A letter I sent to the Wings Channel

[AJ]

This is the text of a letter I sent to the Programming Department at
the Wings Channel. If you have a comment, please be sure to send a
copy to me in case I miss it on the news group. Thanks.

AJ Harris


The letter:

I appreciate what you are trying to do with the Wings Channel.
However, the programming is becoming repetitive and boring. There's
only so much one wants to hear about the Luftwaffe and Alexei Tupolev.

Personally, I would love to see more about the history of the Powder
Puff Derby, Florence "Pancho" Barnes, the use of Soviet women pilots
during their "Great Patriotic War," the Female pilots of the 46th
Taman' Guards Bomber Regiment, etc.

This should provide enough material for several shows. I hope that
you will consider this and allow the Wings channel to live up to its
promise.

Thank you.

Sincerely, AJ Harris


cc: rec.aviation.piloting
rec.aviation.military

I must agree with you that the repetitive nature of programming is beginning
to become a turn-off. I personally would like to see more "recent" aviation
events. If I wanted that much history I'd switch to the history channel :)

I do like their new injections of "Learning to Fly" though.

JBaker
PP-ASEL, San Diego

"AJ" > wrote in message
om...
> This is the text of a letter I sent to the Programming Department at
> the Wings Channel. If you have a comment, please be sure to send a
> copy to me in case I miss it on the news group. Thanks.
>
> AJ Harris
>
>
> The letter:
>
> I appreciate what you are trying to do with the Wings Channel.
> However, the programming is becoming repetitive and boring. There's
> only so much one wants to hear about the Luftwaffe and Alexei Tupolev.
>
> Personally, I would love to see more about the history of the Powder
> Puff Derby, Florence "Pancho" Barnes, the use of Soviet women pilots
> during their "Great Patriotic War," the Female pilots of the 46th
> Taman' Guards Bomber Regiment, etc.
>
> This should provide enough material for several shows. I hope that
> you will consider this and allow the Wings channel to live up to its
> promise.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Sincerely, AJ Harris
>
>
> cc: rec.aviation.piloting
> rec.aviation.military

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

> wrote in message
.. .
> I must agree with you that the repetitive nature of programming is
beginning
> to become a turn-off. I personally would like to see more "recent"
aviation
> events. If I wanted that much history I'd switch to the history channel :)
>
> I do like their new injections of "Learning to Fly" though.
>
> JBaker
> PP-ASEL, San Diego

Well, what you guys don't realize is that the 'Discovery Wings' channel
produces very, very, very little of it's own programming. Almost none,
actually. It is owned by the same company that owns the Discovery Channel
(obviously), the Hisory Channel and The Learning Channel. They have almost
zero production budget allocated exclusively to themselves, and compounded
with the fact that they are a brand-new channel, they are left to fill their
programming schedule with off-the-shelf shows that were in fact originally
produced for the History Channel or Discovery or TLC, as well as various
syndicated documentaries that may not have been originally produced for
broadcast at all (the documentary on stealth technology, for example, was
orginally produced by the Pentagon to show congressmen). 'Learning to Fly',
'Celebrity Wings' and I think one other new show are the first productions
to actually be originally created specifically for the channel.

As time goes on, and the popularity of the channel and it's programming
grows, so will it's budget and it's selection of shows. I remember when the
History channel looked very much like Wings does today.



>
> "AJ" > wrote in message
> om...
> > This is the text of a letter I sent to the Programming Department at
> > the Wings Channel. If you have a comment, please be sure to send a
> > copy to me in case I miss it on the news group. Thanks.
> >
> > AJ Harris
> >
> >
> > The letter:
> >
> > I appreciate what you are trying to do with the Wings Channel.
> > However, the programming is becoming repetitive and boring. There's
> > only so much one wants to hear about the Luftwaffe and Alexei Tupolev.
> >
> > Personally, I would love to see more about the history of the Powder
> > Puff Derby, Florence "Pancho" Barnes, the use of Soviet women pilots
> > during their "Great Patriotic War," the Female pilots of the 46th
> > Taman' Guards Bomber Regiment, etc.
> >
> > This should provide enough material for several shows. I hope that
> > you will consider this and allow the Wings channel to live up to its
> > promise.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Sincerely, AJ Harris
> >
> >
> > cc: rec.aviation.piloting
> > rec.aviation.military
>
>

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

"Yossarian" > wrote in message
t...
> The student pilot on that show annoys the hell out of me. Instructor
seems
> pretty good though.

Ditto. I just want to ring her neck.


> > wrote in message
> .. .
>
> > I do like their new injections of "Learning to Fly" though.
> >
> > JBaker
> > PP-ASEL, San Diego
> >
>
>
>

[John Theune]

"John T" > wrote in news:b80bb05082fae505ebeb221a8f5fb103
@news.bubbanews.com:

> "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
>
>>
>> Well, what you guys don't realize is that the 'Discovery Wings'
>> channel produces very, very, very little of it's own programming.
>> Almost none, actually. It is owned by the same company that owns the
>> Discovery Channel (obviously), the Hisory Channel and The Learning
>> Channel.
>
> "The History Channel" is an A&E network, not Discovery.
>
>> ...compounded with the fact that they are a brand-new channel...
>
> How old does a channel/station have to be before it is no longer "brand
> new"? :)
>
>
>

I think that Wings is 4 or 5 years old now. It may be new to your cable
system, but it's been around for a while.

