What's the difference between these aircraft? Is one simply a continuation
of the other?

> What's the difference between these aircraft? Is one simply a
continuation
> of the other?

Isn't the Lance retractable? Or did they make a fixed-gear version?

If it's the latter, I can't imagine too many differences between the
birds...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

The Cherokee 6 is a fixed gear, six place Piper. The Lance is retractable, but
also, for a period,was built with a T tail. The T tail stabilator is too small
and, being out of the prop wash, is relatively unresponsive at slow airspeeds
and can be a real handful for even experienced pilots. I'd recommend that you
stay away from the T tail Lance. The normal configuration Lance is a nice plane
to fly, however.

On the other hand, the Cherokee Six is a real work horse and a nice plane to
fly.

Other than that, basically the same plane.

Bridgadoon wrote:

> What's the difference between these aircraft? Is one simply a continuation
> of the other?

Pat Barry > wrote in :

> The Cherokee 6 is a fixed gear, six place Piper. The Lance is
> retractable, but also, for a period,was built with a T tail. The T
> tail stabilator is too small and, being out of the prop wash, is
> relatively unresponsive at slow airspeeds and can be a real handful
> for even experienced pilots. I'd recommend that you stay away from the
> T tail Lance. The normal configuration Lance is a nice plane to fly,
> however.

Why, pray tell, would you stay away from the T-tail Lance? Ever flown one?

--
John Godwin
Silicon Rallye Inc.

"John Godwin" > wrote in message
...
> Pat Barry > wrote in :
>
> > The Cherokee 6 is a fixed gear, six place Piper. The Lance is
> > retractable, but also, for a period,was built with a T tail. The T
> > tail stabilator is too small and, being out of the prop wash, is
> > relatively unresponsive at slow airspeeds and can be a real handful
> > for even experienced pilots. I'd recommend that you stay away from the
> > T tail Lance. The normal configuration Lance is a nice plane to fly,
> > however.
>
> Why, pray tell, would you stay away from the T-tail Lance? Ever flown
one?
>
> --
> John Godwin
> Silicon Rallye Inc.


Because either:

1) he flew one and wasn't trained properly on how to use the trim...
or
2) he never flew one and believes the folklore propagated by some people
who weren't trained properly on how to use the trim

If you fly a T-tail (any manufacturer) like a conventional tail, you won't
be
happy. If you trim it properly, it flies off the runway easily, just like
most
other airplanes.

I have 1,200 hours in my T-Lance, and after the first few hours of learning,
it's simply a non-issue. Of course, the fact that my initial instructor
flew a
T-tail King Air every day, could have something to do with knowing how
to operate it.

Unfortunately, Piper's flight manual did not cover the subject at all.
If you want to blame something, blame the book, which certainly is poor.

The piper T-tail trim doesn't just affect spring pressure. It affects the
aerodynamics of the tail. That means problems, when you put the trim
in the middle (what Piper notes as "takeoff"), but actually are in a very
forward CG loading. That's what you are when its just you and an
instructor, with no one in the back, the typical scenario when a prospective
purchaser tries out an airplane.

In such a CG loading, if you set the trim aft, the ship will fly itself off
the
runway at 60-65 knots. Of course, unless you plan to climb at 65 knots,
upon rotation, start retrimming forward. No surprise there, if you're
flying
anything bigger - just normal procedure.

If you had set the trim in the middle, you would need to pull the yoke
back farther, to compensate for the trim being in the wrong place. Pulling
it back farther moves the entire stabilator, creating more drag, hence
longer
takeoff distances that untrained pilots report. When that pilot finally
does
leave the ground, he's pulling back so hard on the yoke, that he over
rotates,
has to now push forward *hard*, and bobbles up and down. Not a good
feeling, so
it must be the airplane's fault, right?

Even if the pilot forcibly holds the yoke in the "correct" place, ignoring
the
pressures, he'll still roll a long way down the runway. I'm not an
aerodynamic
engineer, and I know Piper's trim is primarily a spring pressure system, but
it's
easy to demonstrate. If you have someone run the trim while you watch the
trim tab on the rear edge of the stabilator, you can see it moves when trim
is
changed. All you have to do, is run two takeoffs, one with middle trim, and
the other in more "up" trim, and the difference will be quite obvious.

Trim it correctly, use 2 notches of flaps always, and you'll rotate in 1200
to 1500 feet,
at sea level, depending on loading. Trim it wrong, and you'll be rolling
down
the runway easily twice that. You can see where the folklore comes from.
It's not that the people initially unhappy were liars, they just weren't
trained.

Just remember to use the appropriate takeoff trim position, depending on
loading, which in other loading configurations could be just the opposite.
Piper did a very poor job of communicating how to fly these things.
The operations manual explains none of this. If you truly do fly it "by the
book",
(which basically says "put it in the middle"), you'll be disappointed.

