Energy Management: Speed vs. Altitude and everywhere in between
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 07. 2017
- Season 3, Episode 4
When you watch someone flying on CZcams, you can't comment on the safety of their approach unless you can see both their airspeed and their altimeter. Plain and simple. Aviation is all about converting energy from one form to another to get where you want to go. Need a better example? Glider pilots pay for one installment of energy when they get towed up to altitude, and live off of that energy and what they can find in their environment for hours on end. As always, I am only a pilot sharing my thoughts on the industry. Only a licensed flight instructor can provide advice on aircraft operation, so befriend one as quickly as you can!
Hey, did you guys know that the FAA actually certifies flight instructors to tell you everything that I try to convey in these videos? You should definitely talk to one of them instead of trusting some video you found on the internet, because who am I to tell you how to fly? I'm just a pilot sharing my experiences with the world, and these videos are not meant to be instructional or advisory in any respect.
For a full explanation of this disclaimer, see: friendlyskiesfilm.com/episodes
Homepage: www.friendlyskiesfilm.com
Patreon: / friendlyskiesfilm
Facebook: / friendlyskiesfilm
Thanks to all my supporters on Patreon!
$50 - Matt Byrne
$20 - Christopher Nelson
$10 - Jarrett Duncovich
$10 - Christopher Roberts
$10 - Phil Copley
$10 - Jared Burns
$10 - Jeff Scorse
$10 - TerriblePlan
$10 - Steffen Holzt
$10 - Mike Beattie
$10 - Larry Woodworth
$10 - Spencer Maze
$5 - Chris Patti
$5 - Paul Bergman
$5 - Luca Muller
$5 - Even Smith
$5 - Maxim Pieuchot
$5 - Ken Warren
$5 - Scott
$5 - David Ennis
$5 - Dan R.
$5 - Shaun Kruger
$5 - Jack Hill
$5 - Vlad Railian
$5 - Luca Muller
$3 - David Remedios
$3 - bizzy.tv
$3 - Flushf00t
$3 - Walt Heatherly
$2 - Tim Farrar
$2 - Gary Veduccio
$1 - Darren Tung
$1 - Chris Sinsigalli
$1 - Ben Richards
$1 - Tyler Rafferty
$1 - Reuben
$1 - Mark McKinney
$1 - Nacho Soto
$1 - Jason Hanley
$1 - Bruno Vanhalst
$1 - David Pettersson
$1 - Nick Cidis
$1 - Erik Patton
$1 - Dylan Marriott
$1 - iFlyToo
$1 - Jacob
$1 - Dean Robinson
$1 - Benny Lofgren
$1 - Andrew John Hobbs
$1 - Fabian Peter Hammerle
$1 - John Tucker
$1 - Let'sJustFly.tv
$1 - Texas Gooney Bird
$1 - Anonymous
$1 - James Bond
$1 - Frank Durham
$1 - Edward Iangebek
$1 - Yasin Khan
$1 - Randy Cabrera
$1 - Eric Sharp
$1 - Eric Pinheiro
$1 - Kel
$1 - Luis Ochoa
If you love my aviation videos, please consider subscribing and donating even one dollar per video to / friendlyskiesfilm Every little bit helps and allows me to bring you more awesome aviation experiences. -Nick Cyganski - Zábava
Good stuff. We talked about this very thing on the oral of the CFI checkride.
Nice to see both of you checking each other's videos out. Makes for wider topic choices.
I think I've held conversations with everyone except... Captain Moonbeam??
Steveo
MrAviation
FlightChops
PremierAviationHD
Swayne Martin
Matt Guthmiller
Guido
Anyone missing?
There really IS a Captain Moonbeam!!
Nick, I am a nerdy engineer (EE) working for Rockwell Collins as well as a new pilot. I love your videos when they bend toward science and physics. This sets you apart from the rest of the pack. Keep them coming. Oh and maybe another one with a non-pilot forced to take over. That was a riot!
Glad I'm not the only engineer pilot out there :)
One of the reasons I think simple air brake systems (that don't increase lift- only drag) should become standard on GA. Wouldn't add much weight at all, nor need be terribly complex or expensive. But this way you could always come in quite fast and then once a good landing position is secured and imminent, slowly apply the air brakes while simultaneously nosing up to keep altitude steady as needed and then very quickly you find yourself on the ground. This type of system would always ensure tons of stored energy in case you needed it for some reason and, of course, make stalling or spinning on approach mostly a thing of the past, even for novice pilots.
