Varanger,

The problem with vx is the wing is asking for more air please. Maneuvering is out of the question, we would stall. Read Stick and Rudder by Wolfgang Langewiesche. His principals are what most of the guys that have chimed in here start with, regardless of their technique. Wolfgang uses the word "zoom," which expand to zoom reserve airspeed. It is enough airspeed (the wing likes more than just enough to hang on) allow temporary climb and maneuvering without the engine. Read about the law of the roller coaster. The numbers you were given in PPL ground school were all high altitude orientation. Yes if we are high enough to recover from stall and even spin, altitude and not airspeed is preferred. Altitude is time. In low altitude orientation, however, airspeed and not altitude is life. If we lose concentration, lose and engine, almost hit terrain or an aircraft, hit sheer or gust spread, or whatever at Vx we have little airspeed to work with. Vy is chosen mathematically. It also gives the wing little to work with after three seconds startle at Vy pitch attitude, not necessarily Vy speed. I haven't had many engine failures on takeoff, only one. I was still level in low ground effect, my default until zoom reserve airspeed, and I simply landed on the runway remaining. On nine of the other twelve, they were six second deals from total loss of power to touchdown. On takeoff, this is what you have. You mentioned best glide speed. Who cares, I want to maneuver to that survivable landing zone in the near hemisphere. Different airplanes? Sure. In a Piper you probably just have time to switch tanks. My student was able to in a Cub once. I was already committed to a fine landing in the adjoining field. I had taken the controls and I elected to land. Low and slow is a no no. I spent 17,000 hours at 200' or lower and my wing wanted all the energy I could provide. A quarter mile from the end of a spray run in a Pawnee, I went full throttle on that 235 hp tiger. I did not want to be slow coming out of the field, nor do I want to be slow coming out of a perfectly good airport with another thousand feet of free low ground effect energy in front of me. The Savage stalls when you need to maneuver to miss terrain and you don't have the energy. It stalls a lot slower than 34 kts in one inch ground effect on every landing. Rounding out and floating doesn't make it quit flying faster. Yes, at Vy of 65 kts, you have more margin than most airplanes. Don't abuse it. Learn energy management. Learn to fly the wing. With two big boys at Monte Vista, Colorado, where I instructed in an 85 hp C-140, also with a pretty good margin, using that long runway to get to 80 kts in low ground effect was a lot safer than 65 kts. No, you will seldom need that extra ground effect energy. And then you will.

I'm an outlier here, but I don't teach students to stall in the pattern when startled. I teach what Wolfgang suggests, "what does the airplane want to do? So what does the airplane want to do, what will it always do, why can it not stall itself? When does it want to get the nose down to save the wing? Why are we fighting it? My students muscle memory is to not pull without zoom reserve airspeed and not to pull in turns. It doesn't upset the airplane, only the DPE, if we allow the nose to go down in turns and then return to what we were doing before the turn. Not much lost to save ones self, muscle memory wise, is a startle situation.

You are asking, and that is good. There are lots of answers out there in aviation. Test the spirits, the Apostle Paul advised. You have a brain that surpasses the most powerful computer and you have the hands and feet Rob mentioned that are super sensitive if you listen to them. You are on you way and the only way we old farts can look good is if you pick up some of their valuable techniques. Have fun, pay attention to the airplane and the old farts.

Excellent!

I got a but confused because of my limited understanding of energy management. I know part of the theory, and remembered a bit from my physics classes back in high school, that height is energy. Lifting something is adding energy. I know I`m right about that bit. What I don`t know or have enough experience about is aerodynamics - what the plane wants. Complicated stuff. Thanks for shedding light on it!

Now, I´ve got a book or two to buy, and then I´ll go find an instructor who knows this stuff!

Varanger wrote:Excellent!

I got a but confused because of my limited understanding of energy management. I know part of the theory, and remembered a bit from my physics classes back in high school, that height is energy. Lifting something is adding energy. I know I`m right about that bit. What I don`t know or have enough experience about is aerodynamics - what the plane wants. Complicated stuff. Thanks for shedding light on it!

Now, I´ve got a book or two to buy, and then I´ll go find an instructor who knows this stuff!

In it's most rudimentary expression, the basics are:

Potential energy + kinetic energy = total flight energy

Potential energy is directly proportional to aircraft height above the surface or obstacle.

Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity, that is - K.E. increases exponentially with in increase in airspeed. For this reason, an extra five knots results in a significant energy gain on the flying surfaces.

