I want to do a "numbers" flight.

[jasc15]

I do not have an instrument rating, nor do I have an HP/complex endorsement, but in reading Eckalbar's IFR - A Structured Approach, and Flying High Performance Singles and Twins I like his numbers approach.

A “by-the-numbers” pilot does not saw back and forth with the throttle trying to find out how much power it takes to stop his or her descent at the MDA. The “numbers” pilot does an experiment one time, finds what works, and from that point on simply dials up the appropriate PAC [power, attitude, configuration] when the need arises.

Currently I 'saw' the throttle into position when I am descending and getting into the pattern, which adds to the workload at this part of any flight. Now, this experiment is rather trivial in a trainer with only pitch, power, and flaps to control, but I think this will help me out greatly.

My plan is simply to do some pattern work and write down the pitch, power and flap settings that give me what I need for that phase of the flight, and remember them. Easy enough; it's a machine and only does what you tell it.

Anyone done this test flight? I'd like to make this worthwhile so I want to consider things I may not yet have thought about.

 

[EppyGA]

I did make a chart for certain parameters. I flew out into an open are, got a little altitude and went about completing my chart. If you'd like PM me and I can send you the ino I was looking for.

 

[nddons]

I did make a chart for certain parameters. I flew out into an open are, got a little altitude and went about completing my chart. If you'd like PM me and I can send you the ino I was looking for.

That's a real necessity when flying on instruments and shooting approaches.

A few years ago Kent (Flyingcheesehead) posted a chart that he used for this purpose; it included indications on the attitude indicator as well (i.e. 5 degrees climb). Perhaps he'll chime in here.

 

[bobmrg]

You will find "getting the numbers" in many places: Peter Dogan's instrument flight training manual and my advanced pilot book are two. My guess is that Rod Machado and William Kershner include this procedure in their books as well.
It makes my blood boil when I hear of a student being taken out to practice approaches or holding in the first hour or two of instrument training when the emphasis should be on perfecting "the numbers" for the six configurations: climb, cruise, cruise descent, approach, approach descent, and non-precision descent.

Bob Gardner

 

[dell30rb]

That's a real necessity when flying on instruments and shooting approaches.

A few years ago Kent (Flyingcheesehead) posted a chart that he used for this purpose; it included indications on the attitude indicator as well (i.e. 5 degrees climb). Perhaps he'll chime in here.

I made a chart like that, with my instructor during my initial IFR training. Doing the practice patterns, drills etc for the first couple of lessons. However for the 152 and piper warrior I fly I never use the chart or any specific reference. I can see how it would be very helpful in a complex, high performance airplane that you don't have hundreds of hours in, and when I start flying aircraft like that, I will make another chart.

To stop a descent on an approach or whatever I generally add power till it sounds right - while simultaneously giving a little tug on the yoke, then flip the trim to wherever I think it needs to go. 15 seconds later make any minor tweaks that are necessary to power and trim and that's generally all that needs to happen.

A big thing that you need to get down is ability to simultaneously use pitch and power input, this will give you "coordinated" descents and ascents with no oscillating. I never quite got this finer aspect of airmanship down until I started my instrument traning with about 80 hrs TT

 

[jaybee]

meh... while ab initio to instrument flight it helps you to acclimate faster but there's too many variables to make "by the numbers" a hard and fast rule to live by... kinda of... I always preferred the Control and Performance method, though while I had stage check airman and the DPE tell me I"m really using both methods (the other being Primary and Supporting) so long story short, 26 inches of MAP and 70 knots and ball on the outside of the box worked great with my 185 double I in the left seat but come stage check with the 120 female and 25 inches and ball halfway out of the box were the order of the day.

So I use the "numbers" to make the initial setting, then through the control and performance evaluation you adjust to make it do what you want it to do - center the glideslope, maintain 300 fpm, whatever...

so it is not with out its virtues to know "roughly" what the numbers give you but you will still need to "saw" the controls to make it do what you want it to do to accomodate such things as wind and weight.

for that matter, on the instrument check ride because of the winds gusting to 20 there where points in time when I was using 18 - 20 inches of map to maintain altitude which is a pretty drastic reduction in the collective pitch setting.... I never busted my + or _ 100 feet though but if I insisted on using the "numbers" and not adapting to what was going on (control and performance) than I just might not have an Instrument rating.