The system you’re describing would be complex to the extent that it would require both engineering and rigging. And adding an extra gizmo to an otherwise uncomplicated panel is unnecessary. Such a system would require practice because coming in fast is not always necessary or desirable. A better suggestion would be to practice making stabilized approaches at the correct airspeeds. But on the off chance you’re coming in hot, as in let’s say 80 knots after a 90 knot ILS approach when you’d rather be at 60 over the fence, a quick tap dance on the rudder pedals while on short final will bleed off a lot of extra speed in a hurry. Most airplanes don’t need what you’re proposing here.
Gliders use spoilers with similar thoughts in mind while both the S-3 and F-14 used such too. Thing is they didn’t come in fast nor do gliders. Instead they come in on speed using pitch (pitch trim really) to control AOA while they use the spoilers in lieu of or in addition to power changes for glide slope. Such spoilers are nice as, if you’re on a high wire, add the drag to sink, then reduce the drag and you’re on. Two corrections instead of three. To do such by power, you need to reduce power to achieve a steep wire then add power to override momentum then partially reduce again to maintain the new on altitude wire. Gliders will usually make approaches with half spoiler as the norm so as to have ability to add some if high and to reduce some if low.
@@TenMinuteTrips tap dancing on rudders is dangerous. Puts excessive stress on the empennage. Single step inputs to slip are ok but forward slipping is more about altitude loss than decelerating.
This is EXACTLY how I imagined energy management when I first learned about it! Great video!
Then you're a step ahead of the gang :)
thanks for that video- it ranks right up there at the top of my list and now i need to learn more about the subject- i had thought this issue was out there but i had not gotten to the point where you are now so thanks for the effort, nice work
This is awesome can't wait to try it and the sim and talk to my instructor about and maybe even try it out with him a few times
I would add that one more Amazing pilot who did something that personally amazed me anyways was a guy named Tex Johnston who did a roll too... But he was in a Boeing 707 airliner ;-)
Enjoy your videos and was surprised to see you flying good ole' N8027F. That's the same plane I did my training in, way back in 1978. Took a look at my logbook and found I also flew 27F for my PPL check-ride on July 28th, 1978. FYI, 27F started its life in 1976 as brand new rental leaseback on the line at Air Marin at KDVO in Novato, CA.
No kidding!! What an unique thing that we have in common, then! Thank you so much for sharing! It's so delightful to look back in 40 years of logbooks and know some of the people behind it :)
It was my favorite airplane back in the day, a very straight flyer. Looks like you guys take great care of it. Keep up the terrific work and come over to PilotStack on CZcams to let me know what you think. We just started our own channel. Complete rookies at this point!
Nice explanation, and quite an impressive demonstration to boot... absolutely perfectly timed.
Glad I could be of service, mate :)
Excellent video. Like everyone, I learnt to wallow down the approach at 70 kts. After I gained my license I immediately started my IMC rating, where I was taught to fly the ILS down to 200 feet, decision to land or not then either go into missed approach or quickly lose the energy and make a normal landing. This became my normal technique in all circumstances except when the circuit was busy and I had to slow down for traffic ahead. Furthermore, I found out by a nod and a wink that all my instructors did that as well. IMHO this is a slightly more advanced technique and should not be attempted without prior instruction as for an inexperienced student there is scope for things to get away from you quicker than your experience level can cope with, but once you've got a few hours under your belt, then a few circuit sessions with a good instructor on this technique is very valuable.
*Love* the visualisations and clear explanations! Thanks for yet another fantastic video :)
I do my best!!
That was Awesome. Good to Know. Thanks for Sharing 👍
I'm glad to see a powered guy finally thinking in terms of energy. Well done!
