Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

maximus92

Trim for Takeoff

Recommended Posts

Over the past couple of years, since joining Lufthansa VA, I have slowly added more and more realism to my flights. Gone are the days when back in FS98 I would take off in my Cessna, fly around aimlessly, and then try to land in the Vatican :( . I've taken the hobby a little more seriously, realizing that the fun has always been to learn how to actually fly the heavies. One thing that eludes me is the term "set the trim for takeoff." I know what trim is, but how do I know it's properly set for take off? I've noticed a green area on the trim wheel gauge, am I to set it somewhere in there? What other factors determine how much trim I need for take off? I imagine winds, and weight add into it. One thing I have noticed is that when I press the TO/GA button on takeoffs, some planes, when they reach a certain speed, will take off and maintain a consistant climb, until I engage the AP and such. While other times I manually have to pull the yoke back to attempt to take off (sometimes the plane just floats along the runway with the nose up.) Does this have anything to do with the lack of trim I'm setting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

In theory, the information should be handed to you as the Captain. If you have any of the FS2Crew add-ons, you'll notice many of them have a stage where you 'sign' a sheet during the pre-flight. Although in the case of FS2Crew, it is often just a static page which you see, in reality this would be a form (or series of forms) which have information relating to how much fuel they have put on board and the weight and distribution of the cargo and where the centre of gravity is on the aircraft based on all that information. This is called the 'Load and Trim Sheet' although is sometimes referred to by other more colloquial names, such as 'zig zag' because of the graph which appears on the sheet, which draws a zig-zagged line through various points and checkboxes on the columns to indicate things such as flap settings and trim etc.This information is something which the loadmasters, ramp agents, or airline cargo people calculate when loading the aircraft with freight and such; it's one of the reasons why you have to check your baggage in a long time before you board a flight and why you see it being weighed. Bags and freight are usually put into a ULD (Unit Load device) which are the standard airliner freight containers you often see being carted across the airport apron on baggage trucks, or going up conveyer load ramps into aircraft's holds. The weight for passengers and the effect they have on the Centre of Gravity are based on standard figures - typically 70 kg for adults and 30 kg for children.More sophisticated calculation systems for setting up the trim on an aircraft download all the load information to a laptop which the pilots have, which can then be plugged into the aircraft and dump the data directly into the FMC. Airlines with this kind of set up mean that the crew can do much of the flight planning in a crew room with a nice cup of tea or coffee before they actually board their aircraft. so if you indulge in that sort of planning in FS, have a drink to add to the authenticity.Once you have that information (by whatever means), you can enter the Centre of Gravity information (often expressed as a percentage of how far it is from its normal position when the aircraft is at its dry operating mass) into the FMC, which, depending on the aircraft systems, will either automatically adjust the trim for you, or give you a figure to set manually via the cockpit trim controls.As far as FS is concerned, you'll find most sophisticated add-on airliners have a 'load configuration utility' of some sort (usually accessible from the PC's program menu). So you could observe how the CoG is affected based on your virtual load and work it out from there, although without knowing the specific aircraft, or having a proper load sheet for the aircraft, it might involve a bit of trial and error. With less sophisticated FS ailiners you could just use the FS fuel and load options. You could try Googling 'load and trim sheet' and you might find some real load sheets online, but I don't know for sure, also you might try the real aircraft's manual (you can often google and find a pdf of these). I have one for a 737 if that helps you (PM me if you want a copy)You might find this accident report interesting, scroll all the way down and you will see a load sheet at the bottom of the report:http://www.bfu-web.de/nn_53140/EN/Publicat...rtmund_B737.pdfHope that helps a bit. Al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly it depends. Normally this is found through POHs though, generally, the dispatchers figure all that out and put it on dispatch releases. You don't get those in FS unless you're with a VA such as MidCon who actually prepares dispatch releases for you. I do know that the Wilco/feelThere 737PIC shows the trim setting for take-off on the TAKEOFF page in the FMC, so you may find it there in some other add-ons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trim is generally set appropriately according with other parameters, such as the take off data you have ( Consisting of alot of things such as flap settings, OAT etc ). , but also calculated to maintain an appropiate speed upon climb out ( Which you probably knew yourself but was just to say again ).Generally you can judge just about what trim setting to have, referenced to take off speed and weight upon the climb out, as you don't wanna set trim which will when pulling back on the yoke the nose goes sky high while your still on the ground ;).I know for the 747-400 i fly, ( On IVAO as UAE19 if you were curious ) doing the take off performance data helps alot, even if you don't entirely understand all of it.Speaking of Take off data performance, try it out :D. While it may seem difficult to get into it brings out the realism quite alot while making it easier for your own knowledge of what you could expect.Procedure makes it all easier ;)Regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

short answer...put some positive trim in...see how it handles