[MLenoch]

I just spent the weekend with a Discovery film crew. They are making a one
hour show about history re-enactments in aviation. They said they have 20
hours of stuff "in the can". Editing will reduce to the one hour - with
commercials.
VL

[Tim Bengtson]

Yossarian wrote:
>
> The student pilot on that show annoys the hell out of me. Instructor seems
> pretty good though.

I have the opposite impression. The instructor often doesn't know what
he's talking about, and he never shuts up.

Tim

[Steve House]

I am not an expert but I haven't noticed any glaring errors from the
instructor. What leads you to say "he often doesn't know what he's talking
about?" He may not be silent very much on camera but would YOU want to
watch long minutes of silence from the both of them as Kyle practices this
and that? That's called "dead air" in the trade, especially if the people
are just sitting there, and the first thing you edit out when putting
together a program. Last thing I'd want to see on TV is two people looking
around the sky and cockpit in silence for ten minutes as they climb to
altitude and get over to the practice area - almost as boring as watching
golf.


"Tim Bengtson" > wrote in message
...
> Yossarian wrote:
> >
> > The student pilot on that show annoys the hell out of me. Instructor
seems
> > pretty good though.
>
> I have the opposite impression. The instructor often doesn't know what
> he's talking about, and he never shuts up.
>
> Tim

[Richard Russell]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 06:31:07 -0700, Tim Bengtson
> wrote:

>Yossarian wrote:
>>
>> The student pilot on that show annoys the hell out of me. Instructor seems
>> pretty good though.
>
>I have the opposite impression. The instructor often doesn't know what
>he's talking about, and he never shuts up.
>
>Tim

Are these two options mutually exclusive? I find them both annoying,
but I watch nonetheless.
Rich Russell

[Tim Bengtson]

Steve House wrote:
>
> I am not an expert but I haven't noticed any glaring errors from the
> instructor. What leads you to say "he often doesn't know what he's talking
> about?" He may not be silent very much on camera but would YOU want to
> watch long minutes of silence from the both of them as Kyle practices this
> and that?

I don't watch the show regularly, but have channel-surfed into the
middle of two different episodes and heard what I consider glaring
errors both times. The first time, during stall practice, he pointed out
that the wing stops producing lift at the stall. This is absolutely
incorrect; lift is maximum at the stall. This weekend he was talking
about what to do during an engine failure in the pattern, and said that
the first thing you want to do is get on the radio and let someone know
you're in trouble. I don't know about you, but if I had an engine
failure in the pattern, I would be so busy flying the plane that I might
not talk on the radio again until I was on the ground.

As to on-camera silence, how about a voice-over? For my part, silence
would be better than listening to this guy blather on incessantly about
every piece of minutia that entered his mind. If I had an instructor
talk to me like that, I'd tell him to shut up.

Tim

[Tim Bengtson]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> I guess that's a matter of definition, isn't it? IMHO, the "stall" is the
> point just *past* maximum lift, where the wing is producing very little lift
> at all. Of course, the wing is always producing *some* lift, but for all
> intents and purposes, I think it's reasonable to say to a primary student
> that the wing is producing no lift when stalled.

At what point does the inaccuracy become unreasonable? If the wing were
producing no lift, the airplane would be falling. Not "losing
altitude", falling. That's not what happens. The stall, by definition,
starts where the coefficient of lift begins to decrease with increasing
angle of attack. It's simple; why not say it correctly and be done with
it?

I was simply offering my subjective opinion. Many enjoy the show, and
that's great. Some seem to find both instructor *and* student
annoying. That also is okay, but the student doesn't seem so bothersome
to me. I just think it's a little over the top to offer an instructive
show, on a network devoted to aircraft and flying, that perpetuates
common misconceptions and errors. They're in a perfect position to do
it right, yet for some reason don't.

Tim

[Steve House]

"Tim Bengtson" > wrote in message
>...snip...

> I don't watch the show regularly, but have channel-surfed into the
> middle of two different episodes and heard what I consider glaring
> errors both times. The first time, during stall practice, he pointed out
> that the wing stops producing lift at the stall. This is absolutely
> incorrect; lift is maximum at the stall.

According to my textbooks that's not true. Maximum lift is just before the
stall. Once in the stalled condition itself, at or beyond the separation
point of the flow of air over the airfoil, lift is lost and "the airplane
ceases to fly." (From The Ground Up, Aviation Publishers, Ottawa, page 35
and Flight Training Manual, Transport Canada, page 75) Of course not all
lift is gone - if you want to get picky about it, even a dropped brick has
SOME lift - but what does remain is insufficient to support the weight of
the airplane and as you said in another message, the airplane is indeed
falling rather than flying. Thus "at the stall" would be the point at which
the wing stops producing (adequate) lift, just as he said.

>This weekend he was talking
> about what to do during an engine failure in the pattern, and said that
> the first thing you want to do is get on the radio and let someone know
> you're in trouble. I don't know about you, but if I had an engine
> failure in the pattern, I would be so busy flying the plane that I might
> not talk on the radio again until I was on the ground.

