Which of these is cheating?

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?

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'.

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 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.

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

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.

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.

"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.

"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

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.