Which of these is cheating?

[Mxsmanic]

Lately I have modified my flying methods in the sim in ways that seem
to produce better results, but I don't know if I'm learning to do
things correctly or simply acquiring bad habits. I want to make sure
that I don't "cheat" too much when flying.

For example, lately I've had a tendency to adjust climb or descent
rates (and altitude to a lesser extent) by making thrust adjustments,
rather than changes in pitch. I seem to recall someone telling me
that this was legitimate, but now I can't find the reference.

Anyway, on approach in particular, I've been using the throttle to
adjust descent rate rather than pitch, the reasoning being that
changing pitch just shifts inertia to a different place, from which it
will return at some point, nullifying the effect of the change in
pitch. For example, if I just point the nose down to descend towards
the airport, airspeed increases, and as soon as I ease off the yoke
I'm climbing again. If I try to climb with pitch, my airspeed drops,
and so I end up descending again shortly thereafter.

So I figure that if I reduce thrust, I reduce lift and inertia, so any
loss of altitude will be durable (unless I increase thrust again). If
I increase thrust, I add lift and inertia, and I climb. Is this the
way I'm supposed to be doing it?

In a related vein, I was wondering how legitimate it is to lower flaps
just for the sake of increasing drag, at low speeds? Lately I've had
a tendency to lower flaps not so much to increase lift on approach,
but just to slow the aircraft down and absorb inertia (which in turn
increases my descent rate). I use flaps much later in the small Baron
than I would in a 737. Once I lower them, I maintain altitude with
increased throttle. I get the feeling that I'm in a more stable
configuration with full flaps and a higher throttle setting than I
would be with no flaps at a lower setting, although I'm not sure what
is giving me this impression.

I have tried to roll to fix runway alignment rather than just using
rudder. However, I still use the rudder when very close to the
runway. For example, if I'm slightly misaligned at 50-100 feet, I
will use some rudder and hold it in order to stay aligned as I touch
down. At higher altitudes, I try to roll into position instead.

I sometimes increase throttle in the last 100 feet or so above the
runway to make sure I don't get too close to a stall. I don't always
land with throttles idle, unless I'm only a few feet above touchdown
and there is no wind (which seems to be rare, if I'm using real-world
weather).

I have consistent problems getting properly aligned for landings
(although in some cases I'm simply too close when I turn to final, I
think). I also tend to be much too high when I come in. I have a lot
of trouble with patterns, turning to final, when I often discover that
I'm parallel to the runway but a quarter-mile off to the left or
right.

For some reason, it always seems that I start to drift out of
alignment in the last 100 feet above the runway. I don't know if this
is from surface-level winds or what. And, unfortunately, controllers
in the sim don't announce surface winds on take-off, even though I've
heard them do this in real life ("wind two seven zero at niner"), so I
have a hard time knowing the wind unless I check the sim or happen to
spy a windsock somewhere.

So, what mistakes am I making?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Christopher Brian Colohan]

I think this book will answer all of your questions and more....

http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aircraft/airplane_handbook/

It is to the point, easy to read, and best of all -- free.

If you want a printed version you can get it from any airport flight
supplies shop in the US for $15 or so.

Chris

Mxsmanic > writes:

> Lately I have modified my flying methods in the sim in ways that seem
> to produce better results, but I don't know if I'm learning to do
> things correctly or simply acquiring bad habits. I want to make sure
> that I don't "cheat" too much when flying.
[snip...]

[John Gaquin]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> For example, lately I've had a tendency to adjust climb or descent
> rates (and altitude to a lesser extent) by making thrust adjustments,
> rather than changes in pitch. I seem to recall someone telling me
> that this was legitimate, but now I can't find the reference.

In general, you're on the right track. Power is altitude; pitch is
airspeed.

[Mxsmanic]

Christopher Brian Colohan writes:

> I think this book will answer all of your questions and more....
>
> http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aircraft/airplane_handbook/
>
> It is to the point, easy to read, and best of all -- free.

Looks like a different one from the one I downloaded before. I'll
download it and take a look. Thanks.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

John Gaquin writes:

> In general, you're on the right track. Power is altitude; pitch is
> airspeed.

OK, thanks. So this is true in all configurations, or only during
certain phases of flight like an approach?

If I'm cruising, is it better to adjust throttles to maintain
altitude, or to set trim, or both, or what? The aircraft seems to
have a natural tendency to climb above a certain thrust setting, and a
natural tendency to descend below that setting (at exactly the right
setting, it will stay level). With full throttle, I have to trim by
2+ degrees to stay at the same altitude. If I use throttle to control
altitude, I can keep neutral trim, but sometimes I end up moving a lot
more slowly than the aircraft is capable of.