Over the past couple of years, since joining Lufthansa VA, I have slowly added more and more realism to my flights. Gone are the days when back in FS98 I would take off in my Cessna, fly around aimlessly, and then try to land in the Vatican :( . I've taken the hobby a little more seriously, realizing that the fun has always been to learn how to actually fly the heavies. One thing that eludes me is the term "set the trim for takeoff." I know what trim is, but how do I know it's properly set for take off? I've noticed a green area on the trim wheel gauge, am I to set it somewhere in there? What other factors determine how much trim I need for take off? I imagine winds, and weight add into it. One thing I have noticed is that when I press the TO/GA button on takeoffs, some planes, when they reach a certain speed, will take off and maintain a consistant climb, until I engage the AP and such. While other times I manually have to pull the yoke back to attempt to take off (sometimes the plane just floats along the runway with the nose up.) Does this have anything to do with the lack of trim I'm setting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone say it. Takeoff trim depends directly on aircraft center of gravity (CoG) and takeoff weight (TOW). Most of your single and multi light aircraft (maybe all) trim to the neutral position. But in heavier aircraft, trim is *very* important at takeoff. Only more realistic addons simulate the exactly correct trim settings at takeoff, but for your utterly unrealistic aircraft (default, Posky, etc.) VTX is correct. A little nose up trim is a good start. Speaking of trim, read my signature. That's another trim issue I stress to newer guys at the flight school (works the same in flight simulator).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely. Being a glider pilot, I regard the trim control as the throttle.Al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Absolutely. Being a glider pilot, I regard the trim control as the throttle.
You might..........................but if it comes to any formation type flight (at least with an engine) , then it's throttle for airspeed; and elevator control as secondary when required. You'll never want to be thinking throttle for altitude in this case!This is why I love the throttle for altitude and elevator for airspeed argument......................as I always side on the throttle for airspeed side. In fact, I think it's even on the side of error to even teach it as one way. Of course, a student pilot does need to know that it's power for altitude when on the backside of the power curve for landing approaches. I'll just assume that's why it's taught. I think it's better to just say that required actions are a combination of both rules...............most of the time. My favorite cartoon in regards to this, is a student pilot nervously flapping the elevator in order to get the plane rolling down the runway. Remember, he was taught elevator for airspeed! :( L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I say I use the trim as a throttle, unlike in a powered aircraft, that generally is for airspeed in a glider. I leave the altitude up to the thermals!With regard to formation flying, since you are often aerotowed up to 2,000 feet or more, you have to be pretty good at formation flight when you fly gliders, so it also comes into play there. One of the first exercises glider pilots do when learning aerotowing is to 'box the tow', where you move out to one side, drop below the slipstream of the towplane, come back to the middle, come up to the slipstream to feel it on the canopy and learn its position, then come back up the other side. You have to be very careful not to upset the towplane when so far out to the side. Good airspeed control is vital to avoid snapping the towrope if it slackens for a second or two.It's also not at all unusual to be in very close proximity to other gliders when you find a good thermal. I've been thermalling in a glider when the sky was reminiscent of a WW1 dogfight there were that many aircraft turning about all over the place. You hand is never far away from the canopy jettison handles in those circumstances!Al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You might..........................but if it comes to any formation type flight (at least with an engine) , then it's throttle for airspeed; and elevator control as secondary when required. You'll never want to be thinking throttle for altitude in this case!This is why I love the throttle for altitude and elevator for airspeed argument......................as I always side on the throttle for airspeed side. In fact, I think it's even on the side of error to even teach it as one way. Of course, a student pilot does need to know that it's power for altitude when on the backside of the power curve for landing approaches. I'll just assume that's why it's taught. I think it's better to just say that required actions are a combination of both rules...............most of the time. My favorite cartoon in regards to this, is a student pilot nervously flapping the elevator in order to get the plane rolling down the runway. Remember, he was taught elevator for airspeed! :( L.Adamson
If an aircraft is trimmed for steady level flight and the throttle is opened the aircraft will begin to climb. Allowing the transients to subside, the aircraft will settle doen in a steady climb at just about the original airspeed. To increase speed in steady level flight it's necessary to open the throttle and trim the aircraft nose-down.I suggest that it's fairer to say that throttle adjusts rate of climb and trim adjusts speed. I was certainly taught on approach to trim for speed and adjust my touchdown point by changing the throttle. This is what the underlying physics suggest. All else being equal, additional power is needed to make the aircraft clmb at the same steady speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If an aircraft is trimmed for steady level flight and the throttle is opened the aircraft will begin to climb. Allowing the transients to subside, the aircraft will settle doen in a steady climb at just about the original airspeed. To increase speed in steady level flight it's necessary to open the throttle and trim the aircraft nose-down.I suggest that it's fairer to say that throttle adjusts rate of climb and trim adjusts speed. I was certainly taught on approach to trim for speed and adjust my touchdown point by changing the throttle. This is what the underlying physics suggest. All else being equal, additional power is needed to make the aircraft clmb at the same steady speed.
