Old Cub Driver Needs Advice [Archive]

View Full Version : Old Cub Driver Needs Advice

airbuster

02-03-2004, 10:53 PM

My First Post folks :D , please bear with me, been lurking for a while finally got brave enough to attempt this.

Many hours and years have slid by the belly since I last flew a Cub and now I have the dubious honor of checking a friend and his Dad out in his new purchase. 150 HP standard configuration small wheels,
This a/c is presently on wheels , they have skis and floats, it will be operated from the Calgary , Alberta area at 3650' ASL and above.

My only recent taildragger time has been in a Bellanca Citabria,lots of Beaver, Otter ,DC3 on Wheels and Skiis Etc etc.all my taildragger experience has been back in the 70/80's
Many years ago 64/65 I operated a 150HP cub on 25 " Goodyears on the Alaska Southeast Panhandle and in Northern BC it was great fun and my first commercial job.

I've been corrupted with big iron since, and always missed the bush, it will be a real treat to fly the cub again

I plan on doing about five hours or so by myself to get back in the groove before I make a complete ass of myself with these guys

I would like to ask for your recommendations on a checkout ie:

Specific to a Super Cub

So please let fly with your thoughts and recommendations

Doug

StewartB

02-03-2004, 11:45 PM

Hi Doug,
I don't know about checkout advice, but you're going to have fun remembering how to use your feet when you fly. Welcome back to a rudder airplane. Polish those teeth, you'll be grinning alot.
SB

Cub Kid

02-04-2004, 12:48 AM

Do your friends have taildragger experience? I would recommend that they learn to fly thier slow flight by feel, as the pitot has a tendency to freeze up. I learned to fly in a 12 right after I got my license in a 150, I did the tailwheel checkout, then got turned loose, and had to learn. Can't think of a better plane to teach a guy to fly. THat plane taught me well. Over the next couple summers I got around 200 hours in it. It was very forgiving, I would not recommend really anything other than practice (can hardly find a funner airplane to practice in...) Have fun

Bill

02-04-2004, 07:17 AM

Here is the checkout I use:

1. Thoruough preflight discussion
2. Find the level flight picture
3. Demonstrate that pitch=airspeed and power=alititude - many people still don't understand this.
4. MCA flight in various configurations. Notice I did not say SLOW flight. Slow flight is a number on the airspeed indicator, MCA (minimum controllable airspeed) is state of flight.
5. Stalls in various configurations, especially cross controlled and at moose speeds.
6. Coordination rolls (somtimes inproperly called "dutch rolls" ) to work on coordination.
7. Steep turns - you can find out a lot about a pilot in MCA and Steep turns. I use the angle braces and just lay them on the horizon.
8. Glides and power off approaches
9. 3 point landings
10. Wheel landings - inisist on it!!!!
11. Slips to landing wheel and 3 point.
12. Short field landings, with slips, in both wheel and 3 point.
13. Power off accuracy landings

Just my thoughts and the things I use.

sj

Steve Pierce

02-04-2004, 07:19 AM

I would go fly with someone, preferably an instructor with some current tailwheel time. Granted it should come back kinda like riding a bike but why risk tearing up a good Cub since you haven't flown a tail dragger in 20 plus years.

When I bought my first airplane (PA16 Clipper) with two other guys, the only guy with a pilots license got real upset cause the insurance required him to get a i hr. checkout in it with an instructor. Our instructor was the National Aerobatic champion that wasn't charging us a dime. My point is sometimes people let a little ego get in the way. You can always learn something and I bet it will make you more comfortable on that first take-off and landing. Just my 2 cents. Good luck and have fun. I'd love to see the smile on your face when you get back from that first flight.

cubdrvr

02-04-2004, 07:37 AM

sj is right on with MCA and steep turns......that will rate the pilot. Then copius amounts of various TO's and LDNG's.

Jerry Gaston

02-04-2004, 07:51 AM

just keep the dirty side down and fly it till it is tied down.

wilbur

02-04-2004, 07:58 AM

This isn't Super Cub specific, but when starting a new taildragger guy, I always say, "get your head out of the panel and out the window". Trying to get them to feel the airplane?

What do say Steve?

Wilbur

HydroCub

02-04-2004, 08:39 AM

Airbuster:

If flying off hard surface, keep your tires max inflated. That will allow the tire to skid (grab less) if you touch down with a side load. Also will be less 'grab' during wheel spinup on a normal touchdown.

Best advice is to find a grass runway to play on. Will allow you to let the student go farther with the aircraft when they fight directional control.

Suggest you also teach 3-point landings before wheel ones. When they master the slow stuff, teach them to transition from tail low flare to wheel landings. Most students are taught wheel landings with much too excessive airspeed.

Steve:

Let's go flying someday. Bet I can prove to you that item # 3 is not the way the wing flies.... even a Cub wing. Is downright dangerous in a highly loaded wing.

cubdrvr

02-04-2004, 09:11 AM

I'm sure most of you guys have heard this one re: pitch= airspeed

The instructor drilled this home to the student, who on taking the active for takeoff held the stick full back without adding power. The instructor says "What the hell you doing?" Student says "Trying to get up enough airspeed to takeoff". :lol:

It's a compromise but sj's item 3 is the correct way to teach students I believe.

HydroCub

02-04-2004, 10:20 AM

It's a compromise but sj's item 3 is the correct way to teach students I believe.

It's a common belief, but there are many NTSB fatal accident reports that prove it wrong.

Maneuvering in critical situations involve high stress. If primary learning is flawed, improper aircraft control can bring fatal results.

The wing keeps (altitude) the aircraft in the air... the power pulls (airspeed) the wing through the air. The use of pitch to control the wing most directly effects lift. Airspeed change is a secondary affect from the change in drag, the result of AOA changes.

If you maintain level flight with pitch... a glidepath or climb angle should be maintained the same way. The aircraft (wing) does not know if it's level, climbing or descending. Bet you fly the ILS glideslope with small pitch changes, with power and flaps set to maintain a target airspeed. Flying a visual glidepath would be no different. A glidepath (flown perfectly) is nothing more than a constant rate descent (with small variations for groundspeed changes). Constant rate descents are most easily flown with pitch. That's the way the FAA, the airlines, Flight Safety and SimuFlite teach it. All million dollar flight management systems and autopilots also control altitude, glidepath rate climbs and rate descents with pitch... even the ones equipped with auto-throttles.

02-04-2004, 10:26 AM

cubdrvr

02-04-2004, 10:52 AM

Bet you fly the ILS glideslope with small pitch changes, with power and flaps set to maintain a target airspeed.

Maybe I do it wrong, but I've always flown the GS with pitch set for the target airspeed and power to regulate the descent. Anybody else?

AkPA/18

02-04-2004, 11:07 AM

Hi Doug

I'm not an instructor. Steve and Hydro have an interesting conversation going here and I am still trying to absorb their different methods. I am not sure how I would teach it but there are two areas that are quite important in my book. Airspeed and coordination. With your Beaver experience you probably feel as I do that they are both forgiving AC right up to that point they bite you. Due to the fact that the cub does not have differential ailerons it needs more rudder input in the turn than most AC. Adverse yaw is a little more pronounced. Number 6 on Steve's list is excellent. Lack of airspeed and lack of coordination is not a good situation in any aircraft, it just seems like it is easier to arrive at this scenario than other AC. Steve I have always remembered them as Dutch Rolls. I thought I read that in "Stick and Rudder". Curious. Be sure and debrief us Doug. Just opinions here and look fwd to more discussions by the flight instructors. Can I use this thread for a BFR???

Mark

HydroCub

02-04-2004, 11:22 AM

Clearly any physics major will tell you that the relationship between pitch, power, and airspeed is one of significant interelation, and any pilot who has flown a lot knows this. HOWEVER, when my student is low on final, the thing I want drilled into his head is that the throttle, not the elevator is going to cure the problem, and then when he is going too fast, the elevator (with an appropropriate power reduction) is going to solve the problem.

Too many people pull the power to slow down without pitching, and too many people pull up (and die) on final instead of adding power.

Actually Steve, I was a physics major in college before changing to Business.

As for being low and depending on the throttle, don't try that technique in a Lake Amphibian... or a Lear Jet for that matter. It will just mean you will hit the water/ground going faster. Even when initiating a go-around, the pitch must be increased to result in the proper climb airspeed attained by the power increase that is made simultaneously.

People who pull up and die on final were never taught from the beginning how the wing flies. When you are slow at less than 50' agl, you don't push forward either, unless you want to flare risking an accelerated stall when you contact the runway. Try that in a highly loaded wing and you might gain 3 kts airspeed while tripling your rate of descent... hardly the desired effect.

In a steep spiral, the throttle and leveling the wings will solve the problem, not the elevator. Pulling up risks a tail/wing failure.... a common scenario in the old Bonanza accidents. Perfect example of basic flawed learning.

02-04-2004, 11:34 AM

Hydro:

Certainly it is important that a pilot undertands the operational gamut of the aircraft they are flying. My comments are probably over generalized as they mostly apply to tractor type pistons such as the C-150, 172, cherokee, supercub, etc. - not pushers, and other variants. I AM making generalizations, but you have to start from a basis of understanding before you can move into complete comprehension of all the various gaits of flight. Many of the folks I teach believe physics is a form of aerobics or something and we try to introduce the concepts in a manner that they can apply the knowledege when it is most badly needed. Of course, steep spirals, spins, and unusual aircraft would require a different approach and your point is well taken.

The struggle is to take a student from not flying to flying without them having to get a college education - and still keep them as safe as possible, which is always my number one goal.

You provide some interesting food for thought and I am not in disagreement, I am just thinking how to best incorporate what you have said into the regimen I use when training pilots.

Thanks!

sj

HydroCub

02-04-2004, 11:52 AM

Anytime, Steve...

