Stall resistant 172?

[Roger Long]

I'm one of those pilots who generally only does stalls on BFR's and
checkouts. Extended slow flight with the stall horn going and the wings
wallowing strikes me as being more productive.

Another club member mentioned to me a while ago that our 172 N doesn't stall
any more. I haven't done stalls in it since we had it re-rigged so that it
flies beautifully square and handles wonderfully. So, I decided last week
that it would be a good time to practice some stalls.

I like to do stalls in the same way that I would expect to get in trouble,
airspeed slowly decaying as if I were distracted by something and not paying
attention. I 've gotten good breaks in this plane that way in the past.

I went into a power on stall and pretty soon had the yoke all the way back,
the stall horn going, and the wings wallowing. But, the plane didn't break.
It just kept mushing along at about the same altitude until I gave up and
let the nose down for a no altitude loss recovery. I think I could have held
it that way all day.

Power at the 1500 rpm I use for final and 30 degrees flaps, same thing. I
ended up hanging with just a slight sink. Power at idle, the sink rate was a
lot faster but I could have ridden all the way to the ground at the same
attitude. The nose just wouldn't come down.

Our A&P is a top guy, I've verified full elevator travel, the stop screw is
well in, we carry a lot of junk in back so CG is aft. I certainly could have
gotten a break with a bump of power and by pitching up faster but the plane
is different.

I'm not complaining, the flight characteristics are now very forgiving but I
wish I could figure out what has changed. Could it be all those bugs on the
wings acting like VG's?

(Don't bother responding that there are all sorts of ways to get this plane
to stall and break. I know that and I could still demonstrate a break and
recovery in it. You just have to be much more aggressive about it and I'm
wondering what could cause that.)

--
Roger Long

[Peter Duniho]

"Roger Long" m> wrote in
message ...
> [...]
> Power at the 1500 rpm I use for final and 30 degrees flaps, same thing. I
> ended up hanging with just a slight sink. Power at idle, the sink rate was
a
> lot faster but I could have ridden all the way to the ground at the same
> attitude. The nose just wouldn't come down.
> [...]
> I'm not complaining, the flight characteristics are now very forgiving but
I
> wish I could figure out what has changed. Could it be all those bugs on
the
> wings acting like VG's?

Have you tried stalls with a copilot aboard, to get the CG a little more
forward?

After all these years, I flew with an instructor who finally showed me the
true stall behavior of a C172. I had always been taught by previous
instructors to take immediate action at the stall, lowering the nose to
unstall the wing (along with adding power, of course).

Turns out, most of the "break" that I was familiar with when a C172 stalls
was pilot-induced. My latest instructor had me approach the stall as you've
described (let the speed decay in level flight) and when the yoke reached
the full aft travel, had me just hold it there.

I found that if I do nothing when the wing stalls, I get very little
movement from the airplane, as it turns out. The nose bobs up and down a
bit, and of course the plane descends, but otherwise you'd never know the
plane was stalled. This behavior is repeatable in multiple C172s.

So, given how little of a break exists when there was me and my instructor
aboard, it doesn't surprise me to hear that with you alone you found a
"stall" involves little pitch change, and a steady descent. Seems like you
may have noticed more of a "break" before, simply because of the out-of-rig
airframe (which would probably cause a wing to drop, making the break more
noticeable)

I'm no stranger to the C172, so you can imagine my surprise to find such a
huge gap in my knowledge of its flight characteristics. I'm not foolish
enough to think I know *everything* about the C172 -- probably I never
will -- but not knowing something so basic as the stall characteristics was
pretty embarassing for me.

Anyway, bottom line: the behavior you're describing sounds par for the
course for a C172, based on my recent new-found education. :)

Pete

[Roger Long]

Oh, excellent point. Absolutely on the head of the nail!

All those clean break stalls were with someone in the other seat.

--
Roger Long

[Jack]

I just recently had a BFR in a 172. I honestly couldn't get it to stall.
We were at 5k ft and departure stall and power off, she just wouldn't break.
That was that airplane, halfway into attempting a third stall "with the
wind" this time I lost all radios and was forced to make a precautionary
landing. We returned. That night I took a different 172 up, and tried
the stall again, that one broke easily into and with the wind. So in
answer to your question, I don't know. It may very well be airplane
specific. But like you, I had the stick in my gut everytime, and one plane
wouldn't break, and the other did. Heck, I almost had a spin going with
the second airplane on one attempt.



