Angle of attack in a climbing turn

[DanWEC]

To the Dr...
I've held my toungue since my contribution in the beginning of this thread, since given the first reply I saw the direction that it was going to go in.
Incidentally, my description was only slighty incorrect purely because of ommission. Just like only mentioning one reason for yaw. I'll admit that.
To the point- as someone who has been in the business of people for the last 15 years, I would like to kindly suggest to you that you heed the advice of others thus far. There has been some astute mentions of honey to vinegar, and street smarts, etc. I'd wager it isn't the first encounter with these terms.
To put it simply, a great "Dr" who has a horrible bedside manner is, ultimately, a horrible Dr.. Don't bottleneck yourself. You generally sound like a smart guy, and I don't mean to jump on you when others are as well, but you don't want to get the nickname "Dr. Semantics".
I've done just fine reaching a pro level of a sport without knowing the math behind it, it's possible!

(BTW, if you take the Colonel up on his offer I'll bring the popcorn and lawn chairs... and bandaids. You'll need em.)

Cheers
DWEC

[cgzro]

The problem isn't just hands and feet, it's a lack of awareness of how an airplane is affected by control inputs during different stages of flight - that is a books smart problem.

You don't have time while flying to think of the physics of whats involved. People need a model of whats going on, not the details. The details are important for slower events, such as time/distance/fuel calcuations, drift, density altitude, time to climb, w&b etc. where you have a bit of time to do some simple math to figure it out, but basic up/down/right/left, yaw etc. that has to come from repeated practice and building up an internal model of what the action/reactions will be.

I would argue that most of the PPL type accidents, especially stall spin, are not from a lack of understanding but a lack of practice. For example, a lot of pilots will pull back on the stick when a plane goes upside down. I think its fairly clear that all of them know that it is the wrong thing to do .. so they have no problem understanding the physics of what will happen .. but they do it anyway. Its not lack of understanding .. its lack of practice in which case your emotions overcome your brain. Practice allows you to overcome the emotion and replace it with careful thought.

[Colonel Sanders]

I think its fairly clear that all of them know that it is the wrong thing to do .. so they have no problem understanding the physics of what will happen .. but they do it anyway

Yup. Their instincts are wrong. This is true
of so many technique-intensive tasks in aviation.

Tailwheel is a good example. People learn to fly
on nosewheel, and they learn that they don't need
to use the rudder pedals. When they jump in a
taildragger, bad things happen on a dry paved
runway during the landing. And it's not that they're
stupid - they just have the wrong instincts.

Another example of this in spades is inverted
(really negative G) formation flying. Although
all the controls still work as per upright, the
effect of bank is reversed due to the high and
low pressure areas being switched on the wing.
This results in very bad things when someone
gets too close to the lead, and decides to bank
a little away from him, as per their instincts.
The horizontal portion of the downward doing
lift vector pushes him into the lead. So
he banks away some more, and he hits the lead.

Just because someone struggles with tailwheel
or inverted formation doesn't meant that they
are stupid, or don't understand the underlying
theory.

Just because someone can't drive manual
transmission doesn't mean that they don't
deserve to drive a car. Heck, they might be
able to design a transmission.

I'm just not sure that every pilot is going to
be able to become a combination of all of
the best qualities of . Yeager, Jack Ridley
and Bob Hoover. It's a nice (theoretical) idea,
I suppose.

In the spring of 1947, Boyd appraised his roster of 125 test pilots and finally selected three volunteers who were considered very junior in terms of their flight test experience: Captain Charles E. "." Yeager, 1st Lieutenant Robert A. "Bob" Hoover, and Ridley. He named Yeager and Hoover as primary and backup pilot respectively, and Ridley as project engineer. Boyd recognized Ridley's highly disciplined, razor sharp mind and he believed that, with his test piloting experience and his unique ability to translate esoteric concepts into everyday terms, he would be able to provide Yeager and Hoover with all of the engineering expertise they would need.

I have dark suspicions that the under-educated . Yeager
would not meet the elitist qualifications of AvCan Flight Training.

However, he had a fantastic teacher - Jack Ridley above. Note
what he was able to do (underlined).

Were . Yeager and Bob Hoover "under-educated,
lowest-common-denominator" pilots according to elitist
AvCan Flight Training ex-instructors? Absolutely. Were they
incredible pilots? Oh, yeah. Is anyone going to learn
anything from that? Highly dubious at best.

