That One Tip

[ClimbnSink]

TLDR. Just write down what works 99% of the time and I'll just crash if I happen to be flying during the other 1%. So simple silly boy.

I have absolutely no issue with developing a performance table as there is much to be learned in the development phase. Asking to be handed a table though is counter productive to learning to fly an airplane because you never learn what happens outside those numbers, and learning what happens as you deviate from the prime is more important to know than what the prime is. This is the big difference between VFR small plane flying and IFR transport plane flying. With small planes the prime is the exception in operations where as in transport the prime is the primary mode of operations, and you will note that in transport planes the primes themselves are tabulated by weight and conditions which is why having one set of numbers to use as your settings is setting yourself up for failure, or at least difficulty. When you develop a table you need to develop at least three tables, solo with minimum fuel, mid weight at two up front and half fuel, and one at max gross. That way you have decent numbers to work off of. Even given an accurate base set of numbers, when you're in proximity phases of flight such as pattern work, you still have wind corrections to make as they will alter your path for any given set of numbers. This is why teaching initial flight training "by the numbers" is not that great of a thing because it limits the students use of perception. This was also a factor in the Asiana crash at SFO.

 

[ifconfig]

Henning:

Perhaps it's been long enough you no longer remember what it feels like to be a student pilot. I hope that one day I will be long in the aviation tooth to forget that as well. Until then, I will need any reasonable (true, scientifically reliable) crutch to help limp along until I am able to stand on two feet.

All aircraft respond to the laws of physics and one of those laws is that pitch and power combinations lead to achieving certain performance in majority of the flight envelope. If I can find the power and pitch combinations that will give me the required performance on takeoff, downwind, approach and landing, all things being equal I wager that's a good thing. It taxes my mental resources less and frees me up to do certain other important things such as seeing and being seen.

I'm a student pilot and even though I have a degree in Electrical Engineering and can understand the science better than most, I would be fooling myself if I think I can translate that into something else. I have my betters in the aviation world and I know it. What I can't stand are naysayers whose only contribution is the illusion they have created that being a contrarian and pointing out the singular specific instances in which general rules don't hold means they're somehow clever. It takes nothing except an ability to say the word "no" to be a contrarian. My four-year-old does that all day.

That said, when people like Henning speak, I listen. That's the respect accorded someone who, from their posts, I know understand the actual practicality of flying. When someone tells me repeatedly that my tips (they're not even mine, really but those of other experienced pilots) are stupid and are a crutch while contributing nothing positive to the discussion, well I have better things to do. If you want to contradict me, I welcome it but I will not brook any insults. I'm a grown man and I bet you wouldn't say that to my face.

Now can we get back to tips, pretty please?

 

[ifconfig]

Look, people aren't completely off their rockers. I think the thing you're missing is that flying well in ideal conditions isn't the challenge of flying. Most GA disasters occur when even slightly unexpected conditions arise -- be it unexpected weather, etc. An updraft or a downdraft is not a rarity -- as any glider pilot can tell you. These everyday occurrences are very different from flying a plane that is outside weight and balance spec (I hope you were just being snarky, rather than actually believing that the two are comparable).

MOST important, I think that what some people are commenting on is the fact that your attitude SEEMS (I don't know you, I'm just judging from the tone of your comments) really cocky and know-it-all-ish -- and that's a really good way to get yourself (and others) killed in GA. Apologies if I'm misreading you -- I'm simply commenting on other people's reactions to you, as well as your own tone.

Good luck!

Yes, I was being snarky and using an analogy.

If it somehow comes across that I'm "really cocky" or "know-it-all", I have gone through my other posts and I have no idea where that's coming through. I've repeatedly stated I'm a student pilot. But let me say this now: I don't know ****. I can talk about drag curves and boundary layers, mathematically describe the Kutta-Joukowski condition all day long but that does not translate into actually getting your hands on an aircraft and flying the damn thing.

What is frustrating is dealing with people who have nothing positive to say yet jump at the opportunity to tear down others. To point out that sinking air which is fierce enough to outdo full power on a GA aircraft is all well and good, but does that invalidate asking your instructor for power settings (that they will already likely have given you!)?

Well ...

 

[denverpilot]

Here's the thing...

Performance tables are great. But you also learn another tip that always works when the performance isn't as expected: Do whatever it takes.

Airplane not meeting climb performance and airspeed dropping? Push the throttle up and/or the nose down or both.

