Stick and Rudder by Wolfgang Langewiesche

RoscoeT said:
That's a silly statement. Just the opposite. Don't confuse style with writing ability. He was an excellent writer, which is largely why the book has had such longevity. The writing style is somewhat dated, but very well done. I can't stand the writing of William Faulkner, but would not say something glib like he's a "bad writer".
Click to expand...

I read it just before signing up to flight lessons. I re-read it during ground school, and it helped a lot. I read it or just browse it from time to time now that I have passed ground school and am flying.

I actually was pretty amazed at how clear, consise, and also funny he is. I think he writes just fine, you just have to have experience with how things were formulated back in the day. I would call him an excellent author.

I also was amazed at Lindbergh's book. He also had a knack for writing.

Reading it so many times in so many different stages of my over all comprehension of what flying entails, has definitely helped me. He has a natural writing style and there is a depth to his writing. The fundamentals didn't change, just that airplane construction has gotten better as regards things like rudder, etc. but it's the same principles and he had it.

I don't presume to know, but his book has definitely helped me understand the principles, and a lot of the nuances of flying.
 
skier said:
Bought it since it has such a cult following and thought it was awful. One of the only aviation books I couldn't get through. Heck, I'd rather read a grad-level math textbook than that thing.
Click to expand...

Yep, bought my first copy back in the 70s, never could get into it. Copy I now have I've read some sections, but still not the easiest to read. Better texts out there IMO.
 
denverpilot said:
Kershner is where it's at! :)
Click to expand...

Loved his books and always recommended them to my students.

R.I.P. Bill!

Still, it was Stick and Rudder that cemented for me early on the intricacies of a wing flying through the air.

For newbies, I started a thread a while back on examples of pilots that could perhaps benefit from a reading of Stick and Rudder. Spawned an interesting discussion (until it went off the rails!)

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/stick-and-rudder-moments-redux.79699/
 
FastEddieB said:
Loved his books and always recommended them to my students.
Click to expand...

Guy knew not just how to fly but how to teach.

Aspiring to that level is like looking down a long tunnel with a little light at the end. But gotta try.

It was one of his books that got my head on straight about the difference between teaching and doing as I read through it thinking how freaking hard it would be to write it.
 
skier said:
Bought it since it has such a cult following and thought it was awful. One of the only aviation books I couldn't get through. Heck, I'd rather read a grad-level math textbook than that thing.
Click to expand...

Langewiesche writes in a terrible style, but he makes some good points. It's much easier to read when you've got some background already. But ironically, by that time it's only useful for some fresh perspective. I re-visited the book after some 200 hours and it went down much better.

As far as the physics of flying goes, John Denker's book provides a lot more useful information that can be actionable.
 
I have read a good bit of it but honestly it bored me to tears. I guess I was expecting more the way it was hyped by people. Seems like I read ten sentences that said the same thing he could have said in one.
 
As this thread keeps bumping to the top of the "Recent Posts" column I find myself reflecting on my own love affair with the book. I wanted to understand aerodynamics in a visceral, cause and effect way not in an abstract mathematical way. It delivered this to me in spades and helped me connect with the students I taught using everyday language. No "coefficient of lift" BS ever crossed my lips, heck, to this day I still can't wrap my mind around that concept. Now, "buoyancy", there's concept that makes some sense! A wing, most of the time, makes just enough lift to exactly offset the weight, no matter the angle of attack. Saying you've "lost lift" because your airspeed is slower doesn't compute--your weight hasn't changed, yet you aren't falling like a rock. What you've really "lost" is reserve lift or "buoyancy". (EDIT: For the record, I've personally never "managed energy" ever in my life either. :))

As for writing ability nobody here is going to slam Peter Garrison, I'm sure. He's a respected writer in his own right. So, when he critiques a book I take it to heart. Here's his take on Wolfgang Langewiesche:

"Whereas a modern flight student learns to watch the airspeed indicator and the ball and to be alert for the stall warning horn, the student of Langewiesche's era was encouraged to rely on more direct sensory inputs: the sound of the air, the rumble of the impending stall, the subtle sensation of leaning that came from even slightly uncoordinated flight. Flying was a sensory experience, like sailing a small boat. Langewiesche assumes this; most of his book is devoted not to "techniques" as a modern book would be, but to explaining how maneuvers ought to feel, and why they feel the way they do.

Most airplanes — ultralights and some LSAs excepted — don't feel that way anymore. In fact, a pilot's skills increasingly involve managing airplanes rather than flying them. Flying jets — the pinnacle to which every young pilot aspires — amounts, most of the time, to being a button-pushing surrogate for ATC.

I do not mean to say that this is a terrible thing. Our tools evolve. I can go far with a car but am at a loss with a hoss. It's just interesting to see how, in a single pilot's lifetime, Langewiesche's once-indispensable classic has become a queer relic, written in an unfamiliar language and evoking experiences that most of us will never have.

But for someone who aspires to being a pilot in the original sense of the word, it is still very much worth reading."
​
I'm going to have to heartily disagree with Mr. Garrison when he says:

"In fact, a pilot's skills increasingly involve managing airplanes rather than flying them. Flying jets — the pinnacle to which every young pilot aspires — amounts, most of the time, to being a button-pushing surrogate for ATC.

I do not mean to say that this is a terrible thing."
​
It is too a terrible thing! In his defense, though, I should point out his article was written before the Colgan accident in Buffalo (EDIT: Oops, not true) and Asiana Flt #214.
 