Physics has still never figured out exactly "what causes lift". So let's get past the physics issue as an explanation. So..................say we're headed down the runway thanks to "throttle". At 60 kias or so, we want to rotate and climb. What do we tell the student? Use throttle to climb, or get with the program and pull back on the stick (elevator). And what about decending to make a high speed pass down the runway? Do we use elevator as the primary control process, or descend & climb with throttle? It's now elevator and primary and throttle as secondary. Getting back to what you were taught on landing is correct. But once again we're on the back side of the power curve as I originally noted.Do you realize that this same subject erupted into hundreds of responses a few years back? Nothing was settled then, and probably never will be! L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Physics has still never figured out exactly "what causes lift". So let's get past the physics issue as an explanation. So..................say we're headed down the runway thanks to "throttle". At 60 kias or so, we want to rotate and climb. What do we tell the student? Use throttle to climb, or get with the program and pull back on the stick (elevator). And what about decending to make a high speed pass down the runway? Do we use elevator as the primary control process, or descend & climb with throttle? It's now elevator and primary and throttle as secondary. Getting back to what you were taught on landing is correct. But once again we're on the back side of the power curve as I originally noted.Do you realize that this same subject erupted into hundreds of responses a few years back? Nothing was settled then, and probably never will be! L.Adamson
If not physics what does "figure out" what causes lift?I was careful to refer to steady flight - your examples relate to non-steady flight. If an aircraft is longititudinally trimmed and in steady flight stick force is zero. Taking off and making high speed passes where the stick force is not zero is not steady flight.What I was taught for landing applies regardless of what side of the drag curve the aircraft is. If the aircraft is trimmed at a steady speed in a descent then the touch down point can be adjusted by the throttle while mainaining the same speed. The reason is basic physics. An aircraft in that condition has a rate of descent and is loosing energy - the drag is greater than the thrust to compensate for the component of the aircraft weight. If the aircraft is undershooting then opening the throttle and increasing power will add energy to the aircraft. This will reduce the rate of descent so that the the touch down point will move further down the runway.Enegy management is a key aspect of handling heavy and/or fast aircraft."Inability to assess or manage the aircraft energy level during the approach often is cited as a causal factor in unstabilized approaches "http://www.airbus.com/store/mm_repository/...-APPR-SEQ03.pdf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Physics has still never figured out exactly "what causes lift". So let's get past the physics issue as an explanation. So..................say we're headed down the runway thanks to "throttle". At 60 kias or so, we want to rotate and climb. What do we tell the student? Use throttle to climb, or get with the program and pull back on the stick (elevator). And what about decending to make a high speed pass down the runway? Do we use elevator as the primary control process, or descend & climb with throttle? It's now elevator and primary and throttle as secondary. Getting back to what you were taught on landing is correct. But once again we're on the back side of the power curve as I originally noted.Do you realize that this same subject erupted into hundreds of responses a few years back? Nothing was settled then, and probably never will be! L.Adamson
Now, if from straight and level flight, I pull the plane into a vertical climb, how come my airspeed starts dropping even when I apply full power. I mean, I pushed the power all the way forward, I should be going really fast, shouldn't I?The only reason this same subject erupted into hundreds of responses a few years back is because you and P.Sidoli are just insanely stubborn about how "right" you think you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now, if from straight and level flight, I pull the plane into a vertical climb, how come my airspeed starts dropping even when I apply full power. I mean, I pushed the power all the way forward, I should be going really fast, shouldn't I?The only reason this same subject erupted into hundreds of responses a few years back is because you and P.Sidoli are just insanely stubborn about how "right" you think you are.