Crosswind landing going wrong because of gusts? Push the rudder pedal more or less continuously in motion to keep the damn nose straight and counteract drift with aileron even if you never stop moving.

Lots more examples. A table is a good reference to have and/or memorize for your airplane. But... It only takes a fraction of a second of inattention to always being on guard to do whatever is necessary on the controls at an instant's notice to fly the plane, even when the performance table says it should be flying.

Ask any tailwheel pilot. There's no tables for how much rudder to use in X crosswind or for gusts as you taxi in. Turn off brain for only a second, you'll be learning what a ground loop looks like from inside the aircraft.

I think this is Henning's point. And he's forgetting that as students, some people have this "ah-ha" moment quite late in the training process. As an engineer I certainly did. My world is made up of things that do exactly what they're told so I assumed you could document performance and match it every single time. The reality is, flying is analog. "Noise" is inherent in the system. The pilot must still account for and correct the aircraft behavior in the noise.

Perhaps that'll help. But it won't make total sense until you run completely out of rudder on a day when the windsock and the anemometer both say you only have a 5 knot crosswind. Doesn't matter. Fly the plane, add rudder if needed. If you run out and can't hook centerline, don't fixate on why, go around.

Same thing with engine performance. Keep fiddling if it isn't right. Something may have broken and you'll get "lucky" and find a throttle, mixture, and prop combination that will get you back on the ground in one piece. And that combination may seem way way wrong after the fact, and you can investigate once you're on the ground.

From another thread, my most common mistake (and not often) is to forget to retract flaps from 10 after takeoff. The initial reaction is "not performing right". The next action/reaction is throttle full, prop full, check mixture, check fuel tank switch, check primer in and locked...

THEN, you see the flap handle and sheepishly lift it or you've pulled the checklist out where it should have been and see. "Flaps: Retract."

The performance chart is simply a hint that something is wrong. You should also be able to tell (eventually) without it, in a type you're familiar with.

 

[ifconfig]

Here's the thing...

Performance tables are great. But you also learn another tip that always works when the performance isn't as expected: Do whatever it takes.

...

The performance chart is simply a hint that something is wrong. You should also be able to tell (eventually) without it, in a type you're familiar with.

Thank you, Nate. This is really fantastic.

 

[EdFred]

Here's the problem:

A lot of CFIs are idiots, and just repeat what their idiot CFIs taught them, and so on down the line. Just because you got a tip from an "experienced CFI" doesn't mean he has any clue what he is talking about.

Here's what I tell me students:

"I am not Jesus. What I say is not gospel. Take what I say and verify it independently. If you think you find something different than what I said, bring it to my attention, and we can go over it."

That said, do you think it's possible that 1) you may have misinterpreted what your CFI said when your "expert tip" is rebutted on here or 2) your CFI might have had an idiot CFI himself?

 

[pilot_dude]

The one tip that rings true for all is "don't f**k up so as to wreck or get killed"

 

[ifconfig]

Here's the problem:

A lot of CFIs are idiots, and just repeat what their idiot CFIs taught them, and so on down the line. Just because you got a tip from an "experienced CFI" doesn't mean he has any clue what he is talking about.

Here's what I tell me students:

"I am not Jesus. What I say is not gospel. Take what I say and verify it independently. If you think you find something different than what I said, bring it to my attention, and we can go over it."

That said, do you think it's possible that 1) you may have misinterpreted what your CFI said when your "expert tip" is rebutted on here or 2) your CFI might have had an idiot CFI himself?

False choice, EdFred. There are many other options that I could choose from, including that the so-called rebuttal was made by idiots.

In the cases that have been, as you put it, rebutted, I have capitulated thoughtfully: they made sense. I speak now of the IAS stall at altitude vs. CAS issue. My ego is not tied to any of this ****; as I've said, I have my betters in aviation and I will listen. If you insult me however, keyboard warrior that you are, I will have nothing to do with you going forward.

 

[EdFred]

False choice, EdFred. There are many other options that I could choose from, including that the so-called rebuttal was made by idiots.

Yep, you're the expert, and you have perfect CFIs that could never, EVER pass along misinformation. That has never happened in the history of aviation. I bow to your vast knowledge. Keyboard warrior? Hardly. Ask any of the hundred plus people I've met from here in here person.

