As an instructor examiner, I have to direct you to this quote:
Cat Driver wrote:In my opinion it is far, far more important for an instructor to be able to explain, demonstrate then guide a student through the manual movements of the aircraft controls to get the desired performance from the airplane...performance as in making the f.ckin thing go where you want it to go when you want it to.
See above.
Provided they can explain the basics, and get through to the student, it is more than acceptable performance.
I have hade the (mis?)fortune of flight training physics professors from a internationally known university. They laugh at the our reference material, and most of my "complex" explanations.
That doesn't take away from the great discussions here... but (as a flight instructor) trying to overtrain on such a basic flight maneuver takes away from the whole experience.
As far as the last few posts from Cat and TC guy, I agree completely that for many students over-explanation can be unnecessary and possibly counter-production. But I know that when I was a student and some of the students I taught want to understand the background theory on flying airplanes. I don't think it would be fair to say "Gee, I never cared what made these things happen so you shouldn't either. Now go do the walkaround, perfesser!"
BTD: I enjoy these discussions too. I don't know if I can explain what I'm saying any more but I'll try a bit more to convince you.
I'll go with your "loop on its side" idea of a 90deg bank. That does not mean it is not a turn. You are causing this loop/turn with pitch control as you say. Increasing the backpressure increases the angle of attack, increasing the lift vector now directed inside the turn, increasing the turn. Only the lift can be causing the turn since your side-slip theory is not in play.
I'm not sure what to say about your interpretation of the string theory. Why would a fixed point in space as the centre of the turn (assuming coordinated, no wind, etc) not be true? As for the running alongside the plane, I just completely disagree with what you are saying. If the string (or lift) are applying a force inward that is not balanced by an outward force (don't say centrifugal force! don't do it!) then the aircraft will accelerate in the direction of that force. You agree the lift is there, so...
I still think you are confusing movement of the nose with movement of the aircraft in general. Such as your reference to and aircraft in straight & level. The reason the lift does not make the aircraft gain altitude is because the lift force is balanced but the weight force = net force of zero in the vertical. No force, no movement. If the lift force is increased to be more than the weight force, up we go. Nevermind what the nose is doing, the whole plane will rise.
Centripetal force is just a category of force, as your car example suggests. But friction does not cause centripetal force, it IS the cetripetal force in that example. For the turning aircraft, the horizontal component of lift IS the centripetal force. You agree it's there, right?
As for the diagram shown by Pandora that is in FTGU and the FTM, it pains me every time I see it. The centripetal force is not missing, it's the horizontal component of lift. But what you see shows a balanced set of forces which would mean the aircraft is not turning. This is not true. Centrifugal force does not exist in an inertial reference frame. If you want to talk rotating reference frames, that pic is correct, but talk about over-complicating an explanation.
Whew, this is lengthy. After this maybe we should go onto something simple like real "string theory".
As for the diagram shown by Pandora that is in FTGU and the FTM, it pains me every time I see it. The centripetal force is not missing, it's the horizontal component of lift. But what you see shows a balanced set of forces which would mean the aircraft is not turning. This is not true. Centrifugal force does not exist in an inertial reference frame. If you want to talk rotating reference frames, that pic is correct, but talk about over-complicating an explanation.
I agree completly...I was pointing out that it was missing from the diagram...cuase whenever we look in a book that diagram has it list'd too...I didn't mean to imply that it was seporate from the H Lift
I must say though that this thread has restored my self confidence...after having been questioning my own knowledge on this matter & my over all ability to teach if I my self don't know the basics...I'm glad to hear that I was indeed correct
Duplicate... please no "string theory" or super string theory.
I see what you are saying, and you worded it in a way there that made me see your point of view a little better. Something that I was thinking about during my last post but I didn't put in for some reason, is that I truely believe it is a combination of our theories.
" They laugh at the our reference material, and most of my "complex" explanations. "
My wife is a retired school prinicpal and many years ago was a partner in our flight school. At that time I was considering renewing my instructors rating to be CFI for my school.
When studying for the written I was pondering over what was called "The laws of learning " ( I think that was what it was called) anyhow I was perplexed by some of the so called "laws" that were manditory must know material so I asked her for help.
She read the TC stuff and said what utter nonsense, who thought that up? So I did some checking and found out it was probably some guy called Moose something or other and it became the gospel as seen by TC since then.
