That One Tip

Blocked in the US due to copyright issues.
I've watched it before - and just watched it again. I think Detroit is still part of the U.S. :dunno: (Actually, I'm 2 miles from the city limit at the moment, but...)

Their hand propping video is fun too. It includes tossing a chicken (already dead) through a prop.
 
Intersect, overlap? H'm.

Draw it out, shadows intersecting or overlapping makes no sense. It only makes sense if you think "his shadow can't touch my airplane (not my airplane's shadow) and my shadow can't touch his airplane." Seems less a tip than a useless and silly crutch.
 
I've watched it before - and just watched it again. I think Detroit is still part of the U.S. :dunno: (Actually, I'm 2 miles from the city limit at the moment, but...)

Their hand propping video is fun too. It includes tossing a chicken (already dead) through a prop.

I bought his book on pdf. Highly recommended. My favorite quote from him is along the lines "Most people flying airplanes today are chicken**** pilots trained by chicken**** CFI's." (No **** when he says it.) Pretty strong - I love it! Present company is, of course, excluded!

51jKdORDkEL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
 
Last edited:
Can I ask how many different planes a student pilot gets to fly? I'd wager maybe two but mostly just the one?
I think I flew a dozen different airplanes and a half-dozen types during PP-SEL training.
 
Draw it out, shadows intersecting or overlapping makes no sense. It only makes sense if you think "his shadow can't touch my airplane (not my airplane's shadow) and my shadow can't touch his airplane." Seems less a tip than a useless and silly crutch.

Ah, opinions and *******s aye, what? :rolleyes:

Well it worked for me at least thrice. As I said, YMMV.
 
I'm pretty sure this next tip will not generate yet another "TEH IZ STOOPID" remark from the peanut gallery, filtered for your refreshment.

One thing that helped me a bunch was getting my instructor to make a table of specific pitch and power settings for every configuration in normal flight and then I memorized them.
The thinking is that for each particular pitch and power setting, you will get the same airspeed and rate of climb or descent. You can climb, descend, and fly straight and level, using a particular power setting and a visual reference where the nose appears relative to the horizon. Doing it the same way every time without ever thinking about it. Frees up some RAM.

And now, gallery? Pick that apart.
 
I'm pretty sure this next tip will not generate yet another "TEH IZ STOOPID" remark from the peanut gallery, filtered for your refreshment.

One thing that helped me a bunch was getting my instructor to make a table of specific pitch and power settings for every configuration in normal flight and then I memorized them.
The thinking is that for each particular pitch and power setting, you will get the same airspeed and rate of climb or descent. You can climb, descend, and fly straight and level, using a particular power setting and a visual reference where the nose appears relative to the horizon. Doing it the same way every time without ever thinking about it. Frees up some RAM.

And now, gallery? Pick that apart.

And on a thermic day?
 
In the few times I've done it, it was to judge if I was clear of another aircraft as I taxiied past. Every time I've tried it, it worked. YMMV.

Always worked for me.

The scenario is taxiing along and wondering if your wingtip is going to clear the radome of that Aztec.

As long as you can see the shadows and the shadows don't touch, the wingtip will not hit the radome. Logical, since the sun's rays are parallel.

I have one heck of a time knowing where my wingtip is with any certainty, and I've used that tip to good effect for almost 40 years.

It does work.
 
And now, gallery? Pick that apart.

The first time you encounter rising air, that's going to scare the **** out of you.

I've done a Vno climb in a 172. Just once. How does that fit into your "tip?" The only thing slightly special was a 180 HP engine conversion (with a flap restriction to 30 deg, but that doesn't matter for a climb). 180 HP isn't nearly enough by itself.

I think it was a clear-air mountain wave encounter, though it was in a location where people don't worry about those much (low altitude).
 
Sweet. I was practicing landing in a turn in the Luscombe and got some very strange looks. Here Brian Lansburgh shows you how it is done.



That's cool as school and all, but when would you ever need to do that as a necessary maneuver landing?

I can see for fun, but it looks tough on the plane. And he's dragging it in on power. If the engine coughs, he's in the weeds.

I was up today. It was a beautiful day and I thought about it, but the old skywagon is unforgiving enough. I chickened out.

Squawk! :lol:
 
:rofl: The nits are there, all ready for the picking.
 
The first time you encounter rising air, that's going to scare the **** out of you.
...
I've done a Vno climb in a 172. Just once. How does that fit into your "tip?".

Does this invalidate anything I said about pitch and power producing a certain performance? If so, how? :rolleyes2:
 
Does this invalidate anything I said about pitch and power producing a certain performance? If so, how? :rolleyes2:

No it does not, but my CFI has told me many many times that any speed, and any power, can be used for any type of flight as long as you follow the basic rules: pitch, power, then trim so you get the desired results. If charts help you great, everyone learns differently. My training is concentrating on feeling the controls, listening to the engine, looking out the window, glancing at the instruments on occasion. Really knowing what the plane is telling you, and situational awareness.
 