Bob Hoover...Roll not a loop. The famous tea cup roll
Yeah, I know. I was trying to fly a plane and plan a video at the same time as making one :P
Multi, multi tasking. ;)
Yup...fixed
Some we in aviation call a "voice over" during editing would have fixed that from being on CZcams. Good job though. I did have a bit of a cringe moment you said, "probably climb up a thousand feet". That would depend on a lot of factors for sure, such as how much energy you might bleed in the pull to start the climb, mass, drag, wing loading and if you had a lot more than 50 extra knots to waste. IMHO. I've put it on the runway 12 / 13 times, already being over FL180 is your friend. :-)
Top-notch editing. Thank you for your great work!
Glad you enjoyed :)
... loud and clear bro, now they are starting to understand ... this is
what my instructor was freaking out when he saw it from me the 1-st
time ...BTW - the lower you go - higher the pressure, as well ... keep 'em coming.
(Aussie tree top flyer).
Sorry the video was an hour late... I had a 3hr delay flying back from Florida yesterday, which may have inspired another video... We shall see.
Thanks for providing a great explanation!
I do my best!
I saw Bob Hoover twice at local air shows. He is an excellent example of what you are showing. He tuned off both engines at altitude and then did loop and low pass and climbed back up and did more and then landed without engine power and coasted to a stop at just the right spot in front of the people.
I would have loved to see that so much :( He will be very missed.
Incredible video and the information on was great too....Awesome job....Thank you
Glad you enjoyed, my friend :)
That was a great practical demonstration.
So glad it was effective :)
Great explanation and illustration. I loved the video.
Excellent. Glad you thought so :)
great video Nick. especially 0:35 :-
Here's a question for you: In a glider, that does not have the luxury of that third tank of fuel energy, what would you do if:
a) you are starting to fall short of the runway?
b) you were too high? (and for this discussion, lets take away side slip and spoilers, you can only adjust the speed)
Answer:
a) If you are short, push the nose down and pick up speed, it will carry you further,
b) if you are high, raise the nose, slow down, you will increase your descent and reduce forward speed, thus increasing your descent angle.
Since every glider landing is a dead stick landing, energy management is key, the above seems counter intuitive and yes, I have had some students doubt this, until it is demonstrated in practice. NASA did study this, happy and they agree :-)
Go visit a glider field, take a couple flights, you will be a better pilot for it.
Fly Safe
Ding!
czcams.com/video/MKSThgiLieU/video.html
Interesting thing. This was also applied to WW2 dogfighting. Get up high, go steep down and attack from the rear, going fast and then out climb the other plane.
Enjoyed your video and detailed explanation. Using your video as a tool for learning and best practice, don’t forget, the yellow arc is only to be entered in smooth air! Fly and keep safe.
Brilliant!
Too kind ;)
Hi Sonia .. Delorenko I enjoy watching your videos and pictures on instagram
im glad to hear that! thank you for following along!
I liked this episode because it's something I think about. It indeed makes sense to begin your approach with more energy because you can lose excess energy in other ways but gaining it back quickly isn't so easy. I'm sure this is easier to manage the smaller the aircraft. I can't believe how often lacking this understanding turns into mistakes for people not monitoring or visualizing their available energy (or, like your suggestion, subconsciously scanning the field every few seconds for a place to lay down the plane). This is just as important in automobiles... we don't all have to be physics majors, but understanding and controlling any vehicle involves truly understanding the physics surrounding you. I really enjoy doing that myself. Thank you for another great show!
Great review, friend! Amen to understanding or "feeling" basic physics. I often wonder if the people I see doing stupid things on the road even understand friction ;P
Good stuff man, keep it coming!
You know it! :)
Love the scientific approach to debunking aviation myths. Thanks for another great video!
Doing our best! :)
Thank you very much for all your videos. I really like the way you explain things and give people (like myself) new things to think about! Greetings from a student pilot from Germany
I do my best! So many German pilots! Thanks for always saying hello :)
Lol the last comment reminded me of being a kid hearing Hal Johnson and joanne Macleod in body break commercials. ."keep fit and have fun!" Lol good video again
GREAT VIDEO FAMILY. THANKS FOR SHARING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Glad you enjoyed :)
The animation of the energy reservoirs was pretty cool, I dig it!
Yeah? That means I did my job :)
nice work! thanks
Good video, different approach gets some fresh views/comments for the prime lesson I've seen in every type of flying done.
Everyone's heard of the Old & the Bold pilots. Might have even met more than a few who think they're both.
