Why do people say this about trim?

The approach end of the runway would be littered with crashed airplanes if we taught pull back to go up. Stalls occur from the pilot misusing the elevator.
And not being able to comprehend two things at once.. if people strictly thought "power for altitude" the departure end would be trashed too with people cruising off the end

I guess whatever works for people
 
And not being able to comprehend two things at once.. if people strictly thought "power for altitude" the departure end would be trashed too with people cruising off the end

I guess whatever works for people

Not if just go full throttle and pitch for Vy.
 
Why not just point the plane where you want it to go?

A very poorly thought out question. Deleting that kind of simplistic thinking from a student's mind is one of the instructor's biggest tasks when teaching basic flying skills.
 
I have a Mooney, and it's pretty clear (there's no tab). The trim controls the angle of attack. The airspeed follows the angle of attack, so it looks as if the trim sets the airspeed. When the air is smooth, I can actually affect the trim by about a knot or two just by leaning forward and back. The "regardless of power setting" part manifests itself in the plane descending or climbing, while adhering to the trimmed AoA and airspeed.

That said, at a certain point the connection between the AoA and airspeed becomes non-linear and they diverge. The easiest way to demonstrate it is to trim as much as you dare nose up. Then, at full power it's going to slow down, but with no power it's actually faster, while sinking like a rock. The trimmed AoA is still the same in both cases.

Oh, and one more thing: although strictly speaking phugoid is something occurs when the plane suddenly goes from one condition to the next, and includes the oscillation, I've never heard anyone using it that way. If a pilot mentions phugoid, you can be sure it is the one when airplane zooms after a roll-out horizontal at an end of a turn. It's like the abyss between the academic definition of Big O notation, and how practicing programmers use it.
 
Last edited:
Works just fine in every type I’ve flown.
 
A very poorly thought out question. Deleting that kind of simplistic thinking from a student's mind is one of the instructor's biggest tasks when teaching basic flying skills.
So why do people have to unlearn the whole "power for altitude" nonsense when they learn IR and are told to maintain 90 knots and glideslope? The whole paradigm is reversed pitching for glideslope, etc

It falsely equivocates power and altitude. Full power climb, pitch for Vy (or some other cruise climb), then level off and trim away pressure. When you descend trim forward, get a nice 500 from going, and adjust trim and power as needed for turbulence, etc. Why does it have to be more complicated and esoteric than that?

If a student doesn't understand they need power to climb or how pitch affects airspeed then they're missing some fundamental concepts.. perhaps "power for altitude" bridges that.. but it should serve only as a ladder to climb up on, then tossed in the trash

Trim = speed (agnostic of power) that's true enough.. but power=altitude bothered me

Whatever.. maybe I'm just not a real pilot Cirrus and all
 
In my experience trim has always equaled speed regardless of power, but I've never really experimented with this in a Cirrus, given the trim is not aerodynamic I'd venture to guess this either doesn't hold true in Cirrus, or at least not as well
 
Try stabilising your airspeed first using the yoke, and only then trimming to remove pressure. If you lead with the trim wheel (or electric trim), you'll set up frustrating phugoid oscillations that can last a very long time (you'll think you're level, but then 20 seconds later the nose will slowly start rising or falling again unless you use the yoke to prevent it).
Yes, this is what I do, and did when testing this theory. Just as an example, in the Cub, I climb and fly final at 60. But when flying patterns, nine rotations of the trim crank are required between full-power upwind and power-off final.
 
Anyone who's willing, try it out scientifically time you go up. At full power, trim for a speed that results in a slight climb. Power back, and pitch for that same speed and release the controls. Note if it holds that speed. Reduce power to idle and repeat. Please report back here results in your type.
 
Why not just point the plane where you want it to go?

You're too high on final, so you point the nose down and round out over the numbers... and float all the way down the runway as the excess speed bleeds off (unless you're flying a biplane or ultralight). That's why.

