Flying on the step?

" wrote in message thlink.net...
I'm reading "Fate is the Hunter" and just read something interesting. Gann
states that they would climb to 100 feet above their cruising altitude and
then descend the 100 feet back down. He called this "flying on the step."
He claims that it bought them a few more knots of airspeed.

Interestingly, a little Googling found an article from the World
Beechcraft Society, repeated on the US Naval Academy website, that
actually _supports_ the idea in some cases. Look for about the eighth
link down on this page:

http://web.usna.navy.mil/~dfr/technical_flying.html

Titled "Is There A Step?"

" wrote in message
hlink.net...
I'm reading "Fate is the Hunter" and just read something interesting.
Gann
states that they would climb to 100 feet above their cruising altitude and
then descend the 100 feet back down. He called this "flying on the step."
He claims that it bought them a few more knots of airspeed.

Has anyone heard of this? Is it normal practice? Or is it one of those
practices that have been disproven?

Speaking for myself, unless I deliberately overshoot and "dive" back
down from the step, most of my attempts at achieving a target altitude after
takeoff and a long climb result in something resembling a damped fugoid. I'm
only talking about a hundred feet or so unless I wasn't paying attention,
then it may be more than one hundred.
I don't think it's psychological, it just seems to work easier. For me.
By the way, it has nothing to do with getting a better cruising
airspeed. I still agree with the camp that says if the throttle ends up in
the same place so will the ASI.

What the article says is that there are two level flight speeds for any
power setting. Nobody disputes this. Additionally everybody knows how to
get the lower speed. The dispute is whether there is a higher speed
obtainable than that obtained by climbing and then leveling off and
accellerating to cruise speed.

Mike
MU-2


"Kevin Darling" wrote in message
om...
" wrote in message
thlink.net...
I'm reading "Fate is the Hunter" and just read something interesting.
Gann
states that they would climb to 100 feet above their cruising altitude
and
then descend the 100 feet back down. He called this "flying on the
step."
He claims that it bought them a few more knots of airspeed.

Interestingly, a little Googling found an article from the World
Beechcraft Society, repeated on the US Naval Academy website, that
actually _supports_ the idea in some cases. Look for about the eighth
link down on this page:

http://web.usna.navy.mil/~dfr/technical_flying.html

Titled "Is There A Step?"

"Dale" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:



[emphasis mine] True...that's what's already been said. Though, in
truth,
if you you simply set cruise power, you would eventually accelerate to
the
desired cruise speed. It would just take a lot longer.

Well, no, you wouldn't. I know this from experience in the airplane

As long as you are above Vy, you will reach the same velocity no matter what
technique is employed. It is true that you can reach cruise speed sooner if
you clmib and then descend but you well end up at the same speed and will
end up taking more time to reach the point that cruise speed was obtained
with the level off and accellerate method. The teminal speed is where
thrust=drag and there is only two such speeds one below VY and one above it.

Actually at the absolute ceiling there is only one cruise speed (Vy) and, in
the case of supersonic aircraft there can be three but for the airplanes we
are considering this is irrelevent.


Mike
MU-2

"Dale" wrote in message
...
I'm speaking from experience flying the airplane. How much time do you
have in a B-24?

I'm not sure why you think the B-24 flies using different physics from all
the rest of the airplanes, but I'm sure you're wrong about that. My lack of
B-24 time is irrelevant.

There are plenty of people who claim to have actually experienced airspeed
drop while making a turn from upwind to downwind. That doesn't mean that
they are correct. Same thing here...I don't care how many hours you have in
the B-24, there's no level of experience that is sufficient to enable you to
bypass basic physical laws.

Pete

A 1956 B-36J flight manual that I have recommends slightly
overshooting the desired cruise altitude:

"As the planned level-off altitude is attained, the aircraft may be
climbed 200 to 500 feet above cruising altitude prior to reducing
power unless instrument flight rules dictate leveling off at the exact
altitude. This small amount of altitude will allow a cushion for the
pilot to trim the aircraft while the engineer is stabilizing
reciprocating power. Regardless of level-off technique, the engineer
has sufficient power available from the reciprocating engines, at less
cost in fuel consumption to complete this maneuver."