The only true negative quality, is that a soft field takeoff simply doesn't
exist. You can't raise the nose below 50 knots, because the tail is not
in the prop wash. If you fly in and out of unpaved fields, this is probably
not your airplane, but for that matter neither is the Saratoga, because
Piper's retractible gear is not particularly rugged anyway. If you use a
retractable Piper-6 in any variant on unpaved strips, you're going to spend
a lot of money repeatedly rebuilding the gear. None of these are the right
choice for grass strips. For that use, buy a Bonanza.

The positive qualities are that the T-tail airplanes experience absolutely
no
trim change with flap or gear extension. The stabilator is up in clear air,
undisturbed by flap or gear extension. That's something nice when you're
busy on instruments. When I fly a conventional tail now (rare, since I
usually
fly my own ship), I have to remember to compensate.

Of course, the other nice quality is that you can usually purchase a T-tail
for
$5k to $10k less, because of the folklore. Overall, they're neither better
or
worse, if each is operated correctly.

I usually don't sign my name in newsgroups, to keep the spam down, but
since the flames will follow this post, here you go...

don ferrario
Lance N54SS
www.donferrario.com

"CarSalesman" > wrote in
:

> I usually don't sign my name in newsgroups, to keep the spam down, but
> since the flames will follow this post, here you go...

After many hours in the T-tail Lance also, the only irritant I can think of
was having to carry a small step stool for preflight inspection of the
stabilator. Other than that, it was a joy to fly.

--
John Godwin
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT from email address)

("CarSalesman" sig)
> Lance N54SS
> www.donferrario.com

Nice web site
Nice house photos
Nice wildlife photos
Nice photos of many things

Um, any plane pictures?

Looks like your plane might have gotten you to a photo shoot or two - just
guessing.

--
Montblack

Good idea. I'll have to add some of those.

Wanna buy a house?

don


"Montblack" > wrote in message
.. .
> ("CarSalesman" sig)
> > Lance N54SS
> > www.donferrario.com
>
> Nice web site
> Nice house photos
> Nice wildlife photos
> Nice photos of many things
>
> Um, any plane pictures?
>
> Looks like your plane might have gotten you to a photo shoot or two - just
> guessing.
>
> --
> Montblack
>
>
>

"Bridgadoon" > wrote in message >...
> What's the difference between these aircraft? Is one simply a continuation
> of the other?

I was very pleased to see the 6X at Sun-n-Fun when Piper
(re)introduced it. But for $330K+ to get VFR only, I'd spend that
money in a mid-90's used Saratoga.

I'd been contemplating buying a PA-32 of some kind for a while and
noted that the used Lance prices were significantly lower than the
used Saratoga prices. Differences being, as mentioned here:

Lance: straight wing, T-tail, retract, older(78-79)
Saratoga: tapered wing, straight tail, retract or fixed, newer(80
onward)

A LOT of pilots are against the T-tail for the alleged instability at
low speeds, and I think that's the biggest reason for the lower value.
It flies and carries roughly the same as the Saratoga, though, so all
other things considered about equal, I might have gone with a Lance,
until......

Found me a beautiful 72' 6-300 decked out with great avionics and new
leather interior for under $90K (1700 SMOH/3700 TTAF). After a 4 hour
pre-buy that revealed an overall well cared for beast, I jumped on it.

When I step inside, the first thing I and my passengers thinks is
ROOOOOOOMY! I LOVE the PA-32 airframe. And, the 1000 pound
payload(with full fuel) is fantastic. For these reasons, my next
step-up (someday) will be a Saratoga or Senecca.

"Dave" > wrote in message
m...
> "Bridgadoon" > wrote in message
>...
> Lance: straight wing, T-tail, retract, older(78-79)
> Saratoga: tapered wing, straight tail, retract or fixed, newer(80
> onward)
>
> A LOT of pilots are against the T-tail for the alleged instability at
> low speeds, and I think that's the biggest reason for the lower value.
> It flies and carries roughly the same as the Saratoga, though, so all
> other things considered about equal, I might have gone with a Lance,
> until......


Funny that you never hear Gulfstream pilots complaining about the location
of the tail on their aircraft, or King Air 200 pilots.

Mike
MU-2

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> m...
> > "Bridgadoon" > wrote in message
> >...
> > Lance: straight wing, T-tail, retract, older(78-79)
> > Saratoga: tapered wing, straight tail, retract or fixed, newer(80
> > onward)
> >
> > A LOT of pilots are against the T-tail for the alleged instability at
> > low speeds, and I think that's the biggest reason for the lower value.
> > It flies and carries roughly the same as the Saratoga, though, so all
> > other things considered about equal, I might have gone with a Lance,
> > until......
>
>
> Funny that you never hear Gulfstream pilots complaining about the location
> of the tail on their aircraft, or King Air 200 pilots.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
What is funny about it?

I flew the DA-20 Katana with a T-tail and it was sweet as could be at speeds
as slow as it could be gotten.

I guess "alleged" is the key word.