Not going to meet any low, slow pilots - unless tasked with digging them up.
How about this one. "What do you do when you run out of altitude & airspeed at the same time?"
"Crash"
When it comes right down to it, a bit of cushion is needed for both, or you won't get the chance to make a trade off for the one you need more at the time.
True, true. Have a safety buffer no matter how you do it. Well said.
Best video ever.
FANTASTIC topic. Definitely needs a follow up after all these good questions. How did you know you needed flaps to two at the last second when you were close to 60 mph already. I still can't remember nose for speed, power for elevation... or the opposite. More details please next time including effect of wind gusts from each direction while coasting with power down. Terrific, graphics too!!
When I did my "emergency engine out" landings during training, there was one thing that I relied on: gliding. TBH, my glider experience has made me a significantly better pilot. Not only did it teach me stick and rudder skills, it taught me excellent energy management. Knowing how and when to pitch for airspeed is such a great skill I have acquired from it that I became significantly better at flying my approach. As a matter of fact, I was able to pull off a VERY short approach from a downwind entry. Like turning final at only a couple hundred feet AGL and less than a quarter mile while putting it on the landing markers short. All because I learned how to nail landings in a glider.
I've heard this story so many times, and been soaring myself several times. You're absolutely correct :)
What's the longest you've gone for? My personal best is 3.5 hours and 7,700 from a 2000 foot tow. It was absolutely stunning, to say the least. The purest form of flight IMHO. :-)
What I like to tell people is a pilot mitigates risk and manages energy
Well put!
Just wanna say: excellent video and production! Keep it up.
Just wanna say: thanks, mate! :)
The fearful will always fear, which is why we don't rely on them to educate, innovate, or create. Your efforts are commendable & appreciated by many of us. Thank you.
Without promoting silly behavior, those are some wise sounding words about life you got there :)
Good lesson. We crop dusters use Wolfgang's (S&R) Law of the Roller Coaster to absorb as much energy as is available both spraying in the field and on takeoff. Using the basic level in low ground effect until cruise airspeed (with available runway or unobstructed space) and then pitch up only enough to clear any obstructions. That gives us maximum ground effect energy available. Same in the field, we spray in low ground effect and use that kinetic energy to climb out of the field. As we slow in the climb to a couple hundred feet or so (Pawnee...Air Tractor might be 400') we release back pressure when we bank to turn back to the field. Now we are spending the potential energy of that 200' of altitude going back into the field. If we lose the engine either coming out of the field (I've had seven of those) or on takeoff (only two), we have safe maneuvering airspeed to get to the very near in the hemisphere in front of the wing landing site. If your engine quits at Vx or Vy and 400', your energy state is crap.
Great explanation and dynamic diagrams. Still going to practice, slow steep approaches though! In all seriousness, great video.
Glad you enjoyed :)
This edited really well, liked
I try! Glad you enjoyed :)
wrong! MONEY is what makes a plane fly!
Agh! Someone already beat you to that one, but I was waiting for it!! Ahaha
Second to that, is thrust. Give a brick enough and it'll fly. yay newtonian lift!
I was about to say you got me, but thrust is just vectored energy ;)
Who knew there was actually some good in the comment section.
Agreed, but true flight sim is expensive too. My original comment still stands haha
Good way to explain it all :)
This totally makes sense and is a great thing to have formally explained. So far i've really only sort of had this idea of energy management in my guy, so thank you for putting it out there! Also if you've ever flown an rc fixed wing, then you'll really understand how this stuff works!!
I actually really agree with that! Because you can experiment and do so much more with an RC plane, it does really enhance your vision of things.
Yes, and because you see it in third person view. Now that i've been a student pilot for a year, i look back and actually realize how much rc flying has taught me! its quite the learning tool!
Absolutely!! I was thinking about doing a video on that soon.
Still in awe at the end of this video of the sub-video showing pouring water into a cup while doing a spin! Even more impressive if the cup was free to slide off the surface. Wonderful video. Would have been nice if there was an explanation of any deliberate attempts during the landing to bleed off speed and reveal there was easily an option to keep the energy and continue flying past the runway if needed.
Really an incredible pilot who will be very missed... :(
Did you say that cancer got him? Sad how many people get claimed by cancer these days.