 

[ifconfig]

Yep, you're the expert, and you have perfect CFIs that could never, EVER pass along misinformation. That has never happened in the history of aviation. I bow to your vast knowledge. Keyboard warrior? Hardly. Ask any of the hundred plus people I've met from here in here person.

Calm down. I'm not referring to you as a keyboard warrior. After all you didn't insult me so why would I be referring to you? I'm speaking in general ... as in, if you you insult me, you're a keyboard warrior, you wouldn't be able to insult me in person so I want nothing to do with you.

 

[ifconfig]

Wow, people are touchy!

From "cocky" to "know-it-all" to "stupid, crutch", to "****ty attitudes" to "wild generalizations". OK, I get it ... I'll move on.

Thanks to all those who contributed positively, including you Greg. Your Top Gun quote was stupendous!

 

[EdFred]

Calm down. I'm not referring to you as a keyboard warrior. After all you didn't insult me so why would I be referring to you? I'm speaking in general ... as in, if you you insult me, you're a keyboard warrior, you wouldn't be able to insult me in person so I want nothing to do with you.

Actually, if you deserved it, I would. Well, that's based on my track record.

 

[Henning]

Henning:

Perhaps it's been long enough you no longer remember what it feels like to be a student pilot. I hope that one day I will be long in the aviation tooth to forget that as well. Until then, I will need any reasonable (true, scientifically reliable) crutch to help limp along until I am able to stand on two feet.

All aircraft respond to the laws of physics and one of those laws is that pitch and power combinations lead to achieving certain performance in majority of the flight envelope. If I can find the power and pitch combinations that will give me the required performance on takeoff, downwind, approach and landing, all things being equal I wager that's a good thing. It taxes my mental resources less and frees me up to do certain other important things such as seeing and being seen.

I'm a student pilot and even though I have a degree in Electrical Engineering and can understand the science better than most, I would be fooling myself if I think I can translate that into something else. I have my betters in the aviation world and I know it. What I can't stand are naysayers whose only contribution is the illusion they have created that being a contrarian and pointing out the singular specific instances in which general rules don't hold means they're somehow clever. It takes nothing except an ability to say the word "no" to be a contrarian. My four-year-old does that all day.

That said, when people like Henning speak, I listen. That's the respect accorded someone who, from their posts, I know understand the actual practicality of flying. When someone tells me repeatedly that my tips (they're not even mine, really but those of other experienced pilots) are stupid and are a crutch while contributing nothing positive to the discussion, well I have better things to do. If you want to contradict me, I welcome it but I will not brook any insults. I'm a grown man and I bet you wouldn't say that to my face.

Now can we get back to tips, pretty please?

The problem with learning using crutches is that you develop a limp and weak legs as a foundation that is hard to lose. You ask for power/pitch combinations, how are you measuring pitch?

The best tip I can give you, I already did, trim for airspeed and adjust power to control altitude and rate of descent. When flying VFR you use visual perspective cues to adjust power. When your reference point is sliding up in the windshield, add power, if it is sinking down, decrease power, if the throttle is already all the way out, either slow down further to increase your sink rate or toss in a slip.

Remember this is called Visual flight rules flying, you should be learning to do it without nary an instrument. You should be able to judge speed by the wind noise over the plane and power by the sound of the engine. I remember being a student pilot quite well. On about my third lesson my 82yo instructor who learned in a Curtis Jenny and flew B-24s in WW-II took sticky notes and covered every instrument in the plane, "look out the window and listen to what the plane is telling you through your other senses".

It's not a CFI's job to make it easy for you to learn to fly, it's your CFI's job to keep you from killing yourself while you learn to understand what the plane needs from you. It's not about jumping ahead and finding the easy way to do things, it's about learning from the base level so when when it's all going wrong, you have the understanding and ability to work with nothing and orchestrate an acceptable outcome. Tachometers fail, Airspeed Indicators fail, you name it on a plane, and it can fail. You have to be ready to deal with it, that's why this frustrating foundation building time of the learning process is the most important.

Like I said before, I have no issue with building a table, it's standard in my self checkout process in single seat aircraft, however I rarely use them afterwards because I learned what I needed to know by building the tables. The tables themselves are more of a checklist to be sure I didn't miss something I needed to learn.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

Time in the air solves and answers most questions. Getting a private ticket is no more than the entrance exam to college. From the day you get your private to around 1000 hours is when most questions are answered. Important to remember Lindbergh originally taught himself to fly. It was later that he went thru army air corp. training. The basic rule that later saved me twice was.....always be able to make the field from anyplace in the pattern. No airliner approaches, for if the engine quits the ground will rise and smite thee. In the pattern, if your familiar with the airplane, from entering downwind, airspeed should be second nature, by feel, not looking at the Asi. I speak of single engine here, not a twin as I was never proficient in one.

