Which of these is cheating?

"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

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?

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.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:


Which part is missing?


The part like flying a REAL PLANE.

Allen

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

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.

"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

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.

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.