So why do people have to unlearn the whole "power for altitude" nonsense when they learn IR and are told to maintain 90 knots and glideslope? The whole paradigm is reversed pitching for glideslope, etc

It falsely equivocates power and altitude. Full power climb, pitch for Vy (or some other cruise climb)

"Pitch for Vy"... an airspeed. Fly at Vy at 50% power, you won't gain much altitude. Full power to get maximum altitude at that airspeed.

Trim = speed (agnostic of power) that's true enough.. but power=altitude bothered me

At a given airspeed, i.e. constant AOA, excess power is exactly proportional to rate of climb (not "altitude"). It's a linear relationship, easy to understand. At a given rate of climb (zero or otherwise) the relationship between power and airspeed is much more complex, and not linear.

Of course, they're interrelated. But the idea of pitch for altitude, even subconsciously, has let to a lot of stall/spin accidents.
 
Last edited:
You're too high on final, so you point the nose down and round out over the numbers... and float all the way down the runway as the excess speed bleeds off (unless you're flying a biplane or ultralight). That's why.



"Pitch for Vy"... an airspeed. Fly at Vy at 50% power, you won't gain much altitude. Full power to get maximum altitude at that airspeed.

At a given airspeed, i.e. constant AOA, excess power is exactly proportional to rate of climb (not "altitude"). It's a linear relationship, easy to understand. At a given rate of climb (zero or otherwise) the relationship between power and airspeed is much more complex, and not linear.

Of course, they're interrelated. But the idea of pitch for altitude, even subconsciously, has let to a lot of stall/spin accidents.
Why is there a premise that through this power remains constant? If I'm too high on final I pull power and stay level until I slow and pitch down as needed..? If I was already at 65 knots and am still too high on final I have bigger issues planning my approach, but can probably salvage by chopping power and throwing in a monster slip

My point is they're not separate.. just fly the plane.. people who blindly pitch up without consideration for airspeed and power are idiots and will eventually stall and crash. People who also obsessively trim and whole jockey thethe throttle the whole time when theyre on final are also crazy
 
Why is there a premise that through this power remains constant? If I'm too high on final I pull power and stay level until I slow and pitch down as needed..? If I was already at 65 knots and am still too high on final I have bigger issues planning my approach, but can probably salvage by chopping power and throwing in a monster slip

My point is they're not separate.. just fly the plane.. people who blindly pitch up without consideration for airspeed and power are idiots and will eventually stall and crash. People who also obsessively trim and whole jockey thethe throttle the whole time when theyre on final are also crazy

Are you a student pilot learning how to fly?
 
People who also obsessively trim and whole jockey thethe throttle the whole time when theyre on final are also crazy
Throttle is just another flight control. Sometimes there is no more effective control for maintaining a constant and precise glideslope at a constant airspeed than small, relatively frequent throttle inputs.

Nauga,
who might be crazy, but not because he uses his throttle
 
History, and why pitch and trim rules were important and worked.

The pitch and trim rule was created before turbine engines appeared.

Instrument flight took place in an environment mostly without radar.

ATC kept track of where you were from position reports, and filed airspeed.

When I started doing cross countries in a Cessna 172, my flight planning used a very few airspeeds, and the goal was simplicity. Climbs were at 90, and I knew time to altitude for all the altitudes I regularly filled. That made the first segment easy to put into the time total for the plan.

Cruise was always at 120, 2 miles a minute, so divide any segment by 2, and you have the time for that segment. That made the calculation by ATC for where you SHOULD BE for crossing traffic at your altitude stone simple for the controller. Every reporting point on the chart, you gave the name of the present point, estimated time and name of the next reporting point, and just the name of the point after that. There were more than 30 reporting points between Washington DC and St. Louis. We did not have small digital calculators, and neither did controllers, they had not been invented.

Descents were at 120 for the same reason.

If you have read this far, the use of trim explanation starts here.

Climbing out, at full throttle, I pitched to 90, and trimmed to hands off. As the plane climbed, the rate of climb decreased as air density reduced power available, but the plane continued to fly at 90.