 

[MAKG1]

I love people who criticize yet never have positive input of your own. You still have not shown me why pitch + power = performance is wrong. Instead, you choose a very limited example to stand on, and even that's not a refutation.

You really need to try this.

In your favorite trainer, go to the table you described and find what pitch and power you think will give you a Vno climb. If you try that, you will see exactly what the problem is. If you pontificate about it, you probably won't.

I've given several tips. You've ignored them all. This one to figure it out yourself is quite important. It's what distinguishes a passenger from a pilot in command.

I've met a lot of students in other fields who try to memorize everything. That will get you some distance, but then you'll hit a wall; it's not a very successful strategy beyond the basics. Henning described your wall for you better than I can.

A substantially better strategy is to understand the reasons for these "tips." Well done, that will make it much more flexible. For instance, cutting the power to 1500 RPM in a 172 will get you a good descent in calm conditions, but it will put you down short in an otherwise perfect pattern in a strong headwind. What do you do? If you understand the purpose of that 1500 -- to get a controlled descent angle -- you can figure out what you need to do to modify it. You add power. How much? Whatever it takes. Winds at even a little altitude are often different than at the ground.

And if you fly around mountains, you'll eventually encounter that Vno climb. It's really important to understand what's going on there and how to deal with it, and most importantly, whether it constitutes a risk and what that risk is. In my case, I could arrest the climb by pulling the throttle to idle and keeping the speed at Vno or higher. Had I not been able to, my risk was airspace; I was at 3000 feet and could tolerate a lot of climb physically, but a Class B floor at 4000 meant my next move would be contacting Approach and asking for clearance.

Rising or sinking air is the norm. It's not an exceptional condition. You'll get ridge lift every time you cross a mountain range with even very modest wind. It doesn't take really high mountains for that. In my case, they topped out at 3200 feet and the foothills I was over were barely over 1000. Wind at altitude was barely 10 knots. This was not an extreme day, nor is it a situation that's unlikely for you to encounter.

And you do seem to be a student pilot. That's fine; misunderstandings happen. But if your instructor teaches you something wrong -- and this happens -- it's your butt on the line. The best "tip" I can give you is to question everything, not just the stuff that doesn't fit with your worldview. You still have a huge amount to learn to be a safe pilot. It will happen if you let it. My instructor taught me -- in response to a direct question I posed -- that the "3000 feet" for leaning in a Cessna 172 checklist (it's 5000 feet in some other aircraft) is in true altitude. That's wrong, and resulted in some "interesting" moments doing ground reference maneuvers and engine outs on a hot summer day.

Some people think they are doing you a favor by giving you a list of detailed procedures. In fact, this seems to be the norm in a Part 141 school. It's not a favor. And that's why I won't give you specific procedures as a "tip." That's not your problem.

By any chance, do you have a lot of desktop simulator experience?

 

[drotto]

Brief example from a student pilot for things not being on the chart. I am learning on a Warrior not a 172 but they are very similar. I cut to 1500 rpm on the numbers on the downwind. On a cold dry day a few days ago we were doing pattern work. I was flying the pattern as instructed, but on every final we were coming in initially too high, despite maintainnig proper speed and descent for each leg. The book or chart is going to say cut to idle at the fence, but we were cutting to idle at the start of final, and still using a fair amount or down elevator to achieve proper speed and glide slope. That plane under those conditions did not want to descend the way the book or any chart described.

So yes the typical cut to 1500 rpm and maintain 75 on downwind, then 70 on base, then 65 on final was my starting point, but based on the conditions and the way the plane wanted to keep flying, I made ajustments. That was based on real time observation not a chart.

 

[MAKG1]

Like I said before, I have no issue with building a table, it's standard in my self checkout process in single seat aircraft, however I rarely use them afterwards because I learned what I needed to know by building the tables. The tables themselves are more of a checklist to be sure I didn't miss something I needed to learn.

You know, I've been considering trying something rather similar.