 

[poadeleted20]

You will find "getting the numbers" in many places: Peter Dogan's instrument flight training manual and my advanced pilot book are two. My guess is that Rod Machado and William Kershner include this procedure in their books as well.
It makes my blood boil when I hear of a student being taken out to practice approaches or holding in the first hour or two of instrument training when the emphasis should be on perfecting "the numbers" for the six configurations: climb, cruise, cruise descent, approach, approach descent, and non-precision descent.

Amen, Brother Bob. And the Dogan book, which is our bible at Professional Instrument Courses, explains it in pretty good detail.

 

[poadeleted20]

meh... while ab initio to instrument flight it helps you to acclimate faster but there's too many variables to make "by the numbers" a hard and fast rule to live by... kinda of... I always preferred the Control and Performance method,

The "canned solutions" concept is the center of the C&P method, as Dogan's book explains. The numbers you derive provide the starting point from which you adjust your controls to obtain the desired performance in the precise actual conditions of weight, cg, temperature, altitude, etc. If you don't have a good starting point, you will just be "sawing" on the controls (as a poster above put it) trying to get what you want.

 

[jaybee]

Hmmm... I think I may have said that... "So I use the "numbers" to make the initial setting..."

anyhow, I took the OP as wanting someone to give him some numbers and that he would expect those numbers give him what he wanted every time

"My plan is simply to do some pattern work and write down the pitch, power and flap settings that give me what I need for that phase of the flight, and remember them. Easy enough; it's a machine and only does what you tell it."

That will only give him the numbers for that day - weight, temp, etc. and totally leaves out the evaluation and correction part of the equation.

 

[jasc15]

I'm not asking for the numbers. I am planning on finding them out myself, but was looking for some tips from people who have done this before, and possibly some logical chart format to enter this info.

The idea is to know where I should expect the operating parameters to be for a particular phase of flight, and tweak as necesary to accomodate environmental changes.

 

[EppyGA]

Here's what I used to start with and then created my own blank in Excel.

 

[poadeleted20]

Hmmm... I think I may have said that... "So I use the "numbers" to make the initial setting..."

My point was about your apparent suggestion that the Six Configurations concept was different from the Control & Performance methods, and it most definitely is not.

That will only give him the numbers for that day - weight, temp, etc. and totally leaves out the evaluation and correction part of the equation.

I agree that the C&P method includes much more than just the Six Configurations, but they are still part of the method. I think Dogan's book explains this very well (of course, you'd expect that, since I instruct for PIC which owns the rights to the book).

 

[poadeleted20]

Here's what I used to start with and then created my own blank in Excel.

When doing these numbers, make sure the descent rate for Precision Approach (aka "Approach Descent") is appropriate for a 3-degree glide path at the chosen approach speed. For 90 knots, that's pretty close to 500 ft/min (478 to be precise). For 100 knots, it would be 530, and for 80 knots it would be 425. I'd probably stick with 500 for both 90 and 100 knots, but use 400 for 80 knots (VSI's not being precise enough to go for anything closer than the nearest 100). If you're flying something bigger/faster, do the math yourself. As for the Nonprecision rate, I've found double the Precision rate (or a bit less, if anything) usually works very well.

 

[jaybee]

My point was about your apparent suggestion that the Six Configurations concept was different from the Control & Performance methods, and it most definitely is not.

I agree that the C&P method includes much more than just the Six Configurations, but they are still part of the method. I think Dogan's book explains this very well (of course, you'd expect that, since I instruct for PIC which owns the rights to the book).

I see, roger that.

 

[dell30rb]

I do not have an instrument rating, nor do I have an HP/complex endorsement, but in reading Eckalbar's IFR - A Structured Approach, and Flying High Performance Singles and Twins I like his numbers approach.

Since it sounds like you are interested in an instrument rating I suggest you get a CFII and do this exercise and come up with your table while under the hood. This really is flight lesson #1 of the instrument rating - why not go ahead and log it

 

[jaybee]

I'm not asking for the numbers. I am planning on finding them out myself, but was looking for some tips from people who have done this before, and possibly some logical chart format to enter this info.

The idea is to know where I should expect the operating parameters to be for a particular phase of flight, and tweak as necesary to accomodate environmental changes.

You didn't ask for them verbatim, but you did/are.... anyhow I'm not here to argue semantics, or the meaning of the pyramids. Just making sure you understood that there is more to it then "set it and forget it"

Since you stated that you didn't have an Instrument rating, I would suggest that instead of making yourself a chart right now you go ahead and book some time in an IFR capable aircraft of same type you want to use and go ahead and take a couple of lessons.