"Roger Long" m> wrote in
message ...
> Oh, excellent point. Absolutely on the head of the nail!
>
> All those clean break stalls were with someone in the other seat.
>
> --
> Roger Long
>
>

[mike regish]

I'm curious as to why you would think going with or against the wind would
make any difference. The plane doesn't know which way the wind is going. It
makes its own.

mike regish

"Jack" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> I just recently had a BFR in a 172. I honestly couldn't get it to
stall.
> We were at 5k ft and departure stall and power off, she just wouldn't
break.
> That was that airplane, halfway into attempting a third stall "with the
> wind" this time I lost all radios and was forced to make a precautionary
> landing. We returned. That night I took a different 172 up, and tried
> the stall again, that one broke easily into and with the wind. So in
> answer to your question, I don't know. It may very well be airplane
> specific. But like you, I had the stick in my gut everytime, and one
plane
> wouldn't break, and the other did. Heck, I almost had a spin going with
> the second airplane on one attempt.
>
>
>
> "Roger Long" m> wrote
in
> message ...
> > Oh, excellent point. Absolutely on the head of the nail!
> >
> > All those clean break stalls were with someone in the other seat.
> >
> > --
> > Roger Long
> >
> >
>
>

[Jack]

Cause if you know what addition air across the wings does for an aircraft,
than you will also realize that stalling an aircraft into the wind will take
a moment longer. I was taught that when I got my license, and really
learned it with a DC-8 and furthermore in an L-1011. It doesn't change the
stall speed as indicated.



"mike regish" > wrote in message
. net...
> I'm curious as to why you would think going with or against the wind would
> make any difference. The plane doesn't know which way the wind is going.
It
> makes its own.
>
> mike regish
>
> "Jack" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > I just recently had a BFR in a 172. I honestly couldn't get it to
> stall.
> > We were at 5k ft and departure stall and power off, she just wouldn't
> break.
> > That was that airplane, halfway into attempting a third stall "with the
> > wind" this time I lost all radios and was forced to make a precautionary
> > landing. We returned. That night I took a different 172 up, and
tried
> > the stall again, that one broke easily into and with the wind. So in
> > answer to your question, I don't know. It may very well be airplane
> > specific. But like you, I had the stick in my gut everytime, and one
> plane
> > wouldn't break, and the other did. Heck, I almost had a spin going
with
> > the second airplane on one attempt.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Roger Long" m> wrote
> in
> > message ...
> > > Oh, excellent point. Absolutely on the head of the nail!
> > >
> > > All those clean break stalls were with someone in the other seat.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Roger Long
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[karl gruber]

****** attempting a third stall "with the wind" this time******

******that one broke easily into and with the wind******


Where did you dig up this "instructor" for the flight review? You were only
along as a victim of his painful ignorance.

Steady state wind has no bearing on stalls---none---zero.

Karl

[karl gruber]

*****I was taught that when I got my license, and really
learned it with a DC-8 and furthermore in an L-1011.******


Ignorance is bliss.

[David Brooks]

"karl gruber" > wrote in message
...
> ****** attempting a third stall "with the wind" this time******
>
> ******that one broke easily into and with the wind******
>
>
> Where did you dig up this "instructor" for the flight review? You were
only
> along as a victim of his painful ignorance.
>
> Steady state wind has no bearing on stalls---none---zero.

I, I gottit. If you fly with a strong tailwind, the pilot will sense the
groundspeed, have an impression of a higher (mumble)speed, and instinctively
pull back that much harder in an attempt to get down to "stall speed". No?

No, I gottit. The problem with stalls is that you are spending too much time
with limited forward visibility. With a strong headwind, you can just about
hover, and aren't instinctively pushing the nose forward all the time to
check for approaching mountains. Or other airplanes, doing the
abovementioned tailwind stalls. No?

-- David Brooks

[Robert Moore]

"Jack" wrote
> Cause if you know what addition air across the wings does for an
> aircraft, than you will also realize that stalling an aircraft
> into the wind will take a moment longer. I was taught that
> when I got my license, and really learned it with a DC-8 and
> furthermore in an L-1011. It doesn't change the stall speed as
> indicated.