Anyhow she contacted a couple of her professors at Simon Fraser and they had never heard of these "laws" so she then contacted the prof in Berkley who had been her mentor while studying for a Doctorate in education and he asked her what she was smoking.
The reason I am relating the above is to suggest that when you start to get deep into theory and physics you would be wise to know the subject yourself before getting to involved.
Once again you need to understand the basics of flight and the basics of the mechanical workings of the machine, however you do not need to be an expert on either subject to be an excellent teacher of flying.
And the very best teachers just seem to have a natural ability to teach.
" WARNING "
When reading my thoughts on flight training please remember that I am "NOT" a licensed TC flight instructor and it may be wise to remember that in the Vancouver office they do not accept nor approve of any flight training done by me. So please treat my slant on training as suspect and possibly detrimental to becoming a good pilot. In fact just call Jake at TC and ask him.
Cat
---------- ADS -----------
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
When reading my thoughts on flight training please remember that I am "NOT" a licensed TC flight instructor and it may be wise to remember that in the Vancouver office they do not accept nor approve of any flight training done by me. So please treat my slant on training as suspect and possibly detrimental to becoming a good pilot. In fact just call Jake at TC and ask him. [/color]
Cat
Cat this was pretty funny, even if it wasn't meant to be. Its nice to see some ability to poke fun at oneself. (I hope I interpreted this correct) We all know you have a vast experience and your input is fantastic.
Personally I don't think we are even talking about what a flight instructor should be teaching anymore. Just a discussion among pilots for interest purposes about what might actually be happening. It is one of the few threads on here that hasn't turned into "suck my this " and "your mother that"
About the laws of learning thing, they did change them to "learning factors". They are present when people are learning, but I don't think you necessarily need to know them to be a good teacher.
You said it when you said
"the very best teachers just seem to have a natural ability to teach."
I participate here because I remember what it was like many years ago when I was a flight instructor first starting out, and hopefully my suggestions will take root in some young instructors mind and make them a superior flight instructor.
In my mind when one reaches the level of being a superior flight instructor that person has reached the zenith of accomplishment in aviation.
Now I must comment on this just to set the record straight so we do not have any grey area in this issue.
You said:
" Cat Driver wrote:
When reading my thoughts on flight training please remember that I am "NOT" a licensed TC flight instructor and it may be wise to remember that in the Vancouver office they do not accept nor approve of any flight training done by me. So please treat my slant on training as suspect and possibly detrimental to becoming a good pilot. In fact just call Jake at TC and ask him. "
Cat this was pretty funny, even if it wasn't meant to be. Its nice to see some ability to poke fun at oneself. (I hope I interpreted this correct) We all know you have a vast experience and your input is fantastic.
"
Unfortunately I find that to be anything except funny.
That statement I posted is a fact, I can show proof right from the office of the Regional Director General Transport Canada that that individual did in fact advise clients of mine that TC will not approve any training done by me, in fact I have a letter to one of my clients in Scotland from the RDGTC apologizing to my client for the statements made by that TC inspector which cost me much grief and loss of income.
You want to know what the final outcome was?
The co.k.ucker received nothing but a little talk from the head of flight training at the time and then I'll be God Damned if he and another TC prick didn't do the same thing all over again with another client.
Funny? no it's disgusting and unacceptable on any level.
But in the end they think they won because they managed to keep me out of flight training in Canada.
So once again BTD and the rest of you, as long as TC flight Training allows thugs such as the individuals that deny me my right to work in Canadian aviation to abuse the office they work for I will expose them at every opportunity.
And by doing so it may remind some of you that you should truly fear these pricks because thay can and will ruin your career if they feel like it.
But here is the plus side of this issue, I don't fear them, and am willing to bet some of them just might fear me.
Cat
---------- ADS -----------
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Personally I don't think we are even talking about what a flight instructor should be teaching anymore. Just a discussion among pilots for interest purposes about what might actually be happening. It is one of the few threads on here that hasn't turned into "suck my this " and "your mother that"
Yea there is a reason why I havn't posted here B4 now....even though I have been browsing this site for years....I miss Canadian Aviation It was great!...I was an active poster there...but here, things are too heated for my liking...thats why I debated making an aviation forum of my own last spring...but I never bother'd finishing it...or publishing it...its basicaly done...& maybe one day I'll publish it...time will tell. If anyone is currious about it They can find it at http://justwannafly.net/ Feel free to give me thoughts & suggesions on it...but please via PM cuase I don't want to distract from the great TURNS discusions that we are having here
Pandora wrote:I must say though that this thread has restored my self confidence...after having been questioning my own knowledge on this matter & my over all ability to teach if I my self don't know the basics...I'm glad to hear that I was indeed correct
I know the feeling, I felt the same way when I read your first post on this topic. "What if I've been wrong about this all along?" It's very disconcerting.