I've trained many primary students (three in last two years) and give them the "detailed" basics of aerodynamics from the very first flight. In reality, despite some conceptual challenges, they quickly learn how the wing flies... and more important, get ahead of the aircraft. The last student (a 52 yr old female) flew her patterns so well we only did two go-arounds during her whole training regiment. My students must land in a prescribed area (no long landings are allowed) or they must go-around. If they don't, we stop flying for the day. This creates a challenge and also forces them to apply judgement to their learning process.

Pitch will change airspeed... but that change is a secondary effect of the lift change. The most effective way to make change is to change the force most aligned to the desired change. Airspeed is horizontal movement and aligned with thrust/drag. Altitude is vertical movement and aligned with lift/gravity. Basically, if something needs changing, use the control that is primary to the effect desired. If the secondary effect is substantial, change the control that controls it also.

In 40+ years of flying I've converted a lot of pilots to pitch/altitude & power/airspeed. They've never gone back. Frankly, it's the only way to control a high performance wing if you don't want to kill yourself. The lowly Cub wing flies the same way... just the effect is not so prominent.

StewartB

02-04-2004, 12:09 PM

cubdrvr

02-04-2004, 12:15 PM

HydroCub

02-04-2004, 12:17 PM

So, I turn base to final. I recognize that I'm going to land short of my intended spot. I'm already slow with the flaps out. If I try to correct by use of the elevator, I will get to attend 1 funeral. If I correct with throttle, I can attend more than 1. All physics lessons aside, this is my reality.
SB

Actually, SB.... when you add power in a Cub, the nose will normally rise (pitch) and you will establish a shallower angle of descent while maintaining the same airspeed that did not decrease from the additional drag because of the power increase. Often, your pitch corrections are almost subconscious.... slight as they may be. And, with a Cub wing, the slight increased lift is all that was necessary to shallow the glide angle. That lift comes with a penalty (increased drag) and the power is what keeps the airspeed from decreasing... and gives the perception of lifting the airplane. Make any sense?? All this darn cold & snow in Omaha is blocking my brain waves..!

StewartB

02-04-2004, 12:27 PM

My point wasn't to argue the intellectual or theoretical, but to put it into terms that I use in real situations. The appropriate response to prevent landing short is to increase throttle. What happens after that (in physics terms) is unimportant, except that I reach my landing spot. I'm not arguing, I just prefer the simple answer. I know nothing of physics other than that bad things happen if you hit the ground really hard.
SB

Aviator

02-04-2004, 12:29 PM

Doug,

You definitely want to keep design characteristics in mind. E.g,. on T/O and initial climb, SC's are happy to fly off with the stick "relaxed." On C-180's, you pull back. On DHC's (Beaver, Otter), you push forward. The differences are sublte but worth noting. Oftentimes, pilots get hurt using the "right" technique on the wrong airplane.

Have fun
Nick

HydroCub

02-04-2004, 12:33 PM

Hydro.......maybe I'm not understanding your point on this. Whether on the GS in a Bonanza or stabilized final in a cub if you are settling below your intended flight path(losing altitude) a pitch change may bring you back up to your desired track BUT without the addition ot throttle you lose airspeed in either case. With a slight increase in power you maintain that airspeed and recoup your altitude. I know you can't be saying pull back on the elevator if you're low and slow in any airplane without additional power.......my point is that with the added power you need little or no pitch change.

Power is only necessary after the pitch change if there is a substantial decrease in airspeed without it.

When you just add power, a Cub will usually pitch up (wing lift & vertical component of thrust) and the airspeed often remains stable because the increased power quickly balances with the increased drag from the higher AOA which is shallowing the glide path (rate of descent).

This all boils down to control precision and efficiency..... and the potential use of a control improperly with disastrous results. Use of pitch and power produces a primary & secondary effect. When you add power during a glide, it's the immediate increase (be it slight) in airspeed (primary effect) that creates the additional lift (at the given AOA) that gives you a change in rate of descent (secondary effect). Using the secondary effect of a control works in many cases.... especially on a Cub wing. However, that control use is flawed. Just because you get the desired change doesn't mean you have used the correct control.

Let's go to short final on a C310.... a heavy twin relative to its wing area. When at less than 50' agl with decreasing airspeed, would you pitch forward..?? To do so would only increase airspeed (secondary effect) a few knots while your rate of descent (primary effect) would most likely increase 200-300%. The correct action would be to increase power (to maintain airspeed) and pitch as necessary (to maintain the stable glidepath).

Hope I'm making some sense to you....

Surely you use pitch to maintain a level altitude... a glidepath is virtually the same thing, the wing knows no different. The best way to maintain the perfect glidepath is pitch also.

cubdrvr

02-04-2004, 01:14 PM

We need to be havin' a beer over this..........too much typing.

When at less than 50' agl with decreasing airspeed, would you pitch forward..??
Your airspeed should not be decreasing at 50' or at 5000' if you are in a stabilized mode. If at a critical altitude and airspeed in the cub I would pitch forward and power simultaneously.

The best way to maintain the perfect glidepath is pitch also.Sorry, I gotta disagree.......but we may be on the same page and not know it.

HydroCub

02-04-2004, 01:36 PM

We need to be havin' a beer over this..........too much typing.

When at less than 50' agl with decreasing airspeed, would you pitch forward..??
Your airspeed should not be decreasing at 50' or at 5000' if you are in a stabilized mode.

Actually, even when stabilized, a 5 or 10 knot loss of airspeed is very common if a wind gradient or wind shear is encountered. Would you still pitch down?

The best way to maintain the perfect glidepath is pitch also.Sorry, I gotta disagree.......but we may be on the same page and not know it.

Bet we are too.... pay careful attention next time you are making minor corrections when flying a pattern approach. You will be surprised what you are subconsciously doing with your pitch. This is very common with experienced Cub pilots. Pitch changes become instinctive...power changes only when you know you have to have some airspeed to keep the wing flying.

Didn't you say earlier you fly the ILS glideslope with pitch? A visual approach is no different.

HydroCub

02-04-2004, 02:15 PM

STEVE....

I'm getting a bit concerned. The last two times I've replied to this thread using internal quotes, etc.... my INTERNET EXPLORER started flashing.. as much as 60+ times before I powered down.

Tried another thread I subscribe to with no troubles. Will see if this "sterile" post does the same.

just FYI

John

HydroCub

02-04-2004, 02:16 PM

STEVE,

The "sterile" post worked properly...!!

John

mvivion

02-04-2004, 04:52 PM

I think that Hydro Cub makes a couple of important points. You can assert that power is primary for this, and pitch is primary for that, all you like. That fits in very nicely with the FAA's method of teaching someone to fly airplanes.

I am a bit disturbed by one of the comments, that we are trying to teach someone to fly without them getting a degree in it, or words to that effect.

My philosophy is that if you're gonna fly one of these things, be it a B29, a Super Cub, an F22, or heaven forbid, a Husky, you really do need to know a little bit more about how it works than "pull to go up, power to go fast", or the alternative.

This is a very dynamic environment, and I believe that a lot of the problems we see in pilots down the road is that they never developed an understanding of how a wing flies, thanks to their primary instructor, who tried desperately to "simplify things" for them. In so doing, we've simplified the concept to the point where most low time pilots (and a fair number of high time pilots) really minimize the importance of understandign aerodynamics.

Flying is NOT a simple process. You can't fly an airplane successfully without using ALL the controls. Why not teach that right up front? I'm not convinced that students are so boneheaded that they can't grasp the concepts.......

That is, assuming the instructor actually understands how an airplane flies.

The foregoing discussion is overly simplistic. Hydro Cub is correct, get in a Lake, and adding power low will buy you dirt. But that's not because power controls speed, not altitude, it's because they mounted the dang engine thrust line so high.

I hope nobody who gets low on final just sits there, holding their pitch attitude absolutely firm, while adding power. I'm also hoping that they don't, in the same circumstances, just pull back on the stick till the airplane stalls, without adding power.

Flying is dynamic, not static, and it's complex. It's not that hard to understand, though, and sometimes I think as instructors we tend to underestimate our students.

Course, some of them we tend to overestimate, but frequently only once.

For what it's worth,

MTV

02-04-2004, 05:13 PM

Good points,

I also think it is important to point out that moving the elevator is not the only think that effects pitch. In fact, maybe better put is that TRIM controls airspeed, rather than pitch, since of course the pitch changes when the power is applied / reduced without changing the elevator setting. Leave the trim alone and make a power change and after a few osciliations (depending on the plane) the airpseed will settle back in to roughly the previous trimmed speed. No doubt this is not true on all airplanes, but it is handy when flying an ILS or landing approach in most planes.

Mike V, I appreciate both your and Hydrocubs extensive knowledge of aerodynamics. I have a little more understanding than the FAA provides, but it still is nothing compared to you two. Is it enough to teach people to fly safely in the "normal" manner prescribed by the FAA? I believe so. Is it important to know a lot more when operating on the edges of the flight envelope? Absolutely.

Follow up question, do you believe that the checkride is an appropriate demonstration / requirement of a pilots skill level to ensure there ability to fly safely (at least at that moment)?

sj

StewartB

02-04-2004, 05:33 PM

Mike, Hydro, etc.,
When I was taught to fly, the instructors never said to use either pitch and speed to control the descent. They said elevator and throttle. They were teaching me the response to a situation, the action to take to change the situation. Regardless of whether the nose pitched up or didn't, that wasn't the issue.

I think Steve's "college education" comment is perfectly appropriate. I don't have a clue how a microwave oven works, but I'm a competent operator of one.

Lake's are funny airplanes. You guys say that to use the throttle will drive you into the ground. A friend that has one says the throttle has to be applied to make the elevators effective, including to keep the nose up on approach, which is counterintuitive to a Cessna pilot. I'd love to try one.