I already do write my own checklists as part of a checkout, as that REALLY helps me learn the systems. It makes a lot of sense to do that with power, prop, fuel flow, etc. against phase and altitude as well.

Curiously, the club allowed me to self-checkout on the 172RG, after having formally checked me out on the 177RG. Those aren't terribly different aircraft, but they aren't identical either; for instance, they use the boost pumps differently and the gear warning goes off with different criteria. They did something similar with the 172SPs.

 

[Henning]

*idle...

 

[Jimmy cooper]

I learned to fly in an 85 hp champ, taught by a WW2 Stearman- glider instructor. He said, " if you can fly this champ well, you can literally fly anything. This proved true. He taught spin recovery, unusual attitudes, slips ( he loved slipping it!) 3 point landings and wheel landings. Years later I bought a Stearman. The seller dropped it off at my airport and left . I was checked out by an ex navy pilot who was the FBO. It took half an hour and he said, " let me out, you got it!". I also picked up a Cessna 180 one time for a pal. I had never flown one. I had only been told about it .Flew it home with no problem. In both instances I had approx 1500 hours by that time in various single engines. I think Henning explained things very well. I simply offer this as I love flying so much.

 

[MAKG1]

So yes the typical cut to 1500 rpm and maintain 75 on downwind, then 70 on base, then 65 on final was my starting point, but based on the conditions and the way the plane wanted to keep flying, I made ajustments. That was based on real time observation not a chart.

Excellent example. BTW, the most likely reason for that was rising air, but if you ever find yourself ending up high when you didn't expect it, double check the winds. That can be a sign you're landing with a tailwind.

 

[EdFred]

Excellent example. BTW, the most likely reason for that was rising air, but if you ever find yourself ending up high when you didn't expect it, double check the winds. That can be a sign you're landing with a tailwind.

I'd put money on the cold dry air. In the winter time you can cut to 1500RPM and not come down at all in a 172/PA28. With the density altitude well below sea level, that 1500RPM is the equivalent of a much higher power setting on an ISA day.

 

[drotto]

I'd put money on the cold dry air. In the winter time you can cut to 1500RPM and not come down at all in a 172/PA28. With the density altitude well below sea level, that 1500RPM is the equivalent of a much higher power setting on an ISA day.

The airport I fly at has only a 125 foot altitude. So this time of year it is not uncommon for the density altitude to be negative 1000 or more on the ground. We were on the appropriate runway with a very mild headwind, but wind was almost a non factor.

 

[PPC1052]

Re: My Favorite Tip #1

This is new and interesting to me. What do you do with power?

Nobody responded to this, and I thought it was worth a few words. My guess is you haven't been taught to do short field landings yet. When you get to that point, you will learn that, counterintuitively, you want to pitch up to maintain a higher nose up attitude during short field landings than during regular landings. The result is that you have a slower airspeed with the same power setting, and you come in steeper and land shorter, even though you pulled back on the yoke to raise the nose up. I know this is counterintuitive, but the concept makes sense if you stop to think about it. What is Vglide? Its the airspeed that gives you the maximum range when gliding. Go any faster airspeed (by lowering the nose) and you don't glide as far; and go any slower airspeed (by raising the nose), you don't glide as far. Same thing with the short field landing. You raise the nose, which lowers your airspeed at the same power setting, and your plane doesn't glide as efficiently, and your ratio of sink rate to forward speed increases. Thus you land shorter, even though you pointed your nose up.

So, applying this in a normal approach, if it looks like you are going to land long, you can pitch up, watch your airspeed decrease (careful not to get too slow!), and your plane will start to descend at a steeper rate, even if your power remains constant. For your typical trainer, if you are aiming for 65kts on normal approach, you are probably targeting an airspeed of around 60. While you CAN shoot for less than that, you start to eat into your margin of safety to avoid stalling the plane by more than some think prudent. Obviously, the speed you want to target is dependent on your airplane and the stall speeds for your configuration. You will eventually discuss all of this with your CFI.

 

[PPC1052]

Tip: Always know these three things:

1) Where am I/what am I doing?
2) Where am I going?
3) What am I going to do when I get there?

Ex. 1) I am South East of the Brickyard (VHP) VOR, making a standard rate turn to the left
2) I am going to the 78 degree radial from the VOR, which I will follow to the intersection with the localizer for runway 36 into KTYQ
3) at the intersection, I am going to make a LEFT turn and follow the localizer and glideslope.

