Pitch for speed.. Throttle for Altitude - why are some peole saying this is "bad" ?

S

supernovae

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
509
Location
Austin
Display Name
Display name:
supernovae
So I've always loved the theory described by the infamous "Stick and Rudder" book about using power for altitude and pitch for speed but I've come across a lot of pilots who say "We need to slap that nonsense out of you" while most of those pilots are flying commercial jets who say that.

When I read the book, it seems so obvious how true the statement is in theory and practice, yet, i'm curious why some pilots say its wrong. It's not absolute by any means, but it sure describes flight in a more practical way for GA pilots - especially in regards to how many of the NTSB reports seem to be people forgetting this theory of flight..

It seems to me that some use the FAA as a scape goat saying that the FAA pilots flying handbook has no mention of this - why would that be?

Also, I found it interesting how little the jeppeson and other student guides speak on relative wind and angle of attack in the theory of flight and how little my expensive ground instructor covered in in my last class..

ps.. sorry if this is a beaten to death topic, i'm just coming back from a rather long time off from flying (~10 years) :)
 
Re: Pitch for speed.. Throttle for Altitude - why are some peole saying this is "bad"

I don't know about POA, but it was "debated" more than a few times in the rec.aviation days.
 
Re: Pitch for speed.. Throttle for Altitude - why are some peole saying this is "bad"

Sounds like what I was taught when working on my IR. Trim for the speed you want. Need to go down? Reduce power. Airspeed stabilizes at the same speed. Need to go back up? Add power. Within limits, airspeed remains constant and you go up.

Welcome back.
 
Re: Pitch for speed.. Throttle for Altitude - why are some peole saying this is "bad"

The easiest way to get someone to start understanding how to control an airplane is to tell them - power for altitude and pitch for speed.

There is a lot more that goes into flying precisely, but that is the nuts n bolts of it.
 
Re: Pitch for speed.. Throttle for Altitude - why are some peole saying this is "bad"

Because some people are just plain plane stupid. Trim for speed, set throttle for altitude control. Learn that trick and every approach and landing is a breeze.
 
Re: Pitch for speed.. Throttle for Altitude - why are some peole saying this is "bad"

The approach almost works. In an ideal aircraft, you reduce power and stabilize in a descent at the same airspeed. In a real aircraft, it's a little different. In a 172, you'll stabilize at a higher airspeed, not the same one. On the flip side, adjusting trim only for airspeed will increase your sink rate, once you slow down.

I think the objection is that you need to manage all the controls necessary, and it's not as simple as one control adjusting one variable. It is a good starting point, though. On approach where a constant airspeed is important, you adjust sink rate mostly with power. You will, however, need to adjust the trim a little each time you do it.
 
Re: Pitch for speed.. Throttle for Altitude - why are some peole saying this is "bad"

Ghery said:
Sounds like what I was taught when working on my IR. Trim for the speed you want. Need to go down? Reduce power. Airspeed stabilizes at the same speed. Need to go back up? Add power. Within limits, airspeed remains constant and you go up.

Welcome back.
Click to expand...

Done slowly with small throttle adjustments, this works really well. However I'll do pitch, power or both. Usually if i'm a little high and the needle is not moving, i'll just pull the power out a bit. If i'm a little high and the needle is moving (in the wrong direction) i'll pull the power out a bit and give the nose a nudge down with the yoke. The pitch change will immediately stop the needle from moving and then the power reduction will take effect after a few seconds and the plane will descend back on to the GS

Just remember that small power changes take a few seconds to take effect, so if the needle is moving use a small pitch change to stop it, while making your power change necessary to get back on the glide slope
 
Last edited:
Re: Pitch for speed.. Throttle for Altitude - why are some peole saying this is "bad"

And, in practice pilots do different things in different situations.

In cruise, many pilots set the power to a target setting (say 75%) and use trim (pitch) to maintain altitude. That same pilot is likely to use power to control the sink and pitch to maintain airspeed during the final approach.

But the reality is that pitch and power interact. Any distinction between using one to control speed and the other to control altitude exists only in the mind of the pilot. And I suspect that most pilots are not nearly as consistent in actual practice as they claim to be.
 
Re: Pitch for speed.. Throttle for Altitude - why are some peole saying this is "bad"

It's possible to fly from takeoff to landing without even touching the trim.

Think C172, 150 or 152:

#1 Takeoff with it set for takeoff or slightly nose up.

#2 Let it stabilize in the climb at whatever speed it wants between 70 & 80.