"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> m...
> > "Bridgadoon" > wrote in message
> >...
> > Lance: straight wing, T-tail, retract, older(78-79)
> > Saratoga: tapered wing, straight tail, retract or fixed, newer(80
> > onward)
> >
> > A LOT of pilots are against the T-tail for the alleged instability at
> > low speeds, and I think that's the biggest reason for the lower value.
> > It flies and carries roughly the same as the Saratoga, though, so all
> > other things considered about equal, I might have gone with a Lance,
> > until......
>
>
> Funny that you never hear Gulfstream pilots complaining about the location
> of the tail on their aircraft, or King Air 200 pilots.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>

I haven't flown one but read in the "Aviation Consumer guide" that at slow
speeds with high angle of attacks, the tail does not get enough air because
it is in the area behind the main wings. Makes sense to me, but you want to
read up on it. Losing elevator control in a slow speed, high angle of attack
situation is something I don't want from a plane. And I guess there are a
lot pilots who don't like that kind of behavior. If you fly the plane by the
numbers it doesn't matter but things happen, and then...???

It is funny, or at least interesting, that well trained pilots have no
problem with T-taill airplanes. Since a T-tail Lance will rotate the
airplane, even with the cg beyond the forward limit, at a speed below stall,
how can anyone say that it lacks "elevator authority" or that the stabilator
is too small? I have flown a T-tail Lance with trim only as a training
exercise and I have flown without trim when the trim cable failed, neither
presented any control problems.

Mike
MU-2


"Nobody" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> >
> > "Dave" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > "Bridgadoon" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > Lance: straight wing, T-tail, retract, older(78-79)
> > > Saratoga: tapered wing, straight tail, retract or fixed, newer(80
> > > onward)
> > >
> > > A LOT of pilots are against the T-tail for the alleged instability at
> > > low speeds, and I think that's the biggest reason for the lower value.
> > > It flies and carries roughly the same as the Saratoga, though, so all
> > > other things considered about equal, I might have gone with a Lance,
> > > until......
> >
> >
> > Funny that you never hear Gulfstream pilots complaining about the
location
> > of the tail on their aircraft, or King Air 200 pilots.
> >
> > Mike
> > MU-2
> >
> >
> What is funny about it?
>
>

It loses elevator control in slow flight with high angles of attack, not at
take off. Then the tail comes down and gets no air because it is in the
horizontal axis right behind the main wings. That makes the tail less
effective, because the airflow it gets is partly deflected by the high angle
of attack of the main wing and the airflow does not even reach the tail and
is also turbulent. The use of flaps makes this even more pronounced! A
straight tail in comparison would be way lower in totally undisturbed
airflow and more effective in this kind of flight envelope. This happens
when you have to ad power to fly slower, it's called getting behind the
power curve. This does NOT happen when you take off.
Other airplanes don't have the same problem because of their different
geometry. (Longer fuselage and higher or lower t-tail.)
It really has nothing to do with 'well trained pilots'. If you were well
trained you would know that! Maybe you should find somebody who can draw you
a picture. No offense...


"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> It is funny, or at least interesting, that well trained pilots have no
> problem with T-taill airplanes. Since a T-tail Lance will rotate the
> airplane, even with the cg beyond the forward limit, at a speed below
stall,
> how can anyone say that it lacks "elevator authority" or that the
stabilator
> is too small? I have flown a T-tail Lance with trim only as a training
> exercise and I have flown without trim when the trim cable failed, neither
> presented any control problems.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
> "Nobody" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> > >
> > > "Dave" > wrote in message
> > > m...
> > > > "Bridgadoon" > wrote in message
> > > >...
> > > > Lance: straight wing, T-tail, retract, older(78-79)
> > > > Saratoga: tapered wing, straight tail, retract or fixed, newer(80
> > > > onward)
> > > >
> > > > A LOT of pilots are against the T-tail for the alleged instability
at
> > > > low speeds, and I think that's the biggest reason for the lower
value.
> > > > It flies and carries roughly the same as the Saratoga, though, so
all
> > > > other things considered about equal, I might have gone with a Lance,
> > > > until......
> > >
> > >
> > > Funny that you never hear Gulfstream pilots complaining about the
> location
> > > of the tail on their aircraft, or King Air 200 pilots.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > > MU-2
> > >
> > >
> > What is funny about it?
> >
> >
>
>
>

absolute bull****....

"Renzoni Papaloni" > wrote in message
om...
> It loses elevator control in slow flight with high angles of attack, not
at
> take off.

Obviously, you've never flown one of these things. If your statement were
true, it would be impossible to stall the plane. Elevator control is just
fine
in all phases of slow flight, landing configuration stalls, and accelerated
stalls - exactly as required for FAA certification. Also exactly as any
pilot is trained when checked out on a new type.


> Then the tail comes down and gets no air because it is in the
> horizontal axis right behind the main wings.

Now, you're really showing your innocence. The stabilator does
*not* hold the back of the airplane up, it holds it *down*. If you
really lost elevator control for the reason described, the airplane would
pitch down, not up.



