Get extra lift from AOPA. Start your free membership trial today! Click here

Letters / Talk back /

Climbs, descents, and feet

Readers weigh in on variety of stories

I enjoyed Jamie Beckett’s article on takeoff procedures (“Solve the Takeoff Equation Quandary,” February 2013 Flight Training).

However, the statement that VY “won’t change with weight or weather, but will change with altitude” struck me as suspicious. So I grabbed one of many aircraft manuals lying around the house, for a 1974 Cessna 172. At sea level the VY speed drops from 91 mph at 2,300 pounds to 83 mph at 1,700 pounds. I had also grabbed a manual for the V35 Bonanza to look up something else, so I decided to check that one out as well. It is a very extensive manual and the information there is conflicting. On the one hand, the climb table specifies climb speed of 96 knots or 110 mph for all weights. However, the table for takeoff distance that immediately precedes that one calls for speeds at liftoff and at 50 feet which decrease with weight, e.g. liftoff 71 at knots at 3,400 pounds to 59 knots at 2,400 pounds.

Whit Beckett (no relation)
Rochester, New York

USE YOUR FEET

Ian Twombly’s piece on turning power-on stalls in the February issue was a good review (“Technique: Turning Power-On Stalls”). The FAA’s increased emphasis on stall recovery technique might perhaps have precipitated more detail on the stall recovery—particularly the use of rudder instead of aileron to level the wings during a stall, as the aileron will be quite ineffective in most airplanes during a stall.

Mike Pidek
Owosso, Michigan

HERE TO HELP

I just wanted to say that I read Flight Training to find the errors. It never lets me down. The February issue has a doozy! There are not four left-turning tendencies except in a conventional tail-wheel airplane with a standard engine. Even then they are encountered primarily on takeoff.

I am constantly having to “help” students, instructors, and other what we can loosely call professionals in the aviation business. With your magazine pooring [sic] out the errors, I have many, many years of work ahead. Thanks.

In a standard-engined, Cessna-style airplane (excludes the pushers), when the aircraft is pitched up the yaw tendency from precession is to the right.

Laury Weitzel
Meadow, Texas

Weitzel’s is the most direct of the many letters we received about this mistake, for which we apologize.—Ed.

BLAME THYSELF

I always enjoy Wayne Phillips’ articles. I am a “green” pilot of about one year and 150 hours. I have no intention of ever pursuing aviation as a career, mostly because I make a good living and the investment would never be worth the return. I do think an aviation career would be a lot more enjoyable though!

I wanted to comment on the subject article in the February issue (“Career Advisor: Hiring Boom or Bust?”). While I sympathize with David and completely agree with his position that flight instruction can’t possibly be a viable way of making a living and that getting on to an airline is quite difficult, I have to say that he really has himself to blame for part of his problem. David says that he has 1,400 hours and only a two-year degree. Based on that he does not qualify for the proposed new standards. No airline is going to hire him without attainment of the minimum proposed standards. Had David gotten a four-year degree his chances of being hired would have been much higher. Once David has his 1,500 hours I would assume his chances will also increase dramatically. David is correct on all accounts, but he forgot to point the finger at himself for some of his problems. I was also surprised that you didn’t bring that up as well.

Joel Dubey
Tarpon Springs, Florida

"Flight Training" readers

Related Articles