Flying on the step?

[[email protected]]

I'm reading "Fate is the Hunter" and just read something interesting. Gann
states that they would climb to 100 feet above their cruising altitude and
then descend the 100 feet back down. He called this "flying on the step."
He claims that it bought them a few more knots of airspeed.

Has anyone heard of this? Is it normal practice? Or is it one of those
practices that have been disproven?

Personally, I've never heard of this practice.

[Peter Duniho]

" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> I'm reading "Fate is the Hunter" and just read something interesting.
> Gann
> states that they would climb to 100 feet above their cruising altitude and
> then descend the 100 feet back down. He called this "flying on the step."
> He claims that it bought them a few more knots of airspeed.
>
> Has anyone heard of this? Is it normal practice? Or is it one of those
> practices that have been disproven?

You might as well have asked about "low wing or high wing".

Many people, including those who otherwise have great heads on their
shoulders, will swear up and down that "flying on the step" is a real and
useful practice. Many others will just as vehemently point out that there's
no aerodynamic basis for the claim, and that basic physics argues against
it.

Peter Garrison wrote a decent article on the topic several years back, and
it's come up here every now and then over the years as well. Google Groups
can help fill you in on past discussions.

Bottom line: if there were really something to it, it would be wide-spread
industry and military practice. And yet, all those folks continue to climb
to their altitude, accelerate to cruise speed and then throttle back to
maintain that speed.

I will say this (yeah, I know I already wrote my "bottom line" :) )...it's a
great question if for no other reason than it gets people thinking about
what the proper sequence of events for climbing and cruising are, as well
the the whys and wherefors regarding an airplane's speed versus power
relationship.

Pete

[AES/newspost]

In article .net>,
" > wrote:

> I'm reading "Fate is the Hunter" and just read something interesting. Gann
> states that they would climb to 100 feet above their cruising altitude and
> then descend the 100 feet back down. He called this "flying on the step."
> He claims that it bought them a few more knots of airspeed.
>
> Has anyone heard of this? Is it normal practice? Or is it one of those
> practices that have been disproven?
>
> Personally, I've never heard of this practice.


Brought back a very old memory of my first visit to the Soviet Union,
eons ago (maybe 1969?), being driven in from the airport to a Moscow
hotel by a research institute driver who repeatedly accelerated to maybe
50 mph, turned off the engine, coasted back down to maybe 15 mph (with
the clutch disengaged), then repeated the process.

I was told it was a hangover from WW II days, and many Russians were
convinced it substantially increased gas mileage.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 21:37:46 GMT, "
> wrote in
.net>::

>I'm reading "Fate is the Hunter" and just read something interesting. Gann
>states that they would climb to 100 feet above their cruising altitude and
>then descend the 100 feet back down. He called this "flying on the step."
>He claims that it bought them a few more knots of airspeed.
>
>Has anyone heard of this? Is it normal practice? Or is it one of those
>practices that have been disproven?
>
>Personally, I've never heard of this practice.
>
>

It's an urban legend with roots in sea plane operations.

[Tobias Schnell]

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 14:19:12 -0800, AES/newspost
> wrote:

>Brought back a very old memory of my first visit to the Soviet Union,
>eons ago (maybe 1969?), being driven in from the airport to a Moscow
>hotel by a research institute driver who repeatedly accelerated to maybe
>50 mph, turned off the engine, coasted back down to maybe 15 mph (with
>the clutch disengaged), then repeated the process.

This method is still very common with Chinese cab drivers today. At
least that's what I'm told by colleagues who regularly vist my
company's Chinese plants.

Regards
Tobias

[Kyle Boatright]

" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> I'm reading "Fate is the Hunter" and just read something interesting.
> Gann
> states that they would climb to 100 feet above their cruising altitude and
> then descend the 100 feet back down. He called this "flying on the step."
> He claims that it bought them a few more knots of airspeed.
>
> Has anyone heard of this? Is it normal practice? Or is it one of those
> practices that have been disproven?
>
> Personally, I've never heard of this practice.

There is no "step", but the perception is probably based on achieving cruise
speed as quickly as possible after climbing to altitude. The most efficient
cruise occurs at a specific airspeed (in reality, angle of attack). Below
that speed the airplane is on the back side of the power curve, and faster
than that speed, the airplane is wasting fuel...