I sure wouldn't start switching frequencies or grabbing for a hand mike
either but if my finger was next to the PTT switch on the yoke anyway I'd
holler that I had a problem.

>
> As to on-camera silence, how about a voice-over? For my part, silence
> would be better than listening to this guy blather on incessantly about
> every piece of minutia that entered his mind. If I had an instructor
> talk to me like that, I'd tell him to shut up.

Having never heard that minutia before I find it pretty interesting and that
it complements my ground school materials and CFI quite well. And since
that's the subject of the program it doesn't make a lot of sense to edit it
out.


> Tim

[Michelle P]

I disagree. Have you ever tried to learn to fly with a camera in your
face and one in the back seat? I would not be able to stand it. She is
doing well under the circumstances.

Michelle

Yossarian wrote:

>The student pilot on that show annoys the hell out of me. Instructor seems
>pretty good though.
>
> wrote in message
.. .
>
>
>
>>I do like their new injections of "Learning to Fly" though.
>>
>>JBaker
>>PP-ASEL, San Diego
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

--

Michelle P CP-ASMEL-IA, and AMT-A&P

"Elisabeth" a Maule M-7-235B (no two are alike)

Volunteer Pilot, AirLifeLine

Volunteer Builder, Habitat for Humanity

[Big John]

Michelle

How do you think she would do with a gun sight pointing between her
eyes and a gun camera in the wing taking pictures of the kill?

Big John


On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 00:42:27 GMT, Michelle P
> wrote:

>I disagree. Have you ever tried to learn to fly with a camera in your
>face and one in the back seat? I would not be able to stand it. She is
>doing well under the circumstances.
>
>Michelle
>
>Yossarian wrote:
>
>>The student pilot on that show annoys the hell out of me. Instructor seems
>>pretty good though.
>>
> wrote in message
.. .
>>
>>
>>
>>>I do like their new injections of "Learning to Fly" though.
>>>
>>>JBaker
>>>PP-ASEL, San Diego
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

[Robert M. Gary]

I'd like to see more on home building. Its amazing to me how home
builders fabricate parts where the kit falls short. They have one
where a guy (like me) is building an RV with someone who knows what
he's doing. They sometimes run another one where a strange Brit is
building a Chopper. Oh, BTW: American Chopper (motorcycles) kicks butt
too! :)




(AJ) wrote in message >...
> This is the text of a letter I sent to the Programming Department at
> the Wings Channel. If you have a comment, please be sure to send a
> copy to me in case I miss it on the news group. Thanks.
>
> AJ Harris
>
>
> The letter:
>
> I appreciate what you are trying to do with the Wings Channel.
> However, the programming is becoming repetitive and boring. There's
> only so much one wants to hear about the Luftwaffe and Alexei Tupolev.
>
> Personally, I would love to see more about the history of the Powder
> Puff Derby, Florence "Pancho" Barnes, the use of Soviet women pilots
> during their "Great Patriotic War," the Female pilots of the 46th
> Taman' Guards Bomber Regiment, etc.
>
> This should provide enough material for several shows. I hope that
> you will consider this and allow the Wings channel to live up to its
> promise.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Sincerely, AJ Harris
>
>
> cc: rec.aviation.piloting
> rec.aviation.military

[Todd Pattist]

"Steve House" >
wrote:

>According to my textbooks that's not true. Maximum lift is just before the
>stall. Once in the stalled condition itself, at or beyond the separation
>point of the flow of air over the airfoil, lift is lost and "the airplane
>ceases to fly." (From The Ground Up, Aviation Publishers, Ottawa, page 35
>and Flight Training Manual, Transport Canada, page 75)

You completely misunderstand stall and your misunderstanding
is perpetuated by the complained-about programming. Maximum
lift is just before stall and just after stall the lift is
just about equal to that maximum. Understanding that lift
is produced during stall is essential to a proper
understanding of spins and aerobatic flight.

>Of course not all
>lift is gone - if you want to get picky about it, even a dropped brick has
>SOME lift -

The lift remaining just after stall is almost the same as
the lift just prior to stall, and is still supporting almost
all of the aircraft's weight.

> but what does remain is insufficient to support the weight of
>the airplane

The one difference is that as AOA increases, lift decreases,
and since the aircraft is designed to increase AOA when the
wings are not producing enough lift, after stall, the plane
automatically produces less and less lift if the pilot
allows the pla ne to "do its thing" and increase AOA
further.

It is actually possible in some fully aerobatic high-powered
aircraft to supplement the small amount of missing lift from
a stalled wing with engine thrust. The plane can then be
flown with the wings fully stalled. I saw it demonstrated
last year. Similarly, some spin modes have both wings fully
stalled, and the descent rate is constant. Thus, the wings
are fully supporting the weight of the aircraft with the
lift produced when stalled.

>and as you said in another message, the airplane is indeed
>falling rather than flying. Thus "at the stall" would be the point at which
>the wing stops producing (adequate) lift, just as he said.

Saying it produces less lift after stall is correct. Saying
it stops producing lift is not correct and is highly
misleading.


Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[Tim Bengtson]

Steve House wrote:
>
> Well certainly textbooks can be in error. But where are the odds of
> accuracy better, several independent pieces of instructional material vetted
> through virtually every ground school and CFI in the country or a couple of
> lone voices on the internet? What is your source
> for the contrary view?