Fun topic, guys.
SB

I agree with the dynamics thing. At cruise speed when you yank on your elevator you go up. At approach speed do the same thing and you go down. The point that that relationship changes is airplane specific.

cubdrvr

02-04-2004, 05:47 PM

RCharles

02-04-2004, 08:01 PM

I'm new to this site and really enjoying the reading.Very educational.I learned the power altitute, etc, thing and it has worked for over thirty years.I think it is a good teaching method for new folks but whichever way you are taught,as you gain experience,you feel the interrelationship between all the variables and do what your not really thinking about to get yourself where you need to be at touchdown.sometimes after a not so good landing you can usually identify what you did wrong though!

HydroCub

02-04-2004, 08:06 PM

Follow up question, do you believe that the checkride is an appropriate demonstration / requirement of a pilots skill level to ensure there ability to fly safely (at least at that moment)?

sj

Steve,

I've had good checkrides... easy ones... and lousy ones. Honestly, it's my own personal motivation to be as good as I can be that keeps me in this game.

I've known lousy pilots who had easy checkrides... and excellent pilots that were raked over the coals by an ornery DE. A good examiner will spend a long time studying the applicants logbook to see if they were taught 'everything' they should know at the experience level applicable. A good oral will have key questions to determine if the applicant has a good knowledge of basic concepts... and more important, how they apply. A logbook that can't be read is a sure ticket for a higher level of scrutiny by a competent DE. On a given day, the worst squeak by... the the best screw up. That's why it's my personal belief that 99% of the competency of any pilot falls on the shoulders of those who taught them their basic skills... and more important, motivated them to continue learning and strive for precision and a high level of safety in every flight they take.

What happens on the flight check means little in the big picture. Some of the best psyche out to barely get by and the worst often luck out and get right through the ordeal with ease. I often get DE feedback that my students come much more prepared than average.... and that's as it should be given my years of experience, both flying and instructing. That doesn't mean they don't sometimes flirt on the edge of the maneuver limits when flying, etc.... but most important, the DE feels comfortable that he doesn't have to look extensively for flaws, etc. My students most often say the DE was easier to fly with (and satisfy) than I was. Those comments are taken as a compliment that I've done my job.

I agree with Mike.... this task (both the learning process and the ongoing years of flying) should not be taken lightly nor made easy. I remember the 60's advertising "if you can drive, you can fly" that was trying to get everyone to fly. I've counseled more than one pilot to give it up... and a few to not attempt a career in aviation. At this moment, the airlines are already set up to potential catastrophes from their lax hiring standards of the last 15 years. Fortunately, their training systems have weeded out the worst... and are keeping the marginal in line. Unfortunately, just one weak link can set up a fatal result.... especially when they get beyond their level of skill. The B1900 accident in CLT might be a good example of that issue, but that's another story.

So, back to your question. The current checkride given fairly and thoroughly is about all we have. It establishes a standard that is adequate if the flight checks are given according to the intent of the process. Again, the influence of the CFI is a greater determinate of the pilot's future than the few hours of that the checkride takes.

Any more questions?

HydroCub

02-04-2004, 08:21 PM

sj......I'll butt in here for a short.
I think the FAA needs to make some changes. I started instructing in 1968 and keep my cert current by legal standards but don't do much anymore. I did get in over 6000 hrs. dual given though. In those days stall/spin fatalities were a great majority of the total. Little has changed in the past 35 years. Even Wolfgang's "Stick and Rudder" from an era long before my time understood this yet the statistics still prevail.

Bottom line here, in my opinion, is that you CANNOT make mistakes at a LOW altitude. Somehow that needs to be addressed. I'm not sure of the best way to teach that, but it should be on the priority list for the FAA. If we can reduce the number of low level stalls our GA safety record would skyrocket.

I couldn't agree more with you regarding basic stick & rudder skills. However, my opinion is that knowing how to recover from a spin is useless when the aircraft spins below 400' agl. Spin prevention is the key element and it can be taught by such basic maneuvers as full oscillation stalls (aka falling leaf stalls) and extensive teaching of Dutch Rolls. If the nose doesn't rotate, the aircraft canNOT spin. Anyone with instinctive (yes, it's not a thought process) rudder control will probably never spin an aircraft accidentally. Even hitting the ground without spin rotation probably increases the chance of survival by 1000%.

For many years I've asked pilots I meet... especially instructors... if they were ever taught full oscillation stalls and Dutch Rolls. It is rare that the answer is yes. Most have no concept of what they even are. I find this appalling. Is it no wonder today's students don't have a clue what their feet are for? My early instructors were a crop duster and a Korean War Corsair pilot. I could still have nightmares of what they put me through. None of the touchy/feelly stuff.... but they sure taught me how to fly an airplane.

btw, low speed stalls are often the result of improper pitch use. When slow airspeed becomes instinctive with power application, I would suggest that those problems would lessen. Low and slow requires pitch and power... use of either one alone can be fatal.

02-04-2004, 09:51 PM

Hydro,

Thanks again for the information. It would seem from your posts that my methods are probably reasonable, since we do dutch rolls (actually, they are called cordination rolls), falling leaves, stalls in every configuration, sideways, cross controlled etc.

Looking at the logbook I see that since Feb 2001 when I got my CFI, I have logged 800hrs of dual given, which means I still have a lot to learn about instructing. All of my students (knock on wood) have stayed out of trouble thus far. I have sent about 12 on checkrides. My goal in instructing is to make my students better and safer pilots than I am, and I believe I have been succuessful (of course, part of it is that I suck :nutz: ) so far. Again I appreciate the information, as I am always trying to learn. As you know, the people who believe they know everything about instructing are easy to come by, and I am NOT one of them. In fact, I am always thinking that there is more to know.

My eventual goal is to be a DPE (designated examiner), but there are more hours to log, roads to travel, and hoops to jump before then...

Cubdrvr, my take on the FAA standards and what I teach my students is that the FAA is interested in the BARE MINUMUM, not the maximum. In other words, when they call VFR 1 mile clear of clouds, I say that is the bare minimum for VFR, not what a young pilot should be fooling around in. The same applies to the checkride. It is a minimum standard.

sj

T.J.

02-04-2004, 10:14 PM

Good topic;
Does this mean "That back on the stick ain't up?"

StewartB

02-04-2004, 10:40 PM

Doug,
Please come back and tell everybody how it went. You started one of the best discussions this site has seen in a while. I'd like to hear about the DC-3 time, too. What a great plane.
SB

cubdrvr

02-05-2004, 05:47 AM

double entry..... :morning:

cubdrvr

02-05-2004, 05:49 AM

HydroCub

02-05-2004, 06:18 AM

Sj and Hydro.......
I realize that what the FAA demands are minimum standards and that recovery from low level stall/spins is useless ........but when the leading cause of fatalities is stall/spin at low levels something is not getting across to the students. Spin prevention training is not working. If an instructor adequately teaches stall/spin prevention at 4000' and the student fails to comprehend the relationship between this and how it relates to low level operations then those lessons haven't served their purpose. Maybe its more of a situational awareness that needs to be taught, but when the statistics on pilots getting killed in the same manner for the past 60 plus years haven't changed then something is wrong with the training process.

Can't argue with what you're saying with the exception that my belief is that "spin prevention" is not being taught properly or enough...!!

Another area lacking is training in abnormal flight situations... especially cross-controlled stalls. Heck, I've come across instructors who freely admit they don't teach FULL stalls, just the so-called "stall recognition" that the FAA is so proud of. Fortunately, the DE in this area demands a full stall on checkrides and the applicants don't pass unless they can do them. Another weak area is lack of recognition of low airspeed, high sink rate final descents to landing.... and the opposite, the high speed, no flap approaches that finally touchdown at the runway midpoint.

My guess is that most of us on this board were taught by very experienced instructors with varied backgrounds and thousands of hours of real-time flying experience. Today's instructor is the product of many generations of low-time CFIs teaching new instructors. Much of the book learning is good.... but the application of that sketchy knowledge and real stick & rudder skills are missing.

Bill Rusk

02-05-2004, 08:08 AM

02-05-2004, 08:43 AM

On this topic, I just bought and watched Rich Stowell's emergency manuver training course on video. Rich is the king of spins (18,000 or something like that) and is the guy who lambasted the Piper Traumahawk a few years back for its horrible spin characteristics. As a new pilot, it was enough to keep me out of one.

This video is good, because he shows the base to final skid/spin in a dramatic view on video, it looks like he is really turning final, but is of course up quite a bit higher.

It is an expensive video, but I bought it to show to my students. Worth it I think. Rich is also a master of describing aerodynamics.

sj

I'll get a glider rating next...

CptKelly

02-05-2004, 09:59 AM

To Stewartb: Maybe you think the DC-3 is (was) a great airplane. Thats because you never had an engine failure in one of them. They are death traps on one engine, from my experience(s).

Mike in NC

Steve's Aircraft (Steve)

02-05-2004, 10:04 AM

When my Dad ( a 22 thousand hr crop duster ) got around to teaching me to fly, all the instruments were ubscured and we went out to learn. It talks volumes when you learn to listen and feel. All the instruments do is delay the senses. All airplanes have their own dictionary, the thing to learn is how to interpret it.

Bill Rusk

02-05-2004, 10:21 AM

Steve

Amen.

Bill

strangeak

02-05-2004, 12:33 PM

First let me say that there is a lot of good information being said here.
Most here have far more experience that I do, however I do have a bit of experience here that may be relevant.
During my primary instruction, one of my instructors was kind enough to demonstrate an inadvertent spin entry turning base to final. Lucky for me he was also fast enough to recognize it and recover before we had bark for lunch.
I made a few decisions at that point.
1. New insrtuctor was in order.
2. New company taking instruction was in order.
3. New instructor was going to teach me spins.