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the transports and bombers in WWII and
before tried to cruise at this "sweet spot" to maximize range. So, if they
climbed to altitude, set power at cruise, and waited for the airplane to
accelerate to cruise speed, they were in for a <relatively> long wait, and
(in theory, at least) would never quite get to the ideal speed. On the
other hand, if they accelerated to cruise speed before the power reduction
(whether by climbing through, then descending to the cruise altitude, or
just by flying to the desired altitude and keeping the power up), they could
pull power back to cruise and be right at the sweet spot from the get-go...

KB

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> It's an urban legend with roots in sea plane operations.

Actually, other than borrowing the name, the "technique" has nothing to do
with seaplane operations. Even those who believe in the concept aren't
claiming that the extra airspeed comes from a similar process as that found
when getting up "on the step" in a seaplane (where increased performance and
reduced drag comes from lowering the surface area contacting the high-drag
water surface).

[John T Lowry]

" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> I'm reading "Fate is the Hunter" and just read something interesting.
> Gann
> states that they would climb to 100 feet above their cruising altitude
> and
> then descend the 100 feet back down. He called this "flying on the
> step."
> He claims that it bought them a few more knots of airspeed.
>
> Has anyone heard of this? Is it normal practice? Or is it one of
> those
> practices that have been disproven?
>
> Personally, I've never heard of this practice.
>
>
I believe flying "on the step" has been checked out quite well and found
to have no validity.

John Lowry
Flight Physics

[Jose]

> Gann
> states that they would climb to 100 feet above their cruising altitude and
> then descend the 100 feet back down. He called this "flying on the step."
> He claims that it bought them a few more knots of airspeed.

Makes no sense to me... that is, if you mean this as a continuous process (up, down, up, down). Once you are at the most efficient speed (however you define it), deviating from that speed in either direction reduces efficiency. In terms of energy,
you get back all the energy of the climb in the descent - but no more. However, you dissipate (waste) more energy due to friction at the higher speed, which is when you are regaining the energy you spent to climb to the higher altitude. Friction
goes up as the square or the cube of the velocity (depending on the realm), which means you lose more going faster than you gain going slower. So the best way to achieve a certain average speed is to fly at that speed.

Jose
--
for Email, make the obvious change in the address

[William W. Plummer]

wrote:

> I'm reading "Fate is the Hunter" and just read something interesting. Gann
> states that they would climb to 100 feet above their cruising altitude and
> then descend the 100 feet back down. He called this "flying on the step."
> He claims that it bought them a few more knots of airspeed.
>
> Has anyone heard of this? Is it normal practice? Or is it one of those
> practices that have been disproven?
>
> Personally, I've never heard of this practice.

Flying on the step certainly has meaning to seaplane pilots. You
accelerate full-throttle, yoke back and then once you're up, push
forward. The plane will then cruse on the surface of the water and you
can cut the power and remain in a high-speed taxi. I don't have the
experience to say whether the same thing can happen in air but my
intuition says that it does not because there is only one medium.

[Stealth Pilot]

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 21:37:46 GMT, "
> wrote:

>I'm reading "Fate is the Hunter" and just read something interesting. Gann
>states that they would climb to 100 feet above their cruising altitude and
>then descend the 100 feet back down. He called this "flying on the step."
>He claims that it bought them a few more knots of airspeed.
>
>Has anyone heard of this? Is it normal practice? Or is it one of those
>practices that have been disproven?
>
>Personally, I've never heard of this practice.
>
>
it is something that was supposed to be noticeable for an aerofoil
which had a noticeable "drag bucket".
largely non sensical because those aerofoils arent commonly used.
Stealth Pilot

[OtisWinslow]

This idea has been around a long time and I've never been able
to substantiate that it works any better than my normal practice
of leveling off and allowing the aircraft to accelerate to cruise and
then adjusting the power.


" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> I'm reading "Fate is the Hunter" and just read something interesting.
> Gann
> states that they would climb to 100 feet above their cruising altitude and
> then descend the 100 feet back down. He called this "flying on the step."
> He claims that it bought them a few more knots of airspeed.
>
> Has anyone heard of this? Is it normal practice? Or is it one of those
> practices that have been disproven?
>
> Personally, I've never heard of this practice.
>
>
>

[Dan Thomas]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message >...
> " > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
> > I'm reading "Fate is the Hunter" and just read something interesting.
> > Gann
> > states that they would climb to 100 feet above their cruising altitude and
> > then descend the 100 feet back down. He called this "flying on the step."
> > He claims that it bought them a few more knots of airspeed.
> >
> > Has anyone heard of this? Is it normal practice? Or is it one of those
> > practices that have been disproven?
> >
> > Personally, I've never heard of this practice.
>
> There is no "step", but the perception is probably based on achieving cruise
> speed as quickly as possible after climbing to altitude. The most efficient
> cruise occurs at a specific airspeed (in reality, angle of attack). Below
> that speed the airplane is on the back side of the power curve, and faster
> than that speed, the airplane is wasting fuel...
>
> It wouldn't surprise me at all if the transports and bombers in WWII and
> before tried to cruise at this "sweet spot" to maximize range. So, if they
> climbed to altitude, set power at cruise, and waited for the airplane to
> accelerate to cruise speed, they were in for a <relatively> long wait, and
> (in theory, at least) would never quite get to the ideal speed. On the
> other hand, if they accelerated to cruise speed before the power reduction
> (whether by climbing through, then descending to the cruise altitude, or
> just by flying to the desired altitude and keeping the power up), they could
> pull power back to cruise and be right at the sweet spot from the get-go...
>
> KB

We see pilots (trained elsewhere) that regularly level off at
altitude, pulling back the power as they do so, then trimming. The
airplane continues to accelerate and more fooling with trim ensues, as
well as with power (in fixed-pitch) since the RPM comes up as well.
This continues for a long time, with altitude fluctuations and other
distractions completely messing up the flight.
In the Flight Training Manual (Canadian) the proper sequence is
Attitude- Power-Trim, when levelling off. Get the airplane level,
leave the power in until cruise speed is reached, reduce it to the
power that will maintain that speed, and only then is the trim set. It
requires forward pressure which some don't like (some airplanes will
require some trim to keep it manageable), but after the proper process
is followed the airplane will hold altitude properly and the pilot can
get on to other things like navigating. I've sometimes made a student
sort out altitude excursions by rolling in lots of nose-up trim and
forcing him to hold it until the other things settle down.

Dan

[Corky Scott]

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 14:05:51 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>Bottom line: if there were really something to it, it would be wide-spread
>industry and military practice. And yet, all those folks continue to climb
>to their altitude, accelerate to cruise speed and then throttle back to
>maintain that speed.

Perhaps there is something to it then, check out this blurb from a 747
discussion group, the subject for this discussion was started by
someone asking about flying on the step:

***Begin quote***
As for flying 'on the step', I believe Jetguy's on the money. For a
given power setting there will be two speeds available (ie: the two
points on the curve where power available = power required). Being 'on
the step' is when you're flying at the higher of the two speeds.

On a video today I saw a demonstration of how to get 'off the step'.
The scenario was a CX B747-400 simulator with RB211-524H engines. The
aircraft was placed at 40,000' and at a weight which gave a margin of
approximately 30-40kts between the stall and high speed buffet. At a
speed ~ 10kts below the high speed buffet the thrust was reduced,
decellerating in level flight until the onset of the pre-stall buffet.
By this time the aircraft had gone past the lower speed at which level
flight could have been maintained with the initial power setting (ie:
the 'off the step speed'), and was so far up the back side of the
power required curve that full power was needed to maintain level
flight, and stop the IAS from reducing further.

The only solution was to descend, trading a bit of that potential
energy to accelerate the aircraft onto the right side of the drag
curve, and then recapture the initial altitude (if you wanted to test
your luck in coffin corner).

A very interesting demo which certainly highlights one of the major
differences between putting around in a Cessna and high altitude jet
transports.
***end quote***

This would appear to be specific to swept wing airliners only.

My father, who flew PB4Y-1's and -2's told me about the climb above
and dive down to cruising altitude technique which he used for his
long range patrol. The PB4Y-1, called the "Privateer" by the Navy,
was the navalized version of the B-24. Loaded for patrol, it would
have been substantially overgross. The B-24 also had a wing called
the Davis Wing, which had a very narrow cord (high aspect ratio) and
it's likely that it had a narrowly defined best cruise angle of
attack. I think it's possible that if you did not accelerate to the
proper airspeed, you could spend a long time wallowing along behind
the power curve before enough fuel burned off to allow the airplane to
nose down to the proper angle of attack. I agree though that finding
that proper cruise attitude and speed could be achieved by the diving
down method as well as leaving climb power on and throttling back once
the proper speed has been reached, or slightly exceeded. The point is
to exceed it slightly before throttling back, I doubt the airplane
cared which way you managed that.

