Wolfgang Langewiesche didn't teach V speeds, but rather gaits. Because engines were not as reliable in his day and the Stromberg carburetor tended to flood with rapid throttle movement, his stall down approach technique (302-304) was the apparent brisk walk rate of closure approach with the throttle closed. The actual power pitch approach was reserved for larger airplanes with better carburetors. This was why he said the stall down approach was more difficult than the round out and hold off approach, also with the throttle closed. Better engines brought the fourth control into the mix, the throttle. Both approach techniques became easier with addition of the fourth control, but the apparent brisk walk rate of closure approach from a 600' up and a quarter mile out became a snap. It became the premier short field technique.

While not using the V designation, Wolfgang talks about climbing at both the fastest up gait and the most up over distance gait. He doesn't have much use for either, preferring level acceleration and zoom climb. So this fortnight hopefully we can come to agreement on the advantages and disadvantages of both techniques...the airspeed over altitude argument.

Vx or Vy as appropriate advantages...the altitude over airspeed argument:

Most up over distance or fastest up mathematically.
Integrated instrument manageable.
Down drainage egress not necessary.
Easy to evaluate for testing.
Most vertical space available.

Vx or Vy as appropriate disadvantages:

Slower and thus more dependent on stable conditions.
Absolute nearest to out of ground effect stall airspeed.
Integrated instrument dependent.
Tremendous amount of ground effect energy wasted by climbing out sooner than absolutely necessary.
Tremendous amount of down drainage energy wasted by climbing out sooner than absolutely necessary.
Evaluation (school solution)=primacy of less efficient technique.
Absolute least maneuvering airspeed available.
Absolute highest pitch attitude and most pitch down necessary to recover from a stall.
Much too low to recover from inadvertent stall.
More possibility of upset or LOC and uncontrolled flight into terrain (stall.)
Outcome of rush to altitude often in question?
Inadvertent stall mostly fatal.

Basic low ground effect takeoff and down drainage egress advantages...the airspeed over altitude argument:

Best use of all energy available, ie low ground effect over all unobstructed surface, no kinetic energy wasted overflying obstructions higher than necessary, and down drainage egress possible with maneuvering airspeed.
Doesn't require inside the cockpit instrument distraction.
Fastest airspeed possible for safe maneuvering including ability to miss some obstructions horizontally.
Least possibility of inadvertent stall.
Least pitch attitude except for temporary zoom climb as necessary.
Least possibility of upset, LOC, or uncontrolled flight into terrain (stall.)
Outcome of cruise climb never in question.

Basic low ground effect takeoff and down drainage egress disadvantages:

Least vertical space available.
Doesn't promote instrument integration.
Doesn't allow mechanical testing. Bot doesn't do art.
More possibility of CFIT. Wolfgang says hitting terrain is actually safer than falling into terrain head first.
Inadvertent stall mostly fatal.

Wolfgang taught airspeed is altitude and altitude is airspeed (the law of the roller coaster,) but preferred airspeed when too low to recover from inadvertent stall. He said altitude was money in the bank, but airspeed was money in your pocket. That says a lot to me. Experience of eleven non injury engine failures below 200' with zoom reserve airspeed has made me a believer in money in my pocket.

So what are your thoughts and experiences? Has less than 1,000' been enough to recover from inadvertent stall for anyone you know? Where was it not enough? How do stall on the approach fatalities compare to stall on takeoff and turn to crosswind fatalities? How is mushing on short final different than mushing after takeoff (think fourth control?) Is learning to fly the razor's edge of stall, or believing recovery is possible, more important than teaching avoidance and using designed safety features? Can the airplane stall itself if we refuse to pull back on the stick?

So what is both safe and practical? I had the advantage of training pilots at mostly spray strips and uncrowded uncontrolled airports. Almost all of the six hours to prepare for solo was circuits. We did ten each hour because there was no need to go all the way up to 1,000,' in a 65 hp airplane. And at 60 mph top speed there was no need to go further than 1/4 mile out in the pattern, including final. The basic low ground effect takeoff gave us maneuvering airspeed. The nose was allowed to go down naturally in all turns. Most slow flight was conducted in low ground effect over the runway well below Vso because that is the gait of landing. Energy management and the law of the roller coaster was taught because recovery from inadvertent stall was not possible. The apparent brisk walk rate of closure approach was taught because it was the easiest and safest approach. Leading rudder was taught because old 65 hp airplanes didn't turn the right way without slipping using the primary aileron and pull back technique. So was I crazy to think they would be able to sort things out at altitude allowing recovery from inadvertent stall with less time spent up there? Was I crazy to emphasize low altitude maneuvering flight? Does the less time in the pattern than up high over an aviation career justify no energy management training at low altitude?

