the other.
This concept always surpises my more-experienced USAF students who have several hundred or even several thousand hours in light aircraft. They think "Need to go faster....more throttle," but sometimes it is more throttle AND lower the nose, or vice-versa.
That seems to be a logical approach. Maybe I'm wrong but wouldn't the best way to descibe it is to put it in terms like the late John Boyd, in energy. Energy from gravity or energy from thrust. Like I said before there is a lot to learn..... just trying to figure it all out.
03-19-2009, 08:36 AM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: 767A (Ret)
Posts: 6,248
Energy management
Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer
They think "Need to go faster....more throttle," but sometimes it is more throttle AND lower the nose, or vice-versa.
03-19-2009, 10:01 AM
#6
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Gaining Energy & the Acceleration Maneuver
One of the things the students in the T-38 see is an "acceleration maneuver." They don't realize it, but it is a fundamental to gaining energy in air-to-air combat.
They'll try it at 1-g, 300 kts, and going to afterburner until, say, 500 kts. Not all that impressive. Takes about a minute.
Then we'll try it at a higher altitude, but unload to about 0.3 g. Only takes about 20 seconds.
Two reasons: the pull of gravity is one, but induced-drag (which is significant in low-aspect-ratio airplanes like fighters) is almost zero. More thrust and less drag? Accelerate faster!
They'll try it at 1-g, 300 kts, and going to afterburner until, say, 500 kts. Not all that impressive. Takes about a minute.
Then we'll try it at a higher altitude, but unload to about 0.3 g. Only takes about 20 seconds.
Two reasons: the pull of gravity is one, but induced-drag (which is significant in low-aspect-ratio airplanes like fighters) is almost zero. More thrust and less drag? Accelerate faster!
03-19-2009, 10:35 AM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Posts: 826
Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer
Most debaters seemed to approach this question as one or the other.
The goal of both methods are the same - to help the new pilot transition into a world where changes require coordinated pitch and power inputs. It would be nice if CFIs would choose the teaching method that they think best accomplishes that goal, but I think far to many simply pass on the "gospel" they learned themselves.
Fortunately it doesn't seem to matter in the long run (although I have seen people argue that every time there is is stall-related accident, it was because the pilot just "had to" be using the method the speaker disapproved of).
03-20-2009, 05:04 AM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Posts: 652
Pitch vs power....... the answer is both until one has come to a limit. Any change in one will require a change in the other.
Generally in the jets to fly a app I use thrust to speed and pitch to glideslope. An example would be once below glide slope and on speed the flt director would show a pitch up, not a thrust increase with autothrottles. As the airspeed decreases the thrust is then increased by the autothrottles.
On a small much more thrust limited prop flying a visual approach I find that I use the opposite.
Generally in the jets to fly a app I use thrust to speed and pitch to glideslope. An example would be once below glide slope and on speed the flt director would show a pitch up, not a thrust increase with autothrottles. As the airspeed decreases the thrust is then increased by the autothrottles.
On a small much more thrust limited prop flying a visual approach I find that I use the opposite.
03-20-2009, 11:09 AM
#10
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 32
How about ATTITUDE + POWER = PERFORMANCE. Along time time ago when I started learning to fly I was just taught "if it feels right do it" and I basically learned to land and fly a plane flying by the seat of my pants. That was in a J-3 Cub about twenty years ago so I guess you don't get any more basic than that. Now as a CFI I don't think there is any true gospel to use but I tend to prefer the my approach.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
davidpla
Flight Schools and Training
2
10-02-2008 07:10 AM
