Daniel Nelson

This question occured to me as I was reading the discussion on how symmetric airfoils create lift, and I thought about the old saw: being a good engineer does not make you a good pilot. However, I tend to think that some aspects of that would be true, that being a good engineer might make you a better pilot, as it would give you a better understanding of the forces at work. This begs the question, how much aerodynamics should pilots know? Notice I am referring to pilots of all aircraft, not just R/C.

I'll answer my own question: A good pilot should have a good understanding of stability, in particular what is static stability and how the movement of the center of gravity affects it. He (or she) should know what density altitude is, how temperature and altitude affect it and how it affects lift. Finally, I think a pilot should have a basic understanding of how lift is generated, especially with respect to angle of attack. One could probably do with out the last one, but I do think it's important that pilots know what happens in a stall and what it does to your control surfaces.

Anyways, those are my thoughts. Opinions?

Ikaros

A pilot needs no knowledge of aerodynamics at all, theoretically.

However, because mistakes could be so dangerous, it is good if he or she has some knowledge.

A bird knows nothing and everyting about it at the same time.

I think a pilot should have basic understanding of aerodynamics.

Rest should be piloting skills. (backbone reactions)

Cheers,
Ikaros

Ben Lanterman

I perfer to know an a lot about anything that involves my health or money :-)

There are too many good sites on the internet to be uninformed about how an airplane flies. It just requires a little study and a reasonablely open mind about what is read. Each piece of aero learned can lead to another.

You should never set an upper limit to what you know. I started working as an aero eng in 1965 and find that I learn something each day, I am constantly amazed at the intelligence of professionals and laymen alike in the field (but then I am easily amazed, I hope it is a desireable characteristic).

Ikaros

You will never ever find a combination of a skilled aerodynamicer and a very skilled pilot in the same person.

Forget that

Cheers,
Ikaros

JimTrainor

A old book called "Stick and Rudder" that was standard reading for pilots 50 years ago tossed much theory out the door and goes as far as expressing some disdain for the engineers who consider it important and try to convince the pilots it is important for them to understand.... so that gives your question some historical context.

Of course, if the engineers listened to the pilots who held those opinions, there'd be no planes for them fly.

The book, doesn't completely toss theory. It does explain and consider important many of the items you noted in your first post.
Disdain is reserved for more esoteric (to the layman) concepts such as circulation, and to a certain even thngs as basic an Mr Bernoulli's theory (as I recall...).

Here is the book, it is a worthwile read, and considering it is still in print, must be in regular demand:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846

banktoturn

Ikaros,

That is a truly ridiculous, baseless statement.

banktoturn

vinnie

My Feedback: (1)

Oddly enough, Danny, your last one would be my first and most important one. In fact, in my opinion, if pilots were allowed to know but one aero principle, it should be how lift is generated.

BMatthews

Yes you do... they are called "retired test pilots that lived to collect a pension".....

Seriously I'm sure the better test pilot know enough to at least communicate effectively with the engineers.

But on the whole I think the pilot doesn't need to know diddly other than have a basic appreciation for some of the factors that are under his direct control. Like loading and CG and how to read and obey the manual.

Ben Lanterman

Ikaros, I have worked with test pilots at McDonnell Douglas and can assure you that they have an excellent knowledge of aerodynamics. Bruce's statement is very true.

In my own humble opinion (and those of some judges that gave me a couple of trophies in the few contests that I have been able to fly in through the years) I am a very good RC pilot and humbly submit myself as a data point to prove it is possible to be a good aero eng and a good pilot. I also oil paint, have won graphics arts contest, am an avid photographer, jewelry maker, wookworker, ham radio operator (52 years) and have found it is possible to do them all and still be a reasonablely good pilot.

It sure doesn't hurt.

Ikaros

You are right and I am wrong.

It is of cource an ideal situation if a pilot is skilled both in theoretics and practical piloting skills.

I meant that is that it is extremely rare to find a person with outstanding skills in both fields.

Quite often, what I mean does not come through because of the language barrier and I tend to sound short and blunt sometimes.

Cheers,
Ikaros

Ben Lanterman

Considering the fact that I absolutely cannot function in a second language and even mess up English really badly I can understand the problem of communication. It is necessary to be sure the words say what you mean though as that is the only means of communication we are using. When all shades of humor and differences of opinion are just a few characters on a page it is important that the meaning is clear.

It might be rare to find outstanding skills in both fields but probably quite common to find good skills in both.