All you're proving is that there is NO exact rule that applies to everything. Let's again use the straight and level flight....................but in tight formation. What control, as a wing man, are you going to use to keep exact pace (airspeed wise) with the lead? It sure as ****, better be the throttle! In fact, throttle is so important, that any type locking veneer is against formation flight policies.P.S. ------ how do you pull that plane into a vertical climb? Just jam the throttle full forward? If you've already got the "speed", then convert it to altitude with the "elevator". It's all realitive isn't it? To just use "pitch for speed and throttle for altitude" as the ultimate answer is just stupid! Always has been, and always will be!L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If not physics what does "figure out" what causes lift?
Do you think that "lift" has been scientifically explained, and is fact?Or, does it go into the "where does space end", file...L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to look at your a/c weight and balance shedule for each flight. You should find in the a/c manuel the trim setting for particular weights etc., You must set trim before take off otherwise you will either over rotate or under rotate. I fly the Super VC10 alot and the take off trim for the stabalisor is usually between 3 or 4 degrees depending. If I don't set the trim I don't get offthe ground!!!Rolling%20Eyes.gifVololiberista

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All you're proving is that there is NO exact rule that applies to everything. Let's again use the straight and level flight....................but in tight formation. What control, as a wing man, are you going to use to keep exact pace (airspeed wise) with the lead? It sure as ****, better be the throttle! In fact, throttle is so important, that any type locking veneer is against formation flight policies.P.S. ------ how do you pull that plane into a vertical climb? Just jam the throttle full forward? If you've already got the "speed", then convert it to altitude with the "elevator". It's all realitive isn't it? To just use "pitch for speed and throttle for altitude" as the ultimate answer is just stupid! Always has been, and always will be!L.Adamson
Pitch for speed and throttle for altitude is the reasoning behind why you are able to pitch for altitude and throttle for speed. Pitch for speed and throttle for altitude is the only statement that cannot be contradicted anywhere in the airplane's flight envelope. And this is easily seen with the classic U-shaped lift/drag curve diagram that shows power required for level flight versus airspeed. With airspeed along the X axis and power along the Y axis.Consider a plane in high speed level flight, set along the right side of the U-shaped L/D curve, what you would call the front-side of the power curve:1. A pitch up reduces airspeed, places the aircraft at a point in its flight envelope that is above the lift/drag curve, and the resulting surplus power from that required for the previous level flight allows the aircraft to climb. 2. Conversely, a pitch down increases airspeed, places the aircraft at a point in its flight envelope that is below where it was on the lift/drag curve, resulting in a deficit of power and allows a descent.3. An increase of power in this regime lifts the plane along the Y axis to the region above the L/D curve. Without doing anything else with the stick, the plane will climb at its present trimmed speed from the power surplus over that required for level flight. If you push on the stick to keep the plane from climbing, then you end up moving the airspeed higher, moving right along the L/D curve.4. A decrease of power in this regime drops the plane into the region below the L/D curve. Without doing anything else with the stick, the plane will descend at its present trimmed speed because there is a deficit of power for maintaining level flight. If you pull the stick back to keep the plane from descending, then you end up moving the airspeed lower, moving left along the L/D curve.Now consider a plane in low speed level flight, set along the left side of the U-shaped L/D curve, what you would call the back-side of the power curve:1. A pitch up reduces airspeed, places the aircraft leftward to a point in its flight envelope that is below the lift/drag curve, and the resulting deficit of power from that required for level flight causes the aircraft to descend.2. A pitch down increases airspeed, places the aircraft rightward to a point in its flight envelope that is above where it was on the lift/drag curve, resulting in surplus of power required for level flight and allows a climb.3. An increase of power in this regime lifts the plane along the Y axis to the region above the L/D curve. Without doing anything else with the stick, the plane will climb at its present trimmed speed from the power surplus over that required for level flight. If you push forward on the stick, you increase your speed an move rightward along the speed axis and move the aircraft to a point further above the curve and achieve an even greater