My new instructor and I tried to spin a c172 for a few hours but loaded with 2 in front we only ended up with one real spin out of the deal. If you want to spin a c-172, try loading it nearer the aft end of the utility limit.
We did more in a C152. I have also spun a traumahawk. They are not nearly as bad as they are reputed to be. Most have (I forget what they are called) 10 or so inch long pieces of plastic on the leading edges to help with the spin/stall characteristics. The thing that bothers most about them is the entry and tail. The spin entry is more vertical than a c-152, almost feels inverted but isn't) , and if you turn around you can see the tail flopping left and right. Looks really bad, they even have an AD to strengthen it. But otherwise it spins fine.

I have instructors that would not teach full stalls. I suggest you find another one.
I also had an instructor for my Multi that would teach a full vmc demonstration. I think he was one of the best I had.

Enough rambling. Ill go back to lurking :)

airbuster

02-05-2004, 06:26 PM

Thanks to all for your very informative discussion and advice,

Got a couple of hours dual to freshen the old boy up too! Always good advise.Steve P...thanks for the reminder.....My ego has no place in an aircraft, I'm not so proud that I can't learn new stuff or polish up the lack of currency.

Spent yesterday and today re-aquainting myself with the Cub, beautiful clear skies in Calgary and it's only -8 today....You can't wipe the Sh.. ...... grin off my face :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Another day of this and I just may have to ride in the backseat !

SJ

Give me a call when you're coming to Vancouver, would love to meet you and we can do lunch, dinner,coffee or maybe a brew.if you need a place to stay you're welcome to crash at our pad.604 948-1248 or Cell 604 551 -4703

Really do enjoy this site and the great technical discussions

Doug Veitch

HydroCub

02-05-2004, 06:53 PM

If people learned to fly sailplanes first they would understand how an airplane flys. There is no engine to screw up the aerodynamics. Hydrocub, how much sailplane time do you have? The elevator controls AOA. Thats all. Period. That has two primary affects. Lift and drag. Which one of those two is primary will depend on where you are on the lift/drag curve. If you are slow and at high AOA ( the two generally go together but not always) and you increase the AOA some more you may not get more lift in fact you may decrease it, you will get a lot more drag. So when slow then DRAG is the primary affect from increasing AOA. If fast then LIFT will be the primary affect from increasing AOA.

Go back and re read Langewiesche. He was right.

Now all that said....Every airplane is different and should be flown to its CHARACTERISTICS. You can't fly a Boeing 737 the way you fly a CUB, as a F-16, as a Sailplane, as a LAKE anphibian, as a C-185 etc.

I will also state that thrust and AOA are obviously interrelated and you can't use one without the other, but the elevator does NOT control ALTITUDE it controls AOA.

Bill

Bill,

My glider time is limited, <100 flights.

Obviously the elevator controls the AOA of the wing.... and changing the AOA is the most direct way of changing lift... the drag change then effecting the airspeed. Wing lift when gliding most often has a forward vector (thrust) which sometimes gets a significant amount of help from gravity when in good lift conditions. It's the resultant forward forces that determine the amount of airspeed the glider is flying at. Obviously, pitch is commonly used to effect any airspeed change.... and the speed brakes to effect negative airspeed change when desired, especially during a precision descent to the pattern area.

If lift (as you say) is the primary effect of AOA on the front side of the drag curve, is it (elevator) not controlling altitude.? When you pull back, you go up... when you push forward, you go down. Any changes in airspeed are the result of the drag change from the changing AOA.

Bill Rusk

02-05-2004, 10:14 PM

Man I wrote a long post on this and then I lost it prior to posting. Probably for the better as it was probably too long. I will try again tomorrow.

Elevator controls AOA (which is speed). Throttle controls altitude.

Bill

T.J.

02-06-2004, 12:26 AM

delete

02-06-2004, 07:52 AM

The 2002 Nall report (the most recent I think) covers the statistics on general aviation. It is a very interesting read, and it debunks some of the perceptions about the most dangerous portions of flight.

www.aopa.org/asf/publications/02nall.pdf

sj

Bill Rusk

02-06-2004, 01:43 PM

Hydrocub and all

After writing a much too long post that would probably have bored most of the readers to death, then losing it,(Sometimes I hate these computers) I will shorten this way down. There are two REALLY GOOD books that in my humble opinion should be in every aviators library. Stick and Rudder and Aerodynamics for Navel Aviators. You will probably have to read each several times before you get to the point that you really understand AOA and how an airplane flies. Once you do it will all come together like the Holy Grail.
Hydrocub, the section that will explain what you are talking about begins on page 352 and goes for several pages. I tried to scan it in here but I'm not quite up to that level of computer skill yet.
I have tried to learn about flying but it seems the more I learn the more I realize how little I know. I will also admit that most of this stuff applies more to F-16's and high performance jets... but how an airplane flies is common to all and it all revolves around AOA.

I apologize for preaching but please consider reading these two books.

Humbly submitted

Bill

BritishCubBloke

02-07-2004, 05:08 PM

This debate runs and runs wherever pilots gather -- pitch for speed and throttle for rate of descent and how it's not so simple etc. The thing that really worries me about it is that I can't understand it.

I will also state that thrust and AOA are obviously interrelated and you can't use one without the other, but the elevator does NOT control ALTITUDE it controls AOA.

This is exactly what Langewiesche said and everything, as far as I can see, seems to stem from this basic aerodynamic fact.

Most of the time, granted in not hugely challenging conditions, I seem able to fly a reasonable, tight approach and pull off a landing that is perfectly adequate in roughly the place I choose. As far as I can tell, I set an airspeed on the approach and use pitch to control it (or trim as Steve says) and throttle to control the rate of descent. I tend to slow down a little as I come nearer the threshold and so the rate of descent increases a bit, but that's easy enough to compensate for.

I just don't know what lessons I am supposed to take away from this debate as a low time pilot. How should it change my flying? What should I do differently or be more aware of? Can anyone tell me? It worries me because I feel I must be missing something, but can't see what it is.

I have about 400 hours, of which 250 or so in the 150HP Super Cub.

Thanks,

BCB

cubdrvr

02-08-2004, 08:38 AM

BCB........I think all the above are different "perceptions" as to what controls what. It depends on your thought process. What really matters here is that you use the proper control inputs to make the airplane safely do what you want it to do.

I like SB's comparison to a microwave is a previous post. You don't need to explain how it works to properly operate one.

Bill Rusk

02-08-2004, 08:54 AM

bcb

Get the text Aerodynamics for Navel Aviators. It is available from Sporties, or someone out there. I will try again to post it here. (My wifes computer with the scanner got a Trojan this last week, what a pain, I've spent hours trying to fix it. Finally had to scrub the hard drive and start over. Now I'm home , missing a skiplane fly-in over it. Aaarrrgggg.)
Anyway, in reality we all use a combination of techniques to fly the airplanes, and different techniques for different airplanes and different techniques for different circumstances, BUT what is really important is to UNDERSTAND what is happening under your a#$ when you are doing it.
Thus the need to understand this very important subject.

Lets say you are below glidepath on final.

1- If you are a little fast (READ LOW AOA)- you can pull up to the glidepath and fix the altitude and airspeed at the same time. Cool. Works great.

2- If you are slow- Now the problem, if you try to pull up you may stall. You will increase drag a bunch cause the drag curve is pretty steep at high AOA. We have not done much to increase lift cause at high AOA we are already getting about all the wing can give so we are still below glidepath, but now we are really slow, thus less airflow over the wing so creating less lift, so we push in lots of power but we have lots of drag so they balance each other out. Now we are low with lots of drag and no lift. Want to pull back? Can't. You will stall and possibly spin. (you have all this power in and you are slow, are you really coordinated? or has all that torque and P factor got the ball a little off center?)
Now what most folks do in this situation is pull back and add a little power and so it LOOKS like the stick controls altitude and the engine controls speed. But in reality the stick is controlling AOA which gives lift and also DRAG.
Now in the same senario above if you were low on glide path and slow and you add power (don't move the stick and/or change AOA.) the aircraft will rise back to glidepath.
We create lift in two ways, speed and AOA.
Remember slow flight. Constant altitude. Cruise flt at 2200 RPM equals a hundred knots but here we are in slow flt using 2200 RPM just to hold altitude and going about 40 knots. Why? Cause we are in the Region of Reverse Command (some folks call it the back side of the power curve, which is not really correct cause you are on the backside of the LIFT curve). High AOA and LOTS of drag. So does power control speed? No cause it is giving us two different results. AOA and speed always work together.
This whole discussion centers around the concept of the Region of Reverse Command and good old AOA.
Now lets put all this mumbo jumbo into practical use. Short field landing. If you have done it all right you get to the flare with just enough energy to stop the sing rate and touch down with NO FLOAT. Flare, stall, land all at once. Right on the mark at MIN speed. Really tough to do using the stick to point at the spot and throttle to control speed. But if we slow down to min speed and use the throttle to control the glidepath and stick to keep us right on the stall (sounds like high AOA and Region of Reverse Command, hugh?) then we can consistently drop this baby right there without floating down the strip. I guarantee you a beer that this is how Jerry Burr is doing it, and this is how all the other guys, Mike Vivion , Crash, Drath, TJ, etc. are putting it on pebble number one on that sandbar. Read the text starting on page 352 or I'll get it posted here soon.
When the light comes on your flying will go to to the next level, because you will truly understand what is happening out there on that wing. It is a great feeling.

Humbly submitted

Bill

Bill Rusk

02-08-2004, 08:59 AM

Whew, what a mess. I'm not saying that I always fly using the stick to control speed and throttle to control altitude. I use whatever works at that time and I think we all do. Different techniques at different times. But its the basic concept that your brain is processing while you fly that you want to get straight.