Which technique is the way that most real pilots actually use? It's
nice to get somewhere faster, but setting so much downward trim makes
me uneasy for some reason.

Is it ever appropriate to add power in a long turn in order to
maintain altitude?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Judah]

I don't understand what you mean by "cheating".
In real life there is no "cheating". It's a question of flying safely and
with the appropriate amount of stress on the various components of your
airplane to balance the results (eg: most efficient flying to save money on
gas, or fastest possible flight without reducing engine life, etc).


Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Lately I have modified my flying methods in the sim in ways that seem
> to produce better results, but I don't know if I'm learning to do
> things correctly or simply acquiring bad habits. I want to make sure
> that I don't "cheat" too much when flying.
>

[Thomas Borchert]

John,

> Power is altitude; pitch is
> airspeed.
>

Hah! Let the religious wars begin.

Frankly, I have never quite understood the distinction, same as with "forward" and "side" slips.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
M

[Doug[_1_]]

Power is altitude and pitch is airspeed is not always true but the
grain of truth is this. Come down at 60, with power to give VSI of
200fpm. Now increase power and leave pitch alone. Your VSI decreases.

Conversly, pitch down, and your airspeed increases.

So for approaches its sorta true, although of course both power and
pitch influence both altitude and airspeed. It's all interelated.

[John Gaquin]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> OK, thanks. So this is true in all configurations, or only during
> certain phases of flight like an approach?

Very few things are true in all configurations. Every time you want to
change an aircraft's configuration, you are adjusting a fine balance between
pitch and power. Usually, what you're seeking is stability. In general, a
more lasting, stable outcome will be achieved if you think of altitude
change in terms of power, and airspeed change in terms of pitch.

>
> If I'm cruising, is it better to adjust throttles to maintain
> altitude, or to set trim, or both, or what?

When setting up in cruise, do not drive the plane like most people drive a
car. You should start with a preplanned setting in mind: "I am going to
cruise at 2200 rpm and 21 inches". After you attain your altitude and
reduce to this power setting, you would then gradually trim the airplane so
it is flying level at that setting. Your speed will be what it is, plus or
minus a few knots indicated.

[Mxsmanic]

John Gaquin writes:

> When setting up in cruise, do not drive the plane like most people drive a
> car. You should start with a preplanned setting in mind: "I am going to
> cruise at 2200 rpm and 21 inches". After you attain your altitude and
> reduce to this power setting, you would then gradually trim the airplane so
> it is flying level at that setting. Your speed will be what it is, plus or
> minus a few knots indicated.

Is maintaining a specific altitude important under VFR, or is it okay
to drift over a broad range? I admit that I don't necessarily see a
compelling reason to fly at 6000 rather than 4000 (or vice versa) in
most cases, or anywhere in between.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Frankly, I have never quite understood the distinction, same as with
> "forward" and "side" slips.

My reasoning is that all lift in the aircraft is the result of it
moving through air, which in turn is caused by thrust from the
powerplant. Therefore there should be a strong relationship between
thrust (power) and altitude, if the aircraft is not specifically
trimmed to change it. And if the aircraft is trimmed to change it,
then lift will be traded for forward airspeed. Thus, setting the
throttles high will produce more lift and raise the airplane to a
higher altitude. If the aircraft is trimmed to maintain level flight
with that power, it will accelerate forward, trading lift for forward
momentum.

In contrast, if the pitch is changed alone, it simply shifts any
existing momentum from one dimension to another. If you pitch
downward, lift is traded for forward speed. If you pitch upward,
speed is traded for lift. But the sum of both has to remain the same;
the only way to change the overall sum is with adjustments to power.

This also means that, if pitch is trimmed to hold it constant, more
power means more speed, and less power means less speed.

Taking this further, most control movements convert kinetic dimension
in one dimension into kinetic energy in another dimension, but total
kinetic energy must remain constant. An exception is control
movements that create only drag, which convert kinetic energy to heat
and reduce total energy remaining in the aircraft. To add energy, you
have to use the powerplant.

In the case of gliders, they are limited to whatever kinetic energy
they start with. However, since they are light, if they can find
rising columns of air, they can extract energy from these columns and
convert it to lift and/or airspeed. As long as they can find rising
air, they can remain aloft indefinitely. The same is true for
vultures.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> I don't understand what you mean by "cheating".