> That makes the tail less
> effective, because the airflow it gets is partly deflected by the high
angle
> of attack of the main wing and the airflow does not even reach the tail
and
> is also turbulent. The use of flaps makes this even more pronounced! A
> straight tail in comparison would be way lower in totally undisturbed
> airflow and more effective in this kind of flight envelope.

You better go look at one of these things on the ramp. If you were to
get the nose so high, that the T-tail stabilator were totally behind the
main wing, you'd have an angle of attack of about 30 to 40 degrees,
which is about 3 times greater than the stall. The condition you
describe is impossible. You'd be in a spin long before you reached
that angle of attack.



> This happens
> when you have to ad power to fly slower, it's called getting behind the
> power curve. This does NOT happen when you take off.

I hope you're not an active pilot. Do you really think that getting behind
the power curve is limited to the tail design of the plane? You can get
behind
the power curve in any airplane, especially any piston airplane. You need
to get some training on that phase of flight, soon.


> Other airplanes don't have the same problem because of their different
> geometry. (Longer fuselage and higher or lower t-tail.)
> It really has nothing to do with 'well trained pilots'. If you were well
> trained you would know that! Maybe you should find somebody who can draw
you
> a picture. No offense...
>

Better look at your own picture. With a much longer fuselage, the angle of
attack required to get the T-tail down behind the main wing, is reduced.

don

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net...
> >
> > "Dave" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > "Bridgadoon" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > Lance: straight wing, T-tail, retract, older(78-79)
> > > Saratoga: tapered wing, straight tail, retract or fixed, newer(80
> > > onward)
> >
> > A LOT of pilots are against the T-tail for the alleged instability at
> > low speeds, and I think that's the biggest reason for the lower value.
> > It flies and carries roughly the same as the Saratoga, though, so all
> > other things considered about equal, I might have gone with a Lance,
> > until......
>
>
> Funny that you never hear Gulfstream pilots complaining about the
location
> of the tail on their aircraft, or King Air 200 pilots.
>
> Mike
> MU-2

I notice, too, that Cessna changed the tail on the CJ/CJ1/CJ2 (early 90's)
as well as the Citation X, to a T-tail from the earlier cruciform (and on
the earlier 650 series C-III/VI/VII) and left it in place on the
Bravo/Encore/Excel.

Read it the Aviation Consumer Guide you ****ing ignorant know-it-all Car
Salesman.

If elevator control is fine, there would be no problem and they would still
build it like that, wouldn't they. I haven't seen a Saratoga with a T-tail,
have you?

If I look at an airplane rotating to climb or take off, the tail comes down
and moves in the axis behind the wings. I never said why. I very well know
that the tail generates downforce to reach equilibrium - but the issue is
the tail moves down relative to the axis to climb. Period. And yes, it does
it by generating even more downforce than is needed at level flight.

And you don't loose total elevator control, only some authority if you get
near the area, if you want the details. And the area is more than 3 ****ing
degrees in bumpy air.

And the plane should pitch down and it does if you approach the stall
slowly. Yes it should (FAA) and does. But if you compensate and hence get
into the area of extreme high attack (of the main wings), the elevator moves
down even further, into the full airflow BELOW and the plane pitches up
violently. Why? Because you compensate for some loss of elevator control and
pull real hard. I know you shouldn't do it but people did and didn't like
how it felt, ok?

Your statement about 30 to 40 degrees would lead to a stall is totally wrong
without connecting it to speed. I pull up a Cessna 152 to 90 degrees
(vertical) if I have the airspeed and if I am crazy enough. (My instructor
did). Before I run out of steam I push and avoid a stall. It's a nice ride
but doesn't last long if you want to live.



"CarSalesman" > wrote in message
...
> absolute bull****....
>
> "Renzoni Papaloni" > wrote in message
> om...
> > It loses elevator control in slow flight with high angles of attack, not
> at
> > take off.
>
> Obviously, you've never flown one of these things. If your statement were
> true, it would be impossible to stall the plane. Elevator control is just
> fine
> in all phases of slow flight, landing configuration stalls, and
accelerated
> stalls - exactly as required for FAA certification. Also exactly as any
> pilot is trained when checked out on a new type.
>
>
> > Then the tail comes down and gets no air because it is in the
> > horizontal axis right behind the main wings.
>
> Now, you're really showing your innocence. The stabilator does
> *not* hold the back of the airplane up, it holds it *down*. If you
> really lost elevator control for the reason described, the airplane would
> pitch down, not up.
>
>
>
> > That makes the tail less
> > effective, because the airflow it gets is partly deflected by the high
> angle
> > of attack of the main wing and the airflow does not even reach the tail
> and
> > is also turbulent. The use of flaps makes this even more pronounced! A
> > straight tail in comparison would be way lower in totally undisturbed
> > airflow and more effective in this kind of flight envelope.
>
> You better go look at one of these things on the ramp. If you were to
> get the nose so high, that the T-tail stabilator were totally behind the
> main wing, you'd have an angle of attack of about 30 to 40 degrees,
> which is about 3 times greater than the stall. The condition you
> describe is impossible. You'd be in a spin long before you reached
> that angle of attack.
>
>
>
> > This happens
> > when you have to ad power to fly slower, it's called getting behind the
> > power curve. This does NOT happen when you take off.
>
> I hope you're not an active pilot. Do you really think that getting
behind
> the power curve is limited to the tail design of the plane? You can get
> behind
> the power curve in any airplane, especially any piston airplane. You need
> to get some training on that phase of flight, soon.
>
>
> > Other airplanes don't have the same problem because of their different
> > geometry. (Longer fuselage and higher or lower t-tail.)
> > It really has nothing to do with 'well trained pilots'. If you were well
> > trained you would know that! Maybe you should find somebody who can draw
> you
> > a picture. No offense...
> >
>
> Better look at your own picture. With a much longer fuselage, the angle
of
> attack required to get the T-tail down behind the main wing, is reduced.
>
> don
>
>
>
>