Bill

ROOTER

02-08-2004, 09:04 AM

Dear Mr.Airbuster,

I found myself in the same position you are in ten years ago. I had a friend to fling the craving back on me to fly a cub again. I had not flown,excusing Delta, in more years than I want to write down. However I was buying a cub myself. I happen to have a friend that was a pipeline pilot and flight instructor and corporate pilot also. We flew my cub dual on the pipeline patrols and it was very good practice. I would advise you to go to a pro like I did and get warmed back up. A cub is fun and easy after you are back in the grove but it can bite you. Especially on blacktop with low pressure in tires with cross wind.
Example:
A very good friend of mind,flight instructor and turbothrush crop duster, did a quick check out on a retired airforce pilot friend that wanted to fly his cub. He had 1000's of hours in big transport types. On his third trip on solo after he thought he had it he went throught the barb wire fence along the side of the grass strip with out a cross wind. Only pride was hurt bad.
Cub did take some good licks though and was in the shop for a few months.

Sincerely,

Cub Friend Jim

ROOTER

02-08-2004, 09:04 AM

green horn

02-08-2004, 10:03 AM

I have been instructing for nearly 20 years and 15000 hours mostly in taildraggers the pitch power arguement has been going on since the wright brothers, the bottom line is its up to the pilot to understand and manipulate the interplay between pitch power and speed. P.S. if your low and slow add power or your dead meat.

HydroCub

02-08-2004, 10:42 AM

Get the text Aerodynamics for Navel Aviators.

Actually, that text says that a "constant rate" climb or descent is flown with pitch as the primary control. An ILS glideslope or a visual glidepath is nothing more than a constant rate descent with very slight variations for changes in groundspeed.

Anyway, in reality we all use a combination of techniques to fly the airplanes, and different techniques for different airplanes and different techniques for different circumstances, BUT what is really important is to UNDERSTAND what is happening under your a#$ when you are doing it.
Thus the need to understand this very important subject.

Combo techniques are reality in controlling any aircraft, but what is primary effect of using a control may be the thing that can bust your a#$ if used incorrectly. The NTSB files are full of many examples with fatal results from flawed learning regarding aircraft control, especially in aircraft with high wing loadings.

The high-lift design of the Cub airfoil makes this primary/secondary effect of control seem to be the same at times.

Airfoil lift at any given moment is the result of AOA + Airspeed. So, the issue is when controlling lift, what is the most precise and efficient way to make any transition.? In level flight, we use pitch to maintain a constant altitude (rate = zero). If power is increased with no attempt to control pitch, the following sequence is what happens as the aircraft seeks stability again (assuming trim is not changed). +power > +airspeed > +lift (+rate) > +drag (-airspeed) The aircraft then reaches equilibrium at the previously trimmed airspeed with a constant rate of climb. The excess power "enabled" the climb, but it was the accelerated lift from the momentary airspeed increase that made the aircraft transition to a climb. Furthermore, the thrust now has a greater vertical component (contributes to lift) and less horizontal component (inability to counteract increased drag), thus giving the impression that thrust does not increase airspeed.

If power is decreased: -power > +drag > -airspeed > -lift (-rate) > -drag > +airspeed

Lets say you are below glidepath on final.

1- If you are a little fast (READ LOW AOA)- you can pull up to the glidepath and fix the altitude and airspeed at the same time. Cool. Works great.

+pitch > +lift (-rate) > +drag (-airspeed)

2- If you are slow- Now the problem, if you try to pull up you may stall. You will increase drag a bunch cause the drag curve is pretty steep at high AOA. We have not done much to increase lift cause at high AOA we are already getting about all the wing can give so we are still below glidepath, but now we are really slow, thus less airflow over the wing so creating less lift, so we push in lots of power but we have lots of drag so they balance each other out. Now we are low with lots of drag and no lift. Want to pull back? Can't. You will stall and possibly spin. (you have all this power in and you are slow, are you really coordinated? or has all that torque and P factor got the ball a little off center?)

A pilot will never get to this predicament if the aircraft is never allowed to be flown below a minimum of 1.2 Vso with a sink rate exceeding 500 fpm. Anything appoaching this requires a full power go-around, not a last minute, low altitude correction. Any pitch changes (AOA) in this scenario requires aggressive power changes....... The aircraft is nowhere near stable and should note be continued to be flown as such.

Now what most folks do in this situation is pull back and add a little power and so it LOOKS like the stick controls altitude and the engine controls speed. But in reality the stick is controlling AOA which gives lift and also DRAG.

Exactly my point, Bill..... pitch is controlling the AOA of the wing (primary source of lift) while the immediate power increase (horizontal force) is to prevent the increased drag (horizontal force) from reducing the airspeed (horizontal movement) further.

Now in the same senario above if you were low on glide path and slow and you add power (don't move the stick and/or change AOA.) the aircraft will accelerate and thus create more lift and rise back to glidepath.
We create lift in two ways, speed and AOA.
Remember slow flight. Constant altitude. Cruise flt at 2200 RPM equals a hundred knots but here we are in slow flt using 2200 RPM just to hold altitude and going about 40 knots. Why? Cause we are in the Region of Reverse Command (some folks call it the back side of the power curve, which is not really correct cause you are on the backside of the LIFT curve). High AOA and LOTS of drag. So does power control speed? No cause it is giving us two different results. AOA and speed always work together.

Actually, power still does control airspeed as it's the only thing that keeps the aircraft moving through the air. The reason 2200 RPM will fly an aircraft level at 100 kts or 40 kts is, as you say, the drag issue (that's why it's called the drag curve). Power must be added to accelerate from 40 to 100... and decreased to decelerate from 100 to 40. The pitch (AOA) is changed during that transition to maintain altitude (zero rate).

The reason the two axis of the curve plot RPM vs Airspeed is because it is the power that determines the airspeed. Total lift remains constant (although AOA must be changed to hold it constant) as the aircraft has no vertical acceleration during the airspeed transition. The high side of the curve is shallow, because there is very little drag effect until the point of Lmax/Dmin is reached. Then, it slopes up steeply as airspeed decreases, requiring large increases in thrust (rpm) as drag increases from the rapidly increasing AOA. When a Cub is flown slow with full flaps, it is easy to operate in this regime of the drag curve.... and in short field approaches, desirable. However, the fundamental law of aerodynamics does not change just because the aircraft is close to the ground. When maximizing the wing lift, the high AOA creates a lot of drag, and aggressive power use must be used to remain stable. Any change in power will cause an immediate airspeed change at the AOA being flown, thus the perceived effect of the power 'controlling' the altitude (rate of descent in this case). This change in airspeed is affecting lift (the airspeed factor in the AOA + Airspeed = Lift equation), but not controlling it. The primary/secondary effects of control use come very close in this regime, but they still do not reverse.

This whole discussion centers around the concept of the Region of Reverse Command and good old AOA.
Now lets put all this mumbo jumbo into practical use. Short field landing. If you have done it all right you get to the flare with just enough energy to stop the sing rate and touch down with NO FLOAT. Flare, stall, land all at once. Right on the mark at MIN speed. Really tough to do using the stick to point at the spot and throttle to control speed. But if we slow down to min speed and use the throttle to control the glidepath and stick to keep us right on the stall (sounds like high AOA and Region of Reverse Command, hugh?) then we can consistently drop this baby right there without floating down the strip. I guarantee you a beer that this is how Jerry Burr is doing it, and this is how all the other guys, Mike Vivion , Crash, Drath, TJ, etc. are putting it on pebble number one on that sandbar. Read the text starting on page 352 or I'll get it posted here soon.

What I've described above applies to what you are saying here. They may be thinking the throttle is doing all that precise control, but I guarantee the stick is moving very precisely to control AOA thoughout their approaches.

Consider that Cub approaches are often flown at moderate airspeed to maintain control in shear and gusts typical to bush operations. Now, when at >50' agl, the prime consideration is slowing from this "control" airpeed to landing airspeed. It's the flap drag and reduction in power that effects this, not any pitch control as the pitch is used to maintain the glidepath to the flare and touchdown. In fact, a quick forward slip (extra drag) sometimes must be used to further decelerate.

When the light comes on your flying will go to to the next level, because you will truly understand what is happening out there on that wing. It is a great feeling.

That light to me is the issue of primary llearning of aircraft control which is proven to be what a human reverts to in times of high stress. Dumping lift (forward pitch movements) at low airspeeds has been determined as a primary cause of a number of fatal accidents in aircraft with high wing loadings. A Cub wing and a jet transport wing are not the same, but they are bound to the most basic laws of aerodynamics.

Mr J Huff (assuming he's a Delta pilot) has no doubt been trained many times of the proper control use that is emphasized after the Delta 1011 accident at DFW many years ago. The pilot flying pitched down after an airspeed loss, causing a very high rate of descent with no airspeed gain. The aircraft subsequently slammed into the ground. Later analysis proved that pitching UP and adding aggressive thrust would have flown the aircraft out of the micro-burst it encountered. Same goes for a number of other similar accidents. The Air Florida departure at DCA would have been routine if the crew had firewalled their thrust levers rather than flying the aircraft behind the power curve with pitch as it struggled to remain airborne. Again, just a few examples of basic flawed use of controls, but they make a point, I believe.

You are right, it is all about the wing. And the most basic law of flight is that the wing holds the aircraft in the air (lift) and the thrust pulls it through the air (airspeed). Everything else that happens in normal flight maneuvers is determined by how they relate.

Bill Rusk

02-08-2004, 10:43 AM

Greenhorn.

Thats pretty much the bottom line.