High and fast = lots of energy

Low and fast = some energy

High and slow = some energy

Low and slow = little energy

This is why takeoff and landing are the most critical phases of flight.

Most of us recommend building kinetic energy in ground effect on departure vs climbing out of it with no energy reserve (Vx). 500 ft of low level acceleration can result in efficiently gaining another 5-15 knots, which is definitely your friend should you need it. I think of it as having a little cash in the bank. Living paycheck to paycheck isn't ideal...

On landing, on the other hand, you will zero your potential energy once the plane is no longer supported by the wing. For this reason, extra potential or kinetic during approach can be undesirable, as it will increase your rollout energy. too little kinetic or potential energy can place you on earth prematurely, which is also undesirable.

Flying really is all about energy management. There is no perfect amount of energy to carry for every situation. This is where experience comes in. Thinking in terms of energy management is a very important process for a backcountry pilot do develop.

The FAA added Energy Management as a topic to the Airplane Flying Handbook in 2021 I really don't understand how they avoided it for so long

Also, your fuel contains thermal potential that is converted to thrust through your thrust generating apparatus. If all goes well, you can use it to accumulate flight energy at any point during your flight, but it should be considered entirely differently from flight energy.

I hope that this basic explanation helps.

Varanger, the line of stuff at the bottom of my posts doesn't work anymore. Zane calls it signature box. E-mail me [email protected] and I will attach Contact Flying Revised, Safe Maneuvering Flight Techniques, energy management turn diagrams (like the old lazy 8 before they made it an instrument maneuver) law of the roller coaster stuff, angle across runway in strong crosswind diagram, and seminar notes. I don't have a diagram for the apparent brisk walk rate of closure approach but read the top paragraph on page 304 of Stick and Rudder or just think about how watch an intersection or round about close with you at what appears to be a brink walk and then suddenly speed up unless you decelerate to maintain what appears to be a brisk walk closure rate. Not like my wife who just uses a stabilized 50 right up to the intersection and then slams the brakes on. Contact flying is using non-instrument appearances to help manage energy and control the airplane. Like the nerves in your feet and hands that Rob mentioned, they are far more accurate than instruments. A fairly simple computer can fly by reference to instruments better than human pilots, but it cannot crop dust safely or land on a levee no wider than the main gear of a tailwheel airplane in a couple hundred feet.

Varanger wrote:Excellent!

I got a but confused because of my limited understanding of energy management. I know part of the theory, and remembered a bit from my physics classes back in high school, that height is energy. Lifting something is adding energy. I know I`m right about that bit. What I don`t know or have enough experience about is aerodynamics - what the plane wants. Complicated stuff. Thanks for shedding light on it!

Now, I´ve got a book or two to buy, and then I´ll go find an instructor who knows this stuff!

And there is the rub! Finding a competent instructor. I suggest interviewing prospective instructors and ask specifics. Here are a few examples. What is the Lift equation? If an instructor cannot recite and instruct this equation off the cuff, keep searching. What is the formula to calculate turn radius? What is the formula to calculate turn rate? Why are these formulas important? Ask what airfoil is employed on the aircraft the instructor is teaching in, if they do not know, keep searching. If one does not know what the wing they are flying is, it is damn difficult to exploit its strengths and mitigate its weaknesses. When transitioning to different aircraft in the military, we study the EM (energy maneuverability) diagrams and during the contact flying phase we validate those diagrams. Pilots who do not know what their wing is are stabbing in the dark as they search (hunt and peck) for where CL max is and every point in between. A competent instructor will show you mathematically why this wing (the very one we are employing) flies and when and why it will stop flying and every point in between BEFORE you ever get in the aircraft. THEN we can step to the aircraft to fly and VALIDATE what we calculated. It's called math. If your instructor cannot do this, find one who can. TR

Wow, TR. I got a D in college algebra. I just move the controls to see what they do. If I don't like what I get, I put it back. Math will tell us not to go, which is pretty safe. Iterations will move us from where we are to where we need to be. Principals will get us operational, but the tactical situation is fluid, as is the medium we fly in. A lot can be learned without a gauge, by feel.