Nobody > wrote:
: I haven't flown one but read in the "Aviation Consumer guide" that at slow
: speeds with high angle of attacks, the tail does not get enough air because
: it is in the area behind the main wings. Makes sense to me, but you want to
: read up on it. Losing elevator control in a slow speed, high angle of attack
: situation is something I don't want from a plane. And I guess there are a
: lot pilots who don't like that kind of behavior. If you fly the plane by the
: numbers it doesn't matter but things happen, and then...???

This is called a "deep stall", and only can happen on T-tail aircraft. You
might do a Google on "Trident Staines" to find out what happens when it is
taken to an extreme. A deep stall is generally considered to be unrecoverable.
This phenomenon has been experienced on B-727 airplanes as well. If memory
serves, the last occurrence was in New York in 1974 or so (there were
mitigtating features, having to do with pitot heat and erroneous airspeed
indications). NTSB report AAR-75-13 has more details.

I would have a hard time believing that any partially competent pilot in
a piston single can get it into a deep stall situation. I haven't flown
a T-tail lance, but I have flown a T-tail turbo arrow, and I didn't
notice a big deal. Set the trim correctly and it flies off the runway.
I didn't notice any untoward stall behavior, either, but I had only 70
hours of flight time at the time (I was considering buying it, but it
was out of my price range at the time).

--
Aaron Coolidge

Aaron Coolidge > writes:

> This is called a "deep stall", and only can happen on T-tail
> aircraft.

Is that the same as a tail stall? Those can happen on a low tail as
well, especially if there's icing or if the CG is too far back.
Here's a good description:

http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/aoastab.html#sec-too-far-aft


All the best,


David

You need a course in basic aerodynamics. You would learn that pitch angle
and AOA are completely independent. And don't quote Aviation Consumer as an
authority, many of their reviews are full of contradictions.

Mike
MU-2


"Renzoni Papaloni" > wrote in message
om...
> Read it the Aviation Consumer Guide you ****ing ignorant know-it-all Car
> Salesman.
>
> If elevator control is fine, there would be no problem and they would
still
> build it like that, wouldn't they. I haven't seen a Saratoga with a
T-tail,
> have you?
>
> If I look at an airplane rotating to climb or take off, the tail comes
down
> and moves in the axis behind the wings. I never said why. I very well know
> that the tail generates downforce to reach equilibrium - but the issue is
> the tail moves down relative to the axis to climb. Period. And yes, it
does
> it by generating even more downforce than is needed at level flight.
>
> And you don't loose total elevator control, only some authority if you get
> near the area, if you want the details. And the area is more than 3
****ing
> degrees in bumpy air.
>
> And the plane should pitch down and it does if you approach the stall
> slowly. Yes it should (FAA) and does. But if you compensate and hence get
> into the area of extreme high attack (of the main wings), the elevator
moves
> down even further, into the full airflow BELOW and the plane pitches up
> violently. Why? Because you compensate for some loss of elevator control
and
> pull real hard. I know you shouldn't do it but people did and didn't like
> how it felt, ok?
>
> Your statement about 30 to 40 degrees would lead to a stall is totally
wrong
> without connecting it to speed. I pull up a Cessna 152 to 90 degrees
> (vertical) if I have the airspeed and if I am crazy enough. (My instructor
> did). Before I run out of steam I push and avoid a stall. It's a nice ride
> but doesn't last long if you want to live.
>
>
>
> "CarSalesman" > wrote in message
> ...
> > absolute bull****....
> >
> > "Renzoni Papaloni" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > It loses elevator control in slow flight with high angles of attack,
not
> > at
> > > take off.
> >
> > Obviously, you've never flown one of these things. If your statement
were
> > true, it would be impossible to stall the plane. Elevator control is
just
> > fine
> > in all phases of slow flight, landing configuration stalls, and
> accelerated
> > stalls - exactly as required for FAA certification. Also exactly as any
> > pilot is trained when checked out on a new type.
> >
> >
> > > Then the tail comes down and gets no air because it is in the
> > > horizontal axis right behind the main wings.
> >
> > Now, you're really showing your innocence. The stabilator does
> > *not* hold the back of the airplane up, it holds it *down*. If you
> > really lost elevator control for the reason described, the airplane
would
> > pitch down, not up.
> >
> >
> >
> > > That makes the tail less
> > > effective, because the airflow it gets is partly deflected by the high
> > angle
> > > of attack of the main wing and the airflow does not even reach the
tail
> > and
> > > is also turbulent. The use of flaps makes this even more pronounced!
A
> > > straight tail in comparison would be way lower in totally undisturbed
> > > airflow and more effective in this kind of flight envelope.
> >
> > You better go look at one of these things on the ramp. If you were to
> > get the nose so high, that the T-tail stabilator were totally behind the
> > main wing, you'd have an angle of attack of about 30 to 40 degrees,
> > which is about 3 times greater than the stall. The condition you
> > describe is impossible. You'd be in a spin long before you reached
> > that angle of attack.
> >
> >
> >
> > > This happens
> > > when you have to ad power to fly slower, it's called getting behind
the
> > > power curve. This does NOT happen when you take off.
> >
> > I hope you're not an active pilot. Do you really think that getting
> behind
> > the power curve is limited to the tail design of the plane? You can get
> > behind
> > the power curve in any airplane, especially any piston airplane. You
need
> > to get some training on that phase of flight, soon.
> >
> >
> > > Other airplanes don't have the same problem because of their different
> > > geometry. (Longer fuselage and higher or lower t-tail.)
> > > It really has nothing to do with 'well trained pilots'. If you were
well
> > > trained you would know that! Maybe you should find somebody who can
draw
> > you
> > > a picture. No offense...
> > >
> >
> > Better look at your own picture. With a much longer fuselage, the angle
> of
> > attack required to get the T-tail down behind the main wing, is reduced.
> >
> > don
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