One of the things that will make you a good instructor and pilot is that you took the time to investigate things you didn't know/weren't sure about and didn't have unquestioning belief in your own ideas. I also feel much better after going through this topic since I feel I learned some things I didn't know.
Sorry if someone aready posted this, I got tired of reading, the way I tell it is: The downward force on the tail.- once banked the downward force on the tail moves the nose across the horizon.
An interesting question. I like the diagram from the text book. BUT. Go do attitudes and movements with a commercial student after some basics get them in a rudder to the floor side slip and then get them to do a turn into the high wing. Yes it can be done. Obviously there must be some Yaw controll factor and not the lift vector because the lift would make you turn the other way. Look at the question and stop the discussion about adverse yaw caused by the ailerons. Sorry no help just trying to get many of you to think outside the box.
A turn occurs because the aircraft experiences an acceleration. The lift is inclined and with it follows the entire machine. Centripetal force pulls you through causing a loss of equilibrium and a change in direction of flight.
Ronly wrote:An interesting question. I like the diagram from the text book. BUT. Go do attitudes and movements with a commercial student after some basics get them in a rudder to the floor side slip and then get them to do a turn into the high wing. Yes it can be done. Obviously there must be some Yaw controll factor and not the lift vector because the lift would make you turn the other way. Look at the question and stop the discussion about adverse yaw caused by the ailerons. Sorry no help just trying to get many of you to think outside the box.
@Ronly: Can you walk me throgh how you would do that with a non high performance aircraft...aka C152/C172
or are we talking MAJOR rudder use?...That I have seen/done when playing with sideslips...
"A turn occurs because the aircraft experiences an acceleration. The lift is inclined and with it follows the entire machine. Centripetal force pulls you through causing a loss of equilibrium and a change in direction of flight."
Tango01
I agree with your reasoning about an aircraft turning and that its the initial acceleration and the centripetal force which causes it to turn.
however once an aircraft is established in a turn, isn't the a/c in equilibrium? similair to when an a/c is established in a constant non-accelerated climb, it is in equilibrim.
Negative skywatcher. Unlike an airplane climbing or descending, where all forces are in equilibrium, in a turn the horizontal component of lift is greater than the apparent centrifugal force. Not in equilibrium, hence the change in direction.
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by ahramin on Thu Jan 05, 2006 12:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
An airplane turns because I turn the steering wheel, or put the stick to the side all the while keeping that ball between the two little lines by using the rudder pedals.
Either than that, or I'm pretty sure it's magic engineered into the airplane by aviation wizards.
ahramin wrote:Negative skywatcher. Unlike an airplane climbing or descending, where all forces are in equilibrium, in a turn the horizontal component of lift is greater than the apparent centripetal force. Not in equilibrium, hence the change in direction.
Oooh, a rare ahramin error! Like finding a pot of gold
I think you meant "apparent centrifugal" force, right? The horizontal component of lift is the centripetal force. Even so, this isn't quite true since as you put it, centrifugal force is only "apparent" and doesn't actually exist (in an interial reference frame). That's why the aircraft is not in equilibrium, since the centripetal force is unopposed and causes the constant acceleration towards the inside of the turn.
[Super-Nerds Only]The aircraft would be in equilibrium in a rotating reference frame because centrifugal force does exist in that case.[/Super-Nerds Only]
however once an aircraft is established in a turn, isn't the a/c in equilibrium?
No. Think inertia. The mass will continue forward unless acted on by a force. To keep it turning it is ACCELERATING. It's not complex as everyone is making it out to be. What's with all this weathecocking BS!!!!!??
ahramin wrote:So when you stop turning the wheel, the plane stops turning istp?
I stop turning the wheel when I'm on the ground and stopped. The plane never does exactly what I want it to, so I turn the steering wheel all of the time.