Steve, the problem is that all those textbooks were written by pilots.
Remember, the reason they became pilots in the first place is that they
couldn't do math well enough to become engineers :-) :-) Anyway, here
is a good reference that talks about flying a stalled wing:

http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/vdamp.html#sec-beyond-stall

If you get a chance, read the whole online book. It's not dumbed-down
like the typical pilot texts.

Tim

[Tim Bengtson]

Todd Pattist wrote:

> <a lot of good stuff>

Oh good; the cavalry. I was getting worried.

Tim

[Steve House]

"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
....snip...
>>According to my textbooks that's not true. Maximum lift is just before
the
>>stall. Once in the stalled condition itself, at or beyond the separation
>>point of the flow of air over the airfoil, lift is lost and "the airplane
>>ceases to fly." (From The Ground Up, Aviation Publishers, Ottawa, page 35
>>and Flight Training Manual, Transport Canada, page 75)

>You completely misunderstand stall and your misunderstanding
>is perpetuated by the complained-about programming. Maximum
>lift is just before stall and just after stall the lift is
>just about equal to that maximum.

Not relating my understanding but giving close to a direct quote from the
two training manuals I've been told to use for my ground school and flight
training, plus my online ground school materials itself. The phrase "the
airplane ceases to fly" IS an exact quote, that's why the quotation marks.
Those training materials are consistent with the statements that you have
taken exception to that were presented in the TV program in question. You
may be correct and they wrong, but the burden is on you.

....snip...
>
> >and as you said in another message, the airplane is indeed
> >falling rather than flying. Thus "at the stall" would be the point at
which
> >the wing stops producing (adequate) lift, just as he said.
>
> Saying it produces less lift after stall is correct. Saying
> it stops producing lift is not correct and is highly
> misleading.
>

So the whole debate is about whether the instructor in question should have
used the words "adequate lift" instead of just "lift." So how many angels
was it you said could dance on that pinhead?

[Todd Pattist]

Tim Bengtson > wrote:
>Oh good; the cavalry. I was getting worried.

Sorry we were late, there was trouble in the Indian Country.

(this has intentional double meaning - one aviation related,
one cavalry related)

If you've got a sound card, go here:
http://www.rangerhorse.org/gowen.mid


Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[Tim Bengtson]

Steve House wrote:

> So the whole debate is about whether the instructor in question should have
> used the words "adequate lift" instead of just "lift." So how many angels
> was it you said could dance on that pinhead?

Beyond the stall, the airplane will begin losing altitude; that much
everyone agrees on. If it were truly "falling", as if the wings were
not there, it would accelerate until it reached terminal velocity (I
believe a speed over 10000 ft/min). That doesn't happen. Instead, the
vertical speed (in a bugsmasher) goes to some considerably smaller value
and sits there. Since the airplane is travelling in a straight line at
constant speed, the wing must not only be producing lift, it must be
producing exactly as much lift as it ever did--namely, the weight of the
plane. (I'm neglecting additional lift from the fuselage, prop, etc. I
think as a first approximation this is legal.)

If lift truly went away at the stall, pilots would *beg* to enter spins,
just to slow the plane down.

Tim

[Peter Duniho]

"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
> [...] Going to zero is not the same as beginning to
> decrease any more than being charged 5 bucks is the same as
> having your bank account wiped out.

Um, not to be pedantic or anything, but...

IMHO, having my bank account zeroed out when the balance is already negative
would be a *desirable* thing. You seem to be implying otherwise.

[David Brooks]

"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
> "Steve House" >
> wrote:
>
> >So the whole debate is about whether the instructor in question should
have
> >used the words "adequate lift" instead of just "lift." So how many
angels
> >was it you said could dance on that pinhead?
>
> The difference is like the difference between your bank
> saying they just charged you 5 bucks for being overdrawn and
> the bank telling you they zeroed your account for being
> overdrawn.

Actually I'd prefer the latter. But I get your point: if you had said "went
below minimum balance", the analogy would have worked better!

-- David Brooks

[Todd Pattist]

"David Brooks" > wrote:

>if you had said "went
>below minimum balance", the analogy would have worked better!

Good thing I'm not a banker :-)

Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[Ryan Ferguson]

Tim Bengtson wrote:

> Beyond the stall, the airplane will begin losing altitude; that much
> everyone agrees on. If it were truly "falling", as if the wings were
> not there, it would accelerate until it reached terminal velocity (I
> believe a speed over 10000 ft/min). That doesn't happen. Instead, the
> vertical speed (in a bugsmasher) goes to some considerably smaller value
> and sits there. Since the airplane is travelling in a straight line at
> constant speed, the wing must not only be producing lift, it must be
> producing exactly as much lift as it ever did--namely, the weight of the
> plane. (I'm neglecting additional lift from the fuselage, prop, etc. I
> think as a first approximation this is legal.)
>
> If lift truly went away at the stall, pilots would *beg* to enter spins,
> just to slow the plane down.