 

[MAKG1]

I'd put money on the cold dry air. In the winter time you can cut to 1500RPM and not come down at all in a 172/PA28. With the density altitude well below sea level, that 1500RPM is the equivalent of a much higher power setting on an ISA day.

I'll buy that. NJ is generally quite a bit colder than here in winter, and DA can definitely be a big deal.

Once again, one does what is necessary and it's all good. It's to the point that I rarely look at the tach during descent and never on short final (unless the engine makes a funny noise).

 

[txflyer]

Here's the thing...

Performance tables are great. But you also learn another tip that always works when the performance isn't as expected: Do whatever it takes.

Airplane not meeting climb performance and airspeed dropping? Push the throttle up and/or the nose down or both.

Crosswind landing going wrong because of gusts? Push the rudder pedal more or less continuously in motion to keep the damn nose straight and counteract drift with aileron even if you never stop moving.

Lots more examples. A table is a good reference to have and/or memorize for your airplane. But... It only takes a fraction of a second of inattention to always being on guard to do whatever is necessary on the controls at an instant's notice to fly the plane, even when the performance table says it should be flying.

Ask any tailwheel pilot. There's no tables for how much rudder to use in X crosswind or for gusts as you taxi in. Turn off brain for only a second, you'll be learning what a ground loop looks like from inside the aircraft.

I think this is Henning's point. And he's forgetting that as students, some people have this "ah-ha" moment quite late in the training process. As an engineer I certainly did. My world is made up of things that do exactly what they're told so I assumed you could document performance and match it every single time. The reality is, flying is analog. "Noise" is inherent in the system. The pilot must still account for and correct the aircraft behavior in the noise.

Perhaps that'll help. But it won't make total sense until you run completely out of rudder on a day when the windsock and the anemometer both say you only have a 5 knot crosswind. Doesn't matter. Fly the plane, add rudder if needed. If you run out and can't hook centerline, don't fixate on why, go around.

Same thing with engine performance. Keep fiddling if it isn't right. Something may have broken and you'll get "lucky" and find a throttle, mixture, and prop combination that will get you back on the ground in one piece. And that combination may seem way way wrong after the fact, and you can investigate once you're on the ground.

From another thread, my most common mistake (and not often) is to forget to retract flaps from 10 after takeoff. The initial reaction is "not performing right". The next action/reaction is throttle full, prop full, check mixture, check fuel tank switch, check primer in and locked...

THEN, you see the flap handle and sheepishly lift it or you've pulled the checklist out where it should have been and see. "Flaps: Retract."

The performance chart is simply a hint that something is wrong. You should also be able to tell (eventually) without it, in a type you're familiar with.

Good post, and as a tailwheel pilot, .....

My legs are literally sore after doing about six T&G's yesterday. That's how much rudder you will use in a 180. If you ever watch a tailwheel plane from the ground when it is landing, and you watch it close, that rudder will be whipping from side to side like a flag in the wind.

My technique is to drop a wing, and hold centerline with rudder on short final. I don't crab. Because if you cannot hold centerline on short final, you won't when you touch down. Crabbing down to the pavement is asking for trouble in a stiff X-wind in a tailwheel plane. :wink2:

 

[mchesney]

Does being "snarky" mean "having a condescending, superior, elitist attitude and prone to attempts to prove how smart they think they are?" Dude you nailed it!

 

[denverpilot]

And if you fly around mountains, you'll eventually encounter that Vno climb.

You have a point here. Even the tool I like, "pitch plus power equals performance", as a teaching aid, fails when the updrafts or downdrafts exceed the capability of the aircraft.

I remember vividly the first time I ever had to both go to idle power AND pitch nose-down and accept an increase in airspeed to arrest a climb. Was toying with Vne too. If it had hit Vne I would have had to have let the aircraft go up.

It was not a good day to be flying in the mountains. Marginal at best.

 

[denverpilot]

Good post, and as a tailwheel pilot, .....



My legs are literally sore after doing about six T&G's yesterday. That's how much rudder you will use in a 180. If you ever watch a tailwheel plane from the ground when it is landing, and you watch it close, that rudder will be whipping from side to side like a flag in the wind.



My technique is to drop a wing, and hold centerline with rudder on short final. I don't crab. Because if you cannot hold centerline on short final, you won't when you touch down. Crabbing down to the pavement is asking for trouble in a stiff X-wind in a tailwheel plane. :wink2:

Good stuff. I have a very short number of hours in a Husky and it was an enlightening experience to see how much work keeping a naturally unstable setup (tailwheel) behind you is. If you don't MAKE it stay behind you, you're screwed.