I have known aero eng with almost no knowledge of flying except in a theoretical way but going the other direction I would think most pilots are pilots for the love of flying and so tend to pursue aero topics as they are a part of flying.

Ikaros

The language problem is even worse when using instant communications.

I could write down a snapshot of my thoughts and send it to the whole world in a very short period of time.

That causes problems. If I talked to you face to face, I would see your reactions and I would interact and explain what I mean if required.

It is not possible to do that with the new media types. The modern communication media causes new problems.

Cheers,
Ikaros

Ikaros

I feel it is precisely lilke you say, only some characters makes a huge difference in what you are trying to say. Different languages puts an exponent on that problem.

Cheers,
Ikaros

Ikaros

I hope you English speaking lads and girls does not think that is is a problem with wackos speaking strange languages like myself.

It is important for us to stay together and not let a trivial things like weird languages keeping us apart.

Cheers,
Ikaros

Ikaros

Reason I say aerodynamics is not so important to a pilot, is that when I fly a model airplane, I use my aerodynamic knowledge wery sparingly.

Reason is that when I fly my models (in a very different manner compared to a military operations or commercial flights), I think very little of aerodynamics. If I think about aerodynamics when my model acts up near ground, they will be wrecked.

The theoretical knowledge should be chewed on when you are not flying.

The result of thinking of it should be downloaded to your back-bone when you are not flying.

Then you can use it properly when flying.

That is what I mean.

Cheers,
Ikaros

BMatthews

Don't sweat it. Different people express themselves in different manners. As long as there's nothing vulgar or outright argumentative no one should ever assume malice without at least checking into it.

Just think of yourself as a "catalyst" for longer threads....

Ikaros

When I was a kid, I could play Scott Joplin piano pieces.

I paid little attention to musical theoretics while doping it.

However, while learning it, I had to read the notes.

A bird does not give a **** about Reynold's numbers either.

If they did, they might survive some situations that occasionally kills them.

Cheers,
Ikaros

Gary Retterbush

Interesting! You are probably right as pilots all over the world have flown for years without correctly knowing how lift is generated. For years we were taught incorrectly and still are in many places. Even today most text books are incorrect and/or misleading.

I don't mean to go off on a tangent as that subject has been beat to death but as a pilot who was taught incorrectly by none other than the DOD and FAA , I think it is worth mentioning that there were and are lots of pretty successful pilots who don't know how lift is generated.

Now where did I put my NOMEX flying suit?

Silvanskii

My Feedback: (17)

If you want to fly, then you needn't know anything except what frequency you set your radio to.

If you want to push the limits and expand the envelope, you must have good aerodynamic knowledge and structural knowledge of your plane or else you:
a) won't know where to begin
b) won't know how to recover from unusual attitudes
c) will overstress the airframe and yourself
d) kill yourself and or wreck the plane.

Simple as that.

Gary Retterbush

For test pilots, absolutely; but otherwise, I can't fully agree.

What is needed is a good knowledge of the aircraft limits and more importantly, your limits!

Pilot's who don't know and abide by these two things become statistics.

Tall Paul

.
Actually there's a couple more classes of folks that don't know their limits..
The PITA kids with their 150mph hotrods that buzz the runway... and the doddering old f***s that should be drinking coffee instead of flying 5 seconds behind the airplane..:spinnyeye

Ben Lanterman

As a professional coffee drinking active flying old fart I might take exception to the last statement :-)

And I would ask everyone how can you ever really truly enjoy flying without feeling, sensing and knowing the air and how it interacts with your airplanes. You might as well take up golfing as a hobby/obsession.

puffmaru-RCU

Go fast and turn left!! <G>!!

Daniel Nelson

Ikarus, you're right of course here, when I'm flying my gliders the last thing on my mind is how the circulation on the wing is being affected by the flaps. Where I think that aerodynamics is really important is on the ground before takeoff.

I've heard of too many horror stories of pilots who overloaded their planes, or piled to much load in the tail and moved the cg too far aft, or some other stupid mistake that results in their death.

-Dan Nelson

PS: Vinnie: No offense, but please don't refer to me as 'Danny' in the future. Dan or Daniel is fine.

Daniel Nelson

Gary, for that matter, one of my professors was talking about how some senior aerodynamicist at Lockheed got lift generation wrong. This was quite a few years ago, but still even the experts aren't always right.

-Dan Nelson