When I owned my Pitts Special, one of the exercises that my aerobatic coach had
me do frequently was precision turns to ground reference headings using nothing
but rudder. What made them interesting was the requirement that the airplane had
to be kept in a fully stalled condition while making those turns, which of course
meant that they were all done during a descent. Clearly there is a significant
amount of lift produced by an airfoil which has exceeded the critical angle of
attack. Whether an aircraft can maintain a certain altitude or attitude beyond
the critical angle of attack is a function of the thrust it can create from its
powerplant.

Going back to the remark made by the instructor (which I didn't catch, although
I've seen a few episodes of the show), I'm not inclined to denounce his
technically inaccurate remark. When you take a five hour student pilot up and
introduce stalls, you must make very basic explanations, sometimes filling in the
blanks later down the line (or later in the lesson.) I doubt that 'Kyle' would
have been ready to listen to a dissertation on aerodynamics at that moment in the
flight.

-Ryan
CFII-A/MEI/CFI-H

[Garrett]

Good Letter, my complaint on DW channel, and alot of airshows, hobby shops,
etc..etc..is simple...

Why the obsession with Military stuff? To me it is boring.....stuff I
don't relate to, and not about flying, military planes are for
fighting......the official name of the F-15 on the data plate on the
aircraft and in McD drawings is 'Weapons Platform'....not aircraft...

Give me GA and Transport in equal time with the military stuff....


"AJ" > wrote in message
om...
> This is the text of a letter I sent to the Programming Department at
> the Wings Channel. If you have a comment, please be sure to send a
> copy to me in case I miss it on the news group. Thanks.
>
> AJ Harris
>
>
> The letter:
>
> I appreciate what you are trying to do with the Wings Channel.
> However, the programming is becoming repetitive and boring. There's
> only so much one wants to hear about the Luftwaffe and Alexei Tupolev.
>
> Personally, I would love to see more about the history of the Powder
> Puff Derby, Florence "Pancho" Barnes, the use of Soviet women pilots
> during their "Great Patriotic War," the Female pilots of the 46th
> Taman' Guards Bomber Regiment, etc.
>
> This should provide enough material for several shows. I hope that
> you will consider this and allow the Wings channel to live up to its
> promise.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Sincerely, AJ Harris
>
>
> cc: rec.aviation.piloting
> rec.aviation.military

[Darrell]

Yossarian wrote:
> The student pilot on that show annoys the hell out of me. Instructor
> seems pretty good though.
>
> > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>> I do like their new injections of "Learning to Fly" though.
>>
>> JBaker
>> PP-ASEL, San Diego

You want annoying? How about that female reporter flying with and
interviewing Worf? (Michael Dorn) She tried so hard to be cute she just
came across as dumb.

--

Darrell R. Schmidt

B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/

[Darrell]

Todd Pattist wrote:
> "Steve House" >
> wrote:
>
>> So the whole debate is about whether the instructor in question
>> should have used the words "adequate lift" instead of just "lift."
>> So how many angels was it you said could dance on that pinhead?
>
> The difference is like the difference between your bank
> saying they just charged you 5 bucks for being overdrawn and
> the bank telling you they zeroed your account for being
> overdrawn. It is a common and fundamental misunderstanding
> (that many CFI's share) that lift goes to zero when the wing
> stalls. Going to zero is not the same as beginning to
> decrease any more than being charged 5 bucks is the same as
> having your bank account wiped out.
>
In the B-58 Huster, due to its swept wing it didn't really stall. Once the
angle of attack became too high it entered high sink rate. You could still
adjust the bank, pitch, etc but if you looked at your vertical speed it was
descending at thousands of feet per minute. In it's "stall" condition the
only was you could get out of it was to lower the nose with full military
power. If altitude didn't permit that you'd have to try lighting all four
afterburners. If one didn't light you were dead (or ejected) but when the
option is crashing anyway it's certainly worth the chance.

At Little Rock I seem to recall we had 4 TB-58s which were early production
test models converted by removing the Navigator station and building an
intructor station behind the pilot. So I actually agree with everybody.
With a straight wing aircraft it is usually taught that lift goes away
during the stall and, while that's an exageration, for practical purposes it
has some value as a teaching tool. But we turn around and teach them stall
recovery technique that acknowledges some lift still coming from the wings
even though in a spin the aircraft is also in a stall. So, in a stall,
there is still some lift although it's somewhat like a group of prostitutes
arguing about their relative virginity.


--

Darrell R. Schmidt

B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/

[Roger Halstead]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 03:13:06 GMT, Ryan Ferguson >
wrote:

>Tim Bengtson wrote:
>
>> Beyond the stall, the airplane will begin losing altitude; that much
>> everyone agrees on. If it were truly "falling", as if the wings were
>> not there, it would accelerate until it reached terminal velocity (I
>> believe a speed over 10000 ft/min). That doesn't happen. Instead, the

With the nose down many would well exceed the 10,000 fpm (120 mph)
which is for the human body in free fall.

You could throw out a sheet of plywood and if you could keep it
positioned perpendicular to the direction of travel it would fall
quite slowly. There might be some lift, but it is mainly drag. The
same thing is true for terminal velocity of a human...bout 120 mph.
Again it's mainly drag that keeps terminal velocity low.

>> vertical speed (in a bugsmasher) goes to some considerably smaller value
>> and sits there. Since the airplane is travelling in a straight line at
>> constant speed, the wing must not only be producing lift, it must be
>> producing exactly as much lift as it ever did--namely, the weight of the
>> plane. (I'm neglecting additional lift from the fuselage, prop, etc. I
>> think as a first approximation this is legal.)

