Speed is a REFERENCE, it is not an absolute figure.I don't see anyone mentioning a more critical factor (and not very well simulated in FS): INERTIA! Get a real 747 going down with a high vertical rate when slow and you've got a smoking hole. Shape of the wings is largely irrelevant (and their differences are beyond the current discussion without derailing into aerodynamic theory). All the pilot needs to be concerned with is angle of attack - it will get you killed if not respected. Roll angle can affect AoA hence the roll angle limits in certain configs. Refer to many books on aerodynamics to learn why. To suggest the shape of the wing is why you fly the two aircraft differently is just silly. You can fly them both the same way perfectly safely. You can also fly them both in ways that will kill you.

Well, speed not being an absolute figure may be correct in terms of calculating fuel burn and fuel remaining when you touchdown, to calculate a landing weight, but as far as the airfoil is concerned, it is not wrong to call it absolute. Airfoil will behave at the same IAS regardless of altitude, even if the higher you go the faster your groundspeed will be, should things, like wind, remain equal.And the point on the wing shape I brought up was just to finish my point on the two planes being different regarding the four forces of the airplane, lift thrust drag gravity (normal). And when talking about the wing shape, especially so when dealing with the cord and camber of the airfoil, AoA changes, thus lift changes. That was my point. Mix changes in lift, thrust, drag, and weight of the airplane, yes, the way you fly changes, even if you are only willing to admit that you must do so with more forsight, which I say is most certainly not the only difference.

Wiser heads have left this one alone, so it is up to me to make a fool of myself. If I told you that correct flying technique involved offering a pair of kippers to the great god Jupiter and always blowing your nose on a Tuesday, you would know I was talking rubbish. If I told you that you could land a herky-gird 157 (the one with the thing sticking out) nine times out of ten by just setting the fuel flow to 2.7 cubits per nark, the manifold pressure to 11.1 pasties and the trim to three ticks past the notch, you would still know I was talking rubbish, the trouble is, it would work. Of course, if any of the guages are out, you are in deep do-do. Fencer told you that speed was throttle and altitude was stick. Vololiberista very rudely corrected him, stating that it was a scientific fact that the opposite was true and called the validity of US licences into question. (Personally, I think they sound like two priests argueing about the type of snot rag that should be used on a Tuesday!)Each can be shown to be wrong because doing it the others way works! But if they are both wrong, how does a plane fly? Or a helicopter, a rocket, a glider, an autogyro or a brick? Anybody who wants to quote Bernoulli can go fly a kite!The thing that controls speed, and altitude, and everything else, is energy. Learn how to manage energy and everything else is easy. The four factors of thrust, drag, lift and gravity are all expressions of the energy balance. Thrust is the force used to push your machine in its direction of travel, gravity is pulling it back to the ground. Lift and drag are the reaction to pushing air out of the way where lift is the component normal to gravity, and drag is the component normal to thrust. [Normal in this context means acting in the opposite direction. Your sources of energy are your speed, your height and your engines. The only thing left to worry about is where lift comes from. First the science bit. A man called Newton said that for every action, there is an equal and oppsite reaction. That means if I push against something, it pushes back the same amount but in the opposite direction. Put your hand out a car window, and the wind pushes your hand. Change the angle, change the push. Bigger shape, bigger push, edge on, smaller push. Go faster, harder push. For something sticking out a car window, the only things that matter are area, angle of attack and speed. No BS about the shape of the back of your hand, or the air having some mystical reason for wanting to join up so having to travel further. The air is pushing your hand up and back, so your hand pushs the air down and forward. You can say that the other way around if you prefer; Your hand is pushing the air down and forward, so the air pushes your hand up and back. The air is lifting your hand, and dragging it back! We are all happy when we talk about thrust to think that a rocket pushes burning gas out the back, that gas pushes the rocket forward. A jet pushes air out the back, that air pushes the jet forward. A propellor pushes air back (or down for a helicoptor), that air pushs the propellor forward (or up). So also when a wing pushes air down and forward, the air pushes the wing up and back. Lift and drag. Easy.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0015b.shtmlBest regards,Robin.