TR wrote:And there is the rub! Finding a competent instructor. I suggest interviewing prospective instructors and ask specifics. Here are a few examples. What is the Lift equation? If an instructor cannot recite and instruct this equation off the cuff, keep searching. What is the formula to calculate turn radius? What is the formula to calculate turn rate? Why are these formulas important? Ask what airfoil is employed on the aircraft the instructor is teaching in, if they do not know, keep searching. If one does not know what the wing they are flying is, it is damn difficult to exploit its strengths and mitigate its weaknesses. When transitioning to different aircraft in the military, we study the EM (energy maneuverability) diagrams and during the contact flying phase we validate those diagrams. Pilots who do not know what their wing is are stabbing in the dark as they search (hunt and peck) for where CL max is and every point in between. A competent instructor will show you mathematically why this wing (the very one we are employing) flies and when and why it will stop flying and every point in between BEFORE you ever get in the aircraft. THEN we can step to the aircraft to fly and VALIDATE what we calculated. It's called math. If your instructor cannot do this, find one who can. TR

Man, I just don't know. I recognize that you have piles more experience than I do. And I understand that when flying heavy military or commercial aircraft that the math absolutely matters. And I'm sure a cogent argument could be made that the same is true of any aircraft.

I had the privilege of being taught by one of the true icons on Alaskan aviation. That doesn't necessarily make him the best instructor, but this man had more experience in Alaskan flying that most of us could hope to gain in five lifetimes. He knew that I wanted to fly in the mountains and eventually in the backcountry, so he taught me accordingly. I don't recall ever talking about a single equation. I don't remember any calculations. There was never a mention of Vx or Vy or any other such thing. But he taught me how to fly the plane. How to read the winds in the valleys. What those clouds in the distance portended and how to feel the airplane rather than staring at the gauges.

I don't make any claim to be a great pilot. I have a lot to learn. But I'm pretty darn glad I got started with who I learned from. And I would have missed out on a lot if I walked away because he couldn't cite specific formulas. (And heck, maybe he could have. But he never found it important to bring it up in our lessons. So I never asked.)

Unfortunately, one does not know what they do not know. This is why great teachers are so important. My objective was merely to suggest the best vector (in my opinion) for obtaining an instructor for optimum learning and understanding for the individual who started this thread. A wing flies due to the laws of physics, LAWS, not suggestions of physics. These laws are proven with a procedure called math that is at present indisputable. If one cannot prove why the wing behaves the way it does, they are operating with mere anecdotal evidence. I prefer to teach the science of flight based on proven facts supported by math. Going into a canyon or operating near vertical obstructions? Better know your turn radius. Figuring how many loads of fertilizer you can put out today? Better know how long each pass is by calculating your turn rates. What is your most efficient bank angle for a given gross weight? Better know how to calculate V-stall and add your personal safety margin. This is well beyond the original intent of this thread, however, to suggest that just because one was not taught certain things and they turned out OK is an unconscionable philosophy. Most pilots I instruct in tailwheel, float, ski and ag ops are already "qualified" on paper, however, once the briefing starts the most common phrase I here is, "I didn't know that" or "I was never taught that". F-16 to J-3, they all operate within the confines of the laws of Physics which are validated with the same formulas. I believe knowing "the why" makes you a better aviator.

TR wrote:Unfortunately, one does not know what they do not know. This is why great teachers are so important. My objective was merely to suggest the best vector (in my opinion) for obtaining an instructor for optimum learning and understanding for the individual who started this thread. A wing flies due to the laws of physics, LAWS, not suggestions of physics. These laws are proven with a procedure called math that is at present indisputable. If one cannot prove why the wing behaves the way it does, they are operating with mere anecdotal evidence. I prefer to teach the science of flight based on proven facts supported by math. Going into a canyon or operating near vertical obstructions? Better know your turn radius. Figuring how many loads of fertilizer you can put out today? Better know how long each pass is by calculating your turn rates. What is your most efficient bank angle for a given gross weight? Better know how to calculate V-stall and add your personal safety margin. This is well beyond the original intent of this thread, however, to suggest that just because one was not taught certain things and they turned out OK is an unconscionable philosophy. Most pilots I instruct in tailwheel, float, ski and ag ops are already "qualified" on paper, however, once the briefing starts the most common phrase I here is, "I didn't know that" or "I was never taught that". F-16 to J-3, they all operate within the confines of the laws of Physics which are validated with the same formulas. I believe knowing "the why" makes you a better aviator.

Undeniable accurate, and good stuff.

However, even our beloved FAA recognizes the need to address skills and knowledge. Without building a rock solid foundation of skill, all the knowledge in the world leaves one a mere super computer.