As the plane is not maintaining level flight there would not be quite
that much lift. It may not be accelerating, but it's not holding
altitude. I's hazard a guess and say a good portion of the lift in
the stalled state is actually drag. Maybe not as much as the lift
produced by the wind...but who knows?

I base this on an article on deep stalls . The author stalled either
a Cozy or long eze I believe and actually climbed out on the wing
trying to get it un stalled. He rode it all the way to the water.
He remarked in the article that there was almost no airflow over the
wing and he felt only a slight breeze. The travel was almost vertical
with the plane in a horizontal position. As I recall he wasn't even
hurt.

>>
>> If lift truly went away at the stall, pilots would *beg* to enter spins,
>> just to slow the plane down.

At extremely high angles of attack such as 90 degrees as in the above
example the drag is so high the speed never builds up to the point
where the wing is capable of flying. To me the deep stall is much
like an unrecoverable spin, but with a very slow rate of descent. Not
something I'd want to try in anything other than a plane with very
light wing loading.

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

>
>When I owned my Pitts Special, one of the exercises that my aerobatic coach had
>me do frequently was precision turns to ground reference headings using nothing
>but rudder. What made them interesting was the requirement that the airplane had

I've flown a number of planes where I kept them in a stalled
conditions. The cherokee was one where it was easy to make turns in
the stalled state. The 172 was not bad, but the Deb takes all the
rudder work to just stay upright.

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

>to be kept in a fully stalled condition while making those turns, which of course
>meant that they were all done during a descent. Clearly there is a significant
>amount of lift produced by an airfoil which has exceeded the critical angle of
>attack. Whether an aircraft can maintain a certain altitude or attitude beyond
>the critical angle of attack is a function of the thrust it can create from its
>powerplant.
>
>Going back to the remark made by the instructor (which I didn't catch, although
>I've seen a few episodes of the show), I'm not inclined to denounce his
>technically inaccurate remark. When you take a five hour student pilot up and
>introduce stalls, you must make very basic explanations, sometimes filling in the
>blanks later down the line (or later in the lesson.) I doubt that 'Kyle' would
>have been ready to listen to a dissertation on aerodynamics at that moment in the
>flight.
>
>-Ryan
>CFII-A/MEI/CFI-H

[James M. Knox]

"Darrell" > wrote in news:E7ZVa.4227$Ye.3686@fed1read02:

> You want annoying? How about that female reporter flying with and
> interviewing Worf? (Michael Dorn) She tried so hard to be cute she just
> came across as dumb.

Oh, yes!!! And Dorn was so wonderfully (and eloquently) in love with
flying, a good reporter would have just shut the heck up and let him talk.
That's the mark of a TRUE professional reporter.

-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------

[xyzzy]

Garrett wrote:

> Good Letter, my complaint on DW channel, and alot of airshows, hobby shops,
> etc..etc..is simple...
>
> Why the obsession with Military stuff? To me it is boring.....stuff I
> don't relate to, and not about flying, military planes are for
> fighting......the official name of the F-15 on the data plate on the
> aircraft and in McD drawings is 'Weapons Platform'....not aircraft...
>
> Give me GA and Transport in equal time with the military stuff....


I agree with this. Am I the only person who would like to see them do
more shows on types of aircraft you don't often see, like commuter
turboprops, charters, etc.

[Morgans]

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Darrell
>
> Had to stop one night to refuel at Bunker Hill. Was standing outside
> of ops and heard this big noise.
>
> Saw a big fire light up the sky and finally realized it was a B-58
> taking off in burner.
>
> More noise and fire from A/B's than I had ever seen or heard.
> Couldn't tell if it was a normal take off or burning up <G>
> They got airborne after a long run and shut down the burners and
> climbed out on the mission.
>
> Got in our refueled fighter and went home. Glad I wasn't stationed on
> base with noise of '58 take-offs. :o(
>
> Big John
>
One evening a couple years ago, inside the house, I heard a rumble, and went
outside to see what was going on. It continued for about a minute, then
suddenly quit.

A few days later, I found out what the noise was. I live in the foothills,
and a B-1-B had been doing low level river following, then kicked the burner
in and went straight up.

That happened about 5 or 6 miles away. Impressive!

Jim in NC
>
> ----clip----

[Jim Fisher]

"Tim Bengtson" > wrote in message
The stall, by definition,
> starts where the coefficient of lift begins to decrease with increasing
> angle of attack. It's simple; why not say it correctly and be done with
> it?

Umm, because 90% of your listening audience would not know what the hell you
just said? As a primary student, I didn't give a damn about lift
coefficients and wouldn't know an angle of attack from an attack onn my
angle. All I needed to know what that at a certain speed, the plane will
stop flying and fall from the sky.

If you want to know more than what's presented in the sho, buy the King
DVDs. For the rest of the audience, the material is presented clear enough.

--
Jim Fisher

[Todd Pattist]

"Jim Fisher" > wrote:

>Umm, because 90% of your listening audience would not know what the hell you
>just said? As a primary student, I didn't give a damn about lift
>coefficients and wouldn't know an angle of attack from an attack onn my
>angle.