Bill

HydroCub

02-08-2004, 12:57 PM

Actually, power still does control airspeed as it's the only thing that keeps the aircraft moving through the air. The reason 2200 RPM will fly an aircraft level at 100 kts or 40 kts is, as you say, the drag issue (that's why it's called the drag curve). Power must be added to accelerate from 40 to 100... and decreased to decelerate from 100 to 40. The pitch (AOA) is changed during that transition to maintain altitude (zero rate).

Let me clarify one point: when decelerating from 100 to 40, the power must be decreased until the bottom of the drag curve is reached, then increased during further deceleration as the massive amount of drag from the increasing AOA must be counteracted. It is still a matter of managing the horizontal forces of thrust and drag as the airspeed is changing. As the rear tilting lift of the wing increases induced drag, the "up" force of the high angled thrust line does contribute to lift, but the main "control" of airspeed is still the variation of the horizontal forces of resultant thrust and drag. The wing is still what is "lifting" the aircraft and the control of its AOA (pitch) is still the best way to effect that lift.

On the front side of the drag curve is little danger relating to the cross effect of control use... but on the back side, the coordination of power and pitch is very essential to maintain safe flight. My experience has been that most pilots do it correctly, not knowing exactly how they are doing it (the micro-wave example).

I hope no one on this board thinks my thoughts on this matter are an attempt to jam my way of flying down their throats. It has just been my observation that too many of the "new" pilots in the aviation industry have little knowledge of how an aircraft flies.... and there are already examples of that lack of knowledge and basic aircraft control causing serious accidents.

Those of you who have said that being low and slow and "pulling up" is a death trap have my agreement as this is a flawed control method when the simultaneous use of power is missing. Just the same, if anyone (especially in a highly loaded wing) pushes the nose down when airspeed is slow, the results are just, if not more so, as fatal. Tripling the rate of descent is not a good tradeoff to maybe get a few knots of airspeed. In either case, the approach becomes very unstable and unsafe and should be abandoned.

Excessive descent rates require a lot of lift to stop them..... and that might require as much non-stall AOA as can be attained along with the most thrust the aircraft can get to maintain or add to the airspeed. The recent T-bird accident is a perfect example of the extreme of that. That guy was jinxed as more power would have only made the aircraft hit the ground going faster. If you look at the pictures, it looks like he almost made it before he had to punch out. Believe me, he was pulling up..! If he by chance added the power too soon, it would have actually prevented a steeper pull-up. You never add power to go up when you're still going down. It's pitch that gets the aircraft started towards horizontal (the normal flight regime), not power. This type of control is very basic to instrument training unusual attitude recoveries.

BritishCubBloke

02-08-2004, 02:22 PM

Those of you who have said that being low and slow and "pulling up" is a death trap have my agreement as this is a flawed control method when the simultaneous use of power is missing. Just the same, if anyone (especially in a highly loaded wing) pushes the nose down when airspeed is slow, the results are just, if not more so, as fatal. Tripling the rate of descent is not a good tradeoff to maybe get a few knots of airspeed.

And this is partly what's so confusing here. There are two discussions going on in this thread -- one relating to L1011s and one to Super Cubs. Yes, they're both aircraft and subject to the same basic laws, but the details of how they handle are very different. The momentum of an L1011 is much higher than a Super Cub and the drag is lower with its much higher wing loading and streamlining. If you lose your airspeed in a SC you can reduce AoA slightly, add full power and hopefully be climbing in the blink of an eye. Not so in an L1011, where it's going to take a lot longer to turn the situation around and where nose down / lower AoA in a low speed situation will have a much more profound effect on RoD than in a SC.

Sure, both are subject to lift, drag, power to weight ratio etc., but you can't fly an L1011 like a SC. Or put it this way, an L1011 takes a lot more anticipation to fly than a SC and that gives it profoundly different characteristics.

It seems to me like everyone in this thread is more or less saying the same thing.

BCB

P.S. One other thing to add. In my opinion, the most critical advice for any pilot in Stick and Rudder is that, if in doubt, if things are going pear-shaped when near the ground, you should gently release back pressure on the stick first, roll level, pile on power, ensuring ball in the middle, airspeed OK and climb away. For all us 'grasshopper' plane pilots, with low wing loadings and an excess of power, this has to hold true. I'd hate for anyone reading this thread to get intimidated at the thought of releasing back pressure on the stick when near the ground. It's a completely natural reaction to pull the stick back to 'get away from the ground' and is very hard to over-ride, especially when you're crapping bricks. The only problem is that it will kill you and that's why I find this whole discussion a little bit disturbing / confusing.

Bill Rusk

02-08-2004, 05:31 PM

Whew

I'm really not that smart so I guess I tend to believe the folks that wrote the Book, Aerodynamics for Navel Aviators. Same for Langewiesche.
Hydrocub, I can't find the section that says pitch controls altitude but I sure can the other way. Starts on Page 349 and it is repeated over and over for every phase of flight. I will be the first to admit I don't know it all ( though that is probably not apparent in this thread) so if you can point me to a page I'd like to learn. Seriously, no sarcarsm intended.

You said
"A pilot will never get to this predicament if the aircraft is never allowed to be flown below a minimum of 1.2 Vso with a sink rate exceeding 500 fpm. Anything appoaching this requires a full power go-around, not a last minute, low altitude correction. Any pitch changes (AOA) in this scenario requires aggressive power changes....... The aircraft is nowhere near stable and should note be continued to be flown as such."

I guess you don't believe in teaching spins cause if you are never slow you can"t spin. The FAA apparently agrees with you on this subject. Again, I will defer to those smarter than I but I know that I personally feel more comfortable having learned spins.

You could probably find as many mishaps from "Pulling back" as you could find from "dumping", maybe more. It is far more natural to pull back than it is to dump. It seems like Langewiesche, had a lot to say on this subject also, namely that flying is an unnatural activity and often the correct response was not the natural one.

At anyrate, as previously mentioned, I will concede and retreat to my books, maybe I'm the one who is all messed up here. How can we read the same books and have such totally different opinions of what we have read? What books support your position?

Bill

HydroCub

02-08-2004, 09:22 PM

I'm really not that smart so I guess I tend to believe the folks that wrote the Book, Aerodynamics for Navel Aviators. Same for Langewiesche.

Bill, it's been a long time since I've read both, but I can distinctly remember some things that WL wrote in Stick & Rudder that either has been disproven, or found to be only partially correct. For instance, if I remember correctly, he gives a lot of credit to the accelerated theory of lift versus the deflected air. The Cub airfoil is one of the ones that does share a good proportion, but at high angles of attack, it is the deflected air that is giving the wing the majority of the lift.

Hydrocub, I can't find the section that says pitch controls altitude but I sure can the other way. Starts on Page 349 and it is repeated over and over for every phase of flight. I will be the first to admit I don't know it all ( though that is probably not apparent in this thread) so if you can point me to a page I'd like to learn. Seriously, no sarcarsm intended.

I'll see what I can find.... I think I loaned my Navy manual out years ago and it never came back.

You said
"A pilot will never get to this predicament if the aircraft is never allowed to be flown below a minimum of 1.2 Vso with a sink rate exceeding 500 fpm. Anything appoaching this requires a full power go-around, not a last minute, low altitude correction. Any pitch changes (AOA) in this scenario requires aggressive power changes....... The aircraft is nowhere near stable and should note be continued to be flown as such."

I guess you don't believe in teaching spins cause if you are never slow you can"t spin. The FAA apparently agrees with you on this subject. Again, I will defer to those smarter than I but I know that I personally feel more comfortable having learned spins.

Actually, I do teach spins... but more important, extensively teach spin prevention by making students do full oscillation stalls, cross-controlled stalls and dutch rolls till they are ready to shoot me. Spin recovery is of little use below 400' agl. Rudder use must become instinctive... if no rotation is allowed, the aircraft can't spin, even if it does stall.

You could probably find as many mishaps from "Pulling back" as you could find from "dumping", maybe more. It is far more natural to pull back than it is to dump. It seems like Langewiesche, had a lot to say on this subject also, namely that flying is an unnatural activity and often the correct response was not the natural one.

You just made my point of why basic learning must not be flawed... especially to a student that might transition to higher performance aircraft during their flying life. If a pilot is taught to pitch down when airspeed is low, such control is an accident waiting to happen at low altitude. Even in a typical light plane, pitching down will increase the rate of descent so much that a rapid flare and possible hard touchdown might result (aka accelerated stall).

If you're at 100' agl and slow, do you pitch down? maybe.... at 50' agl? maybe still.... at 25' agl? hmmm, maybe slightly..... at 15' agl? probably not unless you want to bang the mains (or nosewheel) on hard. So, why do you pitch to airspeed at higher altitudes but not when your safety is critical within a few feet of the runway? The airplane (wing) has no idea what altitude it's at. If you add power to correct airspeed at critical low altitudes, why don't you do it at 500' or 1000'... or higher? This is my point regarding primary learning of aircraft control. You can pitch to airspeed for thousands of hours with no consequence.. but if you do it just once at the wrong time, it will ding the aircraft and maybe even do bodily harm.

At anyrate, as previously mentioned, I will concede and retreat to my books, maybe I'm the one who is all messed up here. How can we read the same books and have such totally different opinions of what we have read? What books support your position?

Well, for starters... the FAA Instrument Flying manual, operational manuals for Flight Control Systems, most any airline flight training manual, and both Flight Safety and SimuFlite.

I know many of you are thinking, "what's with this guy?" When I am low and slow in a Cub, if I just add some power, it works out fine.

Indulge me a moment to explain. When low and slow, a Cub has a high angle of attack and the aircraft longitudinal axis (thrust line) is tilted up relative to the descent path. When you add power, not only will the aircraft accelerate a couple of knots, the vertical component of thrust will increase the AOA a couple of degrees (pitch) and that is all that is usually necessary to resolve slight "low/slow" conditions on most approaches. The new angle of attack creates a lot of lift, and the additional thrust will easily cancel the increase in drag from that slight pitch up. The power application is using pitch to increase the AOA and the pilot often isn't even aware of it.