Corky Scott

[Capt.Doug]

" > Has anyone heard of this? Is it normal practice?
>Or is it one of those practices that have been disproven?

Keep in mind that Mr. Gann occasionally flew aircraft outside their
published limitations. If you fly within your equipment's published
limitations, flying on step will be a myth.

D.

[Mike Rapoport]

When people talk about being "on the step" they are talking about their
being a cruise speed above that which can be obtained by accelerating in
level flight. It is a bunch of BS. You are correct that there are two
speeds achievable at any given power setting, one above L/D max and one
under. There are not TWO speeds above L/D max.

In the case of any airplane, if you have power to climb, you have power to
accelerate. There is no case where you can climb to an altitude and not
accelerate to whatever cruise speed is availible (and there is only one).

Mike
MU-2


"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 14:05:51 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> > wrote:
>
>>Bottom line: if there were really something to it, it would be wide-spread
>>industry and military practice. And yet, all those folks continue to
>>climb
>>to their altitude, accelerate to cruise speed and then throttle back to
>>maintain that speed.
>
> Perhaps there is something to it then, check out this blurb from a 747
> discussion group, the subject for this discussion was started by
> someone asking about flying on the step:
>
> ***Begin quote***
> As for flying 'on the step', I believe Jetguy's on the money. For a
> given power setting there will be two speeds available (ie: the two
> points on the curve where power available = power required). Being 'on
> the step' is when you're flying at the higher of the two speeds.
>
> On a video today I saw a demonstration of how to get 'off the step'.
> The scenario was a CX B747-400 simulator with RB211-524H engines. The
> aircraft was placed at 40,000' and at a weight which gave a margin of
> approximately 30-40kts between the stall and high speed buffet. At a
> speed ~ 10kts below the high speed buffet the thrust was reduced,
> decellerating in level flight until the onset of the pre-stall buffet.
> By this time the aircraft had gone past the lower speed at which level
> flight could have been maintained with the initial power setting (ie:
> the 'off the step speed'), and was so far up the back side of the
> power required curve that full power was needed to maintain level
> flight, and stop the IAS from reducing further.
>
> The only solution was to descend, trading a bit of that potential
> energy to accelerate the aircraft onto the right side of the drag
> curve, and then recapture the initial altitude (if you wanted to test
> your luck in coffin corner).
>
> A very interesting demo which certainly highlights one of the major
> differences between putting around in a Cessna and high altitude jet
> transports.
> ***end quote***
>
> This would appear to be specific to swept wing airliners only.
>
> My father, who flew PB4Y-1's and -2's told me about the climb above
> and dive down to cruising altitude technique which he used for his
> long range patrol. The PB4Y-1, called the "Privateer" by the Navy,
> was the navalized version of the B-24. Loaded for patrol, it would
> have been substantially overgross. The B-24 also had a wing called
> the Davis Wing, which had a very narrow cord (high aspect ratio) and
> it's likely that it had a narrowly defined best cruise angle of
> attack. I think it's possible that if you did not accelerate to the
> proper airspeed, you could spend a long time wallowing along behind
> the power curve before enough fuel burned off to allow the airplane to
> nose down to the proper angle of attack. I agree though that finding
> that proper cruise attitude and speed could be achieved by the diving
> down method as well as leaving climb power on and throttling back once
> the proper speed has been reached, or slightly exceeded. The point is
> to exceed it slightly before throttling back, I doubt the airplane
> cared which way you managed that.
>
> Corky Scott

[Newps]

Peter Duniho wrote:

>
>
> You might as well have asked about "low wing or high wing".

Marvel Mystery Oil similarly makes people lose their minds.