If you don't have even a basic understanding of how a wing
works, you are a prime candidate for any number of fatal
accident scenarios from departure stalls at high altitude
airports to spins.

> All I needed to know what that at a certain speed, the plane will
>stop flying and fall from the sky.

The wing will stall at any attitude and any airspeed.
Knowing the "stall speed" is not enough. If you don't like
the proposed explanation, it can be as simple as:

As the front edge of the wing is tilted up, the wing
produces more lift up to a limit called the stall angle. As
the front edge is tilted up more than the stall angle, the
lift begins to decrease instead of increase.
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[Chris Kennedy]

Gary L. Drescher wrote:

[snip]

> The problem is that there's no such speed. Say you're flying a plane whose
> Vs is 50 knots. Under a range of ordinary circumstances, the plane's
> flaps-up stall speed could be as low as 45 knots or as high as 75 knots. A
> plane stalls at a specific angle of attack, not at a specific airspeed. A
> primary student who expects the contrary, or who does not understand how
> airspeed relates to angle of attack under different circumstances, has no
> good way to anticipate when the plane will stall.

Even when a primary student get their hands around the notion that the
wing can stall at any airspeed, they tend to equate angle of attack with
pitch attitude. They seem to grok "relative wind" on the ground but the
concept seems to skitter out the storm window in flight.

I dunno. With a primary student there's (initially at least) a thin
line between providing enough information and providing too much. Much
of what we do as aviators involves controlling AOA, but if we start
talking about AOA too early we risk the possibility that some people
will overload and bail; if we put it off for too long we end up with
people who never quite understand pitch/power, chase the elevator trim
all over the sky and describe sine waves on the glide slope.

It's a pity that all of those nifty AOA indicators are restricted to the
experimental fleet. Gluing them onto the wings of the 150s, 172s and
PA24s down at the flight school would go a long way toward demystifying
this stuff for people.

--
Chris Kennedy

http://www.mainecoon.com
PGP fingerprint: 4E99 10B6 7253 B048 6685 6CBC 55E1 20A3 108D AB97

[Gary L. Drescher]

"Chris Kennedy" > wrote in message
...
> Even when a primary student get their hands around the notion that the
> wing can stall at any airspeed, they tend to equate angle of attack with
> pitch attitude. They seem to grok "relative wind" on the ground but the
> concept seems to skitter out the storm window in flight.

Part of the problem may be that the usual AoA diagrams all show the relative
wind coming in horizontally. If that were always the case, then pitch and
AoA would indeed be interchangeable. I bet it would help to show a student
three distinct AoA diagrams, for climb, cruise, and descent.

> It's a pity that all of those nifty AOA indicators are restricted to the
> experimental fleet. Gluing them onto the wings of the 150s, 172s and
> PA24s down at the flight school would go a long way toward demystifying
> this stuff for people.

Yup, another part of the problem is the invisibility of AoA, at least with
regard to a static picture. Dynamically, though, a pilot can see the AoA by
finding the aim point and noticing its vertical position in the window. I'd
guess that learning to perceive the AoA that way makes it far more intuitive
than using an AoA indicator, which just reports a disembodied number (though
I've never used one, so I can't be sure). But isn't the yoke position a
pretty good AoA indicator?

--Gary

[Chris Kennedy]

Gary L. Drescher wrote:

[snip]

> Yup, another part of the problem is the invisibility of AoA, at least with
> regard to a static picture. Dynamically, though, a pilot can see the AoA by
> finding the aim point and noticing its vertical position in the window. I'd
> guess that learning to perceive the AoA that way makes it far more intuitive
> than using an AoA indicator, which just reports a disembodied number (though
> I've never used one, so I can't be sure).

Yep, n a steady-state environment that's probably true. The problem is
that environmental factors (like a significant updraft component) can
cause the out-the-window picture for AoA to change. While a number is
just a number, it's trivial to repeatedly nail the same AoA independent
of conditions by nailing the same number. The other (possible)
advantage of the number is that it tells you where you are relative to
lift reserve, but then that's something that most light aircraft will
let you feel in the yoke as you get to the limits.

I suppose the way I look at it is that an aviator who understands AoA
and is familiar with their aircraft needs an AoA indicator about as much
as they need a stall warning system. For those who are less that
intimately familiar it provides a tool that makes flying at high AoA
easier and safer and would graphically dispel in the mind of the primary
student the notion that AoA is a function of where the nose is pointing
relative to the ground.

> But isn't the yoke position a pretty good AoA indicator?

Indirectly. It's a good indicator of what is being commanded; combined
with what the aircraft is doing you can infer whether you're skating
toward an excessive AoA. It's a bit more problematic in, say, the
mountains on a windy, hot afternoon, where AoA can change wildly while
the yoke is held in a constant position (and Va is your new best
friend). There are other -er- more degenerate places where the
relationship between stick and AoA are problematic, like an accelerated
or flat spin, but under those conditions I seriously doubt I'd be
looking at an AoA indicator ;)

--
Chris Kennedy

http://www.mainecoon.com
PGP fingerprint: 4E99 10B6 7253 B048 6685 6CBC 55E1 20A3 108D AB97

[John Galban]

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message >...
> I didn't give a damn about lift
> coefficients and wouldn't know an angle of attack from an attack onn my
> angle. All I needed to know what that at a certain speed, the plane will
> stop flying and fall from the sky.

