What are you disagreeing with here? The fact that I called it boring, or the supposition that I'm calling it worthless?

 

Both. The copy that I got as a present when I was studying for my Private Pilots license  back in the late 70's   was given to me by a B-52 instructor in the Air Force. The next time its was mentioned to me as a must read , which of course I already had twice, was by a Check Pilot for Delta Airlines prior to spending 5 hours with him in a CAE 767-400ER full motion sim at the Delta Training center in Atlanta. . I also had an aerobatic instructor pilot, Dave Holland, who also told me it was a must read. One of Dave's students was William Shatner. That was good enough for me.  :wink:

Both. The copy that I got as a present when I was studying for my Private Pilots license  back in the late 70's   was given to me by a B-52 instructor in the Air Force. The next time its was mentioned to me as a must read , which of course I already had twice, was by a Check Pilot for Delta Airlines prior to spending 5 hours with him in a CAE 767-400ER full motion sim at the Delta Training center in Atlanta. . I also had an aerobatic instructor pilot, Dave Holland, who also told me it was a must read. One of Dave's students was William Shatner. That was good enough for me.  :wink:

 

Thought so. Do note that I at no point called it worthless. In fact, I specifically stated that it has a good perspective on flying. The post simply called it boring. Anything else was incorrectly inferred.

I didn't read stick & rudder either....

I didn't read stick & rudder either....

 

Give it a try then, it won't do you any harm

The Flight Manual Series by Kershner were my go to books for commercial pilot study.  The basics are here: http://www.amazon.com/Student-Pilots-Flight-Manual-Certificate/dp/156027719X/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&qid=1461765511&sr=8-11&keywords=aviation+study+books

 

However, the Stick and Rudder is a classic from the 1940s when aviation was booming and everybody was going to have an airplane. An important contribution to aviation.

Give it a try then, it won't do you any harm

No longer interested.  Over the years, I probably heard or read references to about every paragraph.  There are also a few items I wouldn't agree with........................such as the power/pitch debates.  Stick & Rudder was written when excessive climb power wasn't the norm.  I'm well known around here, for saying baloney to the pitch for speed & power for climb ----------- as being the the total fact of flight.  This is why the U.S. Air force, Navy, &  FAA have different views on the subject, these days.  Years ago, there were some good arguments on this forum, regarding pitch/power.  But then...........it's been to long in my mind, to quote the exact words in the book.

such as the power/pitch debates

 

Yeah, there's opposing views regarding this debate within pilots.

 

I personally "revert" to thrust on speed and pitch on vertical speed during approach/landing, otherwise making corrections would take too much time, time you don't have when in final for instance.

 

But for the purpose of this thread Stick&Rudder fits in perfectly

Kershner uses "performance = pitch + power" to avoid the chicken and egg argument over power/pitch. I guess I really liked his books, which include private, commercial, instrument and instructor levels.

Kershner uses "performance = pitch + power" to avoid the chicken and egg argument over power/pitch. I guess I really liked his books, which include private, commercial, instrument and instructor levels.

 

Dan, thanks a lot for the reference and the Amazon link.

 

This reminds me a little of the "Bernoulli vs Newton" arguments when trying to explain Lift. The truth is, both are true in their own way!

But for the purpose of this thread Stick&Rudder fits in perfectly

 

Absolutely!

 

But in this day and age of IFR flying and Controlled Airspace when you are given instruction to maintain a given heading, given speed and a given altitude  - if you are not relying on a sophisticated autopilot you will apply changes in  both power and pitch to comply. And depending on the phase of flight, the particular aircraft, and meteorological conditions you may be using both tabs and flaps to control pitch, such as during a level approach.

 

While wind direction does not affect IAS, it does affect lift!

 

 

While wind direction does not affect IAS, it does affect lift!

 

Constant speed, no. Gusts, yes.

Regarding pitch vs power for speed -- in truth, you adjust both. However, a typical low-performance, draggy training aircraft will likely respond quite slowly to added power. The main concern is that if you get yourself slow in such an aircraft, your first response must be to push the nose down, as this will fix the initial problem (AOA) quickly. Of course, an experienced pilot will probably fix the power as well at the same time, but the intial, ingrained response must be to lower the nose. This is why students are typically taught to use pitch for airspeed/power for rate of descent in initial training.

 

Extrapolating the situation further, if the student is taught that the elevator controls rate of descent and the throttle controls airspeed, and they subsequently find themselves with the stall warner unexpectedly going off, pulling back to arrest the descent whilst adding power to increase speed may at best result in going down faster than they were before, and in the worst case may well result in a spin. Not desirable.

 

Slippery, high-powered jet transports, however, will accelerate much more quickly with a change in power setting.

 

 

Constant speed, no. Gusts, yes.

 

So all wind is always level to the path of the wings' travel so the wind never affects the angle of attack? And despite the direction of the wind to the airplane's heading, as the wings encounter that wind, the effect on the wings is always the same?  ex. a quartering head wind affects the wings exactly the same as a direct head wind?

 

 

Regarding pitch vs power for speed -- in truth, you adjust both. However, a typical low-performance, draggy training aircraft will likely respond quite slowly to added power. The main concern is that if you get yourself slow in such an aircraft, your first response must be to push the nose down, as this will fix the initial problem (AOA) quickly. Of course, an experienced pilot will probably fix the power as well at the same time, but the intial, ingrained response must be to lower the nose. This is why students are typically taught to use pitch for airspeed/power for rate of descent in initial training.

 

+2²

Yeah, there's opposing views regarding this debate within pilots.

 

I personally "revert" to thrust on speed and pitch on vertical speed during approach/landing, otherwise making corrections would take too much time, time you don't have when in final for instance.

 

But for the purpose of this thread Stick&Rudder fits in perfectly

 

Easiest way to teach someone to fly a stable approach is using the pitch for airspeed and power for altitude that was the basis of the Stick and Rudder theory. It was also the safest way to teach the pre solo student and keep them out of trouble, even after they soloed. 

 

 

So all wind is always level to the path of the wings' travel so the wind never affects the angle of attack? And despite the direction of the wind to the airplane's heading, as the wings encounter that wind, the effect on the wings is always the same?  ex. a quartering head wind affects the wings exactly the same as a direct head wind?

 

skelsey, on 27 Apr 2016 - 5:03 PM, said:

 

This is something that you would understand completely, once you read Stick and Rudder, and that's why it was mentioned in this thread. 

 

 

Easiest way to teach someone to fly a stable approach is using the pitch for airspeed and power for altitude that was the basis of the Stick and Rudder theory. It was also the safest way to teach the pre solo student and keep them out of trouble, even after they soloed. 

 

As I mentioned, there's still some debate on the pitch/power issue (and probably ever will). I found Simon's post very accurate.

 

 

 

This is something that you would understand completely, once you read Stick and Rudder, and that's why it was mentioned in this thread. 

 

haha, I was going to say exactly that