Getting pretty good with MS FlightSim, huh?

Bob Moore
ATP CFII
PanAm (retired)

[mike regish]

Might make some small difference due to inertia in a big plane, but only if
you're changing directions.

You were taught wrong.

mike regish

"Jack" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Cause if you know what addition air across the wings does for an aircraft,
> than you will also realize that stalling an aircraft into the wind will
take
> a moment longer. I was taught that when I got my license, and really
> learned it with a DC-8 and furthermore in an L-1011. It doesn't change
the
> stall speed as indicated.
>
>
>
> "mike regish" > wrote in message
> . net...
> > I'm curious as to why you would think going with or against the wind
would
> > make any difference. The plane doesn't know which way the wind is going.
> It
> > makes its own.
> >
> > mike regish
> >
> > "Jack" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> > > I just recently had a BFR in a 172. I honestly couldn't get it to
> > stall.
> > > We were at 5k ft and departure stall and power off, she just wouldn't
> > break.
> > > That was that airplane, halfway into attempting a third stall "with
the
> > > wind" this time I lost all radios and was forced to make a
precautionary
> > > landing. We returned. That night I took a different 172 up, and
> tried
> > > the stall again, that one broke easily into and with the wind. So
in
> > > answer to your question, I don't know. It may very well be airplane
> > > specific. But like you, I had the stick in my gut everytime, and one
> > plane
> > > wouldn't break, and the other did. Heck, I almost had a spin going
> with
> > > the second airplane on one attempt.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Roger Long" m>
wrote
> > in
> > > message ...
> > > > Oh, excellent point. Absolutely on the head of the nail!
> > > >
> > > > All those clean break stalls were with someone in the other seat.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Roger Long
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[John Harlow]

> Cause if you know what addition air across the wings does for an aircraft,
> than you will also realize that stalling an aircraft into the wind will
take
> a moment longer. I was taught that when I got my license, and really
> learned it with a DC-8 and furthermore in an L-1011. It doesn't change
the
> stall speed as indicated.

He's right, you know... And I'll bet you doubting Thomases aren't aware
aircraft in the northern hemisphere only spin clockwise. It's called the
coribolis affect.

[BTIZ]

ahh.. the dreaded down wind turning stall..



"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "karl gruber" > wrote in message
> ...
> > ****** attempting a third stall "with the wind" this time******
> >
> > ******that one broke easily into and with the wind******
> >
> >
> > Where did you dig up this "instructor" for the flight review? You were
> only
> > along as a victim of his painful ignorance.
> >
> > Steady state wind has no bearing on stalls---none---zero.
>
> I, I gottit. If you fly with a strong tailwind, the pilot will sense the
> groundspeed, have an impression of a higher (mumble)speed, and
instinctively
> pull back that much harder in an attempt to get down to "stall speed". No?
>
> No, I gottit. The problem with stalls is that you are spending too much
time
> with limited forward visibility. With a strong headwind, you can just
about
> hover, and aren't instinctively pushing the nose forward all the time to
> check for approaching mountains. Or other airplanes, doing the
> abovementioned tailwind stalls. No?
>
> -- David Brooks
>
>

[JFLEISC]

My wife's 172b won't stall either. It just runs out of elevator with a forward
CG. Tough to do full stall landings. It just "plops" in. If you trim it in the
wrong direction you will have more elevator surface but you essentially will be
pressing the tail down with raw muscle. I put a 60lb bag of sand in the baggage
and it became a new plane. Even her instructor commented how much nicer it
lands. The elevator just needs a little help.

Jim

[dennis]

You are all correct, I think.

But

When doing rate of climb tests or glide polars it is best to do them
crosswind. Windshifts with altitude cause the data to look like a Z as you
pass through such a shift. The climb or descent rate will be constant, then
shift, then back to the same rate as things stabilize again. You can
not see this worth a darn in the cockpit, unless it is quite strong. At
which time you'd be discarding the data anyway because it's too bumpy.