The overshoot on level-off could be airspeed instead of altitude:

"Many engineers have found it desirable to hold the climb power after
leveling off so that the airplane accelerates rapidly to a figure well
above the final anticipated value. Some cooling benefits are derived
during this period with increasing air speeds. Then power is reduced
on all engines to a point which is slightly above the final amount so
that while the manual leaning procedure is followed, the necessary
power reductions on individual engines do not result in allowing the
airplane to decelerate below the recommended air speed."

But there's no indication in the B-36 flight manual that approaching
cruise "from above" produced a higher stabilized speed. It simply made
the transition from climb to cruise easier.

--

Paul Hirose
To reply by email delete INVALID from address.

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
about flying on the step:

***Begin quote***
As for flying 'on the step', I believe Jetguy's on the money. For a
given power setting there will be two speeds available (ie: the two
points on the curve where power available = power required). Being 'on
the step' is when you're flying at the higher of the two speeds.

Mmm? As opposed to flying on the back of the power curve??

Paul

"Tobias Schnell" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 14:19:12 -0800, AES/newspost
wrote:

Brought back a very old memory of my first visit to the Soviet Union,
eons ago (maybe 1969?), being driven in from the airport to a Moscow
hotel by a research institute driver who repeatedly accelerated to maybe
50 mph, turned off the engine, coasted back down to maybe 15 mph (with
the clutch disengaged), then repeated the process.

This method is still very common with Chinese cab drivers today. At
least that's what I'm told by colleagues who regularly vist my
company's Chinese plants.

In 5 months working I China I never had a cab driver do that with me
on board. Virtually every other method of driving you can think of,
but not that! :-)

Paul

"Paul Sengupta" wrote in message
...
"Tobias Schnell" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 14:19:12 -0800, AES/newspost
wrote:

Brought back a very old memory of my first visit to the Soviet Union,
eons ago (maybe 1969?), being driven in from the airport to a Moscow
hotel by a research institute driver who repeatedly accelerated to maybe
50 mph, turned off the engine, coasted back down to maybe 15 mph (with
the clutch disengaged), then repeated the process.

This method is still very common with Chinese cab drivers today. At
least that's what I'm told by colleagues who regularly vist my
company's Chinese plants.

In 5 months working I China I never had a cab driver do that with me
on board. Virtually every other method of driving you can think of,
but not that! :-)

Paul



Two folks show up at the Pearly Gates...

One is a minister and the other is a taxi driver.

St Peter says to the taxi driver "Come forward, get your silk gown and golden staff". The minister thinks he's got it
made, man of the cloth and all. So St Peter calls him over and says "Here are your tattered clothes". The minister is
confused so he asked why he does not get the silk gown. St Peter replies that the minister would preach to all the folks
on Sunday at church, and the folks would fall asleep. However, when the taxi driver drove, folks would pray....

Okay, does high wing or low wing airplanes fly better on the step?

hiding under desk
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
" wrote in message
hlink.net...
I'm reading "Fate is the Hunter" and just read something interesting.
Gann
states that they would climb to 100 feet above their cruising altitude
and
then descend the 100 feet back down. He called this "flying on the
step."
He claims that it bought them a few more knots of airspeed.

Has anyone heard of this? Is it normal practice? Or is it one of those
practices that have been disproven?

You might as well have asked about "low wing or high wing".

Many people, including those who otherwise have great heads on their
shoulders, will swear up and down that "flying on the step" is a real and
useful practice. Many others will just as vehemently point out that
there's
no aerodynamic basis for the claim, and that basic physics argues against
it.

Peter Garrison wrote a decent article on the topic several years back, and
it's come up here every now and then over the years as well. Google
Groups
can help fill you in on past discussions.

Bottom line: if there were really something to it, it would be wide-spread
industry and military practice. And yet, all those folks continue to
climb
to their altitude, accelerate to cruise speed and then throttle back to
maintain that speed.

I will say this (yeah, I know I already wrote my "bottom line" )...it's
a
great question if for no other reason than it gets people thinking about
what the proper sequence of events for climbing and cruising are, as well
the the whys and wherefors regarding an airplane's speed versus power
relationship.

Pete