#3 reach pattern altitued lower the nose and accellerate 10 MPH simultaniously reducing power between 2,100 and 2,300 RPM

#4 reduced power to 1,200 & 1,700 for approach, add desired flaps and regulate decent with power.

Pretty simple.

205 can be done this way, but without some weight in the back the nose is heavy during the flare. I think it flies better with 4 people on board than 1 or 2.
 
Re: Pitch for speed.. Throttle for Altitude - why are some peole saying this is "bad"

supernovae said:
So I've always loved the theory described by the infamous "Stick and Rudder" book about using power for altitude and pitch for speed but I've come across a lot of pilots who say "We need to slap that nonsense out of you" while most of those pilots are flying commercial jets who say that.
Click to expand...
When this subject comes up I usually avoid putting my 2 cents in, but since I'm out of practice now I'll give a whack at it.

Both camps are right because both are describing different objectives. Flying down a glideslope with plenty of surplus concrete to cover your errors in airspeed control, it is better to use the elevator for glide slope maintenance. Gliding into a small field over the treetops with little extra runway for floating is better done by using the elevator for airspeed control.

The thing is: use the elevator as the best control for whatever it is you want to maintain more dearly, airspeed or altitude/glide path.

dtuuri
 
Re: Pitch for speed.. Throttle for Altitude - why are some peole saying this is "bad"

supernovae said:
the infamous "Stick and Rudder" book
Click to expand...

May I ask why you characterize "Stick And Rudder" as infamous?

Adjective
Well known for some bad quality or deed.
Wicked; abominable: "infamous misconduct".
 
Re: Pitch for speed.. Throttle for Altitude - why are some peole saying this is "bad"

bnt83 said:
It's possible to fly from takeoff to landing without even touching the trim.

Think C172, 150 or 152:

#1 Takeoff with it set for takeoff or slightly nose up.

#2 Let it stabilize in the climb at whatever speed it wants between 70 & 80.

#3 reach pattern altitued lower the nose and accellerate 10 MPH simultaniously reducing power between 2,100 and 2,300 RPM

#4 reduced power to 1,200 & 1,700 for approach, add desired flaps and regulate decent with power.

Pretty simple.

205 can be done this way, but without some weight in the back the nose is heavy during the flare. I think it flies better with 4 people on board than 1 or 2.
Click to expand...


I would be either hauling way back on the yoke in the Comanche on landing, or pushing very hard on takeoff if I left the trim set without changing it.
 
Re: Pitch for speed.. Throttle for Altitude - why are some peole saying this is "bad"

Hi Supernovae.

My $0.02 is that ultimately you (and "Stick and Ruidder") are exactly correct. When flying a glideslope, though, you get a little quicker response by using the "flippers" to adjust your altitude. In practice, I always do both -- adjust elevators/adjust throttle.
 
Re: Pitch for speed.. Throttle for Altitude - why are some peole saying this is "bad"

Ghery said:
Sounds like what I was taught when working on my IR. Trim for the speed you want. Need to go down? Reduce power. Airspeed stabilizes at the same speed. Need to go back up? Add power. Within limits, airspeed remains constant and you go up.

Welcome back.
Click to expand...

Doesn't work with all planes. In my canard adding power increases speed which allows you to raise the nose and stretch the glide path. Have to do both. If you just add power, you'll hit short at a higher speed.
 
Re: Pitch for speed.. Throttle for Altitude - why are some peole saying this is "bad"

bnt83 said:
It's possible to fly from takeoff to landing without even touching the trim.

Think C172, 150 or 152:

#1 Takeoff with it set for takeoff or slightly nose up.

#2 Let it stabilize in the climb at whatever speed it wants between 70 & 80.

#3 reach pattern altitued lower the nose and accellerate 10 MPH simultaniously reducing power between 2,100 and 2,300 RPM

#4 reduced power to 1,200 & 1,700 for approach, add desired flaps and regulate decent with power.

Pretty simple.

205 can be done this way, but without some weight in the back the nose is heavy during the flare. I think it flies better with 4 people on board than 1 or 2.
Click to expand...

That's a horrible habit to teach. Trim makes your life infinitely easier and if you don't get into the habit of it in a trainer you're going to slam a nice airplane into the ground because you're trying to muscle it.
 
Re: Pitch for speed.. Throttle for Altitude - why are some peole saying this is "bad"

I was kind of surprised to read the original post, but more relieved to read the majority of the responses. I also had no idea this was such a contested issue...?