By "cheating," I mean doing something that either would not be
possible in real life (but can be done in simulation), or doing
somethign that seems to work but actually isn't the best way to
accomplish the goal, usually because of some hidden drawbacks that
only become obvious in certain situations.

An example would be using the rudder inappropriately to turn the
plane. In some cases, you may get away with it, but in other cases,
it may have sudden unpleasant consequences that you could avoid by
always turning the aircraft in a different, more generally applicable
way.

> In real life there is no "cheating". It's a question of flying safely and
> with the appropriate amount of stress on the various components of your
> airplane to balance the results (eg: most efficient flying to save money on
> gas, or fastest possible flight without reducing engine life, etc).

Some people still cheat in real life. If they are lucky, they get
away with it indefinitely. If they are not, they get stuck in a
situation where their cheat method doesn't work quite right, and then
they die.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Doug[_1_]]

VFR Denver Jeffco (KBJC) to Greeley (KGXY). What altitude is best?
Distance is not far (25 miles or so), so no need to climb very high (to
catch tailwinds). Over moderately populated area of 5000', so need ot
be AT LEAST 6000' high. Denver Class B is at 10,000' and 8000' above,
so want to stay below those, Ft Love (KFNL) approaches, which are in
practice and along the route are usually flown at 7000-7500', so avoid
those. It is determined best altitude is 6500' (might as well obide by
the hemisphere rule at least so far as flying the 500's even though I
am less than 3000' AGL and dont legally need to).

And that is without any clouds to consider.

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message

> I admit that I don't necessarily see a
> compelling reason to fly at 6000 rather than 4000 (or vice versa) in
> most cases, or anywhere in between.

Neither of these are legal VFR cruise altitudes where I fly.

[John Gaquin]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> Is maintaining a specific altitude important under VFR, or is it okay
> to drift over a broad range? I admit that I don't necessarily see a
> compelling reason to fly at 6000 rather than 4000 (or vice versa) in
> most cases, or anywhere in between.

Cruising altitudes are assigned or recommended, appropriate to
circumstances. The pilot must be able to put, and keep, his aircraft where
it is supposed to be, within specifically defined parameters. If your
desired cruising altitude is 5500 feet, you should not be fluctuating
between 5200 and 5800. With some experience and proper attention to your
craft, you ought to be able to keep it within 25 feet or so. FAA minimum
standards are somewhat broader.

[Bob Gardner]

OTOH, jet pilots pitch to the glideslope, power to the airspeed...the way
the autopilot (with speed control) does it. There is a difference between
high drag/low power available and low drag/high power available.

Bob Gardner

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>
>> For example, lately I've had a tendency to adjust climb or descent
>> rates (and altitude to a lesser extent) by making thrust adjustments,
>> rather than changes in pitch. I seem to recall someone telling me
>> that this was legitimate, but now I can't find the reference.
>
> In general, you're on the right track. Power is altitude; pitch is
> airspeed.
>

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> Neither of these are legal VFR cruise altitudes where I fly.

Then fly at a legal VFR altitude. Once there, do you carefully hold
the altitude, or do you allow it to drift?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> By "cheating," I mean doing something that either would not be
> possible in real life (but can be done in simulation), or doing
> somethign that seems to work but actually isn't the best way to
> accomplish the goal, usually because of some hidden drawbacks that
> only become obvious in certain situations.
>
> An example would be using the rudder inappropriately to turn the
> plane. In some cases, you may get away with it, but in other cases,
> it may have sudden unpleasant consequences that you could avoid by
> always turning the aircraft in a different, more generally applicable
> way.

What do you mean? What sudden unpleasant consequences are you referring to?

> Some people still cheat in real life. If they are lucky, they get
> away with it indefinitely. If they are not, they get stuck in a
> situation where their cheat method doesn't work quite right, and then
> they die.

Are you claiming that turning a plane using only the rudder kills?

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Is maintaining a specific altitude important under VFR, or is it okay
> to drift over a broad range? I admit that I don't necessarily see a
> compelling reason to fly at 6000 rather than 4000 (or vice versa) in
> most cases, or anywhere in between.
>

Is remaining within the lines of a highway important, or is it OK to swerve
in and out of moving traffic?