Wiser heads have left this one alone, so it is up to me to make a fool of myself. Fencer told you that speed was throttle and altitude was stick. Vololiberista ....a scientific fact that the opposite was true(Personally, I think they sound like two priests argueing about the type of snot rag that should be used on a Tuesday!)Each can be shown to be wrong because doing it the others way works!

Hi Paul, Interesting thoughts, no doubt, but to come back to the subject :Everybody reading this thread realizes now that both ways may work or be preferred ....but in different airplanes and different contexts. Everybody also understands that turbine airliners, such as those PMDG simulates, are operated in only one way when flying an autoland approach. And many experienced rw captains/instructors (cited by me or others) have confirmed that the same is true for manual landing. Now if other experienced rw captains, whith thousands of hours in rw airliners, a bag of thicks larger than my car, and who, as the saying goes, have forgotten more than I will ever learn - say that they handle their planes differently, I am certainly not going to contradict them. Thanks anyway for comparing me with a priest. At least I can now officially bless you, and even maybe, (but only if you repent in eanest)... forgive your sins ! :( Take care,Bruno

What is the saying?Give ten pilots a change in clearence, (like descend from FL320 to 10,000 and reduce speed not to exceed 210kt), you will get ten different ways of doing it.Or something to that affect.

...Everybody reading this thread realizes now that both ways may work or be preferred ....but in different airplanes and different contexts. ...

Hi Bruno, sorry for likening you to a priest, I hope you weren't too offended. I am afraid that you are still missing the point here though as both ways are just as wrong as setting the fuel flow to 3 cubits per nark. If they happen to give you the results you desire, that is happy accident. All pilots, whether or not they know it, adjust the energy balance to acheive their desired results. Using stick (or throttle) to adjust altitude (or speed) works because it changes the energy balance. Pilots who know and undestand this have a chance at flying around problems, pilots who don't, can't.

Hi Bruno, sorry for likening you to a priest, I hope you weren't too offended. I am afraid that you are still missing the point here though as both ways are just as wrong as setting the fuel flow to 3 cubits per nark. If they happen to give you the results you desire, that is happy accident. All pilots, whether or not they know it, adjust the energy balance to acheive their desired results. Using stick (or throttle) to adjust altitude (or speed) works because it changes the energy balance. Pilots who know and undestand this have a chance at flying around problems, pilots who don't, can't.

Hi Paul. Not offended at all by the comparison, of course. It's all good fun. :( I have a problem with your point though, which is basically - if I understand correctly : "both methods work, so do what you like or do whatever works". To my knowledge, flight training doesn't work like this.Most (all) flying organizations (airlines, air forces, and even your local flying club), strain to teach ONE method, because : 1- they think their method is sound and validated and :2- they expect the same, STANDARD procedure to be adhered to by all. Typically, a captain doesn't fly often with the same FO, so the company expects them to use the same method to fly the plane, just like anybody else in the company. An example to illustrate my point : Earlier in this thread, someone said ; "if you want to climb, pull on the stick, then add power" - and was immediately corrected because we have all been told to do exactly the opposite : power - THEN stick. It doesn't mean that there are never occasions when a trained, proficient pilot, might want, for whatever reason, to pull the stick first. And he/she would be perfectly able to do it - within limits - without endangering himself/herself. But, in training, they will teach you only one method.For something as basic as climbing, it's a no brainer. Now for how to manage energy during the approach, pilots all have their flying experience (and bag of tricks) and are perfectly able to use it when the need arises. But in a plane designed with an autothrottle and autopilots, there is only one way to fly an ILS in automatic mode and I guess the instructor won't teach you two different ways for flying it in manual. Once again, I am not a professional pilot and would love to see one jump in to confirm - or correct me on this. Hope I didn't miss your point this time and managed to explain my point clear enough. :( Bruno

... "both methods work, so do what you like or do whatever works". ...

That is not what I am saying at all.

That is not what I am saying at all.