As the cruise altitude was approached, the wheel was pushed forward gently, reducing the rate of climb and increasing the true air speed to 120, hopefully just as the filed altitude was reached. Then power was reduced to maintain altitude. Once equilibrium was found, trim to zero pressure on the wheel, and power was adjusted occasionally to correct for any tendency to climb or descend, but the magic 120 remained constant for the simple reporting calculation. Pushing or pulling the wheel and then retrimming resulted in speed variations, which were undesirable. This was especially true if the altitude change was the result of up or down drafts, as using the elevator resulted in large changes in airspeed, wrecking the time to reporting point.

If head or tail wind components were large, the circular slide rule became necessary to calculate, and the workload went up, as the ground speed was what went into the calculations.

Going over the Appalachian Mountains, E or W, I have used full throttle to maintain altitude in downdrafts, and 1500 RPM to avoid going too high. Trim and elevator not used, the reporting points arrive right on time.


I have never gone from full throttle to idle without touching trim, to see if the airspeed is constant over that large a power change, but 1500 to 2700 was quite close.

Sudden changes in power, such as from idle, on the approach to landing at 70, followed by full throttle for a go around, will cause a violent pitch up to an unsafe angle of attack and stall, before the plane has time to oscillate and settle at a stable climb at 70. I have seen a pilot do that and crash.

On ILS’s, I customarily trimmed to 90, and then adjusted power to stay on the glide slope. The increased or decreased power from normal represented the head wind or tailwind component, and the power necessary to get the rate of descent to follow the glide slope, due to non standard ground speed.


When I received my PPL Adcock A/N ranges still existed, and Norfolk VA had an Adcock approach still in use.
 
Are you a student pilot learning how to fly?
Yes, and I wish my taxes be available for anyone to look up, and I look forward to prop strike videos

Sorry but a ridiculous question gets a ridiculous answer

maybe power equals altitude works for some people but to me it's just easier to actually fly to think confidently..

"Please excuse my dear Aunt Sally" never added value to me either, the order of operations just make sense in their native form, learning a mnemonic on top of that seems like an extra layer of memorization
 
Throttle is just another flight control. Sometimes there is no more effective control for maintaining a constant and precise glideslope at a constant airspeed than small, relatively frequent throttle inputs.

Nauga,
who might be crazy, but not because he uses his throttle
As long as it's not obsessive.

Crazy, for many reasons
 
Yes, this is what I do, and did when testing this theory. Just as an example, in the Cub, I climb and fly final at 60. But when flying patterns, nine rotations of the trim crank are required between full-power upwind and power-off final.
As I (and a few others) have mentioned, power changes affect your trimmed angle of attack in a single-engine non-T-tail (because of the propwash over the vstab) but 9 turns does seem like a lot. Do you maintain the same airspeed on final that you do downwind, though?
 
See the handbook of aeronautical knowledge pages 15-5 through 15-7


Thank you for useful reference to this discussion. Before anyone else wastes their time, Chapter 15 of Pilots Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge is Airspace and the pages you sited would best be described as Special Use Airspace.

Just in case you listed the wrong handbook,

Chapter 15 of the Airplane Flying Handbook pages 15-5 thru 15-7 addresses jet engines and absence of propeller effect.
 
Last edited:
Those are the same people who drive in the left lane with the cruise control on.

No variables taken into considerations and zero fscks given. Hate 'em...
 
Yes, and I wish my taxes be available for anyone to look up, and I look forward to prop strike videos

Sorry but a ridiculous question gets a ridiculous answer

maybe power equals altitude works for some people but to me it's just easier to actually fly to think confidently..

"Please excuse my dear Aunt Sally" never added value to me either, the order of operations just make sense in their native form, learning a mnemonic on top of that seems like an extra layer of memorization

If you think pitch is what causes an airplane to climb you need to go back to ground school.
 
If you think pitch is what causes an airplane to climb you need to go back to ground school.
What does an airplane do when it takes off? I might be crazy but I usually pull up at takeoff to climb

Pedantry strikes again!
 
What does an airplane do when it takes off? I might be crazy but I usually pull up at takeoff to climb...

Think of it this way - starting at hands off, level cruise flight and using only one control at a time.

If you push the throttle in what's gonna happen? Are you going to climb or speed up?