So yes, if the context of this thread was to become a better A320 or F16 operator, find the the instructor with the most solid foundation of aeronautical physics background your money can buy. Since it is more about flying aircraft whose instrumentation is lagging behind the thought processor of a goat, I'd prefer to select the candidate who has no idea how to spell aileron, but damned sure knows how to use one, every time.

Turns, we have been down this road. You are correct, most people have no idea how to calculate rate nor radius, but in this context that is a moot point, because most people don't know what 600' looks like from their now airborne view. If I was in the market to add another pilot (and I am by the way) and a prospect had to calculate V^2/ 11.26*tan(b) to know if he can get my airplane bent around, he is probably not the candidate for me. I want the candidate that has bent one around so many times his finger tips know what the science can validate. I want the one that knows what 100% NG sounds like, what 1400PSI feels like and what 665° smells like, because when one of those instruments signs off, and sooner or later one will, I want him and the ship to come back in one piece. I want the candidate that gets in one evening and *hears* the Pratt spooling a touch slower and terminates that start with a dry motor rather than wait on the indicator to catch up with the fire that will now reveal an expensive hot start. I want that candidate because as you know, in our work environment there is so much else going on that safely manipulating the controls should not be something he needs to calculate or qualify, it should be something that comes as natural as walking. Likewise I feel like someone asking how to be a safer 'bush rat' should train so as to build skills and memory that are going to serve them well in the few seconds after their emergency begins. Calculations of why and how those actions served them well should have been completed long ago.
In this context, I want an instructor to provide instruction on how to manipulate controls, to produce a desired outcome, not the one that knows why it is happening. If he knows both? so much the better.

I've used the example of music, sports and the likes, many, many times. That is because aircraft share something in common with instruments and tools. And that is that they require a human operator. You can study how to make an aircraft behave like Kirby Chambliss until you truly understand exactly what it and he are doing, and still not be able to safely taxi his Edge 540.

I've also been on record numerous times to say that the smartest are unquestionably the hardest to teach. And that is because they tend know how to learn (knowledge) quicker than they tend to build skill. I think I've beat that dead horse enough. Knowing how something works doesn't mean you can make it work.

At the end of the day, the aircraft, and the flying in the connect of this thread are pretty simple animals. Would the perfect instructor be the guy who knew the physics, math, and FAR's in addition to actually being able to manipulate every one of those facets to his students advantage? YOU BET! and yet he still may not posses an even more important skill, and that would be how to instruct (anything). I am too mean for that so don't look at me

As an aside, I can tick off all the boxes on your checklist, and really don't feel any of them make me a better pilot, let alone instructor. I just happen to really enjoy all things ag av.

Take care, Rob

Lastly, I just want to say IMHO, Scolopax's posts on this thread should be required reading for bush rats, really good stuff.

Yes, Scolopax and Josh and some others on here make our hearts proud.

Scolopax wrote:Potential energy + kinetic energy = total flight energy

Well! I´ll be damned! It´s been a looong time since high school physics. At one point I thought to myself that you guys are probably talking about momentum, so I almost got it. Not the same as kinetic energy, I know, but close. For some reason I then forgot it and got hung up on potential energy… My mind probably wanted to defend my original standpoint that Vy surely had to be optimal. I haven´t used ground effect for more than accellerating to Vy and then shot up, but it´s dawning on me that spending a few more seconds to add a few knots probably gets me a little more bang for my bucks.

What I like the most on this forum is that unlike most other forums, such as Reddit, there´s noone here who´s out to get anyone or misunderstand on purpose, to start a shouting match. The usual trigger is mentioning light sport aircraft. Yeah I´m considering PPL, but LSA honestly makes a lot of sense for me.

Rob, I´ll shoot you an email! And thanks a bunch to everyone else too.

(I´m planning on going to Osh in ´24, and I am considering spending a few more weeks before or after. I might look if there´s any kind of course or anything I can take. I´m «only» an EU LSA/UL pilot, so my license isn´t valid in the US, but I suppose that isn´t a big deal as long as I fly with an instructor. But maybe finding someone who teaches backcountry techniques in an LSA will prove difficult? Most are probably for people to bring their own plane too. I know there are a bunch in souther Europe and even South Africa, but they haven´t got Oshkosh.)