Does adding power in a Cub work?... in most cases, YES. But, one should understand what is really happening to the wing as any transition to a wing that is loaded much heavier (C310, Cirrus, many homebuilts, even the lowly Tri-Pacer) will require more aggressive pitch, not just power use as described above.

Bill Rusk

02-09-2004, 05:55 AM

Hydrocub

Actually Langeweische gives more credit to the deflection theory.
I'm on a trip so it will be a few days before I can do a comprehensive reply but lets get it straight. I'm Not talking about how you fly the airplane I'm talking about how the airplane flys. I no longer want to get opinions I want to you to get out the books and quote the guys with PHD's in aerodynamics.
I have already given you two sources. When I get back I'll give you several more. If you are telling me and the world that you know more than the USAF, US Navy, Charles Dole (PHD in Aero and Dean at USC) and Langeweishe then BACK it up.
The bottom line is you are wrong. Elevator controls airspeed and throttle controls altitude. Thats not my opinion or something I "thunk" up all on my on. Thats what people much smarter than I have written. I don't know you so maybe you are in the same league as they. PHD in aerodynamics? Written several aero texts? Degree in Aero engineering? Not me, so I tend to defer to these folks.
Get out the books and prove it to me. I'll do the same when I get back.

Bill

HydroCub

02-09-2004, 08:12 AM

Bill,

For starters, let me post what was listed on another thread recently as a quote from the USAF Instrument Training Manual. I cannot vouch for its authenticity.

==============================
2.3.5.1. Constant Airspeed Climbs and Descents.

2.3.5.1.1. Power setting. Before entering the climb or descent, choose a power setting and estimate the amount of pitch attitude change required to maintain the airspeed. Normally, the pitch and power changes are made simultaneously.

***

NOTE: Remember, the initial pitch attitude change was an estimated amount to maintain the airspeed constant at the new power setting. The airspeed indicator must be cross-checked to determine the need for subsequent pitch adjustments.

***

2.3.5.2. Rate Climbs and Descents.

2.3.5.2.1. Maintain vertical velocity and airspeed. Rate climbs and descents are
accomplished by maintaining both a desired vertical velocity and airspeed. They are
proficiency maneuvers designed to practice the techniques used during instrument approaches.
Pitch attitude controls the desired vertical velocity, and power controls the desired airspeed.
==============================

I don't have access to my other references at this point. More later

Luke_theDrifter

02-09-2004, 01:44 PM

Howdy,

WOW....this is NASA rocket scientist stuff!!!!!

A cub is 40 to 50+ year old technology. Technology that they just happened to get "right" the first time, and REALLY (the flying part) hasn't been signifigantly improved on since, still the best.

Back to teaching the new Cub owner how to drive the plane, I firmly belive in FEEL. The old guy that taught me wouldn't let look at the guages while I was learning. Its' like kinda like getting trained for IFR, w/ a shield on. Instead of looking at the airspeed or other guages to try to figure out what the plane was doing, he made me "feel" what the plane was doing. Same for landings....I wasn't "allowed" to look at the wind sock, I had to feel the plane to determine, best I could, what direction and velocity the wind was coming from, did look at the compass and airspeed.

In efforts to keep the cub light we always throw out any "extra" stuff we didn't really NEED for flying. This included the little guage that told you if you were coordinated, needle & ball.
A neat trick that I was tought for really good feel at coordination was to fly from the back seat following a creek.
Put someone in the front seat to "spot" for you and pull the carb heat occasionally, then they can also pull the flaps when you land. Meanwhile the guy learning coordination sets in the back seat and follows a meandering creeks making left & right turns, some real sharp while other are not quite as sharp. Setting in the backseat axaggerates any/all slips/skids and gives you a "FEEL" of coordination, or lack of it. To really feel whats going on and to get a sensation of speed, plus to follow every bend on the crrek, you need to be no higher than 75-100' above mother earth.
I'd recomend this to any pilot that thinks they do really good at coordinated turns. One things for sure, if you're not up to snuff like you though your were, you'll find out quick and FEEL whats going wrong.

Good Flying..>Byron

PS....We went from -30 to +35 in the past 24 hours here. Were watching the bar. like a clocks' hands moving with time! (((BIG))) low rated at 963, blowing SW at 45mph, gusting 70+mph.
.

BritishCubBloke

02-09-2004, 06:00 PM

A cub is 40 to 50+ year old technology

70 year old more like.

BCB

02-09-2004, 07:39 PM

Aerodynamics for Navel Aviators

Bill, where can I get the above book? It is about flying around in a belly button?

Just kiddin' ya, you guys have a good thread going here and it is one of the best hashing out of this argument I have heard in a long time. I long since bowed out to you folks superior knowledge on the subject.

sj

HydroCub

02-09-2004, 08:29 PM

==============================
2.3.5.1. Constant Airspeed Climbs and Descents.

2.3.5.1.1. Power setting. Before entering the climb or descent, choose a power setting and estimate the amount of pitch attitude change required to maintain the airspeed. Normally, the pitch and power changes are made simultaneously.

***

NOTE: Remember, the initial pitch attitude change was an estimated amount to maintain the airspeed constant at the new power setting. The airspeed indicator must be cross-checked to determine the need for subsequent pitch adjustments.

Now that I have a few minutes, let me address this situation. At the risk of some of you thinking I'm off the deep end, please follow me through this first:

Even in the above situation, pitch still controls altitude (rate of change, in this case) and power vs drag determines airspeed.

Power is FIXED, so that leaves only pitch to be used to VARY airspeed.

Let's take a Cub climbing at 70 IAS at 600 fpm as the neutral condition.

Pitch up.... the FIRST thing that happens is the increased AOA will INCREASE the rate of climb (primary effect of pitch) as the airspeed decelerates from the increased drag (secondary effect). Eventually, the aircraft stabilizes at the new pitch attitude at say 60 IAS and 800 fpm. Pitch can now be used to make small attitude changes to maintain the newly acquired airspeed of 60 IAS.

or

Instead, pitch down. the FIRST thing that happens is the decreased AOA will DECREASE the rate of climb (primary effect of pitch) and the decreased drag will allow the aircraft to accelerate (secondary effect). The aircraft will then stabilize at a new airspeed, say 80 IAS and possibly 400 fpm. Again, pitch can now be used to maintain the new airspeed.

Virtually every use of a pitch/power change involves a primary and secondary effect of the control usage. The above example is what happens when pitch is used with fixed power.... in the exact sequence after changing AOA with pitch.

To go one step further.... when the desired altitude is reached, pitch is decreased to maintain the target altitude. The decreased drag from that AOA change allows the aircraft to begin accelerating. As it accelerates, more lift (airspeed type) tries to return the aircraft to a climb rate, so more down pitch is required to maintain the desired altitude. Eventually, equilibrium is reached at >cruise airspeed and the power may be decreased to a cruise setting. When power is fixed at a cruise setting, slight pitch adjustments are still made (and trimmed to no stick pressure) to maintain altitude until the aircraft reaches its final cruising airspeed. From that point on, the fixed altitude is easily maintained with slight pitch corrections with little subsequent variance in airspeed.

Some of you might say this is nothing but a semantics argument... but I urge you to go beyond that and really take a good look at what happens to the aircraft wing and how it flies.

Comments anyone..??

behindpropellers

02-09-2004, 11:38 PM

I have a few comments. Most of these come since im taking Applied Flight Dynamics II right now. I have about 370 hours of real flying (not just a bunch of ratings like my friends here at school) with a PPSEL. I beg borrow and steal tailwheel time FYI. ALL of the stuff Bill Rusk and Hydrocub have said is totally up to snuff and anybody who has not had aerodynamics as a physics course or Flight Dynamics is getting a treat by learning this. So a few thoughts......

Area of Reversed Control:

Students are taught to stay out of this part of the curve. I think the PPL should be more demanding but it seems like they are trying to make it even easier with the sport pilot license.

Gliders:

My professor preaches two items to make good pilots: Gliders and Tailwheel airplanes.

I have learned more about how airplanes fly by him relating gliders and later bringing in the power aspect. I do not know if Bill or Hydrocub mentioned it but.... say you lose your engine with a 20 kt headwind. Your best glide is say....60. What speed do you fly for the distance? 70. Right Bill?

Driving on the runway.

One of the other things that my instructor did to me when i was working on my taildragger indorsement was make to make (this is flying a 90hpj3 or a 150 -18) me drive it about half way down the runway. He would limit the throttle so you had to wait to get up to speed rather than just pulling it off of the ground.

I guess thats all.

Tim

T.J.

02-09-2004, 11:55 PM

delete

behindpropellers

02-10-2004, 12:02 AM

TJ-

I agree with you, but the point is that learning how to fly the plane in the region of reversed command (ie behind power curve) is best learned after you are a proficient pilot and wear the airplane like a glove. There is no reason to be in that region unless you are fine tuning your flying skills for short field opps. IE you do not learn calculus before you learn how to add :crazyeyes:

Tim

HydroCub

02-10-2004, 05:33 PM

How about some more of this pitch stuff:

Let's take a typical Cub maneuver like a steep turn. For starters, let's say we're flying a 1600# Cub at 2400 RPM at 100 IAS.

1) A steep turn without any power change.

The aircraft is rolled into a 60 degree bank while pitch is steadily increased to increase the AOA as the wing loads up to 2 g's. When established, the wing is now lifting 3200# to keep the aircraft from beginning to climb or descend. The pitch increase (to increase AOA to lift that 3200#) has caused the total drag to increase, slowing the aircraft to, let's say, about 95 IAS. Holding altitude precisely with pitch requires delicate control usage. In fact, many experienced pilots have learned that varying bank +/- 5 degrees to hold altitude will give more "butt comfortable" lift than simple pitch push/pull to hold the altitude constant. It is the wing lift (controlled by pitch and bank) that is maintaining the constant altitude.