[Peter Dohm]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Judah writes:
>
> > I don't understand what you mean by "cheating".
>
> By "cheating," I mean doing something that either would not be
> possible in real life (but can be done in simulation), or doing
> somethign that seems to work but actually isn't the best way to
> accomplish the goal, usually because of some hidden drawbacks that
> only become obvious in certain situations.
>
> An example would be using the rudder inappropriately to turn the
> plane. In some cases, you may get away with it, but in other cases,
> it may have sudden unpleasant consequences that you could avoid by
> always turning the aircraft in a different, more generally applicable
> way.
>
> > In real life there is no "cheating". It's a question of flying safely
and
> > with the appropriate amount of stress on the various components of your
> > airplane to balance the results (eg: most efficient flying to save money
on
> > gas, or fastest possible flight without reducing engine life, etc).
>
> Some people still cheat in real life. If they are lucky, they get
> away with it indefinitely. If they are not, they get stuck in a
> situation where their cheat method doesn't work quite right, and then
> they die.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

You can fly most airplanes with rudder and throttle, and/or rudder and
elevator, and it won't harm the airplane or cause you to crash. However, a
more smoothly coordinated approach is preferred in most situations; so you
"won't get no respect" and passengers may be unwilling to fly with you.

If you've ever ridden in a car with a driver who is less than smooth, then
you know the feeling.

Peter

[Doug[_1_]]

IFR standards are approx -+100'. Most of try for -+50'. Not easy at
first. Gets easier after a while. You have to keep glancing at the
altimeter.

[Mxsmanic]

Doug writes:

> IFR standards are approx -+100'. Most of try for -+50'. Not easy at
> first. Gets easier after a while. You have to keep glancing at the
> altimeter.

Thus far I find it pretty difficult. Phugoid movements and stuff like
that mean that I have to constantly adjust. I'm not sure at what
point it's better to trim or use control movements, but I'm not having
much success either way.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> Is remaining within the lines of a highway important, or is it OK to swerve
> in and out of moving traffic?

An interesting analogy, since the lanes may be wider than many small
cars, and in some areas there are no lanes. I've heard Americans
complain that there are no lines on many roads in Europe. My answer
is that European drivers are trained well enough to drive in an
appropriate place without lines to show them where they should be.

Are there lanes in VFR, or merely broad roads?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> What do you mean? What sudden unpleasant consequences are you referring to?

A departure from controlled flight, such as a stall or spin, or in
some cases simply slips or other uncoordinated movements that may make
passengers queasy.

> Are you claiming that turning a plane using only the rudder kills?

Apparently so, in some cases, based on what I've read. The stuff I'm
reading claims that it's a common mistake in phases such as landings,
and sometimes it kills the pilot.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Peter Dohm writes:

> If you've ever ridden in a car with a driver who is less than smooth, then
> you know the feeling.

There's a certain type of auto driver who is constantly pressing and
releasing the accelerator, even on smooth, uninterrupted highway, and
after a while that can make me queasy. Surely it cannot be that
difficult to find a set speed and maintain it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> Is remaining within the lines of a highway important, or is it OK to
>> swerve in and out of moving traffic?
>
> An interesting analogy, since the lanes may be wider than many small
> cars, and in some areas there are no lanes. I've heard Americans
> complain that there are no lines on many roads in Europe. My answer
> is that European drivers are trained well enough to drive in an
> appropriate place without lines to show them where they should be.
>
> Are there lanes in VFR, or merely broad roads?

When driving on a road with no lines, do you still stay on the right side
except to pass? Or do you drive down the middle until there is traffic
coming at you in the opposite direction?

Look. I, like most of the other pilots on this forum, spent a significant
amount of money learning to fly. I took a course, bought a video and some
books, took the time to read them, and spent a bunch of hours with an
instructor to get my certification. Flying the plane is the easy part -
it's all of the rules and regulations, systems, navigation techniques, and
emergency operations that make up most of the training to become a pilot.

I think some of the reason that you are having so much trouble getting
cooperation on this forum is that you are asking questions in a way that
demonstrates your clear lack of understanding of basic concepts like VFR
altitudes. You clearly haven't even googled your question, which has been
discussed before on this very forum, and included a wrong assumption that
is so basic it is simply insulting. You are asking the members of this
forum to be your private tutor at no cost, and don't even have the courtesy
to look to see if your question has been answered elsewhere in the FARs or
on the Piloting forums. Personally I have better things to do with my time
(like fly, for one).

You don't even have to pay to learn the answers to the questions you are
asking. You can get most of the information that you are looking for by
googling it. Questions about choosing altitudes to fly, and questions about
the power curve have all been discussed on these forums many times before.
I think you would save yourself a lot of time and hassle if you at least
spent enough time reading the existing threads and regulations that you had
some familiarity with real world flying.