Last edited:
G-Man said:
A friend posted that the book is available as a free ebook online, apparently legitmately:
https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/8qva8q/stick_and_rudder_pdf_ebook_download/

However, the EPUB version is some 412MB. This seems insanely large for an EPUB document. Can any of our IT/computer whiz folks check it out and see if it is legit?
Click to expand...
How would a computer whiz know if someone legitimately got the rights to publish a book? I seriously doubt it's "legit", but that's from my understanding of intellectual property rights, not computers.
 
The intellectual property rights are one issue, and important. However, a very import question is: Is this a legitimate EPUB file or some nefarious malware that may damage our computers?
(I agree with you, Salty, and did not state my original question well.)
 
Can PDF files infect a computer with malware?
 
Palmpilot said:
Can PDF files infect a computer with malware?
Click to expand...
Of course they can, if the reader has a vulnerability. A PDF is a large chunk of executable code, written in PostScript. I didn't hear of one since 2010, but it does not mean there isn't one. Adobe never was good at secure coding.

I'm not familiar with it, but Wiki says that EPUB is an XML. That is not executable, per se, but it also can attack vulnerabilities of XML parsers and possibly deliver executable payloads. Although historically it was mostly ballooning and crashes.
 
zaitcev said:
Although historically it was mostly ballooning and crashes.
Click to expand...

<Desperately trying to think of an aviation joke to make here... help! anyone? anyone?>
 
I read Stick and Rudder before I ever took my first lesson or flew in a small plane. The dated style didn't bother me so much and I found the book interesting and helpful. I can see how someone who already knows how to fly might find it a waste of time as he is trying to explain a concept to someone with no prior knowledge of flying.

I'm just glad I didn't start with the FAR/AIM or I would've probably had to pass. (just kidding, sort of)
 
exncsurfer said:
I'm just glad I didn't start with the FAR/AIM or I would've probably had to pass. (just kidding, sort of)
Click to expand...

I feel that way about the Private Pilot ACS. Not kidding. I’m fairly well versed on things aeronautical, but find the size, extent and presentation of that document quite off putting. Going in cold, I think something like that might have dissuaded me from learning to fly in the first place.

In 1975, the Practical Test Standards for Private Pilot seemed far more easily digestible.
 
I read both Stick and Rudder and the Kershner Student Pilot Manual as a student pilot. Both were helpful.

Kernsher is quite funny in spots.
 
The Stick and Rudder book is at Archive.org and they’ve been pretty good at checking for copyright, as well as any potential issues with their files. I’ve used their books for years and haven’t had a problem yet. Well worth a browse, they have quite a few older movies in their collection as well
 
Throughout my journey as a student pilot, I have been reading somewhere between 2 to 3 hours a day within my Gleim coursebooks.

I am on page 72 of “Stick and Rudder”. This is my take...

You have to stay focused; not only on the subject matter to understand what is being taught, but more so, trying to understand the the authors written structure. Additionally, I feel as though one full paragraph can easily be written in one sentence; as the same message is echoed many times over in just different word order.

Though I am on page 72, I felt I wanted to express my own personal opinion.

In conclusion, the book has a great message, but one must be focused to locate the message.
 
Not to mention the repeated paragraphs devoted to how he isn’t going to describe something.....
 
I just finished 'Stick & Rudder,' and just read this thread prior to sharing my thoughts. I am fairly grouchy about the state of aviation instruction, which, now that I am mostly through my instrument rating, I continue to think is unnecessarily haphazard,ad hoc, and rote. There is really no systematic curriculum other than teaching to the written and practical tests. Wolfgang's book clarified some important concepts for me in ways I'd completely missed.
The concepts all derive from his central thesis that the most important aspect of piloting is managing angle of attack. To give three examples of 'practical' concepts that I'd been taught, can repeat and implement, but didn't truly understand:
1) Importance of aileron discipline in slow flight. I can hear my instructor yelling at me to use my feet, not hands for directional control in slow flight. Thanks to the shouting, I 'learned' (or was conditioned!) not use aileron when a wing began to drop. But until I read S&R, I didn't understand the underlying, concept: down aileron increases angle of attack past the stall point on a wing that is already flying on the edge of a stall. Simple! and related (especially in the case of the deadly base to final stall/spin into the ground) to:
2) Everyone learns PARE in spin, where 'Ailerons neutral' But why? Because you've equalized the AoA of both wings, giving them the best chance of resuming lift once you've done P,R &E. Simple, but no one previously explained it that way.
3) Parasitic and Induced drag: their differences and importance. Early on in PPL you memorize these terms, but I never really visualized their practical application until Wolfgang redefines them in terms of AoA. AoA and induced drag are highly correlated, AoA and parasitic drag are inversely correlated. It makes all the sense in the world once you envision the plane at high AoA attitude, presenting an 'unnatural' amount of area to the relative wind. And it's got all sorts of interesting implications for various V speeds.

Yes the book feels antiquated in some ways, but in terms of truly understanding what the airplane is doing whether I'm flying it or watching AP magic, my appreciation has increased 100% thanks to S&R!
 
FastEddieB said:
It started me on my aviation career in the early 1970’s.

I learned of it from an entry in the Whole Earth Catalog.

12528917405_98b61e20a4_c.jpg
Click to expand...

Hah. I still have a copy of the WEC from 1970 or so; quite a cool thing.
 
I found it a worthwhile read and yes sometimes repetitive but sometimes thats okay for learning. I read it after my 3 or 4 year hiatus from flyin this summer before buying the 140, it got my mind back to thinking and working like a pilots brain. Maybe its more easily grasped flying a vintage aircraft being thats what it was written with in mind, as my old gal has nothing extra, the most advanced instrument in her is the electric t&b...lol. she took to the air just 3 years after he published it :)

I found knocking the rust off and learning the new skill of flying a TW easier than anticipated and i think part of it was because this classic got my brain back flying before I jumped in the left seat again...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top