climb.4. A decrease of power in this regime drops the plane into the region below the L/D curve. Without doing anything else with the stick, the plane will descend at its present trimmed speed because there is a deficit of power for maintaining level flight. If you pull on the stick, you move leftward along the speed axis and move to a point further below the curve and descend at a greater rate.So Larry, as you can see, pitch for speed and power for altitude is consistent in all parts of the flight envelope. While pitch for altitude and power for speed is only true in the high speed half of the flight envelope. To teach flight from that primary viewpoint requires you to qualify yourself by saying that you need to remember that it is all reversed and opposite when you are flying slowly. Maybe if Marvin Renslow was taught to pitch for speed and power for altitude, he instinctive reaction would not have been to go "Whoa bear!" and pull full back on the stick while only pushing up a little bit of power when he was trying to get those houses out of the front window of that Q400.I do have one more question for you though Larry. I know you love that "you are on a runway" example. How come, when I am sitting on the runway, the plane will not descend when I push on the stick?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you think that "lift" has been scientifically explained, and is fact?Or, does it go into the "where does space end", file...L.Adamson
Lift has been scientifically explained to those you understand the subject and is a fact to everyone who has ever flown in an aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pitch for speed and throttle for altitude is the reasoning behind why you are able to pitch for altitude and throttle for speed. Pitch for speed and throttle for altitude is the only statement that cannot be contradicted anywhere in the airplane's flight envelope. And this is easily seen with the classic U-shaped lift/drag curve diagram that shows power required for level flight versus airspeed. With airspeed along the X axis and power along the Y axis.Consider a plane in high speed level flight, set along the right side of the U-shaped L/D curve, what you would call the front-side of the power curve:1. A pitch up reduces airspeed, places the aircraft at a point in its flight envelope that is above the lift/drag curve, and the resulting surplus power from that required for the previous level flight allows the aircraft to climb. snipped Maybe if Marvin Renslow was taught to pitch for speed and power for altitude, he instinctive reaction would not have been to go "Whoa bear!" and pull full back on the stick while only pushing up a little bit of power when he was trying to get those houses out of the front window of that Q400.
Let's take your first example #1. What mechanism do we use to "pitch up"? If you were an instructor, which control would you show the student to cause that pitch up? Throttle or elevator? The correct answer is elevator! Imagine that, since it doesn't exactly go with the premise of "Pitch for speed and throttle for altitude" does it. That's why it's ridiculous when teaching one phrase as the absolute.................since it's just the opposite. So why not teach what really goes on in respect to power curves instead of trying to determine if it's the chicken or the egg that comes first? Afterall, somehow we need to use throttle to get "speed", to get into the air in the first place. I'm quite sure that the pilot of that commuter plane............was taught about the "correct" instinctive reaction to a pending stall on the bottom side of the power curve. I certainly was. He just blew it...L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's take your first example #1. What mechanism do we use to "pitch up"? If you were an instructor, which control would you show the student to cause that pitch up? Throttle or elevator? The correct answer is elevator! Imagine that, since it doesn't exactly go with the premise of "Pitch for speed and throttle for altitude" does it. That's why it's ridiculous when teaching one phrase as the absolute.................since it's just the opposite. So why not teach what really goes on in respect to power curves instead of trying to determine if it's the chicken or the egg that comes first? Afterall, somehow we need to use throttle to get "speed", to get into the air in the first place. I'm quite sure that the pilot of that commuter plane............was taught about the "correct" instinctive reaction to a pending stall on the bottom side of the power curve. I certainly was. He just blew it...L.Adamson