You might even want to go to your local airport and get yourself a
discovery flight.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> A departure from controlled flight, such as a stall or spin, or in
> some cases simply slips or other uncoordinated movements that may make
> passengers queasy.

Slips and uncoordinated flight are not caused by turning the plane with only
the rudder, unless perhaps done very sharply. Aileron input is required in
order to maintain a slip or uncoordinate flight. Without aileron input the
plane will bank by itself during the turn. There are aerodynamic reasons for
this phenonmenon that I will let you look up online somewhere.

> Apparently so, in some cases, based on what I've read. The stuff I'm
> reading claims that it's a common mistake in phases such as landings,
> and sometimes it kills the pilot.

No. This is inaccurate. Stalls and spins are not caused by the turning of the
plane with the only the rudder. Incorrect coordination of rudder and ailerons
can turn a stall into a spin, but that doesn't cause the stall.

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> When driving on a road with no lines, do you still stay on the right side
> except to pass?

If you're alone on a country road, you can drive in the middle.

> Or do you drive down the middle until there is traffic coming at you
> in the opposite direction?

Usually. It depends on the condition of the road, and other factors.

> Personally I have better things to do with my time (like fly, for one).

Then don't answer me. I get tired of hearing broken records, too.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Gary Drescher]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Judah writes:
>>You are asking the members of this
>> forum to be your private tutor at no cost, and don't even have the
>> courtesy
>> to look to see if your question has been answered elsewhere in the FARs
>> or
>> on the Piloting forums. Personally I have better things to do with my
>> time
>
> Then don't answer me. I get tired of hearing broken records, too.

There seem to be some basic principles of social interaction that are as
unfamiliar to you as basic aviation principles are.

Imagine if you were to approach random people on the street and ask them to
come over and clean your kitchen, for free, so you can spend more time
watching TV. Of course, they can simply ignore you, so you wouldn't be
committing any grave offense. Nonetheless, it would be insultingly
presumptuous of you to even pose such a request.

In the same way, it is insultingly presumptuous of you to deluge these pilot
groups with elementary questions that you would not need to ask if you were
ever to take a flight lesson--questions that are tantamount to asking us to
spoon-feed you, line by line, the content of an introductory flight training
manual (or even the content of your flight-simulator documentation!) when
you steadfastly refuse to read the material yourself, even after we have
repeatedly, politely pointed you to free online sources. (And you compound
the problem by frequently descending into irrational, dishonest
argumentativeness.)

I initially welcomed your participation in this group, until the extent of
your uncooperativeness became apparent. I would be glad to do so again if
you were to start making a good faith effort to educate yourself, as any
actual student pilot would do.

--Gary

[vincent p. norris]

> I've had a tendency to adjust climb or descent
>rates (and altitude to a lesser extent) by making thrust adjustments,
>rather than changes in pitch.
>
> I've been using the throttle to adjust descent rate rather than pitch...

That is the way the U.S. Navy teaches it.

vince norris

[Dana M. Hague]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:
>
>> Is maintaining a specific altitude important under VFR, or is it okay
>> to drift over a broad range? I admit that I don't necessarily see a
>> compelling reason to fly at 6000 rather than 4000 (or vice versa) in
>> most cases, or anywhere in between.

For the most part, when flying VFR, it doesn't matter all that much.
However, constantly climbing and descending is inefficient, uses more
fuel, and it's just plain unprofessional. There are indeed situations
where the pilot's ability to precisely hold altitude WILL be
important; if you don't fly that way all the time then how can you
expect to do it when it's *really* necessary?

Most [good] pilots pride themselves in being able to handle their
aircraft efficiently and precisely... which means holding to the
chosen altitude... and also (per another part of this thread) not
turning with just rudder. On your flight simulator you can't feel
it... but in a real plane, if you turn with just the rudder, it plain
feels (and is) sloppy. It's also dangerous... a skidding turn at low
altitudes (often a pilot who's afraid to bank to much at low altitude,
while he's too low and slow on approach) can turn a relatively simple
stall into a spin, which have claimed many lives.

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If people behaved like governments, you'd call the cops.

[Mxsmanic]

Dana M. Hague <d(dash)m(dash)hague(at)comcast(dot)net> writes:

> For the most part, when flying VFR, it doesn't matter all that much.
> However, constantly climbing and descending is inefficient, uses more
> fuel, and it's just plain unprofessional. There are indeed situations
> where the pilot's ability to precisely hold altitude WILL be
> important; if you don't fly that way all the time then how can you
> expect to do it when it's *really* necessary?

