How to tell my instructor to increase glidespeed with headwind?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 13:38:41 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
:

Most correctly (IMHO) point out that not pushing such a point is
occasionally the right response, but generally is not.

I don't recall anyone advising Nik to contact a FSDO inspector, and
quizzing him about the FAA's point of view on this particular issue.
That should settle the argument, but I wouldn't be too hopeful.


What would the average FSDO insector possibly know about a FLYING issue?

Karl
"Curator" N185KG
40 check rides with the FAA

I must be reading the same crap, because that's exactly what I've seen in a
number of replies.

mike

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..

Are you reading the same thread as everyone else here? Where did you come
up
with this crap?

Judah writes:

None of the postings in this thread suggested that the student should ACCEPT
the instructor's misinformation as being accurate.

Saying nothing about it is accepting it. And when the instructor's
misinformation is passed on to another student who doesn't have the
benefit of other independent sources of correct information, it is
taken as gospel, and sometimes bad things happen. My conscience would
not allow me to do that, but some people don't have much of a
conscience.

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

Don Byrer writes:

Go take the PPL or Glider written and maybe the FOI...then you can
make comments like that.

I can make that comment without any exam of any kind. It's a question
of ethics, morals, and conscience, not acquired knowledge. Hurting
other people isn't good in my book. But not everyone uses the same
book.

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

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 17:14:42 -0800, Peter Duniho wrote:

That advice makes some sense for someone in Schiff's position.

I don't agree even there.

I doubt that's true. My point isn't that one just never revists the issue.
It's that in mid-flight, getting into an argument with someone about
something that's not directly related to the safety of the flight isn't
worthwhile.

You seem to be disagreeing with something else, and not something I actually
wrote.

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 23:53:05 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

Go to the Chief Pilot at the FBO, and ask him to explain it to your
CFI.


Hey, I like this idea!

Then go find another instructor.

z

That's wrong, too. Flying at minimum sink will get you the longest time in
the air-like you'd want if you had a tailwind and needed the distance.
Minimum sink is slower than best glide.

mike

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Doe"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 4:02 AM
Subject: How to tell my instructor to increase glidespeed with headwind?



Yes, the greatest *distance* - if you *need* it. Otherwise, I think
he's right - fly at 65kts, and you get the longest time in the air
(something you're short of usually, when the fan dies).

But yep, you're right, *if* you need to get the distance to make the
field.

--
Duncan

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Judah writes:

None of the postings in this thread suggested that the student should
ACCEPT the instructor's misinformation as being accurate.

Saying nothing about it is accepting it. And when the instructor's

From the original post:

But even after telling him that he said that doesn't apply to power
planes, also saying that manuals never give best glide, and there has
to be a reason for that.

So he had already told the instructor he was wrong, and had not accepted the
instructor's misinformation.

On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 16:49:24 -0800, "karl gruber"
wrote in :


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 13:38:41 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
:

Most correctly (IMHO) point out that not pushing such a point is
occasionally the right response, but generally is not.

I don't recall anyone advising Nik to contact a FSDO inspector, and
quizzing him about the FAA's point of view on this particular issue.
That should settle the argument, but I wouldn't be too hopeful.


What would the average FSDO insector possibly know about a FLYING issue?


Right. It might be more appropriate for Nic to contact the Designated
Examiner he intends to use, and quiz him for what he expects to see.

"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote in message
...
"Gary Drescher" wrote:
Best-glide speed is analogous to Vx: it
gives you the best (most positive) angle of flight. Minimum-sink speed is
analogous to Vy. It's Vy, not Vx, that gives you the maximum height in the
shortest time; Vx instead gives you the maximum height in the shortest
lateral distance.

These relationships and analogies between min sink/best
glide and Vx/Vy are always giving trouble. On the one hand,
the comment above is right. Min sink and Vy both relate to
climb/descent rates and excess power. Best glide and Vx
both relate to angle of climb/descent, excess thrust and
force.

On the other hand, Vy is faster than Vx while Vy's
correlated speed, min sink, is SLOWER than Vx's correlated
speed, best glide.

The difference is that min sink/best glide numbers relate
only to airframe/airfoil performance while the Vx/Vy numbers
add in the engine/propeller performance.

John Denker's explanation of the relations among Vx, Vy, min sink, and best
glide is the clearest I've encountered:
http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/power.html#sec-power-curve. Sec. 7.5.4 makes it
geometrically evident at a glance why Vy is greater than Vx but min sink is
less than best glide. Lowering the power curve from full power to zero power
shifts the point at which a line through the origin is tangent to the curve:
the tangent point is prior to the maximum point when the curve is high, but
after the maximum point when the curve is low. (Engine/prop performance
factors mean that the curve gets deformed somewhat as it's raised and
lowered [sec. 7.5.6], but that's a secondary factor.)

--Gary