Yikes! I think an explanation of angle of attack and stressing the
the plane can stall at any speed is pretty damned important
information for the student pilot. If you think the plane will only
stall at a certain speed, you're setting yourself up for a stall/spin
on a botched turn to final (not an uncommon occurance when you're a
student).

I agree that the show doesn't need to delve into the minutae of
aerodynamics, but I don't think AOA qualifies as minutae.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Roger Halstead]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 07:46:34 -0700, Tim Bengtson
> wrote:

>Steve House wrote:
>>
>> Well certainly textbooks can be in error. But where are the odds of
>> accuracy better, several independent pieces of instructional material vetted
>> through virtually every ground school and CFI in the country or a couple of
>> lone voices on the internet? What is your source
>> for the contrary view?
>
>Steve, the problem is that all those textbooks were written by pilots.
>Remember, the reason they became pilots in the first place is that they
>couldn't do math well enough to become engineers :-) :-) Anyway, here
>is a good reference that talks about flying a stalled wing:
>
>http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/vdamp.html#sec-beyond-stall
>
>If you get a chance, read the whole online book. It's not dumbed-down
>like the typical pilot texts.

My experience disagrees with a couple of his points, but nothing major
and quite possibly I'm misinterpreting what I've seen.

If I'm in level flight and extend the flaps 10 or 15 degrees and
maintain the speed my plane *will* climb. To me that says the wing
has more lift when I extend the flaps 10 or 15 degrees than with no
flaps.

The other is that all bits of the wing contribute equally to the lift.
I'm probably missing something, but I think different areas of the
wing produce different amounts of lift per square inch, or square
foot. Particularly where the airfoil changes shape between the root
and the tip as opposed to a constant cord wing like the old Hershey
bar wing on the Cherokees.

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

[journeyman]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 01:48:20 GMT, Roger Halstead
> wrote:

>If I'm in level flight and extend the flaps 10 or 15 degrees and
>maintain the speed my plane *will* climb. To me that says the wing
>has more lift when I extend the flaps 10 or 15 degrees than with no
>flaps.

Ack. Pth. In equilibrium, lift == weight. This is a first-order
approximation, of course, but when you're climbing or descending, lift
is still weight. You climb because of excess energy, not because of
excess lift. If you lower the flaps, to maintain the same airspeed
without increasing the power, you will have to lower the nose. Flaps
increase drag, and if you don't add power the lost energy comes from
altitude.

There is a transient effect: if you maintain the same angle of attack
as you lower the flaps, the airplane will probably balloon initially,
until your airspeed bleeds off, then you will begin to descend at a
lower airspeed. Your airspeed at the same angle of attack needs to be
lower because lift is a function of the coeficient of lift (which you
increase by lowering the flaps) and airspeed (which you reduce to
maintain the constant lift).

HTH,

Morris

[Steve House]

I understand that's one of the reasons for wash-out in a wing, so that the
twist gives different parts of the wing different angles of attach so as to
control which portions of the wing stall first. If different segments of
the wing have different angles of attack, it seems it would follow that they
also would contribute different amounts of lift.

"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
.....snip...
>
> The other is that all bits of the wing contribute equally to the lift.
> I'm probably missing something, but I think different areas of the
> wing produce different amounts of lift per square inch, or square
> foot. Particularly where the airfoil changes shape between the root
> and the tip as opposed to a constant cord wing like the old Hershey
> bar wing on the Cherokees.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
> www.rogerhalstead.com
> N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
> >
> >Tim
>

[Big John]

Steve

Do, but it's a trade off between safety and performance.

Big John

On 8 Aug 2003 09:04:05 -0500, "Steve House"
> wrote:

>I understand that's one of the reasons for wash-out in a wing, so that the
>twist gives different parts of the wing different angles of attach so as to
>control which portions of the wing stall first. If different segments of
>the wing have different angles of attack, it seems it would follow that they
>also would contribute different amounts of lift.


----clip----

[AJ]

I'd like to clarify one thing -- My original letter to the Wings
Channel (which was given a perfunctory "Thanks for writing, but we're
too busy to reply") was written because I feel the network has an
unhealthy fascination with planes that kill. An occasional show about
bush pilots and their planes, the use of planes on ranches and for
humanitarian aid, etc., would be very welcome.

Besides, I still find the Luftwaffe and Alexei Tupolev old news.

AJ

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Todd Pattist > writes:

> "Steve House" >
> wrote:
>
> >So the whole debate is about whether the instructor in question should have
> >used the words "adequate lift" instead of just "lift." So how many angels
> >was it you said could dance on that pinhead?
>
> The difference is like the difference between your bank
> saying they just charged you 5 bucks for being overdrawn and
> the bank telling you they zeroed your account for being
> overdrawn. It is a common and fundamental misunderstanding
> (that many CFI's share) that lift goes to zero when the wing
> stalls. Going to zero is not the same as beginning to
> decrease any more than being charged 5 bucks is the same as
> having your bank account wiped out.

Hey, I'd *much* rather have my account zeroed than have 5 bucks
deducted if I'm overdrawn.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera mailing lists: <dragaera.info/>