[Dale]

In article >,
Corky Scott > wrote:


> My father, who flew PB4Y-1's and -2's told me about the climb above
> and dive down to cruising altitude technique which he used for his
> long range patrol. The PB4Y-1, called the "Privateer" by the Navy,
> was the navalized version of the B-24. Loaded for patrol, it would
> have been substantially overgross. The B-24 also had a wing called
> the Davis Wing, which had a very narrow cord (high aspect ratio) and
> it's likely that it had a narrowly defined best cruise angle of
> attack. I think it's possible that if you did not accelerate to the
> proper airspeed, you could spend a long time wallowing along behind
> the power curve before enough fuel burned off to allow the airplane to
> nose down to the proper angle of attack. I agree though that finding
> that proper cruise attitude and speed could be achieved by the diving
> down method as well as leaving climb power on and throttling back once
> the proper speed has been reached, or slightly exceeded. The point is
> to exceed it slightly before throttling back, I doubt the airplane
> cared which way you managed that.


I flew a B-24 for a couple of years. We rarely flew at gross, and
certainly never reached the weights the airplanes were operated at
during the war.

If you didn't either climb above and dive down or leave the power up to
accelerate to cruise speed it would make about a 10-15 mph difference in
speed. The method we prefered and used was to climb above the desired
altitude and dive back down. This was quicker than using power to
accelerate.

A pilot that was ham fisted in pitch could bleed off the speed at cruise
and end up on the low end.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Peter Duniho]

"Dale" > wrote in message
...
> If you didn't either climb above and dive down or
> ===> leave the power up to accelerate to cruise speed <===
> it would make about a 10-15 mph difference in
> speed.

[emphasis mine] True...that's what's already been said. Though, in truth,
if you you simply set cruise power, you would eventually accelerate to the
desired cruise speed. It would just take a lot longer.

> The method we prefered and used was to climb above the desired
> altitude and dive back down. This was quicker than using power to
> accelerate.

No, it wasn't. Basic thermodynamics (conservation of energy) dispute that
claim. The time you spent climbing could have been spend accelerating at
climb power, and in the end you'd reach your cruise speed at practically the
same time either way.

> A pilot that was ham fisted in pitch could bleed off the speed at cruise
> and end up on the low end.

He'd have to be pretty ham fisted to drop from cruise speed all the way down
below best L/D to the other equilibrium speed for the power setting. A
pilot that ham-fisted shouldn't be trusted with a Cessna 150, never mind a
B-24.

Pete

[Dale]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:


>
> [emphasis mine] True...that's what's already been said. Though, in truth,
> if you you simply set cruise power, you would eventually accelerate to the
> desired cruise speed. It would just take a lot longer.

Well, no, you wouldn't. I know this from experience in the airplane.

> No, it wasn't. Basic thermodynamics (conservation of energy) dispute that
> claim. The time you spent climbing could have been spend accelerating at
> climb power, and in the end you'd reach your cruise speed at practically the
> same time either way.

Sure worked quicker for us. We tried both methods.

> He'd have to be pretty ham fisted to drop from cruise speed all the way down
> below best L/D to the other equilibrium speed for the power setting. A
> pilot that ham-fisted shouldn't be trusted with a Cessna 150, never mind a
> B-24.

It's very easy to do in the B-24, you don't have to be a bad pilot, just
not used to the quirks of the Liberator.

I'm speaking from experience flying the airplane. How much time do you
have in a B-24?

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Kevin Darling]

" > wrote in message .net>...
> I'm reading "Fate is the Hunter" and just read something interesting. Gann
> states that they would climb to 100 feet above their cruising altitude and
> then descend the 100 feet back down. He called this "flying on the step."
> He claims that it bought them a few more knots of airspeed.

Interestingly, a little Googling found an article from the World
Beechcraft Society, repeated on the US Naval Academy website, that
actually _supports_ the idea in some cases. Look for about the eighth
link down on this page:

http://web.usna.navy.mil/~dfr/technical_flying.html

Titled "Is There A Step?"

[Casey Wilson]

" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> I'm reading "Fate is the Hunter" and just read something interesting.
> Gann
> states that they would climb to 100 feet above their cruising altitude and
> then descend the 100 feet back down. He called this "flying on the step."
> He claims that it bought them a few more knots of airspeed.
>
> Has anyone heard of this? Is it normal practice? Or is it one of those
> practices that have been disproven?