I don't know for certain but I don't think it was cancer. Bob Hoover was 94. Unfortunately we can't live forever. I sure hope I make 94 and remain spry.
To demonstrate how good the content and presentation is of this guys vids, Im not even a pilot but I watch them to learn things about flight I never knew. i will be sad if this channel ever ceases.Ok serious question, I know vfr and ifr and imc. but what does squawk mean? why should we squawk visual flight rules?
Squawking is the act of setting your four-digit transponder code to either what ATC tells you to, or 1200, indicating that you are flying around doing whatever you want in VFR conditions. These codes show up on ATC radar screens. As for my catch phrase, an ATC named Bob told me to do that on Nantucket once :) So glad you enjoy the channel.
Great video!
Thanks, mate!
Excellent explanation sir , love the channel - greetings from Colorado
Glad you thought so! :)
Thanks for the info
I do my best :)
Ive seen the ratio's explained like this before. It's an interesting angle.
It's the only "correct" angle as far as I'm concerned, but that's what makes me an engineer, I suppose ;P
As I said it's an interesting and legit take. But I would not use it as primary flight training. There is not enough emphasis on the lift/drag coefficient for the student.
There are two different types of drag. Parasite drag and induced drag.
Thanks ...will make sure and come in from 1/4 mile at 130mph!
When I was finishing my PPL training, my instructor tested me on an engine out emergency while on the downwind leg.
I turned direct to the threshold, skimmed over the trees surrounding the field, put out my flaps at the edge of the runway, made a 45 degree turn about ten feet off the ground, and pasted it right onto the centerline, safe as can be the whole time.
How?
Energy Management.
Also, flying with a former Estonian Air Force pilot... He was a complete psycho, but he taught me a lot.
"Landing With Applications" is one of them.
Well done! Used to do those with my instructor all the time too. Great way to practice!
awesome graphics
Thanks, mate :)
next time my physics teacher talks about GPE to KE and etc. i am going to put this video on the projector
Thank you for this!
You are very welcome for this :)
What can I say - I love videos like this that discuss energy management! :)
A rarely fully understood topic, for sure!
There's the total store of money that keeps the airplane flying. But it's a leaky system, with money disappearing due to fuel expense, repairs and maintenance, and demanding girlfriends.
hahahha
There is one Problem with this theory: More airspeed means more drag. You loose your airspeed energy very fast when you're flying fast. You can see this when you accelerate with your plane: getting from 60 to 80 knots is very easy, getting from 120 to 140 knots is much more difficult and takes much more time. In fact, you have more useable energy when you're flying high and slow than when you're flying low and fast.
Nice vid
You make your point very well, great job on an excellent production. I would wager though that a low approach is still less safe; not from a total energy reason but for a plethora of other hard learned lessons costing the lives of many good aviators. For me, I will stick to the advice of the Flight Safety Foundation; you should take the time to check out their offerings and more importantly how they present it.
It's a good point, and a good idea to think about the ACTUAL explanation of why something is/isn't dangerous, from the standpoint of physics and aerodynamics. It avoids the "mistery" that some people put into certain aspects of flying which then turn into irrational fears, which then are passed on from instructors to future pilots....
If you never heard of him, google Noel Kruse. He's a former Australian fighter pilot who founded the Sydney's aerobatic school. He has a website in which he offers some manuals written by himself and he tackles many of this "misterys" that were made in aviation, they're called "Fly Better". take a look at them if you can, they pretty interesting ;)
As for this video, there's one more thing to be taken into account: How much drag the airplane has. The more aerodynamic("slippery") the plane is, the slower it loses kinetic energy and the most range it has after losing the engine. Try it in a fast Mooney and it might be ok, try it in a Piper Cub, and the plane bleeds of that excess speed very quickly, giving you less options...
Happy Flying!
Great thinking and great comment. Thanks for sharing and same to you! :)
Precision is important - too much energy can be as bad as too little. The whole point of the approach is to get rid of energy gradually. Precise control of energy using intuition would be harder to do than judging glide angles in my opinion. Carrying "tons of energy" in a draggy light plane is one thing, quite different in a fiberglass sailplane.
Low and fast also effects your ability to react to unusual situations (say, bird strike).
Question- What if we DONT squawk VFR because we wanna do IFR?