I'm a student pilot, and this is exactly what I learned. Pitch/trim for speed, power for altitude. Trim the plane to your speed, control the altitude changes with power.

I read it in the books I've been using, read it in the online programs, two instructors backed it up, and so far whenever I've been flying it's worked very well, both in the Cessna 152 and 172.

My first flight in practicing basic handling, although I read this, I wasn't doing it. I think it was because it was contrary to my thinking. I was trying to control altitude with pitch/trim, and speed with throttle, and it really was quite difficult. As soon as the instructor saw this, he mentioned the pitch/trim for speed and throttle for power, and every since then I've got a pretty good control on my speeds (maintaining/changing) as well as my altitudes (maintaining/changing).
 
Re: Pitch for speed.. Throttle for Altitude - why are some peole saying this is "bad"

Obviously it's a bit more complicated than just that because the two are intimately related and one affects the other but the basic premise is taught to students because the idea itself is not intuitive. It kind of goes against what a person thinks is going to happen when they first step into an airplane and, for the most part, it's true. In straight and level cruise with hands off the controls if you pull back on the throttle you're going to go down and if you push in the throttle you're going to go up but for efficient speed changes you're normally going to use pitch and throttle together to get what you want. Same thing for glideslope, you might pitch up to reduce speed and ultimately steepen your descent which again, is something a new student wouldn't intuitively get.
 
Re: Pitch for speed.. Throttle for Altitude - why are some peole saying this is "bad"

I think one of the reasons it's taught that way (pitch for speed/throttle for altitude) is that it's counterintuitive since most people are used to cars where speed is controlled by the accelerator (throttle). This would be analogous to flying at a constant altitude where speed would be controlled by the throttle. Pitch for airspeed and throttle for altitude is also a safer way of thinking of things when airspeed is low. However, in reality, pitch, power, altitude and airspeed are all interrelated.
 
Re: Pitch for speed.. Throttle for Altitude - why are some peole saying this is "bad"

TheTraveler said:
I'm a student pilot, and this is exactly what I learned. Pitch/trim for speed, power for altitude. Trim the plane to your speed, control the altitude changes with power.
Click to expand...
You cruise at a target speed and not at a set rpm (and perhaps manifold pressure)? How do you do your preflight fuel planning?
 
Re: Pitch for speed.. Throttle for Altitude - why are some peole saying this is "bad"

It is an age old debate, but NEITHER side is completely correct.

What is correct is:

PITCH for attitude.

POWER for thrust.
 
Re: Pitch for speed.. Throttle for Altitude - why are some peole saying this is "bad"

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
You cruise at a target speed and not at a set rpm (and perhaps manifold pressure)? How do you do your preflight fuel planning?
Click to expand...

I aim for 75% power at my planned altitude and take whatever speed I can get.
 
Re: Pitch for speed.. Throttle for Altitude - why are some peole saying this is "bad"

kgruber said:
It is an age old debate, but NEITHER side is completely correct.

What is correct is:

PITCH for attitude.

POWER for thrust.
Click to expand...

Isn't it better to stick to:

PITCH for angle of attack

POWER for Altitude

You can have what appears to be a neutral attitude and full thrust but be exceeding your Angle of Attack and if you believe thrust=thrust and PITCH = attitude you may pitch back and apply more thrust without realizing you just increased the angle of attack and increased your risk of power on stall / incipient spin (especially if you continue to try and pull up). Of course there are fighter jets and aircraft that obviously can thrust out of almost anything, but still - wouldn't the normal envelop of those aircraft even be based on the same notions?

I'm also scouring the FAA pilots handbook to see if they do indeed avoid this topic or phrase it differently.

I never knew there was any contrary belief until recently.. someone even posted some links i'm now searching for too.
 
Re: Pitch for speed.. Throttle for Altitude - why are some peole saying this is "bad"

supernovae said:
Isn't it better to stick to:

PITCH for angle of attack

POWER for Altitude

You can have what appears to be a neutral attitude and full thrust but be exceeding your Angle of Attack and if you believe thrust=thrust and PITCH = attitude you may pitch back and apply more thrust without realizing you just increased the angle of attack and increased your risk of power on stall / incipient spin (especially if you continue to try and pull up). Of course there are fighter jets and aircraft that obviously can thrust out of almost anything, but still - wouldn't the normal envelop of those aircraft even be based on the same notions?

I'm also scouring the FAA pilots handbook to see if they do indeed avoid this topic or phrase it differently.