Speaking for myself, unless I deliberately overshoot and "dive" back
down from the step, most of my attempts at achieving a target altitude after
takeoff and a long climb result in something resembling a damped fugoid. I'm
only talking about a hundred feet or so unless I wasn't paying attention,
then it may be more than one hundred.
I don't think it's psychological, it just seems to work easier. For me.
By the way, it has nothing to do with getting a better cruising
airspeed. I still agree with the camp that says if the throttle ends up in
the same place so will the ASI.

[Mike Rapoport]

What the article says is that there are two level flight speeds for any
power setting. Nobody disputes this. Additionally everybody knows how to
get the lower speed. The dispute is whether there is a higher speed
obtainable than that obtained by climbing and then leveling off and
accellerating to cruise speed.

Mike
MU-2


"Kevin Darling" > wrote in message
om...
> " > wrote in message
> .net>...
>> I'm reading "Fate is the Hunter" and just read something interesting.
>> Gann
>> states that they would climb to 100 feet above their cruising altitude
>> and
>> then descend the 100 feet back down. He called this "flying on the
>> step."
>> He claims that it bought them a few more knots of airspeed.
>
> Interestingly, a little Googling found an article from the World
> Beechcraft Society, repeated on the US Naval Academy website, that
> actually _supports_ the idea in some cases. Look for about the eighth
> link down on this page:
>
> http://web.usna.navy.mil/~dfr/technical_flying.html
>
> Titled "Is There A Step?"

[Mike Rapoport]

"Dale" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote:
>
>
>>
>> [emphasis mine] True...that's what's already been said. Though, in
>> truth,
>> if you you simply set cruise power, you would eventually accelerate to
>> the
>> desired cruise speed. It would just take a lot longer.
>
> Well, no, you wouldn't. I know this from experience in the airplane

As long as you are above Vy, you will reach the same velocity no matter what
technique is employed. It is true that you can reach cruise speed sooner if
you clmib and then descend but you well end up at the same speed and will
end up taking more time to reach the point that cruise speed was obtained
with the level off and accellerate method. The teminal speed is where
thrust=drag and there is only two such speeds one below VY and one above it.

Actually at the absolute ceiling there is only one cruise speed (Vy) and, in
the case of supersonic aircraft there can be three but for the airplanes we
are considering this is irrelevent.


Mike
MU-2

[Peter Duniho]

"Dale" > wrote in message
...
> I'm speaking from experience flying the airplane. How much time do you
> have in a B-24?

I'm not sure why you think the B-24 flies using different physics from all
the rest of the airplanes, but I'm sure you're wrong about that. My lack of
B-24 time is irrelevant.

There are plenty of people who claim to have actually experienced airspeed
drop while making a turn from upwind to downwind. That doesn't mean that
they are correct. Same thing here...I don't care how many hours you have in
the B-24, there's no level of experience that is sufficient to enable you to
bypass basic physical laws.

Pete

[Paul Hirose]

A 1956 B-36J flight manual that I have recommends slightly
overshooting the desired cruise altitude:

"As the planned level-off altitude is attained, the aircraft may be
climbed 200 to 500 feet above cruising altitude prior to reducing
power unless instrument flight rules dictate leveling off at the exact
altitude. This small amount of altitude will allow a cushion for the
pilot to trim the aircraft while the engineer is stabilizing
reciprocating power. Regardless of level-off technique, the engineer
has sufficient power available from the reciprocating engines, at less
cost in fuel consumption to complete this maneuver."

The overshoot on level-off could be airspeed instead of altitude:

"Many engineers have found it desirable to hold the climb power after
leveling off so that the airplane accelerates rapidly to a figure well
above the final anticipated value. Some cooling benefits are derived
during this period with increasing air speeds. Then power is reduced
on all engines to a point which is slightly above the final amount so
that while the manual leaning procedure is followed, the necessary
power reductions on individual engines do not result in allowing the
airplane to decelerate below the recommended air speed."

But there's no indication in the B-36 flight manual that approaching
cruise "from above" produced a higher stabilized speed. It simply made
the transition from climb to cruise easier.

--

Paul Hirose >
To reply by email delete INVALID from address.

[Paul Sengupta]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
about flying on the step:
>
> ***Begin quote***
> As for flying 'on the step', I believe Jetguy's on the money. For a
> given power setting there will be two speeds available (ie: the two
> points on the curve where power available = power required). Being 'on
> the step' is when you're flying at the higher of the two speeds.

Mmm? As opposed to flying on the back of the power curve??