[CFR]

I think its fairly clear that all of them know that it is the wrong thing to do .. so they have no problem understanding the physics of what will happen .. but they do it anyway

Yup. Their instincts are wrong. This is true
of so many technique-intensive tasks in aviation.

Tailwheel is a good example. People learn to fly
on nosewheel, and they learn that they don't need
to use the rudder pedals. When they jump in a
taildragger, bad things happen on a dry paved
runway during the landing. And it's not that they're
stupid - they just have the wrong instincts.

Another example of this in spades is inverted
(really negative G) formation flying. Although
all the controls still work as per upright, the
effect of bank is reversed due to the high and
low pressure areas being switched on the wing.
This results in very bad things when someone
gets too close to the lead, and decides to bank
a little away from him, as per their instincts.
The horizontal portion of the downward doing
lift vector pushes him into the lead. So
he banks away some more, and he hits the lead.

Just because someone struggles with tailwheel
or inverted formation doesn't meant that they
are stupid, or don't understand the underlying
theory.

Just because someone can't drive manual
transmission doesn't mean that they don't
deserve to drive a car. Heck, they might be
able to design a transmission.

I'm just not sure that every pilot is going to
be able to become a combination of all of
the best qualities of . Yeager, Jack Ridley
and Bob Hoover. It's a nice (theoretical) idea,
I suppose.

In the spring of 1947, Boyd appraised his roster of 125 test pilots and finally selected three volunteers who were considered very junior in terms of their flight test experience: Captain Charles E. "." Yeager, 1st Lieutenant Robert A. "Bob" Hoover, and Ridley. He named Yeager and Hoover as primary and backup pilot respectively, and Ridley as project engineer. Boyd recognized Ridley's highly disciplined, razor sharp mind and he believed that, with his test piloting experience and his unique ability to translate esoteric concepts into everyday terms, he would be able to provide Yeager and Hoover with all of the engineering expertise they would need.

I have dark suspicions that the under-educated . Yeager
would not meet the elitist qualifications of AvCan Flight Training.

However, he had a fantastic teacher - Jack Ridley above. Note
what he was able to do (underlined).

Were . Yeager and Bob Hoover "under-educated,
lowest-common-denominator" pilots according to elitist
AvCan Flight Training ex-instructors? Absolutely. Were they
incredible pilots? Oh, yeah. Is anyone going to learn
anything from that? Highly dubious at best.

Time for my piano analogy ...

Some people who have spent years learning music theory and hours of practice, sit at the piano and play notes;
Others who have spent time at the keyboard and can't read a note, sit at the piano and make music.

[dr.aero]

DanWEC...

Thanks for your thoughts. This discussion wouldn't have gone on here for this long if I was able to teach this in a classroom without a student, who doesn't know what they're talking about, trying to prove that I'm wrong.

cgzro...

You don't have time while flying to think of the physics of whats involved. People need a model of whats going on, not the details.

You don't have a clue what you just said!

Colonel...

his unique ability to translate esoteric concepts into everyday terms

I can do that as well. I'll mention for about the 10th time that not everything I write is written to a PPL student level!! Thanks for caring.

Were . Yeager and Bob Hoover "under-educated,
lowest-common-denominator" pilots according to elitist
AvCan Flight Training ex-instructors? Absolutely.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. . Yeager and Bob Hoover were both perfectionists and both were the type of pilots to study the details and stay after hours with the engineers to work out problems. Other test pilots would just land and hit the bar for beers. These two pilots were very intelligent and very skilled. They aren't even close to being lowest common denominator pilots! I'm not sure if you're trolling here or completely ignorant about these two men.

[bandaid]

The two of you want to continue this pettyness do so by pm. This is reminisant of two kids in the school yard arguing over whos dad is bigger. I will be removing the treats as soon as I am done here and make one of my own, you two continue and you'll both be given some time off.

[cgzro]

You don't have a clue what you just said!

Your statement is demonstrably false since most pilots have no knowledge of the detailed physics of how their planes fly but none the less manage to fly safely. If you have a good counter argument apart from the above I'm happy to debate but you don't offer much of substance to debate.

[dr.aero]

cgzro...

Your statement is demonstrably false since most pilots have no knowledge of the detailed physics of how their planes fly but none the less manage to fly safely.

You really don't know much about logic and reasoning. First, your contradictory quote regarding flight instructors, and then this.

It seems pointless for me to go further in detailing what I meant since you demonstrably don't know how to logically present an argument and to reason.

[Sulako]

This thread is not providing value any more. Locked.