If you pull the throttle back what's going to happen? Are you going to slow down or descend?

If you pull the yoke back what's going to happen? Are you going to climb or slow down? Initially you'll do both but eventually you will cease to climb and continue at a slower speed. If you push the yoke forward you will initially descend and speed up but eventually you'll be flying at a higher speed.

Yes, in real world you use both controls simultaneously to achieve your goals but you can't go up without adding power. Power is what controls altitude (outside of thermals and other geo produced updrafts)
 
Last edited:
What does an airplane do when it takes off? I might be crazy but I usually pull up at takeoff to climb

Pedantry strikes again!

You’re doing it wrong. Yes, you lighten the load on the nose, but when taking off, the airplane flies off the runway and will settle into a set airspeed asked on the trim. If you’re pulling on the nose, you’re overriding the aerodynamic default speed, which is set by trim.

When nearing the airport and in descent, I will trim to my 80 kt pattern speed, then use throttle to change from an 80kt descent to an 80kt level flight. The trim seats the default speed and pushing and pulling on the yoke overrides that.
 
Thank you for useful reference to this discussion. Before anyone else wastes their time, Chapter 15 of Pilots Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge is Airspace and the pages you sited would best be described as Special Use Airspace.

Just in case you listed the wrong handbook,

Chapter 15 of the Airplane Flying Handbook pages 15-5 thru 15-7 addresses jet engines and absence of propeller effect.
Corrected.
 
Even with full flaps? I agree in normal trim, but put in 40 degrees of flaps and then add full throttle for a go around and the 182 I flew would pitch up violently and slow quite a bit. I never let it go long enough to see how much.

the added airflow of that big engine at full power over the horizontal stabilizer makes it more effective.
Well, why don't we just take it to the extreme?

My answer is...I don't know, I don't typically cruise or shoot an instrument approach with full flaps....and those flight segments are when I typically use the "feature".

I do know that it does work with both 1 and 2 notches of flaps...my typical instrument approach configurations.

Along with not testing the theory with full flaps, I've never testing it inverted. So I can't vouch for whether it works in that configuration either. :rolleyes:

BTW...I would speculate that if my plane is trimmed for straight and level flight with 40 degrees of flaps then the premise would still hold true. Your example is not an example of this. You are going from descending to land...power off (or very reduced)...to full power...another extreme...and every "rule" has its exceptions...
 
Last edited:
^same thing with descent. I don't understand when I fly with people and the first thing they do to descend is cut the power, why not just push the nose down and stay out of the yellow arc if the air is rough? It's a little bumpy out I'll reduce power to stay out of the yellow and ask for a 500 to 700 foot per minute to send

A CFI once told me about a pilot who descended too fast beginning in smooth air, hit turbulence near some terrain that is known to disrupt the air and bent the airframe. He was able to land but it never flew again.

So, while the air may be smooth when you start your descent if you come into rough air near yellow line it may literally wreck your day. If you fly with me, don’t be frustrated that I pull power for descents. That extra 30 kts for a few minutes isn’t worth all that much.
 
In my experience trim has always equaled speed regardless of power, but I've never really experimented with this in a Cirrus, given the trim is not aerodynamic I'd venture to guess this either doesn't hold true in Cirrus, or at least not as well

The Cirrus uses a spring-trim system. You trim for airspeed, but if the power is increased or reduced, the airflow over the tail will change the position of the elevator, forcing it further against the springs or releasing it. The resultant behavior will be different than the airplane that uses a trim tab on the elevator or stabilator, or a trimmable stabilizer; with those the position of the control won't change much with power changes.
 
The Cirrus uses a spring-trim system. You trim for airspeed, but if the power is increased or reduced, the airflow over the tail will change the position of the elevator, forcing it further against the springs or releasing it. The resultant behavior will be different than the airplane that uses a trim tab on the elevator or stabilator, or a trimmable stabilizer; with those the position of the control won't change much with power changes.
No, but the effectiveness of the vstab or stabilator will still change with the propwash when you have a tab.