Paul

[Paul Sengupta]

"Tobias Schnell" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 14:19:12 -0800, AES/newspost
> > wrote:
>
> >Brought back a very old memory of my first visit to the Soviet Union,
> >eons ago (maybe 1969?), being driven in from the airport to a Moscow
> >hotel by a research institute driver who repeatedly accelerated to maybe
> >50 mph, turned off the engine, coasted back down to maybe 15 mph (with
> >the clutch disengaged), then repeated the process.
>
> This method is still very common with Chinese cab drivers today. At
> least that's what I'm told by colleagues who regularly vist my
> company's Chinese plants.

In 5 months working I China I never had a cab driver do that with me
on board. Virtually every other method of driving you can think of,
but not that! :-)

Paul

[Blueskies]

"Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message
...
> "Tobias Schnell" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 14:19:12 -0800, AES/newspost
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Brought back a very old memory of my first visit to the Soviet Union,
>> >eons ago (maybe 1969?), being driven in from the airport to a Moscow
>> >hotel by a research institute driver who repeatedly accelerated to maybe
>> >50 mph, turned off the engine, coasted back down to maybe 15 mph (with
>> >the clutch disengaged), then repeated the process.
>>
>> This method is still very common with Chinese cab drivers today. At
>> least that's what I'm told by colleagues who regularly vist my
>> company's Chinese plants.
>
> In 5 months working I China I never had a cab driver do that with me
> on board. Virtually every other method of driving you can think of,
> but not that! :-)
>
> Paul
>
>

Two folks show up at the Pearly Gates...

One is a minister and the other is a taxi driver.

St Peter says to the taxi driver "Come forward, get your silk gown and golden staff". The minister thinks he's got it
made, man of the cloth and all. So St Peter calls him over and says "Here are your tattered clothes". The minister is
confused so he asked why he does not get the silk gown. St Peter replies that the minister would preach to all the folks
on Sunday at church, and the folks would fall asleep. However, when the taxi driver drove, folks would pray....

[[email protected]]

Okay, does high wing or low wing airplanes fly better on the step?

<hiding under desk>
"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> " > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
> > I'm reading "Fate is the Hunter" and just read something interesting.
> > Gann
> > states that they would climb to 100 feet above their cruising altitude
and
> > then descend the 100 feet back down. He called this "flying on the
step."
> > He claims that it bought them a few more knots of airspeed.
> >
> > Has anyone heard of this? Is it normal practice? Or is it one of those
> > practices that have been disproven?
>
> You might as well have asked about "low wing or high wing".
>
> Many people, including those who otherwise have great heads on their
> shoulders, will swear up and down that "flying on the step" is a real and
> useful practice. Many others will just as vehemently point out that
there's
> no aerodynamic basis for the claim, and that basic physics argues against
> it.
>
> Peter Garrison wrote a decent article on the topic several years back, and
> it's come up here every now and then over the years as well. Google
Groups
> can help fill you in on past discussions.
>
> Bottom line: if there were really something to it, it would be wide-spread
> industry and military practice. And yet, all those folks continue to
climb
> to their altitude, accelerate to cruise speed and then throttle back to
> maintain that speed.
>
> I will say this (yeah, I know I already wrote my "bottom line" :) )...it's
a
> great question if for no other reason than it gets people thinking about
> what the proper sequence of events for climbing and cruising are, as well
> the the whys and wherefors regarding an airplane's speed versus power
> relationship.
>
> Pete
>
>

[[email protected]]

Actually, they would only do it once at initial level-off.


"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
> > Gann
> > states that they would climb to 100 feet above their cruising altitude
and
> > then descend the 100 feet back down. He called this "flying on the
step."
> > He claims that it bought them a few more knots of airspeed.
>
> Makes no sense to me... that is, if you mean this as a continuous process
(up, down, up, down). Once you are at the most efficient speed (however you
define it), deviating from that speed in either direction reduces
efficiency. In terms of energy,
> you get back all the energy of the climb in the descent - but no more.
However, you dissipate (waste) more energy due to friction at the higher
speed, which is when you are regaining the energy you spent to climb to the
higher altitude. Friction
> goes up as the square or the cube of the velocity (depending on the
realm), which means you lose more going faster than you gain going slower.
So the best way to achieve a certain average speed is to fly at that speed.
>
> Jose
> --
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address