I never knew there was any contrary belief until recently.. someone even posted some links i'm now searching for too.
Click to expand...

Power for altitude? No. Power does not give you altitude. Power ONLY gives you thrust. That is a very simple concept, and right down to the basics.
 
Re: Pitch for speed.. Throttle for Altitude - why are some peole saying this is "bad"

kgruber said:
Power for altitude? No. Power does not give you altitude. Power ONLY gives you thrust. That is a very simple concept, and right down to the basics.
Click to expand...

So if I am S&L and increase power without touching anything else (no autopilot) I won't go up?
 
Re: Pitch for speed.. Throttle for Altitude - why are some peole saying this is "bad"

EdFred said:
So if I am S&L and increase power without touching anything else (no autopilot) I won't go up?
Click to expand...


Being straight and level is a HUGE constraint. Most private pilots are never S&L!!

Don't put artificial constraints on this. Power will ALWAYS give you more thrust, regardless of your speed or attitude.
 
Re: Pitch for speed.. Throttle for Altitude - why are some peole saying this is "bad"

supernovae said:
Isn't it better to stick to:

PITCH for angle of attack

POWER for Altitude

You can have what appears to be a neutral attitude and full thrust but be exceeding your Angle of Attack and if you believe thrust=thrust and PITCH = attitude you may pitch back and apply more thrust without realizing you just increased the angle of attack and increased your risk of power on stall / incipient spin (especially if you continue to try and pull up). Of course there are fighter jets and aircraft that obviously can thrust out of almost anything, but still - wouldn't the normal envelop of those aircraft even be based on the same notions?

I'm also scouring the FAA pilots handbook to see if they do indeed avoid this topic or phrase it differently.

I never knew there was any contrary belief until recently.. someone even posted some links i'm now searching for too.
Click to expand...

Pitching for AoA will be dependent upon how much power you have available vs using and other factors like vector of motion.
 
Re: Pitch for speed.. Throttle for Altitude - why are some peole saying this is "bad"

kgruber said:
Being straight and level is a HUGE constraint. Most private pilots are never S&L!!

Don't put artificial constraints on this. Power will ALWAYS give you more thrust, regardless of your speed or attitude.
Click to expand...
More thrust in a GA aircraft (which has a positive angle of incidence) will give you what - class?
 
Re: Pitch for speed.. Throttle for Altitude - why are some peole saying this is "bad"

kgruber said:
Being straight and level is a HUGE constraint. Most private pilots are never S&L!!

Don't put artificial constraints on this. Power will ALWAYS give you more thrust, regardless of your speed or attitude.
Click to expand...

Isn't your statement the very reason Stick and Rudder spends 140+ pages talking about its "pitch for speed" "throttle for altitude" concept because what you describe does (and can) ignore the physics of an aircraft in flight? (assuming common certified GA aircraft..). Sure, on paper power = thrust, that is what is designed into the engine after all - but its also what is designed into the positive stability of most aircraft too.

I mean, we can fly with no thrust using the same pitch for speed and we can fly gliders pitching for speed (exchanging excess speed for altitude or exchanging excess altitude for speed..)

and yes, some aircraft are designed to fly "hot" and don't really feel like they follow this concept terribly well and maybe those pilots are the ones saying "that "rule" isn't all its cracked up to be"
 
Last edited:
Re: Pitch for speed.. Throttle for Altitude - why are some peole saying this is "bad"

Jaybird180 said:
More thrust in a GA aircraft (which has a positive angle of incidence) will give you what - class?
Click to expand...

More noise, more fuel burn, increased airflow over the wing - resulting in increased lift - resulting in an increase in altitude (assuming to no counteracting downdrafts).
 
Re: Pitch for speed.. Throttle for Altitude - why are some peole saying this is "bad"

It's weird that anybody would just outright reject this philosophy, but I guess there are plenty of pilots who feel that way.

Obviously Langeweische was not trying to say " You shouldn't use changes in elevator position while climbing or descending" and/or "You shouldn't bother with the throttle if you want to speed up or slow down."
Everybody knows that you can gain or lose altitude by changing pitch, and gain or lose speed by changing the throttle setting.

But to continue to gain altitude, power will have to be added, and to continue to descend (as in for landing) you're usually going to want to reduce power, at least eventually.

And as for use of the "flippers" for airspeed control: I can't think of any winged craft that does not experience a change in airspeed when the elevator position is changed. It will probably also climb or descend, but it will definitely speed up or slow down.