No it does not, but my CFI has told me many many times that any speed, and any power, can be used for any type of flight as long as you follow the basic rules: pitch, power, then trim so you get the desired results. If charts help you great, everyone learns differently. My training is concentrating on feeling the controls, listening to the engine, looking out the window, glancing at the instruments on occasion. Really knowing what the plane is telling you, and situational awareness.

Any power? Including no power? ;)

Just pulling your leg of course and picking those nits ... the key phrase in your comment is "as long as you follow the basic rules" which pretty much means a certain pitch and a certain power combination will always give you a certain performance.
 
which pretty much means a certain pitch and a certain power combination will always give you a certain performance.

Umm no. There is plenty of sinking air out there at velocities greater then the best rate of climb on GA airplanes. Watcha gonna do when you pitch and power for best ROC and find yourself descending? Deny reality? But my instructor said...
 
Umm no. There is plenty of sinking air out there at velocities greater then the best rate of climb on GA airplanes. Watcha gonna do when you pitch and power for best ROC and find yourself descending? Deny reality? But my instructor said...

Knee-jerk contrarians are so tiresome. OK, you go find your "sinking air" and the rest of us--and our instructors--will fly in the 99.9% of normal air where pitch + power = performance.
 
One of my scariest moments so far was likely wake turbulence at around 3000 feet. We never saw the heavy (were on flight following so nobody was that close either, but were in a heavy traffic area), were cruising nice, straight and level, when the right wing felt like it completely lost lift for a second. We pitched about 35 degrees to the right and dropped 25 to 50 feet, the plane quickly righted itself, no problems. Scared the crap out of both of us though, followed by the CFI deciding that it was actually fun.
 
Here's an engine tip:

Remove the oil filler cap after a flight and watch all that steam and yuck exhale before roosting your bird.
 
Knee-jerk contrarians are so tiresome. OK, you go find your "sinking air" and the rest of us--and our instructors--will fly in the 99.9% of normal air where pitch + power = performance.

You're everyone's problem. That's because every time you go up in the air, you're unsafe. I don't like you because you're dangerous.
 
Any power? Including no power? ;)

Just pulling your leg of course and picking those nits ... the key phrase in your comment is "as long as you follow the basic rules" which pretty much means a certain pitch and a certain power combination will always give you a certain performance.

So, which combination of pitch and power will give you a Vno climb? Pick your favorite trainer and be specific.

I've done this. Understand how, and maybe you'll find the limitations of your "tip." Hint: "Always" isn't even close.

You seem to have a tendency for wild generalizations. Please tell me you're a student pilot who is still trying to figure things out. Almost all of your tips have been wrong.
 
Well, the Asiana crew came up short (literally) in at least one of those areas - probably more.

Best to remember that the PIC had over 12,000 hours, which I'm sure included all of the requisite proficiency checks.

As an aside, ValueJet had to change its name after it became a prefix to the word "crash". I wonder if Asiana will have to do so as well.

Uhhh..why would they? They had a crash. American has smashed up a few too and they didn't have to change their name.
 
I'm pretty sure this next tip will not generate yet another "TEH IZ STOOPID" remark from the peanut gallery, filtered for your refreshment.

One thing that helped me a bunch was getting my instructor to make a table of specific pitch and power settings for every configuration in normal flight and then I memorized them.
The thinking is that for each particular pitch and power setting, you will get the same airspeed and rate of climb or descent. You can climb, descend, and fly straight and level, using a particular power setting and a visual reference where the nose appears relative to the horizon. Doing it the same way every time without ever thinking about it. Frees up some RAM.

And now, gallery? Pick that apart.

Why didn't you do the flight tests and make your own table? You realize that none of this stuff is fixed in a small plane right? Everything is variable with load.
 
Knee-jerk contrarians are so tiresome. OK, you go find your "sinking air" and the rest of us--and our instructors--will fly in the 99.9% of normal air where pitch + power = performance.

You're from Boise, which leads me to believe at some point you might be exposed to some mountain waves. I'd listen to the more experienced pilots on this board.... (not talking about myself -- I'm just a student)
 
You're from Boise, which leads me to believe at some point you might be exposed to some mountain waves. I'd listen to the more experienced pilots on this board.... (not talking about myself -- I'm just a student)

On that note, if you are flying into the wind toward a ridge a ways back and the airplane starts climbing uncommanded, climb with it; in a few moments you will be going into a descent that you will not be able to out climb that will leave you below the terrain height. Conversely when you get into the descent portion of the wave, put the nose down some for airspeed to get out the back side of it as fast as you can. Also when going around a peak, go to windward.
 