In article >, "mike regish"
> wrote:
>Might make some small difference due to inertia in a big plane, but only if
>you're changing directions.
>
>You were taught wrong.
>
>mike regish
>
>"Jack" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>> Cause if you know what addition air across the wings does for an aircraft,
>> than you will also realize that stalling an aircraft into the wind will
>take
>> a moment longer. I was taught that when I got my license, and really
>> learned it with a DC-8 and furthermore in an L-1011. It doesn't change
>the
>> stall speed as indicated.
>>
>>
>>
>> "mike regish" > wrote in message
>> . net...
>> > I'm curious as to why you would think going with or against the wind
>would
>> > make any difference. The plane doesn't know which way the wind is going.
>> It
>> > makes its own.
>> >
>> > mike regish
>> >
>> > "Jack" > wrote in message
>> > nk.net...
>> > > I just recently had a BFR in a 172. I honestly couldn't get it to
>> > stall.
>> > > We were at 5k ft and departure stall and power off, she just wouldn't
>> > break.
>> > > That was that airplane, halfway into attempting a third stall "with
>the
>> > > wind" this time I lost all radios and was forced to make a
>precautionary
>> > > landing. We returned. That night I took a different 172 up, and
>> tried
>> > > the stall again, that one broke easily into and with the wind. So
>in
>> > > answer to your question, I don't know. It may very well be airplane
>> > > specific. But like you, I had the stick in my gut everytime, and one
>> > plane
>> > > wouldn't break, and the other did. Heck, I almost had a spin going
>> with
>> > > the second airplane on one attempt.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > "Roger Long" m>
>wrote
>> > in
>> > > message ...
>> > > > Oh, excellent point. Absolutely on the head of the nail!
>> > > >
>> > > > All those clean break stalls were with someone in the other seat.
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Roger Long
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jack wrote:
>
> Cause if you know what addition air across the wings does for an aircraft,

There is no "additional air across the wings" if you're going upwind.

George Patterson
To a pilot, altitude is like money - it is possible that having too much
could prove embarassing, but having too little is always fatal.

[mike regish]

I thought that's what he meant. Wasn't sure if "addition air" was some new
term.

Amazing the kind of crap knowledge they'll let you fly an airliner with-if
he actually does, that is.

mike regish

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jack wrote:
> >
> > Cause if you know what addition air across the wings does for an
aircraft,
>
> There is no "additional air across the wings" if you're going upwind.
>
> George Patterson
> To a pilot, altitude is like money - it is possible that having too
much
> could prove embarassing, but having too little is always fatal.

[Phil Rynn]

The only thing that determines when a wing will stall is AOA. Steady state
wind has no effect.
A wing will stall at the same angle of attack. Every time.

Phil

"Jack" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> I just recently had a BFR in a 172. I honestly couldn't get it to
stall.
> We were at 5k ft and departure stall and power off, she just wouldn't
break.
> That was that airplane, halfway into attempting a third stall "with the
> wind" this time I lost all radios and was forced to make a precautionary
> landing. We returned. That night I took a different 172 up, and tried
> the stall again, that one broke easily into and with the wind. So in
> answer to your question, I don't know. It may very well be airplane
> specific. But like you, I had the stick in my gut everytime, and one
plane
> wouldn't break, and the other did. Heck, I almost had a spin going with
> the second airplane on one attempt.
>
>
>
> "Roger Long" m> wrote
in
> message ...
> > Oh, excellent point. Absolutely on the head of the nail!
> >
> > All those clean break stalls were with someone in the other seat.
> >
> > --
> > Roger Long
> >
> >
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Jack" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Cause if you know what addition air across the wings does for an aircraft,
> than you will also realize that stalling an aircraft into the wind will
take
> a moment longer. I was taught that when I got my license, and really
> learned it with a DC-8 and furthermore in an L-1011. It doesn't change
the
> stall speed as indicated.

AcroCFI? Is that you? Welcome back, you old trol^H^H^H^Hdog!

Pete

[Mark Mallory]

Jack wrote:
> Cause if you know what addition air across the wings does for an aircraft,
> than you will also realize that stalling an aircraft into the wind will take
> a moment longer. I was taught that when I got my license, and really
> learned it with a DC-8 and furthermore in an L-1011. It doesn't change the

Impressive. How many stalls have you done in DC-8s and L-1011s?

(I guess that happens all the time to airliners in 180 kt winds at FL350 when
they turn downwind... ;^)