Descent Rate on Glide Slope

PaulS said:
You can be low, below your desired glide path and fast too. In that case, a slight pitch up will slow your descent and slow your airspeed bringing you back on glide path, most likely not requiring messing with power.
Click to expand...
Makes perfect sense.

PaulS said:
Don't overthink it. When I first learned to land I would hit my airspeed, it was 65 or 70 knots, I don't remember, then use power to maintain the glide path.
Click to expand...
Exactly what I intend to perfect.
 
JAWS said:
Google "Region Of Reverse Command".
Click to expand...
Y'all techie dreamers can use your time machines to go back in time and do noble deeds to change history, but when I get mine I'm going to go back and stop the person that coined this ******** term.

Nauga,
and his excess power lecture
 
nauga said:
Y'all techie dreamers can use your time machines to go back in time and do noble deeds to change history, but when I get mine I'm going to go back and stop the person that coined this ******** term.

Nauga,
and his excess power lecture
Click to expand...
With all the completely worthless junk out there, you pick this to get rid of? Me, I'd shoot the SOB who tied airworthiness to burning red fruit!
 
nauga said:
Y'all techie dreamers can use your time machines to go back in time and do noble deeds to change history, but when I get mine I'm going to go back and stop the person that coined this ******** term.

Nauga,
and his excess power lecture
Click to expand...

What would you call it?
 
Numerous young children have figured out how to ride a bike without knowing any formulas or physics. I'd argue the science of that is more complicated. Have your CFI cover the instruments with a towel abeam the numbers and just fly it til it makes sense.
 
midlifeflyer said:
The other part is that it's not a pure pitch = airspeed; power = altitude relationship. There have heated arguments about it and the reverse forever, including incredibly stupid examples to prove one side or the other is right. It's really about coordinated use of both. Ultimately, one predominating over the other is nothing more than a teaching technique to move the new pilot from the 2-dimensional world to the 3-D world of flying where the relationships are a bit different than driving a car where hitting the gas pedal means "go."
Click to expand...
Fully agree. The elevator controls angle of attack*, and any given angle of attack/weight/G-load combination requires a certain amount of power to maintain level flight. Any excess power gets converted to a climb, and a power deficit results in a descent. Q.E.D.

(* With a low horizontal stabilizer, a complicating factor is propstream hitting the tail, effectively changing the AoA when you change power.)
 
Last edited:
Hang 4 said:
Numerous young children have figured out how to ride a bike without knowing any formulas or physics. I'd argue the science of that is more complicated. Have your CFI cover the instruments with a towel abeam the numbers and just fly it til it makes sense.
Click to expand...
Those young kids on bicycles get a lot more practice. Rollout, flare, and landing last 5–10 seconds, so after your first 100 flights, you still have only 10 or 15 minutes' experience actually landing (add a bit for touch and goes).
 
Yeah, you can think about it on the ground, but when you're flying you just need to fly. To quote Yogi, "how can you think and hit at the same time?" You can't.
 
David Megginson said:
Fully agree. The elevator controls angle of attack*, and any given angle of attack/weight/G-load combination requires a certain amount of power to maintain level flight. Any excess power gets converted to a climb, and a power deficit results in a descent. Q.E.D.

(* With a low vertical tail, a complicating factor is propstream hitting the tail, effectively changing the AoA when you change power.)
Click to expand...
Horizontal stabilizer?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top