I will continue practicing.

All of the aircraft I've tried seem to exhibit phugoid oscillations in
altitude. I guess it's just a matter of knowing exactly how to lead
the oscillations in your control adjustments so that they gradually
cancel out. I'm not sure whether it's better to deal with them by
changing pitch or by changing throttle settings (or perhaps both).

> Most [good] pilots pride themselves in being able to handle their
> aircraft efficiently and precisely... which means holding to the
> chosen altitude... and also (per another part of this thread) not
> turning with just rudder. On your flight simulator you can't feel
> it... but in a real plane, if you turn with just the rudder, it plain
> feels (and is) sloppy. It's also dangerous... a skidding turn at low
> altitudes (often a pilot who's afraid to bank to much at low altitude,
> while he's too low and slow on approach) can turn a relatively simple
> stall into a spin, which have claimed many lives.

Something I've tried in the sim is watching the horizon out the
window. If it remains on the same straight line throughout a turn,
the turn is coordinated (I think). If it doesn't, I'm doing something
wrong. For slips and skids, the horizon changes position; in a
coordinated turn, the scenery moves parallel to the horizon, but the
horizon itself stays steady.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

vincent p. norris writes:

> That is the way the U.S. Navy teaches it.

Well, if they can teach pilots to land on a carrier at night in fog,
they probably know what they are talking about.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Ron Natalie]

John Gaquin wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>> OK, thanks. So this is true in all configurations, or only during
>> certain phases of flight like an approach?
>
> Very few things are true in all configurations. Every time you want to
> change an aircraft's configuration, you are adjusting a fine balance between
> pitch and power. Usually, what you're seeking is stability. In general, a
> more lasting, stable outcome will be achieved if you think of altitude
> change in terms of power, and airspeed change in terms of pitch.
>
As we say in the software engineering biz: Everything is deeply
intertwingled.

I actually worked with a group of human engineering experts at an
Army lab that designed a fly-by-wire helicopter control which
decoupled all the interactions between the controls (essentially
the collective just made you go up and down, the cyclic translated
you and the pedals spun you). It made the real helicopter pilots
a bit unnerved when they flew it as they were used to putting
in the compensations.

By the way, this intertwingling nature is largely poorly implemented
in PC games.

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> John Gaquin writes:
>
>> When setting up in cruise, do not drive the plane like most people drive a
>> car. You should start with a preplanned setting in mind: "I am going to
>> cruise at 2200 rpm and 21 inches". After you attain your altitude and
>> reduce to this power setting, you would then gradually trim the airplane so
>> it is flying level at that setting. Your speed will be what it is, plus or
>> minus a few knots indicated.
>
> Is maintaining a specific altitude important under VFR, or is it okay
> to drift over a broad range? I admit that I don't necessarily see a
> compelling reason to fly at 6000 rather than 4000 (or vice versa) in
> most cases, or anywhere in between.
>
Unless you are within 3000 feet of the ground you shouldn't be at
either altitude VFR. Try reading some of the books we recommended
to you.

Generally, if you were a real pilot, you'd be required to demostrate
control to within 100'.

[Ron Natalie]

Doug wrote:
> IFR standards are approx -+100'. Most of try for -+50'. Not easy at
> first. Gets easier after a while. You have to keep glancing at the
> altimeter.
>
VFR standards are +-100' as well.

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Doug writes:
>
>> IFR standards are approx -+100'. Most of try for -+50'. Not easy at
>> first. Gets easier after a while. You have to keep glancing at the
>> altimeter.
>
> Thus far I find it pretty difficult. Phugoid movements and stuff like
> that mean that I have to constantly adjust. I'm not sure at what
> point it's better to trim or use control movements, but I'm not having
> much success either way.
>
Try flight instruction.

[Ron Natalie]

Dana M. Hague wrote:

> For the most part, when flying VFR, it doesn't matter all that much.
> However, constantly climbing and descending is inefficient, uses more
> fuel, and it's just plain unprofessional.

It is also unsafe. The cruise altitude rules can get separation down
to 500'. In addition, altimeters (even if set correctly) might be
off by 75 feet, ... there are a lot of things that add up.

[Ron Natalie]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> John,
>
>> Power is altitude; pitch is
>> airspeed.
>>
>
> Hah! Let the religious wars begin.