Ahhh, I see why you are you can't get your mind around this. You've cyanoacrilic glued the words "pitch up" and "pitch down" with where the airplane should go. That is dangerous. You need to understand that a "pitch up" or "pitch down" does not always make the plane go in those directions. A "pitch up" or "pitch down" can only be safely and consistently associated with an aircraft's attitude. When you say pitch for speed and power for altitude, you can properly explain that the elevator merely controls angle of attack and that power controls your ability to climb, descend or hold level flight, which is exactly what the power curves represent.Actually, I am an instructor. With single, multi and instrument. And I would open the lesson with the power curve graph and show what happens to the plane all along and around the curve, introducing the power and drag concepts. He can see why when he pulled the nose up earlier, the plane climbed. He can also see why in the upcoming lesson, why that won't work the same. At the end of the lesson, I consider the most important take away for the student is that if he wants the houses to get smaller, he needs power.You keep basing your whole argument on the first ten seconds of a two hour flight while the airplane is not even a flying machine, but merely an eggbeating contraption resting on the ground. Let's talk about the airplane as a flying machine instead, where there is actually air flowing across the wings and there is no ground to keep the plane from descending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ahhh, I see why you are you can't get your mind around this. You've cyanoacrilic glued the words "pitch up" and "pitch down" with where the airplane should go. That is dangerous. You need to understand that a "pitch up" or "pitch down" does not always make the plane go in those directions. A "pitch up" or "pitch down" can only be safely and consistently associated with an aircraft's attitude. When you say pitch for speed and power for altitude, you can properly explain that the elevator merely controls angle of attack and that power controls your ability to climb, descend or hold level flight, which is exactly what the power curves represent.Actually, I am an instructor. With single, multi and instrument. And I would open the lesson with the power curve graph and show what happens to the plane all along and around the curve, introducing the power and drag concepts. He can see why when he pulled the nose up earlier, the plane climbed. He can also see why in the upcoming lesson, why that won't work the same. At the end of the lesson, I consider the most important take away for the student is that if he wants the houses to get smaller, he needs power.You keep basing your whole argument on the first ten seconds of a two hour flight while the airplane is not even a flying machine, but merely an eggbeating contraption resting on the ground. Let's talk about the airplane as a flying machine instead, where there is actually air flowing across the wings and there is no ground to keep the plane from descending.
There is simply no use in any farther arguing, as every example use use..............is one to fit your points. I've been doing this for 41 years, and don't need "the use of words such as "dangerous"; because I **** well know that the elevator isn't glued to where the aircraft should go... I'm as well versed in what makes an airplane fly as probably anybody.You use your example of the landing approach, and I'll use mine of formation flight. A pilot needs to understand both. If you insist on using "pitch" as a method of airspeed control for maintaining separation in formation, then that is as dumb as using pitch to keep from running into those houses you talk about.In both cases, the aircraft is in flight, and you'll probably hit something either way! Tell me; as I watched four Thunderbirds go vertical in their F-16's the other day; did they just all jam their throttles forward in order to climb at the command. I seriously doubt it. I'm very sure that it was back pressure on the stick (pitch).So.................how do you explain lift to a student? Do you throw out a few theories as if it's scientific fact, or concede that people are still finding new explanations?L.AdamsonIf nothing elese.................I guess this adds to forum content...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is simply no use in any farther arguing, as every example use use..............is one to fit your points. I've been doing this for 41 years, and don't need "the use of words such as "dangerous"; because I **** well know that the elevator isn't glued to where the aircraft should go... I'm as well versed in what makes an airplane fly as probably anybody.You use your example of the landing approach, and I'll use mine of formation flight. A pilot needs to understand both. If you insist on using "pitch" as a method of airspeed control for maintaining separation in formation, then that is as dumb as using pitch to keep from running into those houses you talk about.In both cases, the aircraft is in flight, and you'll probably hit something either way! Tell me; as I watched four Thunderbirds go vertical in their F-16's the other day; did they just all jam their throttles forward in order to climb at the command. I seriously doubt it. I'm very sure that it was back pressure on the stick (pitch).So.................how do you explain lift to a student? Do you throw out a few theories as if it's scientific fact, or concede that people are still finding new explanations?L.AdamsonIf nothing elese.................I guess this adds to forum content...