I don't need anything.

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> You need a course in basic aerodynamics. You would learn that pitch angle
> and AOA are completely independent. And don't quote Aviation Consumer as
an
> authority, many of their reviews are full of contradictions.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
> "Renzoni Papaloni" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Read it the Aviation Consumer Guide you ****ing ignorant know-it-all Car
> > Salesman.
> >
> > If elevator control is fine, there would be no problem and they would
> still
> > build it like that, wouldn't they. I haven't seen a Saratoga with a
> T-tail,
> > have you?
> >
> > If I look at an airplane rotating to climb or take off, the tail comes
> down
> > and moves in the axis behind the wings. I never said why. I very well
know
> > that the tail generates downforce to reach equilibrium - but the issue
is
> > the tail moves down relative to the axis to climb. Period. And yes, it
> does
> > it by generating even more downforce than is needed at level flight.
> >
> > And you don't loose total elevator control, only some authority if you
get
> > near the area, if you want the details. And the area is more than 3
> ****ing
> > degrees in bumpy air.
> >
> > And the plane should pitch down and it does if you approach the stall
> > slowly. Yes it should (FAA) and does. But if you compensate and hence
get
> > into the area of extreme high attack (of the main wings), the elevator
> moves
> > down even further, into the full airflow BELOW and the plane pitches up
> > violently. Why? Because you compensate for some loss of elevator control
> and
> > pull real hard. I know you shouldn't do it but people did and didn't
like
> > how it felt, ok?
> >
> > Your statement about 30 to 40 degrees would lead to a stall is totally
> wrong
> > without connecting it to speed. I pull up a Cessna 152 to 90 degrees
> > (vertical) if I have the airspeed and if I am crazy enough. (My
instructor
> > did). Before I run out of steam I push and avoid a stall. It's a nice
ride
> > but doesn't last long if you want to live.
> >
> >
> >
> > "CarSalesman" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > absolute bull****....
> > >
> > > "Renzoni Papaloni" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > It loses elevator control in slow flight with high angles of attack,
> not
> > > at
> > > > take off.
> > >
> > > Obviously, you've never flown one of these things. If your statement
> were
> > > true, it would be impossible to stall the plane. Elevator control is
> just
> > > fine
> > > in all phases of slow flight, landing configuration stalls, and
> > accelerated
> > > stalls - exactly as required for FAA certification. Also exactly as
any
> > > pilot is trained when checked out on a new type.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Then the tail comes down and gets no air because it is in the
> > > > horizontal axis right behind the main wings.
> > >
> > > Now, you're really showing your innocence. The stabilator does
> > > *not* hold the back of the airplane up, it holds it *down*. If you
> > > really lost elevator control for the reason described, the airplane
> would
> > > pitch down, not up.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > That makes the tail less
> > > > effective, because the airflow it gets is partly deflected by the
high
> > > angle
> > > > of attack of the main wing and the airflow does not even reach the
> tail
> > > and
> > > > is also turbulent. The use of flaps makes this even more
pronounced!
> A
> > > > straight tail in comparison would be way lower in totally
undisturbed
> > > > airflow and more effective in this kind of flight envelope.
> > >
> > > You better go look at one of these things on the ramp. If you were to
> > > get the nose so high, that the T-tail stabilator were totally behind
the
> > > main wing, you'd have an angle of attack of about 30 to 40 degrees,
> > > which is about 3 times greater than the stall. The condition you
> > > describe is impossible. You'd be in a spin long before you reached
> > > that angle of attack.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > This happens
> > > > when you have to ad power to fly slower, it's called getting behind
> the
> > > > power curve. This does NOT happen when you take off.
> > >
> > > I hope you're not an active pilot. Do you really think that getting
> > behind
> > > the power curve is limited to the tail design of the plane? You can
get
> > > behind
> > > the power curve in any airplane, especially any piston airplane. You
> need
> > > to get some training on that phase of flight, soon.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Other airplanes don't have the same problem because of their
different
> > > > geometry. (Longer fuselage and higher or lower t-tail.)
> > > > It really has nothing to do with 'well trained pilots'. If you were
> well
> > > > trained you would know that! Maybe you should find somebody who can
> draw
> > > you
> > > > a picture. No offense...
> > > >
> > >
> > > Better look at your own picture. With a much longer fuselage, the
angle
> > of
> > > attack required to get the T-tail down behind the main wing, is
reduced.
> > >
> > > don
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Ignorance is bliss.