A T-tail will be outside it, but with a single prop engine, a CG forward of the centre of lift, and a low vstab, you should normally see a decrease of a few knots in your trimmed airspeed when you add a significant amount of power, and an increase of a few knots when remove a significant amount of power. Small power tweaks (e.g. holding the glideslope on an ILS approach) won't have much effect.
 
And people, seriously, stop with the "Pitch for X, throttle for Y" nonsense. That's not how airplanes work. Stick and Rudder was trying to stomp that out 75 years ago, but people are still repeating it.

The airplane does not have a single up/down control. There are circumstances where you might change your vertical path using only the throttle (e.g. tiny tweaks on an ILS glidepath) or only the elevator (e.g. pitching down to Vy after clearing an obstacle at Vx, while already at full power), but neither is the norm.

The art of flying is learning the complex interplay of power and angle of attack, not putting out oversimplified "rules" that can kill a naive newbie if applied in the wrong context.
 
A CFI once told me about a pilot who descended too fast beginning in smooth air, hit turbulence near some terrain that is known to disrupt the air and bent the airframe. He was able to land but it never flew again.

So, while the air may be smooth when you start your descent if you come into rough air near yellow line it may literally wreck your day. If you fly with me, don’t be frustrated that I pull power for descents. That extra 30 kts for a few minutes isn’t worth all that much.

It would have been better if you instructor had explained maneuvering speed and turbulent air penetration so you didn’t have to needlessly dink around.
 
We seem to be reducing the multi-variate integration of control inputs (aka: piloting) into an over-simplified cause-effect relationship. Thus far, all arguments seem to ignore the "energy" of the aircraft in motion, either accelerating or decelerating in flight. Given enough time, an aircraft will "seek" the trimmed airspeed, but often times the flight regime requires adjustments outside of this designated "equilibrium" speed: thus, we are adjusting pitch (AoA) simultaneously with power to achieve the desired aircraft performance.
 
Thanks all, some responses below:

Yes, in real world you use both controls simultaneously to achieve your goals but you can't go up without adding power
Correct.. to lift any object you need some kind of force.. so in a plane we have wings and an engine

My issue is with the oversimplification rule "power for altitude" .. it's this kind of rote learning that bothers me. Plus, as you pointed out, in the real world you use a combination of trim, elevator, and power to fly the plane in a desired path..

Yes, flying level and trimmed at 150 IAS and 10K and increase power from 75% to 100% the plane will go faster.. since I'm trimmed out the plane is going to try and maintain 150 so it will climb, since something must happen with that extra power I'm either speeding up or going up, same is true if I reduce the power from 75% to 50%, without touching the trim it will start descending..

That's just an obvious relationship, physics and all that.. but nothing stops me from retrimming the airplane and flying at 100% power and say 160 knots, or 50% power and 140 knots..

But simple memorizing power = altitude is hardly the full picture and depending on how people understand it is not the correct picture either

Power impacts, but does NOT equal altitude.. altitude is driven by several things

the airplane flies off the runway
This is more true in some than others, Cessna high wings tend to sit super nose high and fly easily off the runway.. others require more of a pull on the yoke to get up

A CFI once told me about a pilot who descended too fast beginning in smooth air, hit turbulence near some terrain that is known to disrupt the air and bent the airframe
With competent flight planning you can manage a descent without bending the plane.. and no, I wouldn't descend at or near Vne.. but I'm also not slowing to 85 knots and 1,800 RPM at 10,000 ft because a CFI once had me memorize "1,800 for descents and 85 knots" in a 172

The art of flying is learning the complex interplay of power and angle of attack, not putting out oversimplified "rules" that can kill a naive newbie if applied in the wrong context.
YES!!!!! you said it much more eloquently than apparently I did but this was exactly my point
 
The art of flying is learning the complex interplay of power and angle of attack, not putting out oversimplified "rules" that can kill a naive newbie if applied in the wrong context.

Yup. I found that the understanding of AOA and how it relates to load factor and airspeed was sorely lacking in too many pilots. That lack of understanding leaves them vulnerable to accidents and to difficulty in learning how to land the airplane properly.
 
Back
Top