Paul,Sorry but unless you or someone else care to explain, I have to give up. I tried to re-read your two previous posts and - frankly - I can't make heads or tails of them. Or maybe, to quote from your post : "Wiser heads have left this one alone, so it is up to me to make a fool of myself." Cheers,Bruno

"Both methods work" - No! Both methods are wrong. Moving the stick does not control the speed and nor does it control altitude. It only does one thing, it moves the elevators. When the elevators move, they introduce a pitching moment which changes the angle of attack. Change the angle of attack and you change the lift and the drag. Changing the lift unbalances the force resisting gravity so changing the vertical motion. Changing the vertical motion changes the angle of attack lift which changes the lift and drag and so on until the forces are balanced again. Changing the drag unbalances the thrust which results in a change of airspeed. Changing the airspeed changes the lift and drag and so on until the forces are balanced again. Every possible change the aircraft can experiance, planned or otherwise, from air density and temperature, to burning fuel or icing up, to raising flaps or droping the wheels, to throttling up or engine failure can be thought in terms of its effects on the four forces acting on the plane. Lift, drag, thrust and gravity. When you understand that, then with just a little thought you can predict what the effect of any change will be and you can chose between all the possible ways of acheiving the effect you want. In other words, you know how to fly. Why do instructors tell you to do X or Y, even when they know its wrong? Because it is easier and pupils do not want to sit in a classroom learning lots of theory before they get in a plane. Better instructors (and better pupils) move on to the next stage of understanding at which point the pupil learns to understand why what they do does what it does.

"Both methods work" - No! Both methods are wrong. .../...Why do instructors tell you to do X or Y, even when they know its wrong?

Paul,Thanks for taking the time to answer but I still don't get it - and I even disagree with the two lines I quoted above.Except for these two lines, I think I understand what you mean but then, I am tempted to ask : So what?Are you advocating going back to basics (including maybe basic skills such as reading and writing) everytime you instruct someone?If that's your point, I disagree : you take students - which you trust have achieved a certain level (pre-requisite) - and you take them to the next level needed.Some intructors will say : " forget everything you learned about aviation before today, I want you to do it my way "Others will say : "pull on the stick, the houses get smaller, push the stick, they grow bigger..."But all good instructors are able to put things in perspective and, if need be, to go back briefly to basics - and theory - when answering questions. With this, I agree...Having said that, I still fail to see the relation with the original question in this thread...so if you don't mind, I am going to sign off now.Take care,Bruno

I have been flying FSX now for about five years, ever since I got FSX for Christmas

FSX was released four years ago.

Earlier in this thread, someone said ; "if you want to climb, pull on the stick, then add power" - and was immediately corrected because we have all been told to do exactly the opposite : power - THEN stick.

Hi everyone,I am afraid I got carried away in quoting a remark about how to climb - and ended up writing something wrong (quoted above). The correct way, taught (I believe in all flight schools) is to always change : 1 - pitch and then2- power Of course, especially in a light plane, one gets used to perform the two actions almost simultaneously when one wants to climb (or even to set power first as I wrote).The fact is that setting pitch first and then power will never get you in trouble - and is in fact the only way to follow the trajectory you really want to follow - while I am told by those who fly them that, in an airliner (and probably any other plane if you think or it), setting power before pitch is a sin and, in the worst case, may result in the plane flying into the ground when attempting to go around ! Not the best way to end a flight. There is no risk that setting pitch first might result in loss of energy or even a stall if plane is at the correct speed (and AOA of course).Sorry for the confusion, the rest (throttle for speed...) is unchanged.Bruno

Hi fsxfreak,from your post, here's what I'll suggest1). Do not move the thrust to idle at 100-50 feet that is toooo high, normally do that around 20-10 feet, no higher than "20" radio callout. some people can do that at 50 feet also but that's after you've practised enough to "feel" the sink and nose drop. note the N1 before you disconnect the AT, and keep adding or reducing power just a "touch" to keep your bug speed.2). after disconnecting autopilot, perform small but quick corrections, I know you'll think what passenger would think !!! but it's okay it's for their safety only :) to nail the bird on the centreline.3). fly the babe down to sod at Vref and no less. I mean apply whatever wind correction and start bleeding off excess speed once over threshold and during flare.4). learn and use the "low wing" and "crab" techniques. and during touchdown make sure airplane wheels are perfectly parallel with the runway (even I haven't mastered this technique yet but once in a while it happens and the plane does not shudder at all)5). Keep praying NGX releases soon :)Enjoy !!B h a s k a r --- K r i s h n a

FSX was released four years ago.

facepalm to this. double facepalm.