I'm pretty sure this next tip will not generate yet another "TEH IZ STOOPID" remark from the peanut gallery, filtered for your refreshment.

One thing that helped me a bunch was getting my instructor to make a table of specific pitch and power settings for every configuration in normal flight and then I memorized them.
The thinking is that for each particular pitch and power setting, you will get the same airspeed and rate of climb or descent. You can climb, descend, and fly straight and level, using a particular power setting and a visual reference where the nose appears relative to the horizon. Doing it the same way every time without ever thinking about it. Frees up some RAM.

And now, gallery? Pick that apart.

That's good practice and certainly something you will want to have down cold for your instrument rating. I do agree with Henning, that this is something you do on your own.

You are mistaken if you think I want to pick everything you say apart. That is a straw man response and saves you the trouble of actually considering what I and at least one other said about shadows or responding to it with other than a "it worked for me" quip.

edit: Another fellow brought up the thing about the sun's rays being parallel. That is a more cogent response and one that gives me food for thought. I see where he is going there but again we have to assume that both shadows are visible to you from the cockpit and also not obscured by the airframe of either aircraft.
 
Last edited:
So, which combination of pitch and power will give you a Vno climb? Pick your favorite trainer and be specific.

I've done this. Understand how, and maybe you'll find the limitations of your "tip." Hint: "Always" isn't even close.

You seem to have a tendency for wild generalizations. Please tell me you're a student pilot who is still trying to figure things out. Almost all of your tips have been wrong.

I love people who criticize yet never have positive input of your own. You still have not shown me why pitch + power = performance is wrong. Instead, you choose a very limited example to stand on, and even that's not a refutation.

Here's another tip, genius: NO ONE FLIES BASED ON THE SMALL NUMBER OF TIMES THEY MAY RUN INTO EXTREME SITUATIONS. This is the fallacy of No True Scotsman. It's also called being an irrational jerk-off contrarian.
Not All Flights Are Like That. Yeah, no ****.

Generalizations ARE HOW HUMANS conduct their lives. No one but idiots live as if the smallest of all probabilities have higher weight than they do.

Since you've shown yourself a moron, I'm going to ignore you. G'bye.
 
You're from Boise, which leads me to believe at some point you might be exposed to some mountain waves. I'd listen to the more experienced pilots on this board.... (not talking about myself -- I'm just a student)

Are people completely off their rockers on this board? Yes, mountain waves--you know, the ones they warn you about, and to stay away from if possible BECAUSE THEY ARE DANGEROUS? It STILL does not invalidate my tip about getting performance numbers for your aircraft.

Listen, there are flight regimes that will invalidate ANY generalized rule about flying. If you overload the aircraft, you're now a conducting a flight test and strange things may happen to you, up to and including getting killed. Pointing out "hey, WHAT ABOUT WHEN YOU'RE OVERLOADED?!! HMMMM???" to invalidate a general point is ridiculous and bordering on manic.
 
Why didn't you do the flight tests and make your own table? You realize that none of this stuff is fixed in a small plane right? Everything is variable with load.

Henning?! You mean that it is POSSIBLE to make a table of performance figures for your aircraft??!! WHAT ABOUT TEH MOUNTAIN WAVE AND Vno climbs and SEEEEENKING AIR??!
 
Henning?! You mean that it is POSSIBLE to make a table of performance figures for your aircraft??!! WHAT ABOUT TEH MOUNTAIN WAVE AND Vno climbs and SEEEEENKING AIR??!

Well, for a student pilot coming on a board and asking about tips, you sure have come out with a **** attitude. They are completely different issues. With that, I am done with one final question, "what recip plane will climb at Vno?"
 
edit: Another fellow brought up the thing about the sun's rays being parallel. That is a more cogent response and one that gives me food for thought. I see where he is going there but again we have to assume that both shadows are visible to you from the cockpit and also not obscured by the airframe of either aircraft.

I think that was me.

All true.

Taught to me when learning in high wing trainers in S FL, so both shadows were usually visible on sunny days.

And my current Sky Arrow is high wing, so works there as well.

I think my rule-of-thumb would be: "If you can see both shadows, then if the shadows do not touch then the items in question will not touch".

Now, the inverse is not necessary true. The shadows may touch and you can still clear the object by going over or under it. But if at the same level, watch out!
 
I think that was me.

All true.

Taught to me when learning in high wing trainers in S FL, so both shadows were usually visible on sunny days.

And my current Sky Arrow is high wing, so works there as well.

I think my rule-of-thumb would be: "If you can see both shadows, then if the shadows do not touch then the items in question will not touch".

Now, the inverse is not necessary true. The shadows may touch and you can still clear the object by going over or under it. But if at the same level, watch out!


I can't count how many times I've taxied into overlapping shadows. That's the benefit of three dimensions.
 
That's good practice and certainly something you will want to have down cold for your instrument rating. I do agree with Henning, that this is something you do on your own.