It should be like Bob said, basic turns, climbs, descents... maybe hopefully even start with Pattern A and Pattern B. A couple of lessons like that and you won't need a chart and it will smooth out your "sawing".

My point was mainly that even if you aren't aware of it, you already are doing it by the numbers, control and performance and/or primary and secondary or any combination thereof. You just hadn't been formally trained on it. Some formal training on it, IMHO will do exactly what you are aiming to do in your original post.

 

[jaybee]

Dang thats twice now while writing a reply someone replied with similar advice.

 

[dell30rb]

great minds think alike

 

[jaybee]

great minds think alike

Indeed

 

[EdFred]

I'm such a renegade...

Trim for speed, tweak the power, check the VSI and GS needle, make 1" changes. I honestly couldn't tell you what my power settings are for flying approaches.

 

[dmccormack]

I'm such a renegade...

Trim for speed, tweak the power, check the VSI and GS needle, make 1" changes. I honestly couldn't tell you what my power settings are for flying approaches.

Yeah, and you own and fly your own airplane how many hours a year?

 

[Threefingeredjack]

The "canned solutions" concept is the center of the C&P method, as Dogan's book explains. The numbers you derive provide the starting point from which you adjust your controls to obtain the desired performance in the precise actual conditions of weight, cg, temperature, altitude, etc. If you don't have a good starting point, you will just be "sawing" on the controls (as a poster above put it) trying to get what you want.

This is the way I was taught as well. IMHO the benefits of having specific target numbers is exactly as stated above. Unless your load,CG and all other variables are the same each time you fly there is no way to know what is ideal, but having a starting point is a huge help when in critical flight phases. I've had the (good/mis, you decide) fortune to fly in some really crappy weather, and having solid technique went a long way. The OP is on the right track.

 

[EdFred]

Yeah, and you own and fly your own airplane how many hours a year?

Not as many as I like. Last year was only 43.

 

[murphey]

I do not have an instrument rating, nor do I have an HP/complex endorsement, but in reading Eckalbar's IFR - A Structured Approach, and Flying High Performance Singles and Twins I like his numbers approach.



Currently I 'saw' the throttle into position when I am descending and getting into the pattern, which adds to the workload at this part of any flight. Now, this experiment is rather trivial in a trainer with only pitch, power, and flaps to control, but I think this will help me out greatly.

My plan is simply to do some pattern work and write down the pitch, power and flap settings that give me what I need for that phase of the flight, and remember them. Easy enough; it's a machine and only does what you tell it.

Anyone done this test flight? I'd like to make this worthwhile so I want to consider things I may not yet have thought about.

This is exactly one of the first lessons in Instrument flying - to identify the numbers for each configuration of the aircraft: climbing turn, 500 fpm, descending @ 500 fpm, climb @ 90 kts, descent @ 90 kts, @ 60 kts, and so on.

Excellent practice for when you start your instrument.

 

[Ghery]

And then remember a few other useful rules of thumb. On a fixed pitch aircraft (think - C-172 or PA28) a 100 rpm change results in about a 100 fpm climb or decent. Pull the power 500 rpm to get that 500 fpm decent, leave the trim alone and the air speed will stay the same. On a constant speed prop aircraft (C-182 for example) a 1 inch MP change will result in that 100 fpm climb or decent. 5 inches less and you're going down about 500 fpm. Fine tune from there.

I made those charts for the club's 182 and Arrow, then took the IR ride in the 172 without one. They are a useful tool.

 

[poadeleted20]

And then remember a few other useful rules of thumb. On a fixed pitch aircraft (think - C-172 or PA28) a 100 rpm change results in about a 100 fpm climb or decent. Pull the power 500 rpm to get that 500 fpm decent

With fixed pitch props, my experience says more like 300 RPM, but YMMV.

, leave the trim alone and the air speed will stay the same.

Theoretically true, but not quite true in practice with single engine aircraft due to the effects of propwash over the horizontal stab.

On a constant speed prop aircraft (C-182 for example) a 1 inch MP change will result in that 100 fpm climb or decent. 5 inches less and you're going down about 500 fpm. Fine tune from there.

Again, my experience suggests a bit less -- more like 3-4 inches, but as always, best determined by experimentation.