Mike
MU-2


"Satellite" > wrote in message
om...
> I don't need anything.
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > You need a course in basic aerodynamics. You would learn that pitch
angle
> > and AOA are completely independent. And don't quote Aviation Consumer
as
> an
> > authority, many of their reviews are full of contradictions.
> >
> > Mike
> > MU-2
> >
> >
> > "Renzoni Papaloni" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Read it the Aviation Consumer Guide you ****ing ignorant know-it-all
Car
> > > Salesman.
> > >
> > > If elevator control is fine, there would be no problem and they would
> > still
> > > build it like that, wouldn't they. I haven't seen a Saratoga with a
> > T-tail,
> > > have you?
> > >
> > > If I look at an airplane rotating to climb or take off, the tail comes
> > down
> > > and moves in the axis behind the wings. I never said why. I very well
> know
> > > that the tail generates downforce to reach equilibrium - but the issue
> is
> > > the tail moves down relative to the axis to climb. Period. And yes, it
> > does
> > > it by generating even more downforce than is needed at level flight.
> > >
> > > And you don't loose total elevator control, only some authority if you
> get
> > > near the area, if you want the details. And the area is more than 3
> > ****ing
> > > degrees in bumpy air.
> > >
> > > And the plane should pitch down and it does if you approach the stall
> > > slowly. Yes it should (FAA) and does. But if you compensate and hence
> get
> > > into the area of extreme high attack (of the main wings), the elevator
> > moves
> > > down even further, into the full airflow BELOW and the plane pitches
up
> > > violently. Why? Because you compensate for some loss of elevator
control
> > and
> > > pull real hard. I know you shouldn't do it but people did and didn't
> like
> > > how it felt, ok?
> > >
> > > Your statement about 30 to 40 degrees would lead to a stall is totally
> > wrong
> > > without connecting it to speed. I pull up a Cessna 152 to 90 degrees
> > > (vertical) if I have the airspeed and if I am crazy enough. (My
> instructor
> > > did). Before I run out of steam I push and avoid a stall. It's a nice
> ride
> > > but doesn't last long if you want to live.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "CarSalesman" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > absolute bull****....
> > > >
> > > > "Renzoni Papaloni" > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> > > > > It loses elevator control in slow flight with high angles of
attack,
> > not
> > > > at
> > > > > take off.
> > > >
> > > > Obviously, you've never flown one of these things. If your
statement
> > were
> > > > true, it would be impossible to stall the plane. Elevator control
is
> > just
> > > > fine
> > > > in all phases of slow flight, landing configuration stalls, and
> > > accelerated
> > > > stalls - exactly as required for FAA certification. Also exactly as
> any
> > > > pilot is trained when checked out on a new type.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Then the tail comes down and gets no air because it is in the
> > > > > horizontal axis right behind the main wings.
> > > >
> > > > Now, you're really showing your innocence. The stabilator does
> > > > *not* hold the back of the airplane up, it holds it *down*. If you
> > > > really lost elevator control for the reason described, the airplane
> > would
> > > > pitch down, not up.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > That makes the tail less
> > > > > effective, because the airflow it gets is partly deflected by the
> high
> > > > angle
> > > > > of attack of the main wing and the airflow does not even reach the
> > tail
> > > > and
> > > > > is also turbulent. The use of flaps makes this even more
> pronounced!
> > A
> > > > > straight tail in comparison would be way lower in totally
> undisturbed
> > > > > airflow and more effective in this kind of flight envelope.
> > > >
> > > > You better go look at one of these things on the ramp. If you were
to
> > > > get the nose so high, that the T-tail stabilator were totally behind
> the
> > > > main wing, you'd have an angle of attack of about 30 to 40 degrees,
> > > > which is about 3 times greater than the stall. The condition you
> > > > describe is impossible. You'd be in a spin long before you reached
> > > > that angle of attack.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > This happens
> > > > > when you have to ad power to fly slower, it's called getting
behind
> > the
> > > > > power curve. This does NOT happen when you take off.
> > > >
> > > > I hope you're not an active pilot. Do you really think that getting
> > > behind
> > > > the power curve is limited to the tail design of the plane? You can
> get
> > > > behind
> > > > the power curve in any airplane, especially any piston airplane.
You
> > need
> > > > to get some training on that phase of flight, soon.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Other airplanes don't have the same problem because of their
> different
> > > > > geometry. (Longer fuselage and higher or lower t-tail.)
> > > > > It really has nothing to do with 'well trained pilots'. If you
were
> > well
> > > > > trained you would know that! Maybe you should find somebody who
can
> > draw
> > > > you
> > > > > a picture. No offense...
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Better look at your own picture. With a much longer fuselage, the
> angle
> > > of
> > > > attack required to get the T-tail down behind the main wing, is
> reduced.
> > > >
> > > > don
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Ignorance is bliss.
>
But in this game it's often deadly.