2) A steep turn with a power change.

The aircraft is rolled into a 60 degree bank while pitch is steadily increased AND power is added (at least 100 rpm). When the aircraft is established in the banked turn, the difference now is that the airspeed has not changed (from 100 IAS) as the additional power counteracted the increased drag from the higher AOA required to make the level turn as described above.... very basic pitch and power control to maintain the desired flight profile.

Another very good example of using pitch as a primary altitude control is when making a wheel landing. Normally, the approach airspeed is flown according to the amount of 3-point attitude that is desired in the flare before "sticking" the aircraft on the landing surface. If a higher airspeed is desired for turbulence or a crosswind, more power is required. Pitch is used to flare (stop the glidepath descent) to, ideally, a zero rate of descent just above the runway/ground.... especially from a slow airspeed approach. Pitching forward to touch down simply unloads the wing and helps to put significant weight on the main gear wheels. A higher airspeed approach basically is nothing more than using pitch to stop the descent and then "feel" for the landing surface. At touchdown, power is reduced to idle and then the fun begins, depending on the landing conditions.

Bill Rusk

02-12-2004, 01:32 PM

Hydrocub and all

Aerodynamics 101

Here we go. This thread started when Steve said

"3 Demonstrate that pitch = airspeed and power = altitude. Many people still don't understand this".
Hydrocub responded
"Steve
Lets go flying someday. Bet I can prove to you that item #3 is not the way the wing flies.....even a Cub wing. Is downright dangerous in a highly loaded wing."

The thread really got fired up when I told Hydrocub he was wrong. I said I would back it up so here goes.

Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators (note spelling this time, Steve. Good shot.)

Page 352 " (1) Angle of attack is the primary control of airspeed.
(2) Power setting is the primary control of altitude, i.e., rate of climb/descent.
This is, in my opinion, the premier text on Aero without being a math major. I scanned in the pages at the end of this post. Please note that if you don't understand this it could be because you need to read the 348 pages that come before this part. Hydrocub, note the word primary above.

Pilots Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge AC 61-23B

Page 18 " The function of the elevator control is to provide a means by which the wing's angle of attack may be changed."
Page 29 " In summarizing, it is a fallacy to think that an airplane climbs because of "excess lift". It does not: it climbs because of power available over power required."

Applied Aerodynamics USAF Pilot Training Text

Page 9-7 " To further define what this means in the actual mechanics of flying, we must agree with some of the basic aerodynamic facts related to the functions of the thrust curve such as:
1. Thrust controls the aircraft's rate of climb or descent.
2. Pitch attitude controls indicated airspeed.

Flight Theory for Pilots, University of Southern California, Text, Charles E Dole

Page 138 " We said, "" angle of attack is the primary control of airspeed in steady flight.""
Page 139 " So, throttle setting controls the rate of climb or descent in steady flight."

The Flight instructors Manual, William J. Kershner

Page 50 " Assume here that the airplane is right side up ( and the wings are level, to simplify matters). For the purposes of discussion, think of the elevator and power as being two separate entities. Then,
1. elevator or stabilator controls airspeed,
2. throttle controls altitude.

Design for flying, David B. Thurston

Page 105 " Such desirable flight characteristics are clearly shown by Fig. 8-2, which is based on actual flight data observed with a 150-hp Cherokee. With power and flap deflection stabilized for each curve, a direct reading was obtained for descent rate Vs airspeed, showing that for a fixed throttle setting and airplane configuration airspeed was controlled by the stick. Which is to say, airspeed was controlled by the angle of attack ( pitch trim attitude ) of the airplane. italics are his. This is a book on design criteria for light GA aircraft.

Stick and Rudder, Wolfgang Langewiesche

The whole dang book. Seriously. Page 155 .....and you will see that the throttle is what gets you up or down, and that the so-called "elevator" controls the speed. italics his. Get and read this book.

Lets not confuse flying techniques with the laws of aerodynamics. Hydrocub quotes the USAF Inst Training Manual ..."estimate the pitch change to compensate for power setting..." You said you don't have a copy. I do. I have taught it. All that technique is doing is taking out the oscillations. If you are in stable flight and push the throttle up an amount estimated to give the desired climb rate and don't touch anything else, the aircraft will go through a series of oscillations and end up climbing at the same speed you were at prior to the power change. Thats normal and IAW the laws stated above. (ie add power to climb). The attitude indicator will show, say, 3 degrees higher. ATC does not have time to wait for you to fly through altitudes, airspace etc, while your aircraft seeks its laws, so by estimating the pitch change required you can jump past all that and get stabilized right now. That has nothing to do with the laws of aerodynamics it is a technique to compensate for the oscillations that the airplane has to go through due to both static and dynamic stability. Same for using bank to control altitude in a steep turn. That is a flying technique. This whole discussion centers around the issue of the tail producing downforce to compensate for the pitching moment of the airfoil. If you understand that ( please read Aero for Naval Aviators ) then the ONLY logical conclusion is that AOA controls airspeed and throttle controls altitude. The rest is technique.

Lets talk TECHNIQUE.
With poor techniques you might get to a 10 handicap in golf but those poor techniques will prevent you from ever being a scratch golfer no matter how much you practice. With poor flying techniques you might get along for a long time, but you will never beat Jerry Burr at a spot landing contest using the wrong technique. Line your techniques up such that you are not fighting the laws of aerodynamics and you will have the basics to progress in your flying skills.

Hydrocub stated in a later post..." In 40+ years of flying I've converted a lot of pilots to pitch/altitude and power/airspeed. They have never gone back. Frankly its the only way to control a high performance wing if you don't want to kill yourself. The lowly Cub wing flies the same way....just the effect is not so prominent."

I am not trying to give anyone here MY technique, or convert anyone to MY way of flying. This is not MY way it is the USAF way, the NAVY way and a bunch of others. Can you imagine going to the Test Pilot School at Edwards AFB or Navy PAX River and telling those folks they don't know how an airplane flys or how to fly one. I'm pretty sure they understand high performance wings too. I am not listing any qualifications under my name because I don't want you to believe me, I want you to read the book. Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators. (or any good aero text, they all say the same thing.) It is long and complete, but it does not require a bunch of math to understand. You can probably get a copy from the Government Printing Office. I'd lend you mine but I don't lend out my wife and I don't lend out my copy of that.

One last thought. WARNING OPINION FOLLOWS

In my opinion it takes three things to be a good pilot 1 Judgement
2 Skill
3 Knowledge
It is like a three legged stool. If any leg fails it will collapse.

Please allow me to elaborate. Good judgement is often jokingly said to come from having survived poor judgement. You can also get it by learning from the mistakes of others. Read.
Skill is the physical act of flying. Some may have better hand-eye coordination than others but all of us can benefit by practice and flying. Droning on autopilot does not count for much. Thus 30,000 hours may or may not indicate a skill level. Practice practice practice.
Knowledge. This involves everything from wx, to aerodynamics, to navigation, FAR's, etc. If you only fly on nice wx days you can get by with very little wx knowledge, fly way up north and you may not need as much FAR knowledge, stay close to home and you may never have to navigate, BUT every time you get in an airplane you are LIVING aerodynamics. If I were to concentrate my study time this is the area I would study. If you take nothing else from this thread I will feel better. Get the text and read it please.

So what has been accomplished.
1. I have no doubt lost some esteem from readers of this site. Any time you get in a argument it makes you look bad regardless of your position. I hope to regain your favorable opinion in the future.
2 Have I changed Hydrocubs opinion? Not likely.

Thank You

Bill

Bill Rusk

02-12-2004, 01:35 PM

The scanned pages did not come through. I'm working on it.

Bill

Bill Rusk

02-12-2004, 02:23 PM

You can get a copy of Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators at Amazon.com for 14 bucks and worth every penny.
Still working on the scanned stuff

Bill

K.S.

02-12-2004, 11:55 PM

Bill,
You only lose esteem from an argument that degenerates to insults and cheap one liners. You did neither and I think presented a well backed case. This thread has been a great example of open and lively debate.

JimC

02-13-2004, 11:33 AM

" The airplane (wing) has no idea what altitude it's at".

Actually, in a way it does. It responds to the Biot-Savaart Law.

JimC

Junior

02-18-2004, 04:52 PM

Don't forget to go over some emergency senerios with the owners (both on the Ground and in the Air). Although the SC is a very simple machine the last thing you would want to have happen, is the owners roll their brand new toy up in a ball because they smell smoke.

Don't Forget ANC

A- Aviate (including any emergency handling)
N- Navigate
C- Communicate

Good luck and have fun

HydroCub

02-24-2004, 09:08 PM

Bill,

Just lettin' ya know I haven't cut and run on ya. Lots of your last extensive post is refutable... but not for my available time just now. I do owe you the courtesy of backing up my claims.

For now, consider this:

Even for vertical up and down flight, the elevator controls the flight path and the thrust/drag controls the airspeed. Just another example of how pitch input primarily controls the wing and the thrust/drag factors determining the airspeed (how it moves through the air)... in this case, assisted or hindered by gravity.

Aviator

02-23-2005, 11:45 AM

Too cold to do anything else today, so I looked up topics that were hot a year ago. Interestingly enough, they were also hot 5 years ago, 10, 15, 25, and 40 years ago.

The pitch-power debate, like the birds-flying-inside-the-cabin debate, is unlikely to ever end, simply because it's a good mental workout.

I don't really want to take sides on this issue, but would love to hear power = altitude cults explain tuck.

Keep up the debate, fellows.

:drinking:

BTW, a cult is the church just down the street from your church.