Hey Zach,This is what I read in the forum :And this is the email I get from Avsim (ZachLW quoted a post you made) :<<Thanks for the input. Although there was none. Mr. Adamson and Kevin do a better job of conversing (arguing) their points. Let's stay out of the mud slinging. Don't be such an agitated girl.>>If you want to play that kind of game, I am going to let you play alone.I'll leave you with a suggestion though : Maybe you could spend less time telling us how to control a plane and more time trying to learn to control yourself.Bruno

Yeah, I edited that out... Game? Looks like you're wanting to play ball given your smart alec attitude earlier. Get over it.

Yeah, I edited that out... Game? Looks like you're wanting to play ball given your smart alec attitude earlier. Get over it.

Same answer : If you want to play that kind of game, you can play alone. Enjoy !

Same answer : If you want to play that kind of game, you can play alone. Enjoy !

You win!

I,m sure glad I learned to keep my mouth shut(mostly,anyway)....

I,m sure glad I learned to keep my mouth shut(mostly,anyway)....

Same here.... I hate posting in here sometimes due to the blatant hostility of some members.

Same here.... I hate posting in here sometimes due to the blatant hostility of some members.

Yep.....

More CFI thoughts...................pitch/power...Note: I'm just posting links for different points of view. This difference in opinion has existed for a long time, and has often went for weeks in various forums, sim & real.http://www.illustratingshadows.com/PitchPower.pdfhttp://www.flight.org/blog/2010/02/20/attitude-for-airspeed-power-for-rate-of-descent/

More CFI thoughts...................pitch/power...Note: I'm just posting links for different points of view. This difference in opinion has existed for a long time, and has often went for weeks in various forums, sim & real.http://www.illustrat.../PitchPower.pdfhttp://www.flight.or...ate-of-descent/

Good reads, thanks for sharing them. The first one reminds me an awful lot of this:

The only argument against the "pitch is airspeed" mantra is "combination of pitch and power is airspeed and altitude".

It's nice to see that for the most part CFIs across the interwebs agree on this one.

Edited February 1, 201214 yr by ZachLW

You are all stupid and suck, now shut up!!!!! :Love:It's always fun to come in here and argue things out.

You are all stupid and suck, now shut up!!!!! :Love:It's always fun to come in here and argue things out.

+1 You're more stupid than I am.

More CFI thoughts...................pitch/power...Note: I'm just posting links for different points of view. This difference in opinion has existed for a long time, and has often went for weeks in various forums, sim & real.http://www.illustrat.../PitchPower.pdfhttp://www.flight.or...ate-of-descent/

"Aeronautical engineers are emphatic on pitch for airspeed, and (in the steady state) they are correct."Of all the links you're throwing up, this is about the only sentence in any of them that even comes close to touching on the crux of the controversy instead of just the same old back and forth. Your author concedes that pitch for airspeed is correct, but continues to tell people to ignore it. Why? Because your author is trying to fit a piece of understanding into the hole of rote learning. Arguments stem from two people misunderstanding one another. The misunderstanding that you have with me is that you think I say "pitch for airspeed" as a method for rote learning. I say it as an explanation of why airplanes behave as they do. What people in the world understand why arplanes do as they do better, than aeronautical engineers? And if there is something they are trying to say to you, shouldn't you at least try to understand it if you're a pilot? "Pitch for airspeed" elegantly explains to a student the relationship between thrust, drag, lift and gravity with three words and the visuals of a U shaped graph so that they can understand those complicated relationships easily. The great misunderstanding, and hence argument, comes from one side only viewing the sentence as a rote learning method, while the other side is viewing the sentence as an understanding method. "Pitch for airspeed" sits at an entirely different level of learning than "pitch for altitude." This entire debate stems from people trying to compare apples with oranges. The two statements are completely different things.

Edited February 1, 201214 yr by KevinAu

/snip

Well said, though I doubt the argument stems from certain folks wanting to avoid rote technique. No, the arguers typically aren't thinking that in depth about the entire argument. I say it stems from simply over complicating a fundamental idea.

Because arguments stem from two people misunderstanding one another

Yes. Only I would say it doesn't take two, but rather one to misunderstand to get this argument started.

"Aeronautical engineers are emphatic on pitch for airspeed, and (in the steady state) they are correct."Of all the links you're throwing up, this is about the only sentence in any of them that even comes close to touching on the crux of the controversy instead of just the same old back and forth. Your author concedes that pitch for airspeed is correct, but continues to tell people to ignore it. Why? Because arguments stem from two people misunderstanding one another. The misunderstanding that you have with me is that you think I say "pitch for airspeed" as a method for rote learning. I say it as an explanation of why airplanes behave as they do. What people in the world understand why arplanes do as they do better, than aeronautical engineers? And if there is something they are trying to say to you, shouldn't you at least try to understand it if you're a pilot? "Pitch for airspeed" elegantly explains to a student the relationship between thrust, drag, lift and gravity with three words and the visuals of a U shaped graph. The great misunderstanding, and hence argument, comes from one side only viewing the sentence as a rote learning method, while the other side is viewing the sentence as an understanding method. "Pitch for airspeed" sits at an entirely different level of learning than "pitch for altitude."

Considering I've built R/C models, and full size airplanes.................including setting the wing incidence, shimming and adjusting the horizontal stab, installed the auto pilots which use pitch for altitude, canted the engine, adjusted the C/S prop governor, set the proper toe in for the landing gear, adjusted break-out force of the castoring nosewheel, set 14,000 flush rivets, installed all the mechanics to the control surfaces, etc, etc, ............I know what makes a plane tick.As you can see, there is a long standing debate on this subject. Let's don't go to the extremes, in trying to prove what I don't know........P.S.---- You'd be surprised what an aeronautical engineer..............doesn't know, if they haven't been flying real aircraft.

http://youtu.be/LzDSq6m2zV4Here is a video which demonstrates what Kevin was talking about with the Buffalo crash. Pitch down would have saved these guys as well.

It is an explanation of flight and it includes pitch for altitude within it. When you understand pitch for speed, you understand pitch for altitude.

These arguements have not waned since my first exposure to aerodynamics and flight instructors and will likely continue add infinitum.I happen to have been fortunate in that my instructor drilled "pitch for airspeed and throttle for altitude".He did not ignore the intricasies of the correlation of the two but "kept it simple" for a purpose. He was a stickler for not flying the trim wheel or chasing the VSI as well.It is vital for students to have a true basic understanding of what the "flight envelope" is and what its limitations are.... :(