Or sometimes just downright funny. Had a Pacer land tonight and his
right main fell off on touchdown. Instant groundloop. Now that's funny.

Tom S. wrote:
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>Ignorance is bliss.
>>
>
> But in this game it's often deadly.
>
>

You're got a sick sense of humor :~)

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:iJR7b.311307$cF.95177@rwcrnsc53...
> Or sometimes just downright funny. Had a Pacer land tonight and his
> right main fell off on touchdown. Instant groundloop. Now that's funny.
>
> Tom S. wrote:
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >
> >>Ignorance is bliss.
> >>
> >
> > But in this game it's often deadly.
> >
> >
>

Aaron Coolidge wrote:
> Nobody > wrote:
> : I haven't flown one but read in the "Aviation Consumer guide" that at slow
> : speeds with high angle of attacks, the tail does not get enough air because
> : it is in the area behind the main wings.
<snip>
> This is called a "deep stall", and only can happen on T-tail aircraft. You
> might do a Google on "Trident Staines" to find out what happens when it is
> taken to an extreme. A deep stall is generally considered to be unrecoverable.
> This phenomenon has been experienced on B-727 airplanes as well.
<snip>

My father flew the RF-101C <http://www.aerofiles.com/mcdon-rf101c.jpg>
in the early 1960s. He refers to this phenomenon as "pitch-up". With
the long chord at the wing root, and the small stabilator set up high,
it was easy to reach an AOA that blanked the stabilator. If you did
this, the plane pitched up and began tumbling end over end.

The approved recovery procedure was to deploy the drag chute when the
nose went through the highest point in the tumble or oscillation. In
theory, this would stabilize the plane in a nose down attitude and you
would fly out of it, sans the drag chute. If this didn't work, the
backup procedure was to pull the ejection handles.

One of my favorite stories dad tells is about one of the other pilots in
the squadron who had to land at a French airbase because of weather at
Laon AFB. When he left he was going to show those French pilots what a
max performance takeoff in the Voodoo looked like.

He lit both burners, rotated, got the nose gear up before increasing
airspeed prevented retraction, and pulled back on the stick, apparently
just a little bit too much. He found himself right at the edge of
pitchup -- he wasn't tumbling, but he could not keep the pitch angle
from increasing. So it kept pitching up, and up, and over, until he was
inverted, at which point he regained pitch control and rolled out.

The French pilots *were* impressed with his Immelman on takeoff.

If you've ever wondered why the F-4 Phantom
<http://www.aerofiles.com/mcdon-f4bomb.jpg> (the successor to the 101)
had the inverted V stabilator, it was to address the pitchup problem.
McDonnell offered to modify the 101s to this configuration for half a
mil each, but the Air Force chose to put the money toward F-4's instead.

--
David Hill
david at hillREMOVETHISfamily.org
Sautee-Nacoochee, GA, USA

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 03:04:03 GMT, David Hill
> wrote:

>Aaron Coolidge wrote:
>> Nobody > wrote:
>> : I haven't flown one but read in the "Aviation Consumer guide" that at slow
>> : speeds with high angle of attacks, the tail does not get enough air because
>> : it is in the area behind the main wings.
><snip>
>> This is called a "deep stall", and only can happen on T-tail aircraft. You

The only aircraft to which I've seen the term "deep stall" applied
with the canard, such as the Long-EZ, cozy, and others of the type.

There was an article in one of the aviation mags about a year or two
back on the phenomena. The pilot had removed the bottom portion of
the "winglets" to test their effect. He ended up in a deep stall
where the aircraft was in nearly level attitude, but he could not get
the nose down. He actually got out and stood on either the canard or
leading edge of the wind (I forget which now) trying to get the nose
down.

He said there was very little wind and he rode the thing all the way
to the water.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

<snip>