How do we unindoctrinate students in the primacy of altitude? How do we convince them that Vx or Vy as appropriate is just a suggestion and is mostly not appropriate? How do we make them give up airspeed reluctantly, carefully, questioning the reason why? How do we make them believe we don't want them to spend all the money in their pocket in a rush to the bank? How do we make them feel, in their bones, that the airplane will not necessarily climb?

Hi Contact,

Good to see that you are thinking... A bit too much to contemplate on this fine morning however. But I like the gestalt. Will do read #2 later..

Best,

Tom

Tremendous amount of ground effect energy wasted by climbing out sooner than absolutely necessary

I like that line, sums it up nicely. Understanding energy management, which sailplanes and under powered aerobatic aircraft teach, should receive more formal training - it tends to be covered in books and not explained clearly enough in most flight instruction.

The stall down without throttle that Wolfgang touts for the more experienced pilot is not hard after many iterations of the same deceleration on short final with power to control sink. All my forced landings, except the one on takeoff, were exactly what he described. The apparent brisk walk rate of closure deceleration works here as well. Like autorotation, you have to get it right the first time.

Sooooooooo I tend to spend a lot of time flying like a college student (low, slow, and NO MONEY IN THE BANK!!!). If you want to hunt in Alaska on your one week off in Sept you have to be ready to fly through one to three mountain ranges and under 200 ft clouds for 100 miles of nothing good to land on!!! Even on a good day up here at 5,000 ft the best you can hope for is a lake or swamp. I have had the privilege of learning from pilots that have had several crashes. They will all tell you "just fly it to the ground!!" It is that easy! But in todays world with the FAA run by ex Air Force zero failure mentality and the addition of media/people uproar every time someone bends a plane I understand (but not agree with) the current training program. The big "speed is you friend" is great for bending aircraft on landing. All pilots have to make it a mission to the rest of the world to educate them that bending a plane is nothing more than bending a truck ( new F350 is 70 grand, pacer is 30 grand)! If you are really worried about crashing an aircraft my advice is to learn to swim and follow rivers!! Don't rely on speed/altitude, rely on your skill, if you don't have it get it (old guy training)!!!
DENNY

I have really appreciated the and have learned from you, Butch Washtock, MTV, Gump, and others about constricted and whiteout low ceiling work where you may have to work with both little in pocket and little in the bank. I hate losing the roller coaster, the true energy management turn. At 200' there is vertical space available to allow the nose to go down naturally in the turn, but we have to go slow where horizontal space is limited. Thanks for posting.

Excellent thread! Thanks to all who have posted. I've learned a lot!

DENNY wrote:Sooooooooo I tend to spend a lot of time flying like a college student (low, slow, and NO MONEY IN THE BANK!!!). If you want to hunt in Alaska on your one week off in Sept you have to be ready to fly through one to three mountain ranges and under 200 ft clouds for 100 miles of nothing good to land on!!! Even on a good day up here at 5,000 ft the best you can hope for is a lake or swamp. I have had the privilege of learning from pilots that have had several crashes. They will all tell you "just fly it to the ground!!" It is that easy! But in todays world with the FAA run by ex Air Force zero failure mentality and the addition of media/people uproar every time someone bends a plane I understand (but not agree with) the current training program. The big "speed is you friend" is great for bending aircraft on landing. All pilots have to make it a mission to the rest of the world to educate them that bending a plane is nothing more than bending a truck ( new F350 is 70 grand, pacer is 30 grand)! If you are really worried about crashing an aircraft my advice is to learn to swim and follow rivers!! Don't rely on speed/altitude, rely on your skill, if you don't have it get it (old guy training)!!!
DENNY

Goddamn, you must really want to go hunting.[emoji1]

It is just the nature of flying up here. Seems everywhere you want to go means one or two mountain ranges, passes, and 3 weather patterns to deal with. Spring flying from March to June is usually the best for weather. By September you had better have 3-4 days of extra food and a good tent. Sometimes it is just a longer flying day to find a way home. I turned a short 3 hour trip into a 7 hour one one day to avoid some wind that my passenger (wife) did not want to deal with. The views make it all worthwhile.
DENNY

Concerning the airspeed vs altitude argument, can any of you math capable pilots figure how much runway left for each at say the seven second point after beginning the takeoff roll. Would either cause the outcome of the maneuver to be in doubt. With low ground effect and more airspeed, we close the throttle and float and softly touchdown. With whatever altitude at seven seconds and Vx or Vy as appropriate, we dump the nose to speed up to prevent stall and then set no throttle approach airspeed and then round out and hold off and finally float and softly touchdown. No fair either technique pushing it on. Full stall to evaluate techniques not brakes.

Same airplane and pilot in each virtual/math test. Same number of seconds as lower powered aircraft may require more seconds. Let me take a stab at the scientific method, would number of seconds be the control? Would same distance down the runway, one low one high, be a better control ?