I've been asking myself this recently as I've been logging more simulated instrument hours....
Setting your transponder to something other than 1200 is not all that is required to fly IFR. You need to file IFR and get a clearance which will include a discreet transponder code. You also need to be instrument rated to do this.
CloudStreets if I'm not mistaken isn't svfr actually an instrument procedure that can be flown by a non- instrument rated pilot? Lol. Love these comments. It's forcing me to look up stuff I haven't thought about in years.
Now you know how I feel, haha. It's definitely the best way to learn.
Very nice demonstration. You will find in your IFR approaches, because of the recommended approach speed, you will always have too much energy. For training planes you are 90 to 100 knots, on glideslope and at minimums. That is a lot of energy at 200 feet or so above the ground, on an ILS, and a short distance to the runway,.
Very true! I've been noticing that recently as I've been practicing my ILS approaches.
I say Bob Hoover at an air show. It was impressive.
Very lucky!
You ever see him fly. He really was amazing.
that will definitely help man, thank you. I always try to be concious of how much energy I have but this really made it click in my head. that's awesome.
PERFECT! I had hoped that it would help somebody get the whole picture :)
I'm actually going to speak to our CTKI to add this in our ground theory, it's so well explained and I'm going to try it out, safely, in my next round of circuits :) Keep up the great videos!
That's what we like to do! Experiment and understand your aircraft and the air around you :)
Thanks for the info...so its energy management and not power management? I don't know if this can apply after an engine failure in flight, but could it be possible to glide at a higher speed and still achieve the same range without thrust as you've mentioned more air speed is safer?
It definitely applies without an engine, as any glider pilot would be happy to tell you. As I said at 4:05, in that case, the safest thing to do is to pitch for Vgs. This was merely an extreme example of how you can trade one for another.
Agreed. The people that will fight you are mechanical pilots who fly by the numbers they were taught and don't actually understand flying... or a few that are just REALLY risk adverse. I personally run in to more of the former than the latter. A lot of the former think they're the latter, though, lol.
Wow, now that would be an interesting piece of psychology to get into!
this is only applicable with heawy and good glide ratio aircrafts, but not with ultralights , draggy aircrafts, STOL (like CH701-750) or who have a low inertia and or high drag/low glide ratio .High approach is always safer in case of a engine problem because it's always easier to increase the descent rate (by sideslip, speedbrakes, flaps...) as to increase the glide ratio ...
Definitely felt that with the ultralight I flew in Hawaii! So true!
Climbing is with Power converting chemical to potential; zooming is converting kinetic to potential. Zooming and diving pair while climbing and descending pair. You confused climbing with zooming. Descending is using less power so as to let drag win the balance such that you lose potential while holding kinetic constant. Even with no engine, such as with gliders, you see this as those spoilers add / subtract drag in a way mechanized to act like your throttle or power lever. This zoom/dive vs climb/descend distinction becomes consequential in that float you’re showing in this video. If you dive while on the back side, you’ll float long. This, in turn, gets to an interesting point. You only need to fly front side and front side techniques if in a turbine engine airplane which has longer spoolup versus piston propeller response times as you can use power techniques which we typically mislabel as backside techniques anywhere on the curve. True backside techniques mean pull up to slow increasing drag to descend then dump the nose to catch if high or push to float if low, which obviously we don’t want to do as it is easy to mess up. This is why Navy jets add drag so as to be up on throttle so as to have quick engine response times and use power techniques using pitch trim for AOA control and throttle for glide slope. Forward slipping isn’t really backside either as it is really distorting the parasitic side of the curve leftward while massively increasing its value.
I strongly agree with your Example, tried it at Approach X-Plane Landing Tutorial, would not allow you to do as you did, will abort you or give a low passing mark.
Hello, thanks for the video. I do not understand the power chart at the end. Anyone can re-explain it to me please? Power required for what? What does "power available" for a given airspeed mean? Thanks.
I'll start with this disclaimer, I'm a physicist by trade, not an aerospace engineer. But i have a big interest in aircraft.
If anyone that actually knows (for sure) that this is true (or complete bollocks) call me out/debunk/etc.