Don't get too hung up on what type of plane you are training in. The basic concepts work in most aircraft. The key is to question everything you learn and when it should be applied in your aircraft. Look into getting a PPL and instrument rating, I know you said you don't plane to fly anything but light sport but the steps to get the additional rating will make you question what you do and don't know. Basic Stick and Rudder, Ski flying, Float flying, Glider flying all will bring up topics that will help you be a better pilot so reading books on all of topics will also help.
DENNY

I am not not terribly worried, myself. Annoyingly, some other people care quite a bit. LSA simply fits my current mission well. If my needs should change, I´ll get onboard with PPL right away. I acutally got to do a little ski flying last winter, and I´ve got plans to sign up for a glider course next summer. To me, it´s all flying. The envelope varies a bit, but most of it is still overlapping.

So, what is the take away you got for your original Q? (Normal traffic...)

Normal traffic? Presuming there´s enough runway, what I am doing works fine. Classic GA VFR pattern and landing. Fly the pattern by the numbers, point the nose down and come in with some eccess energy and use the runway to waft along until it settles. Pulling the power on keypoint and try to idle all the way in to set it down within a smallish box is difficult. Atleast I have to try and read all the conditions that will affect the landing.

Short field, like real short field where I cannot rely on the Savage´s inherent slow speeds to stop in time. But where I have to be able to put it down precisely and early, I´ve got some practice to do, to learn flying the wing properly. I´ll have to look for an instructor who knows this first.

In a pinch I can do what already works. Come in flatter and slow and using the engine, but I have to admit we´re still not talking flying the wing here. It´s just how I can put it down with more precision, but I am not really comfortable with this. Low and slow. Too little energy too early, probably. Too few margins.

What I am not going to do tomorrow when I´m going for a ride, is to try and imitate something cool I saw on youtube, end up way too far behind the powercruve, and mess up myself or my friends plane.

TLDR; My take away is I got stuff to learn and need to learn it safely.

Rob wrote:Lastly, I just want to say IMHO, Scolopax's posts on this thread should be required reading for bush rats, really good stuff.

That’s a huge complement, especially coming from you Rob! Thank you.

TR, you got me to thinking of another mathematician, Robert Resser, who wrote "How to Fly Airplanes." Like me he puts all his stuff out free so I can send you a PDF if you like. He flew cargo 747s and DC-10 for 30,000 hours or so. His is the best aerodynamics text I have read. I didn't follow the math at all, but he explained what the math was saying. He even added the energy management 1 g turn of any bank angle I harp about to that text. I have even stolen one of his explanations: "The critical angle of attack is when the stall happens, not what causes it. It is caused by a pilot pulling back on the yoke." Thanks for your input here. We all have something to offer.

Contact, the best aerodynamic text I have read and is the cornerstone for my teaching was written by one of my professors. He is peer reviewed, shows his work, his math is indisputable, and he explains it as clearly as I have ever seen. This book is not free as it comes with months of lectures, wind tunnel analysis and lab work. I also employ my aerodynamic texts from my formal USAF training courses in both fighter and rotary wing aircraft to help pilots understand why the wing does what it does. I believe there is some misunderstanding (Rob) that I espouse that the knowledge is all you need. Not true, one requires the skills he mentions in concert with this knowledge. My objective is the best solution obtainable, and above all safety.

If my initial instructor focused on a bunch of math I would never have kept flying . Not saying that it shouldn’t be understood but …….That sort of stuff has never been my strong suit . Some people are just smart in that way . Some are smarter in other ways . Not saying I’m smart or anything .

There are mathematicians and math teachers. In a small high school, I was in geometry class with my one year older and off the wall gifted brother, Harold Cobb also gifted, and four others. We had a mathematician for teacher. He gave us one problem from his 1926 ninth grade math text each day for homework. The next day my brother or Harold would explain the answer. None of the rest of us ever solved one homework problem all year long. I like the way Wolfgang breaks the math down into common airplane language. I understand gaits better than V-speeds and zoom reserve better than either Vx or Vy, neither of which is anyway near zoom reserve. I like analogue better than digital. I like situational awareness that I can just see and not have to math out. How do we math out the apparent brisk walk rate of closure we can use to decelerate our autos into an intersection, or decelerate our airplanes so as to "blend the approach glide, the flare-out, and the slowing up of the airplane all into one maneuver so that, when you arrive at ground level, you arrive in three-point attitude, all slowed up and ready to squat?" Stick and Rudder page 302.