"I was taught..."

txflyer said:
Many CFI's teach power to idle over the numbers, but my TW instructor taught me to keep just a touch of power in there to keep the tail washed with air. :redface:
Click to expand...

Why was that necessary? Were you flying an airplane that ran out of elevator authority trying to 3-point it power off? Huskys can be like that.
 
As a general rule I find pilots leaving some power on in the landing are using it as a bandaid.

There may be some planes (C210, Cherokee 6 series, etc.) that may have the nose come down pretty hard power off when loaded to the forward CG. And jets and turboprops may have their own quirks.

Other than those and maybe some other particular cases, I find that power at idle makes for one less variable in the landing. I virtually always aim to have power off by 50' if not sooner. As I said, makes it easier overall for me, and my students seemed to adjust to it just fine.
 
Henning said:
Makes a wheelie slightly easier to put on nicely if you don't have quite enough altitude/approach angle.
Click to expand...

It makes it virtually impossible not to grease a wheelie every time.

When I was flying the 170 a lot, I would mix it up and do power on and power off wheelies as well as three points.
 
That's another exception...

...when teaching wheel landings I would have the student leave a bit of power on - it buys time to "find" the runway.

But since its not needed in general, its still desirable to wean oneself of the habit.
 
FastEddieB said:
There may be some planes (C210, Cherokee 6 series, etc.) that may have the nose come down pretty hard power off when loaded to the forward CG.
Click to expand...

A touch of power seems to help in the Cherokee 6, but you do not need power to land a 210, in fact power on landing burns up a lot of runway I found (I transitioned to the 210 after flying the PA32 and thought i 'needed' power to land it....instead I needed a lot of brake!)
 
Fearless Tower said:
It makes it virtually impossible not to grease a wheelie every time.

When I was flying the 170 a lot, I would mix it up and do power on and power off wheelies as well as three points.
Click to expand...

Exactly, you can add just enough energy to make it perfect. You can do the same thing with a steeper angle on final as well. The plane doesn't particularly care where the energy comes from, but it's a lot easier to get it right from the bottom side adding throttle.
 
FastEddieB said:
Well, it's been a long time but I kinda remember at least the P210 was pretty nose-heavy with just one or two pilots.
Click to expand...

The 210 is nose heavy, but it doesn't drop like a rock when you pull the power off like the C6 does I found.
 
Of course, then there was stuff that I knew was wrong when I was taught it and I just smiled and let it go.

Margy's instructor insisted that while testing the brakes to check the hydraulic pressure gauge. Yaah, even thought the Navion does use hydraulic power for the gear and flaps and that fluid is also used for the brakes, they're not in the same system (the pressure gauge is unaffected by anything in the brake circuit). Too much time on DC-6s I think.
 
I've only gone up with a couple different instructors, but I'm still confused by something they disagree on. My primary instructor always wanted yoke back AND power if I was trying to gain altitude.

I went to Napa once and had a really great instructor ride with me in a cutlass. Her theory was to just change the power setting for small changes in altitude. I actually thought that made more sense, but when I got back home and went up for another IFR lesson a few weeks ago, my primary instructor got onto me for not pulling back on the yoke when I added power for a 100 ft altitude change.

So what do you do for 100 ft?
 
aggie06 said:
I've only gone up with a couple different instructors, but I'm still confused by something they disagree on. My primary instructor always wanted yoke back AND power if I was trying to gain altitude.

I went to Napa once and had a really great instructor ride with me in a cutlass. Her theory was to just change the power setting for small changes in altitude. I actually thought that made more sense, but when I got back home and went up for another IFR lesson a few weeks ago, my primary instructor got onto me for not pulling back on the yoke when I added power for a 100 ft altitude change.

So what do you do for 100 ft?
Click to expand...

Depends on the conditions and what state of energy I was at at the end of the excursion. In high turbulence conditions I'd likely reduce power to sink, and pull back to climb. If I find myself 100' high or low in smooth air cruise and I had the engine conditions where I wanted them, then I just adjust the trim a little nudge.
 
FastEddieB said:
That's been put forth.

I asked if there's one in particular.

Is there?
Click to expand...

I do it with all planes, some to a greater degree than others. Bonanza I will always pick up the wings with the tail in turbulence. The 'wag' everyone complains about is the moment of slip as you pick up the wing with the aileron. There is a aileron/ruddevator interconnect, but it has a spring in it. If you use the yoke to keep the wings level, you will constantly expose people to a slipping motion, people are not used to this motion and it makes them queasy. If you catch the wing with the rudder you start the sequence with a skid rather than a slip, and people are used to that sensation from driving cars.
 
Back in 1964, my first instructor taught me always keep some power on while landing.
I've flown with a lot of instructors over the years who insist that is not the correct thing to do.
I don't know if it's coincidence or what, but he is 81 and still here, I'm still here, and a lot of the others aren't, so I'll continue to keep some power on.
 