If you understand the yellow line and how drag affects it, take that understanding and realise that the Red line isn't talking about overall engine power, but thrust and that propellers are just blades (or wings) that rotate through air, producing thrust ("lift") in the forwards direction (instead of up, hopefully).
If you don't understand, read on:
The Yellow line is the power required to continue flying (with no altitude change) at that airspeed. The reason it starts high, goes low and then goes high again is because.
-At slow speeds you need either flaps or a high angle of attack to maintain altitude; both these create large amounts of lift induced drag (which takes power to over come).
-At higher speeds you suffer from parasitic drag (which also takes power to over come) which comes from; skin friction, aerodynamic drag (brick vs teardrop) and interference drag.
-The lowest point is the ideal lift/drag ratio air speed, where the two of these effects are both at their lowest.
The Red line is a little confusing (it's available thrust at that airspeed, for the most part), but it's the same concepts, just applied to the propeller and with one added twist.
You need to separate thrust out into two parts. The engine provides power, this will largely stay fixed regardless of air speed (at least with this sort of engine). The propeller (prop) then turns that power into thrust.
The problem is the prop isn't 100% efficient at turning that power into thrust, in fact it faces the same problems listed above; lift induced drag at high angles of attack and parasitic drag at high air speeds. This is because props create thrust in the same way that wings produce "lift" (its just they do it in a different direction, and by rotating instead of going in a straight line).
You might be thinking "but Firebird, the props rotate really quickly, even when idling on the ground, how can there be lift induced drag even then?"
Good question (and it took me a few minutes to work it out): It's all about the blade's angle of attack relative to the air stream. As the airflow going into the prop disk changes speed, the props blades change angle of attack relative to the incoming air stream. The blades aren't physically changing angle, but the air stream's angle relative to the blades IS changing and that has the same effect as physically changing the angle of attack of the blade.
So why would prop designers make props like this? Efficiency. You want your prop to be most efficient at *insert design criteria here*. Which is normally at the cruising speed for the aircraft (but could also be for short field performance or anything really). This usually means you trade low speed efficiency (high thrust@low speed) for cruising speed efficiency (efficient thrust@cruising speed).
Similarly when you're flying quickly the prop must rotate faster through the air, but that fast rotation increases your parasitic drag.
And whenever the prop is producing drag (lift/thrust induced, or parasitic), that's power that's NOT being turned into thrust. Hence as slow air speeds, you have lower available thrust and at high air speeds the available thrust drops off again, with a nice efficient plateau at around cruising speeds.
Flying is always about managing different risks. While I typically fly high approaches in VFR conditions as it's easy to get a 182 down, if you are on an ILS, that's a fairly low approach whether you like it or not. So know how to manage your energy to minimize risk.
Well said, my friend. I would argue that LIFE is all about managing risks ;)
Good point about an ILS approach. Those are designed for jumbo jets. But there is a reason why the big guys choose "low and fast" over "high and slow", and the reason is just as applicable to your 182.
To me, it's not an either-or question. The gustier the conditions, or the more the terrain, trees and buildings suggest the possibility of swirling winds, the lower and faster I'm going to approach. It's a continuum. But you can't do it right if you don't practice it, so you have to practice those "F-16 approaches" when it's calm and safe so you can do them when you need to. Never be a one-trick pony.
That's my thinking on the subject, anyway, for what it's worth. The world is complex, and you don't get to choose your landing conditions.
You are right given that they started developing the ILS in 1929.
Regardless, a 3 degree approach is very flat compared to how pilots in VMC typically fly a pattern.
Since delaying application of flaps helped, and skipping the stop before take-off helped, I'm wondering why you didn't try doing both in the same take-off.
Oops, commented on the wrong video. I was playing a playlist, and it was already on the next one.
Lol I'll answer you on the flip side ;)
0:08 confirmed Nick is an Italian
definitely a little too close for comfort to those trees there. but great explaining with visual aids. do you have the source of that airspeed power diagram somewhere?
You can just google it. There's literally hundreds. They all look similar, but are frequently worked out for different airframes.
Friendly Skies Film neat!
Great video, Nick. Although I will forever give my students hell for having 4 red on the PAPI, I can see the intent of this video. I'll be headed to the airlines in the next 4-6 months, so if I'm ever in the New England area, I'll give you some free IFR instruction. Haha!