When taking off, shove the stick forward and when you get to Vr
put in the throttle and climb!
>
> Frankly, I have never quite understood the distinction, same as with "forward" and "side" slips.
>
That one always confused me too. I'm not sure I remember to this day.

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Natalie writes:

> By the way, this intertwingling nature is largely poorly implemented
> in PC games.

Which part is missing?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Dave Stadt]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> John,
>>
>>> Power is altitude; pitch is airspeed.
>>>
>>
>> Hah! Let the religious wars begin.
>
> When taking off, shove the stick forward and when you get to Vr
> put in the throttle and climb!
>>
>> Frankly, I have never quite understood the distinction, same as with
>> "forward" and "side" slips.
>>
> That one always confused me too. I'm not sure I remember to this day.

The airplane certainly doesn't know. Always figured if it doesn't know, no
reason for me to know.

[Peter Duniho]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
m...
>>> Frankly, I have never quite understood the distinction, same as with
>>> "forward" and "side" slips.
>>>
>> That one always confused me too. I'm not sure I remember to this day.
>
> The airplane certainly doesn't know. Always figured if it doesn't know,
> no reason for me to know.

When you are flying a rectangular course, the airplane doesn't know you are
not following a ground track that is parallel to your heading. That doesn't
mean there's no reason for you to know.

Likewise the difference between forward and side slips. It's true that they
are the same aerodynamically, but that doesn't mean that there's no
justification for having two different terms.

Now, that said...perhaps better terms could have been chosen. For example,
maybe us "crosswind slip" for a sideslip, and "drag slip" for a forward
slip. This uses terms that more directly apply to the real, practical
distinction between the slips rather than an arbitrary directionally
relative term. But we have the terms we have, for better or worse.

I guess one of the biggest issues is that using two different terms implies
that there are two different maneuvers. Of course, one can combine a
forward slip and a side slip. We'd call it a forward (drag) slip, but some
component of the slip could be compensating for drift, which is the job of a
side (crosswind) slip. But the fact remains that there are really two
distinct reasons to use a slip, so it's not surprising that pilot
terminology includes two different ways to describe a slip.

Pete

[Jon Woellhaf]

vince norris wrote
> ... the U.S. Navy teaches [using the throttle to adjust descent rate
> rather than pitch].

Which reminded me of the video of a carrier landing crach where the plane is
seen to drop below the crosshairs on the monitor and the LSO is heard
shouting, "Power. Power! Power!!"

Wouldn't pitch and power have arrested the descent faster than power alone?

[Mxsmanic]

Jon Woellhaf writes:

> Wouldn't pitch and power have arrested the descent faster than power alone?

Pitch alone would have translated forward momentum into a climb, which
would have increased altitude but would have also slowed the aircraft
significantly. Perhaps the pilot was too close to stall for that.

I have also read that pilots approach the deck with full throttle so
that they can go around if the arresting hook fails to catch a cable
on the deck.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[A Lieberma]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

>
> Which part is missing?
>

The part like flying a REAL PLANE.

Allen

[vincent p. norris]

>> Wouldn't pitch and power have arrested the descent faster than power alone?
>
>Pitch alone would have translated forward momentum into a climb, which
>would have increased altitude but would have also slowed the aircraft
>significantly. Perhaps the pilot was too close to stall for that.
>
>I have also read that pilots approach the deck with full throttle so
>that they can go around if the arresting hook fails to catch a cable
>on the deck.

My days as a Naval Aviator ended in 1954. Carrier approaches were
made quite differently from today's. We dragged around the base leg
just above the altitude of the deck at whatever power it took to
maintain airspeed just above a stall, and chopped the power when (if)
we we got a cut.

Today, approaches are "straight in," a lot like a VASI or ILS
approach. Power is not "full," it is whatever it takes to stay on
glide slope and correct airspeed.

When the wheels hit the deck, THEN full power is added for a possible
go-round.

vince norris

[Mxsmanic]

vincent p. norris writes:

> My days as a Naval Aviator ended in 1954. Carrier approaches were
> made quite differently from today's. We dragged around the base leg
> just above the altitude of the deck at whatever power it took to
> maintain airspeed just above a stall, and chopped the power when (if)
> we we got a cut.

"Got a cut" means you were hooked by the cable?

If you didn't get hooked, what did you do, given that you were already
just above a stall?

> Today, approaches are "straight in," a lot like a VASI or ILS
> approach. Power is not "full," it is whatever it takes to stay on
> glide slope and correct airspeed.
>
> When the wheels hit the deck, THEN full power is added for a possible
> go-round.

