Which of these is cheating?

I've had a tendency to adjust climb or descent
rates (and altitude to a lesser extent) by making thrust adjustments,
rather than changes in pitch.

I've been using the throttle to adjust descent rate rather than pitch...

That is the way the U.S. Navy teaches it.

vince norris

vincent p. norris writes:

That is the way the U.S. Navy teaches it.

Well, if they can teach pilots to land on a carrier at night in fog,
they probably know what they are talking about.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

vince norris wrote
... the U.S. Navy teaches [using the throttle to adjust descent rate
rather than pitch].

Which reminded me of the video of a carrier landing crach where the plane is
seen to drop below the crosshairs on the monitor and the LSO is heard
shouting, "Power. Power! Power!!"

Wouldn't pitch and power have arrested the descent faster than power alone?

Jon Woellhaf writes:

Wouldn't pitch and power have arrested the descent faster than power alone?

Pitch alone would have translated forward momentum into a climb, which
would have increased altitude but would have also slowed the aircraft
significantly. Perhaps the pilot was too close to stall for that.

I have also read that pilots approach the deck with full throttle so
that they can go around if the arresting hook fails to catch a cable
on the deck.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Wouldn't pitch and power have arrested the descent faster than power alone?

Pitch alone would have translated forward momentum into a climb, which
would have increased altitude but would have also slowed the aircraft
significantly. Perhaps the pilot was too close to stall for that.

I have also read that pilots approach the deck with full throttle so
that they can go around if the arresting hook fails to catch a cable
on the deck.

My days as a Naval Aviator ended in 1954. Carrier approaches were
made quite differently from today's. We dragged around the base leg
just above the altitude of the deck at whatever power it took to
maintain airspeed just above a stall, and chopped the power when (if)
we we got a cut.

Today, approaches are "straight in," a lot like a VASI or ILS
approach. Power is not "full," it is whatever it takes to stay on
glide slope and correct airspeed.

When the wheels hit the deck, THEN full power is added for a possible
go-round.

vince norris

vincent p. norris writes:

My days as a Naval Aviator ended in 1954. Carrier approaches were
made quite differently from today's. We dragged around the base leg
just above the altitude of the deck at whatever power it took to
maintain airspeed just above a stall, and chopped the power when (if)
we we got a cut.

"Got a cut" means you were hooked by the cable?

If you didn't get hooked, what did you do, given that you were already
just above a stall?

Today, approaches are "straight in," a lot like a VASI or ILS
approach. Power is not "full," it is whatever it takes to stay on
glide slope and correct airspeed.

When the wheels hit the deck, THEN full power is added for a possible
go-round.

Sounds stressful.

I've also read that fighter pilots are more stressed by carrier
landings than by flying in combat. And they say that a carrier deck
is more dangerous than a combat zone.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

My days as a Naval Aviator ended in 1954. Carrier approaches were
made quite differently from today's. We dragged around the base leg
just above the altitude of the deck at whatever power it took to
maintain airspeed just above a stall, and chopped the power when (if)
we we got a cut.

"Got a cut" means you were hooked by the cable?

No, it means the Landing Signal Officer waved his paddle across his
throat, telling the pilot to chop the throttle for landing.

If you didn't get hooked, what did you do, given that you were already
just above a stall?

If an a/c missed all the arresting cables, it was stopped by the
"barrier"-- a large net stretched across the deck-- to keep it from
running into planes that already landed.

Today, approaches are "straight in," a lot like a VASI or ILS
approach. Power is not "full," it is whatever it takes to stay on
glide slope and correct airspeed.

When the wheels hit the deck, THEN full power is added for a possible
go-round.

Sounds stressful.

I've also read that fighter pilots are more stressed by carrier
landings than by flying in combat. And they say that a carrier deck
is more dangerous than a combat zone.

I've read that.

vince norris