Henning said:
I do it with all planes, some to a greater degree than others. Bonanza I will always pick up the wings with the tail in turbulence. The 'wag' everyone complains about is the moment of slip as you pick up the wing with the aileron. There is a aileron/ruddevator interconnect, but it has a spring in it. If you use the yoke to keep the wings level, you will constantly expose people to a slipping motion, people are not used to this motion and it makes them queasy. If you catch the wing with the rudder you start the sequence with a skid rather than a slip, and people are used to that sensation from driving cars.
Click to expand...

Using rudder in turbulence and for small heading corrections in hand-off cruise flight are totally different issues from telling someone to lead with the rudder when initiating a turn. The latter is what is implied in this 'lead w/ rudder' thing.

Still waiting on an explanation consistent with the laws of physics as to why rudder deflection before aileron deflection is required to remain ball in center coordinated.
 
RoscoeT said:
Using rudder in turbulence and for small heading corrections in hand-off cruise flight are totally different issues from telling someone to lead with the rudder when initiating a turn. The latter is what is implied in this 'lead w/ rudder' thing.

Still waiting on an explanation consistent with the laws of physics as to why rudder deflection before aileron deflection is required to remain ball in center coordinated.
Click to expand...

It's the same, I do initiate every turn with the rudder, always have, was taught it by a UFO QB at the very beginning.
 
RoscoeT said:
Still waiting on an explanation.
Click to expand...

Differing, sometimes extreme, amounts of adverse yaw.
Some planes I personally know that appreciate a little leading rudder.
P-51D
B-17
B-24
B-25
F-4D/E
F-100 (all models)
Fairchild 24 (with floats. Never flew one without) In fact include anything with floats.
Some Schweizer gliders
A1E
RemosGX

They're the ones that stick out in my memory.
 
Shepherd said:
Back in 1964, my first instructor taught me always keep some power on while landing.
I've flown with a lot of instructors over the years who insist that is not the correct thing to do.
I don't know if it's coincidence or what, but he is 81 and still here, I'm still here, and a lot of the others aren't, so I'll continue to keep some power on.
Click to expand...

All that's fine. You and your instructor will almost certainly continue to land with power and live long lives. I doubt you'll ever have an issue with it.

Instructors, in general, are somewhat limited in what they teach by standards, guidelines and recommendations put forth by the FAA. In other words, my teaching of power off landings was not something I made up on my own.

What's the FAA's take? From the Airplane Flying Handbook:

TOUCHDOWN
The touchdown is the gentle settling of the airplane onto the landing surface. The roundout and touchdown should be made with the engine idling, and the airplane at minimum controllable airspeed, so that the airplane will touch down on the main gear at approximately stalling speed. As the airplane settles, the proper landing attitude is attained by application of whatever back-elevator pressure is necessary.

The first POH I checked was from an early Cessna 150, the plane I learned in and a typical trainer:

Normal landings are made power off at any flap setting.

Sure, an instructor can certainly "teach outside the book", and pilots, we know, often choose to "fly outside the book". Back to the skinning of that poor cat. But it's hard to go wrong just following the book recommendations, especially when the logic behind them is time tested and sound.

But since you think power on landings give you and your instructor a survival advantage, far be it from me to dissuade you.

That pasted texts are just for newcomers who might wonder about the nexus of my recommendation to land power off (as a general rule).
 
Last edited:
Shepherd said:
Differing, sometimes extreme, amounts of adverse yaw.
Some planes I personally know that appreciate a little leading rudder.
P-51D
B-17
B-24
B-25
F-4D/E
F-100 (all models)
Fairchild 24 (with floats. Never flew one without) In fact include anything with floats.
Some Schweizer gliders
A1E
RemosGX

They're the ones that stick out in my memory.
Click to expand...

That's a list, not an explanation. I'm still curious how the proper amount of rudder applied simultaneous with aileron deflection cannot control adverse yaw. Until someone can give me a great explanation, I still think it's simply that your foot is slow and 'leading' with rudder is a way to compensate for improper dexterity with the rudder. I've flown gliders and other high adverse yaw airplanes, and I've always attempted to be a perfectionist when it comes to coordination. Never found the rudder needed to be deflected prior to the ailerons in order to maintain coordination.
 
I'm with Roscoe.

"Leading with rudder to coordinate the turn" seems an oxymoron - by definition if you start with just rudder and no aileron, a skid - no matter how small - is already in progress.

But I'd still like to be educated!
 