Hey, I shoot for three white too, but I don't have to explain the intent to you :) It would be a pleasure to meet you and have you come by our school. You seem to match our thinking quite well.
Everything is energy to fighter pilots.
Go Boyd!!
BOOM 1:23 LOVE it LOL
Haha. It's the little things ;)
An excellent breakdown of energy. I only have 1 quips. The more efficient use of energy on the engine failure would have been to pitch for Vy thus preserving more energy by storing some as altitude. This is how they handle emergency engine outs at the Reno air races. Those guys have experience. Also, perhaps, just a bit nuts....
Anyone know where I can sign up? :)
Yep, which is exactly what I say at 4:05. They are crazy, but who says I'm not too ;)
That's a roll Hover does
Oh, took me a minute to realize what you were saying. Yeah, you see, you guys have the benefit of being able to watch the video, but I'm recalling something I haven't seen in months and trying to fly a plane at the same time :P
Caution: engineer detected :P Lovely flying and thanks for the video!
Hahaha you got me!! XD
Oh my God, finally someone else who agrees LOW APPROACHES ARE NOT DANGEROUS!!!
Not as everyone else would have you believe, at least. Only a low energy approach is inherently dangerous.
Leaky tanks are a real drag!
Haha I didn't think of that pun! :)
What pun?
That a leaky tank is a drag, not just because I metaphorically called this one drag.
Hello, could I use this video for a university project?
It's called gliding the trade off on approach come to low cut in early have to much make a higher circuit duh
Bearing in mind I did do 3kts of VNE when flying as I was low approach and was in heavy sink yet made it to the airfield easily
Damn my stupid dyslexia, I read the title as "Enemy Engagement".
Runway length would be a big factor in this and should be carefully calculated for. The way this is demonstrated, he is still somewhat low and slow over terrain. Long runway makes absolute sense to me
80kts over the trees is slow? I do very much enjoy having a long runway at my home airport, though. 8,000ft. As long as your energy is the same as a "tall" approach when you're coming over the trees, though, it should make no difference, no?
Friendly Skies Film I personally understand physics very well and believe, know and trust physics. I think this type of landing should be common not targeting the threshold of the runway. Long runway and landing long with built up energy makes a ton of sense to me if it the "energy' or a big portion of the stored energy is burned off over the runway. I like what you are doing! keep up the good work!
Sounds good to me! Thanks, mate :)
Good one, though the title could have been "Not all low approaches are dangerous, and here's why: energy management". I can already hear my airport Unicom getting on the radio to tell pilots "they don't have to... but it'd be nice if they kept their approaches steeper for noise abatement" XD!
Also you can see me perform a low approach during an (preventable) emergency landing (the intro flight video) on my channel as well... Sometimes, it's better to perform one!
But be careful! When it comes to landing, if you want to be cautious, you'll find coming in at the manufacturer recommended final approach speed is the perfect compromise between avoiding a stall, and minimizing floating!
That's what that magical part of the power requirement curve is for, yes sir! Glad you enjoyed.
Very cool. Will you be shooting your approaches like this from now on? I would imagine that this would not be the way to shoot an ILS approach. But...you're not shooting ILS approaches. Also, is this considered best practice for newer pilots? Not critiquing, just curious. If not, why? I'm just full of questions today.
Lol no thanks, I'll keep to a more reasonable approach. I think it's just important to know how you can trade energy back and forth in case you have to.
Absolutely. It's a cool concept and you explained it beautifully. It's almost like you're an engineer or something!
Haaaa! Who would have thought? ;P
Great video. I'm going to skip reading the comments on this one.
lol I wish I could ;P People have a way of misconstruing everything I say.
I have been flying for four years now, why am I just hearing about this.
*that buttered landing!! and I respectfully disagree, my plane flys off my tears and back from pulling it out from the hangar*
So, you did a space shuttle approach?😏
What do you use to create your animations? Do you do it yourself?
Yep, After Effects CS 5.5.
Friendly Skies Film Cool! It really gives your videos a professional look and feel. The pacing and editing on your videos keeps them easy to watch. Nice work!
I try my best :)
the things that makes planes fly, and that's conveyor belts
Just forgot about small windshears
he s the son of Bob Hoover !