Sounds stressful.

I've also read that fighter pilots are more stressed by carrier
landings than by flying in combat. And they say that a carrier deck
is more dangerous than a combat zone.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote

> Try flight instruction.

Ron, it seems like you are a pretty good observer of human behavior.

Why is it that people in this group keep on hitting the reply button, when they
see a post from Mxsmanic?

I don't get it. Pretty much everyone has seen that he is nothing that we want
in our group, and has no valid reason to be soliciting answers from us.

I don't get it.

Come on, group. Just say no. No replies to Mxs.
--
Jim in NC

[Dana M. Hague]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:53:46 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>All of the aircraft I've tried seem to exhibit phugoid oscillations in
>altitude. I guess it's just a matter of knowing exactly how to lead
>the oscillations in your control adjustments so that they gradually
>cancel out. I'm not sure whether it's better to deal with them by
>changing pitch or by changing throttle settings (or perhaps both).

If you're trying to maintain a constant altitude at cruise, you set
the throttle to the desired rpm and control pitch to maintain altitude
and speed.

>Something I've tried in the sim is watching the horizon out the
>window. If it remains on the same straight line throughout a turn,
>the turn is coordinated (I think). If it doesn't, I'm doing something
>wrong. For slips and skids, the horizon changes position; in a
>coordinated turn, the scenery moves parallel to the horizon, but the
>horizon itself stays steady.

No, not at all. You can have an uncoordinated turn while maintaining
a constant bank and pitch angle.

-Dana


--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duelling is legal in Paraguay as long as both parties are registered blood donors.

[Dana M. Hague]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:21:14 -0400, Ron Natalie >
wrote:

>> Frankly, I have never quite understood the distinction, same as with "forward" and "side" slips.
>>
>That one always confused me too. I'm not sure I remember to this day.

If you're not on the runway centerline, you can sideslip to it. If
you're alread on the runway centerline, you forward slip to stay
there. If there's a crosswind, you can sideslip instead of crabbing
to compensate.

I guess the real difference is that a sideslip involves no heading
change at entry and exit, and the actual flight direction changes,
whereas a forward slip includes a heading change at entry and exit so
the flight direction is unchanged.

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duelling is legal in Paraguay as long as both parties are registered blood donors.

[vincent p. norris]

>> My days as a Naval Aviator ended in 1954. Carrier approaches were
>> made quite differently from today's. We dragged around the base leg
>> just above the altitude of the deck at whatever power it took to
>> maintain airspeed just above a stall, and chopped the power when (if)
>> we we got a cut.
>
>"Got a cut" means you were hooked by the cable?

No, it means the Landing Signal Officer waved his paddle across his
throat, telling the pilot to chop the throttle for landing.
>
>If you didn't get hooked, what did you do, given that you were already
>just above a stall?

If an a/c missed all the arresting cables, it was stopped by the
"barrier"-- a large net stretched across the deck-- to keep it from
running into planes that already landed.
>
>> Today, approaches are "straight in," a lot like a VASI or ILS
>> approach. Power is not "full," it is whatever it takes to stay on
>> glide slope and correct airspeed.
>>
>> When the wheels hit the deck, THEN full power is added for a possible
>> go-round.
>
>Sounds stressful.
>
>I've also read that fighter pilots are more stressed by carrier
>landings than by flying in combat. And they say that a carrier deck
>is more dangerous than a combat zone.

I've read that.

vince norris

[Mxsmanic]

Dana M. Hague <d(dash)m(dash)hague(at)comcast(dot)net> writes:

> No, not at all. You can have an uncoordinated turn while maintaining
> a constant bank and pitch angle.

Yes. In my recent experiments, the horizon looks stable, but the ball
is still sliding to one side.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[mike regish]

Flying is energy management. You have 2 types of energy to manipulate.
Converting your liquid fuel to thrust (which can be converted to airspeed or
altitude) and your altitude (potential energy) to kinetic energy (either
airspeed or altitude). Which combinations you use depend on what you want to
accomplish. Your goal at landing is to reach the ground at the lowest
possible airspeed. So basically, your are attempting to greet the earth with
the lowest possible energy.

mike

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Lately I have modified my flying methods in the sim in ways that seem
> to produce better results, but I don't know if I'm learning to do
> things correctly or simply acquiring bad habits. I want to make sure
> that I don't "cheat" too much when flying.