I also tend to drop a wing and see if I can hold it. A high-winger habit that could bite me in the ass someday in a long low-wing sailplane or something with nacelles sticking down out on the wing. But for what I fly, it works well. Just have to consciously think about whether it's the right choice in something with little dihedral and a long wing.

 

[VWGhiaBob]

Re: My Favorite Tip #1

This is new and interesting to me. What do you do with power?

Power as needed, usually idle since scenario is "too high on final". That said HP planes such as 182, SR22, PA 32 like a little power until flare...but if you're really too high, no power.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Re: My Favorite Tip #1

This is new and interesting to me. What do you do with power?

Used to be that you were taught to pull the power back to idle abeam the numbers and leave it there.

Good practice for when the noisemaker gives it up and you have to put it on some random postage stamp field.

But now, the assumption is that you should train like your objective is to fly a 747.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Used to be that you were taught to pull the power back to idle abeam the numbers and leave it there.

Good practice for when the noisemaker gives it up and you have to put it on some random postage stamp field.

But now, the assumption is that you should train like your objective is to fly a 747.

That isn't really true. Yes, some CFIs teach like that and Paul Bertorelli had a satirical video about such practices, but a great number of pilots and CFIs still teach tight patterns and power off landings too.

When I fly just about any four seat single about half of my landings are power off abeam the numbers.

 

[denverpilot]

I mix them up. It's fun when the KAPA tower starts recognizing your voice and there's no implied question in their voice when they say, "Make short approach, cleared for the option, runway 35 Left," when they need to squeeze the pattern up a bit.

 

[Henning]

I mix them up. It's fun when the KAPA tower starts recognizing your voice and there's no implied question in their voice when they say, "Make short approach, cleared for the option, runway 35 Left," when they need to squeeze the pattern up a bit.

Fun as well when you return to LGB after a 10 year absence in a new plane and tower clears you to land and welcomes you home by name.

 

[Palmpilot]

Sorry, that makes no sense.

Suppose it's local noon and the sun is directly in the south.

Aircraft A lines up on one end of an east/west taxiway. Aircraft B lines up at the other. Both aircraft's shadows point north; there is no intersection. Both taxi to the center of the taxiway. Shadows do not intersect until an instant before collision.

Are you trying to determine if an aircraft will clear an obstacle on the ground? I wouldn't bet my leading edges or my prop on that, though it will work if you taxi extremely slowly (well below the walking speed taught to students). It's a whole lot more reliable to just look directly.

There are also some times and places (tropics) where vertical objects cast no shadows at all. In a low wing aircraft, you won't be able to see your own shadow.

Part of the problem is in the use of the phrase "will not touch." At most, the shadows only show what is happening right now.

There are certainly limitations to the technique, but if you are in a situation where you can see the shadows (on the ground) of both objects, there is no way the objects are in contact if the shadows are not in contact. If the shadows do touch, then the objects MAY be touching.

As illustrated by your example, there are situations where you can't see enough of the shadows to form a dependable conclusion. However, when you're near another plane, if you can see the shadow on the ground of the part of your plane that is closest to the other plane, and if you can see that the ground immediately past your shadow is not in shadow, then you know that that part of your airplane is not touching the other airplane AT PRESENT. To assess whether that will continue to be true as you continue to taxi, you have to pay attention to the direction your shadow is moving.

I find this technique most useful when I am taxing past another airplane in a confined space, and want to make sure that there is clearance between the wingtips. When the shadows of both wingtips are visible, this method is more accurate than relying on binocular vision alone.

As for props, I wouldn't assume that I could see the shadow of one that was turning.

 

[FastEddieB]

Well put, Richard.

As a student, I'd be inching along a taxiway out of an FBO with planes on both sides.

As I came to the nose of a larger plane, I'd watch the shadows. As long as they did not touch, I knew I could safely continue.

If they looked like they were going to touch, and I wasn't 100% sure my wingtip would pass above or below the nose by a sufficient margin, I'd either shut down and look to be sure or see if anyone on the ramp could spot me.

Maybe this is a silly tip for those with better depth perception than me.

But, as Dirty Harry said, "A man's got to know his limitations", and that tip works for me.

To this day.