RoscoeT said:
That's a list, not an explanation. I'm still curious how the proper amount of rudder applied simultaneous with aileron deflection cannot control adverse yaw. Until someone can give me a great explanation, I still think it's simply that your foot is slow and 'leading' with rudder is a way to compensate for improper dexterity with the rudder. I've flown gliders and other high adverse yaw airplanes, and I've always attempted to be a perfectionist when it comes to coordination. Never found the rudder needed to be deflected prior to the ailerons in order to maintain coordination.
Click to expand...

Because you won't match the rate change with your foot as the drag on the wing tips diverges unless you really stomp into the rudder and that gives a sharp jerky moment. As old Jim put it, "If you lead with the rudder, you'll be cleaning a lot less puke out of the back seat. So far only one dog has puked, and that was some serious bouncing around.
 
Since I'm eager to expand my horizons...

...is this concept taught or mentioned in any official publication? Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge? Airplane Flying Handbook? Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators?

Or in any POH?

Like I said, as a concept it's one I've missed somehow.
 
FastEddieB said:
Since I'm eager to expand my horizons...

...is this concept taught or mentioned in any official publication? Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge? Airplane Flying Handbook? Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators?

Or in any POH?

Like I said, as a concept it's one I've missed somehow.
Click to expand...

Techniques of finesse aren't really covered by training material, they are passed on by pilots, learned by experience. It's not a huge issue, not one of control (except at the bottom end of the speed envelope), but one of comfort for the pax in the back.
 
Last edited:
Shepherd said:
Differing, sometimes extreme, amounts of adverse yaw.

Some planes I personally know that appreciate a little leading rudder.



B-25



.
Click to expand...

I've flown the B-25 (have an SIC type in it). I never felt that I needed to lead with the rudder. Yes, it has a lot of adverse yaw, but the DC-3 has even more and I still didn't need to lead with the rudder on that either.
 
The rudder fixes things, in a turn it fixes adverse yaw.

Some planes like my CTSW are 'rudder dominant' meaning it takes more rudder to fix the unwanted yaw while other planes in some turns don't need much fixing.

I think there are 3 choices in planes with a lot of adverse yaw.
  1. Lead with aileron (or flaperon) and fix adverse yaw with rudder
  2. Apply rudder and aileron simultaneously while guessing on how much rudder is needed
  3. Lead with rudder and coordinate with aileron.

If i do lead with rudder I need to use more pitch control.
 
CharlieTango said:
[*]Apply rudder and aileron simultaneously while guessing on how much rudder is needed
Click to expand...

I never imagined there was any other way. To do it properly, I mean.

Lack of imagination, I guess.

Then again, I can't recall any material that taught anything but that. Maybe there's a reason for that.

BTW, a pilot experienced in any particular aircraft type should not have to "guess".
 
Last edited:
FastEddieB said:
I never imagined there was any other way. To do it properly, I mean.

Lack of imagination, I guess.

Then again, I can't recall any material that taught anything but that. Maybe there's a reason for that.

BTW, a pilot exoerienced in any particular aircraft type should not have to "guess".
Click to expand...

I would somewhat disagree. No two aircraft are exactly alike. Lot's of small differences, from rigging to the actual shape of the aircraft. The differences are built in, or from years of use or abuse. Those differences create subtle differences in how they fly, handle, feel. The first flight in any aircraft is a "discovery" flight, as you get the feel for the aircraft. What years of experience gives you is an almost unconscious ability to pick up and process the clues.
 
A good instructor likes to be able to point to primary sources.

For instance, Airplane Flying Handbook (page 3-8, bolded mine)

"When applying aileron to bank the airplane, the lowered aileron (on the rising wing) produces a greater drag than the raised aileron (on the lowering wing). This increased aileron yaws the airplane toward the rising wing, or opposite to the direction of turn. To counteract this adverse yawing moment, rudder pressure must be applied simultaneously with aileron in the desired direction of turn. This action is required to produce a coordinated turn."
 
Primary source the second, Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, (p. 5-4, again, emphasis mine):


"All turns are coordinated by use of ailerons, rudder, and elevator. Applying aileron pressure is necessary to place the aircraft in the desired angle of bank, while simultaneous application of rudder pressure is necessary to counteract the resultant adverse yaw."
 
FastEddieB said:
A good instructor likes to be able to point to primary sources.
Click to expand...

Actually, a good instructor understands physiology and psychology.:yes:

A poor one thinks advice on mental coordination must produce the same physical action.;)

But you'd know that if you ever taught whole body activities (skiing, biking, rock climbing, etc...).
 
warthog1984 said:
Actually, a good instructor understands physiology and psychology.:yes:

A poor one thinks advice on mental coordination must produce the same physical action.;)

But you'd know that if you ever taught whole body activities (skiing, biking, rock climbing, etc...).
Click to expand...


If be taught whole body activities he'd know that pushing on a pedal at the same time you turn on a yoke, is a very achievable goal. LOL.

The whole thing started with the dumb phrase, "lead with rudder" which is also an achievable but much more useless goal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top