Langeweische's reasoning, AFAIK, was that if you think primarily of "throttle for altitude, elevator for airspeed", knowing, of course, that it's not always that simple in all cases, it will just help you stay ahead of the airplane, and make your climbs and descents more efficient. I agree with that, based on my own experience... I discovered that book after I started my primary training, and thinking about pitch and power the way he described it definitely helped me do better.
 
Re: Pitch for speed.. Throttle for Altitude - why are some peole saying this is "bad"

Thanks all for the feedback! I do love the book. Its funny how much of it I didn't really comprehend 10+ years ago, but after reading it today, I couldn't put it down thinking about everything. Also, going a few times with my father in his glider made much of this much easier to comprehend!
 
Re: Pitch for speed.. Throttle for Altitude - why are some peole saying this is "bad"

supernovae said:
Isn't your statement the very reason Stick and Rudder spends 140+ pages talking about its "pitch for speed" "throttle for altitude" concept because what you describe does (and can) ignore the physics of an aircraft in flight? (assuming common certified GA aircraft..). S
Click to expand...

No. What you describe is a bunch of highly limited configurations. That's why it is such an argued topic.

Power for thrust, Pitch for attitude is PURE physics. From that basic, and always true FACT, you can then describe your highly situational models.
 
Re: Pitch for speed.. Throttle for Altitude - why are some peole saying this is "bad"

kgruber said:
No. What you describe is a bunch of highly limited configurations. That's why it is such an argued topic.

Power for thrust, Pitch for attitude is PURE physics. From that basic, and always true FACT, you can then describe your highly situational models.
Click to expand...

Powered flight *IS* the situational model.

edit: And i'm not trying to be pedantic here ;)
 
Re: Pitch for speed.. Throttle for Altitude - why are some peole saying this is "bad"

supernovae said:
Powered flight *IS* the situational model.

edit: And i'm not trying to be pedantic here ;)
Click to expand...

You aren't, but he is.
 
Re: Pitch for speed.. Throttle for Altitude - why are some peole saying this is "bad"

I'll push forward on the stick and when we hit 60 push in the throttle and we'll climb out.
 
Re: Pitch for speed.. Throttle for Altitude - why are some peole saying this is "bad"

It's all about power required and power available. ;)
 
Re: Pitch for speed.. Throttle for Altitude - why are some peole saying this is "bad"

People can argue with it because it is both simplistic and inaccurate. The better phrasing would be "trim for speed, and power for climb/descent rate at that speed." If you trim for any particular speed in level flight, so the plane stays at that speed and altitude hands-off, and then add power without changing the pressure on the stick/yoke, the pitch will increase and the airplane will climb, but the airplane will try to stay at the same speed (after an initial damped oscillation). If you then reduce power back below the original setting, the nose will drop and the plane will descend, but again, it will seek the original speed (again, after the initial oscillation damps out). That is why we teach folks for approaches to trim for desired speed and then use power changes to manage glide path in order to maintain a stabilized approach.
 
Re: Pitch for speed.. Throttle for Altitude - why are some peole saying this is "bad"

kgruber said:
It is an age old debate, but NEITHER side is completely correct.

What is correct is:

PITCH for attitude.

POWER for thrust.
Click to expand...

Aren't both of those inherently redundant? I don't see either clarifying anything for a student pilot.

Showing them how the yoke is the quickest way to achieve a desired airspeed, then adjusting power to control altitude is pretty intuitive.

Personally, I've never understood the need to debate something so intuitively obvious.
 
Re: Pitch for speed.. Throttle for Altitude - why are some peole saying this is "bad"

supernovae said:
Also, going a few times with my father in his glider made much of this much easier to comprehend!
Click to expand...
Yes, when your only source of thrust is gravity and the only way you can continuously gain altitude is with air that happens to be moving upwards, it all becomes very clear! :D
 
Re: Pitch for speed.. Throttle for Altitude - why are some peole saying this is "bad"

kgruber said:
Power for altitude? No. Power does not give you altitude. Power ONLY gives you thrust. That is a very simple concept, and right down to the basics.
Click to expand...

Huh? At constant angle of attack, an increase in speed results in a proportional increase in lift. Are you really saying that an increase in thrust doesn't result in an increase in speed at constant configuration and attitude?

Power is a change in energy flow. While there are other places for energy to go aside from altitude, most of it does go into potential energy, at constant attitude.

As you say, basics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top