WHAT?! You mean to tell me that even IN SPITE of sinking air and sinking air, and mountain waves, you SHOULD generate a performance table for your aircraft? Say it ain't so!

You are mistaken if you think I want to pick everything you say apart. That is a straw man response and saves you the trouble of actually considering what I and at least one other said about shadows or responding to it with other than a "it worked for me" quip.

I don't think you know what I'm thinking. I allowed that you may be right, but as for me, it worked. YMMV means Your Mileage May Vary. As for whether it turned out that I may have, after all, been right, I'll leave it to your edit following:

edit: Another fellow brought up the thing about the sun's rays being parallel. That is a more cogent response and one that gives me food for thought. I see where he is going there but again we have to assume that both shadows are visible to you from the cockpit and also not obscured by the airframe of either aircraft.
 
Well, for a student pilot coming on a board and asking about tips, you sure have come out with a **** attitude. They are completely different issues. With that, I am done with one final question, "what recip plane will climb at Vno?"

Ah come on, Henning. I'm asking for tips. Every time I've gotten one, I've thanked the person, including you and profusely. Every time I've given a tip that I've learned from more experienced CFIs, there's been one or another person going off on how stupid the tip is and how it's too generalized, blah, blah.

If Henning with all that experience agrees that generating a performance table can be a good thing, well then it goes towards validating that tip in spite of the tiny exceptions to the rule.
 
I'm pretty sure this next tip will not generate yet another "TEH IZ STOOPID" remark from the peanut gallery, filtered for your refreshment.



One thing that helped me a bunch was getting my instructor to make a table of specific pitch and power settings for every configuration in normal flight and then I memorized them.

The thinking is that for each particular pitch and power setting, you will get the same airspeed and rate of climb or descent. You can climb, descend, and fly straight and level, using a particular power setting and a visual reference where the nose appears relative to the horizon. Doing it the same way every time without ever thinking about it. Frees up some RAM.



And now, gallery? Pick that apart.


Instrument flight, day one. Nothing stupid about it at all.
 
Ah come on, Henning. I'm asking for tips. Every time I've gotten one, I've thanked the person, including you and profusely. Every time I've given a tip that I've learned from more experienced CFIs, there's been one or another person going off on how stupid the tip is and how it's too generalized, blah, blah.

If Henning with all that experience agrees that generating a performance table can be a good thing, well then it goes towards validating that tip in spite of the tiny exceptions to the rule.

I have absolutely no issue with developing a performance table as there is much to be learned in the development phase. Asking to be handed a table though is counter productive to learning to fly an airplane because you never learn what happens outside those numbers, and learning what happens as you deviate from the prime is more important to know than what the prime is. This is the big difference between VFR small plane flying and IFR transport plane flying. With small planes the prime is the exception in operations where as in transport the prime is the primary mode of operations, and you will note that in transport planes the primes themselves are tabulated by weight and conditions which is why having one set of numbers to use as your settings is setting yourself up for failure, or at least difficulty. When you develop a table you need to develop at least three tables, solo with minimum fuel, mid weight at two up front and half fuel, and one at max gross. That way you have decent numbers to work off of. Even given an accurate base set of numbers, when you're in proximity phases of flight such as pattern work, you still have wind corrections to make as they will alter your path for any given set of numbers. This is why teaching initial flight training "by the numbers" is not that great of a thing because it limits the students use of perception. This was also a factor in the Asiana crash at SFO.
 
Are people completely off their rockers on this board? Yes, mountain waves--you know, the ones they warn you about, and to stay away from if possible BECAUSE THEY ARE DANGEROUS? It STILL does not invalidate my tip about getting performance numbers for your aircraft.

Listen, there are flight regimes that will invalidate ANY generalized rule about flying. If you overload the aircraft, you're now a conducting a flight test and strange things may happen to you, up to and including getting killed. Pointing out "hey, WHAT ABOUT WHEN YOU'RE OVERLOADED?!! HMMMM???" to invalidate a general point is ridiculous and bordering on manic.

Look, people aren't completely off their rockers. I think the thing you're missing is that flying well in ideal conditions isn't the challenge of flying. Most GA disasters occur when even slightly unexpected conditions arise -- be it unexpected weather, etc. An updraft or a downdraft is not a rarity -- as any glider pilot can tell you. These everyday occurrences are very different from flying a plane that is outside weight and balance spec (I hope you were just being snarky, rather than actually believing that the two are comparable).

MOST important, I think that what some people are commenting on is the fact that your attitude SEEMS (I don't know you, I'm just judging from the tone of your comments) really cocky and know-it-all-ish -- and that's a really good way to get yourself (and others) killed in GA. Apologies if I'm misreading you -- I'm simply commenting on other people's reactions to you, as well as your own tone.

Good luck!
 
Back
Top