During high speed formation flight, as in any form of high speed flight, you can use pitch to make small and precise adjustments to altitude because the small amount of speed loss allows a small amount of altitude gain to stay with your leader. You will eventually need to add power to maintain the higher altitude or else end up falling behind your leader due to your higher angle of attack now. Why don't you try some formation flying at minimum controllable airspeed? See how well your mantra works. Your mantra works well with monkeys. It is something that we would use if all we wanted to do was teach our students to fly by rote. By explaining aircraft control within the framework of angle of attack and power, we teach our students an understanding of what and why the airplane behaves as it does.I don't deny that you can pitch for alttitude, since the explanation that pitch controls angle of attack and power controls altitude encompasses that effect as well. However, using the framework that pitch is for altitiude and power is for speed leaves you at a loss at an airspeed below L/D max.In your F-16 example, the full AB gives such a power surplus that the aircraft can go vertically against gravity, and with a better than 1:1 thrust ratio, gravity is not really a factor for that aircraft, it can accelerate straight up. At some point, you've got to realize you are not in a plane, but a freakin' rocket.Only pilots like you still think lift is a mystery. There are, however, mathematical formulas that very precisely define it. And those of us who have made aviation a profession, see no mystery in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only pilots like you still think lift is a mystery. There are, however, mathematical formulas that very precisely define it. And those of us who have made aviation a profession, see no mystery in it.
In regards to lift:Mathematical formulas -----------yesNo mystery -----------not hardly. I welcome your full explanation, as there is still a lot of disagreement.And BTW ------------ I'm not exactly impressed in regards to all "professional pilots". They can be very different in attitudes and abilities. Some don't have the slightest clue in regards to aerobatics, or perhaps building an experimental/kitbuilt planes. Some have become so use to redundency, that they're scared stiff to fly over mountainous country in a single engine, and always remind the rest of us how foolish we are to do so.Now let's take the professional airline pilot that I hangared with for the last few years. He was my original flight instructor, Pitts aerobatic instructor, and has built several kit planes. He owns and flies a Pitt's kitbuilt with a Russian radial. He's the kind of pilot that likes doing what I do. These type of professional pilots who continue do other types of flying besides just racking up thousands of hours as just a regular point A to B airline pilot continue to impress me.And this guy is always experimenting in regards to eliminating small amounts of drag. In the "experimental business" we all continue to farther experiment, because perfection and absolutes still haven't been defined. L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't deny that you can pitch for alttitude, since the explanation that pitch controls angle of attack and power controls altitude encompasses that effect as well. However, using the framework that pitch is for altitiude and power is for speed leaves you at a loss at an airspeed below L/D max.
Now you're catching on. And what do you mean, "can pitch for altitude". There are a whole lot of times, when that's exactly what you'll do as the first coarse of action. I readily admit that it's both, and has to be both. It just turns out that a majority of my uses involve throttle for airspeed and pitch for altitude. I don't seem to spend a lot of time on the backside of the power curve. However, when I land my RV6 -------- it's all pitch for airspeed and throttle for altitude. Unlike a Cessna 172, it can easily get away, and stall out from underneath you. Therfore, I will never stick with just "pitch for airspeed, and throttle for altitude" or the reverse. It's just doesn't make sense to use the "pitch for airspeed" for every example, especially when a student thinks that that's all there is to it.L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now you're catching on. And what do you mean, "can pitch for altitude". There are a whole lot of times, when that's exactly what you'll do as the first coarse of action. I readily admit that it's both, and has to be both. It just turns out that a majority of my uses involve throttle for airspeed and pitch for altitude. I don't seem to spend a lot of time on the backside of the power curve. However, when I land my RV6 -------- it's all pitch for airspeed and throttle for altitude. Unlike a Cessna 172, it can easily get away, and stall out from underneath you. Therfore, I will never stick with just "pitch for airspeed, and throttle for altitude" or the reverse. It's just doesn't make sense to use the "pitch for airspeed" for every example, especially when a student thinks that that's all there is to it.L.Adamson
I think your problem with the statement is that you seem to think it is merely just some mantra for people to memorize. It is not. Like I said before, instructors are not supposed to merely teach rote memorization and actions. That is a disservice to the student. The saying of pitch for speed is used to frame the understanding that the elevators control angle of attack and power controls your altitude potential. I do not understand why you are so fanatical against that. The "pitch for speed" explanation explains WHY your airplane climbs and descends or slow and speed up. It is consistent through the entire flight envelope of the aircraft. You cannot begin a discussion of aircraft behavior using the statement "pitch for altitude" without explaining that it does not work in all parts of the envelope. Therefore, it is not a truth. Even when you are flying in formation, when you pull back on the stick to go up, you also slow the aircraft down. You thought that you then used the power to maintain your speed, but in reality, your added power was required to get you to the higher altitude without sacrificing airspeed. You moved yourself upwards above the L/D curve briefly with the smoothly coordinated pitch and power action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites