BRS and descent rate

[Roger Long]

I prefer doing long controlled mush descents instead of classic stalls
because it provides more of the really valuable part of the stall practice,
experience with the aircraft at absolute minimum airspeed. Today I rode our
172 N down about 2000 feet with the yoke full back and the airspeed on the
bottom peg. I was able to make gradual heading changes and rock the wings up
and down with the rudder pedals. This is super practice compared to the
fleeting moments of wallow you get in the textbook stall.

I looked at the VSI and realized that my descent rate was within the range
of a Cirrus with the BRS deployed. Of course, the Cirrus under its parachute
wouldn't have had my 40 knots or so of forward speed to be absorbed by
seatbelts and my face against the glare shield. The real value of the Cirrus
system is the elimination of that forward motion and the rugged seats and
airframe. However, deploying it in a 40 knot wind could change the
horizontal motion part of that.

Still, it demonstrates that flying a conventional plane in distress all the
way to the ground provides lots of options for impact reduction. If I'd gone
into treetops in the dark like that, I think I would have had a good chance
of walking home.

--
Roger Long

[Dave Stadt]

"Roger Long" m> wrote in
message ...
> I prefer doing long controlled mush descents instead of classic stalls
> because it provides more of the really valuable part of the stall
practice,
> experience with the aircraft at absolute minimum airspeed. Today I rode
our
> 172 N down about 2000 feet with the yoke full back and the airspeed on the
> bottom peg. I was able to make gradual heading changes and rock the wings
up
> and down with the rudder pedals. This is super practice compared to the
> fleeting moments of wallow you get in the textbook stall.
>
> I looked at the VSI and realized that my descent rate was within the range
> of a Cirrus with the BRS deployed. Of course, the Cirrus under its
parachute
> wouldn't have had my 40 knots or so of forward speed to be absorbed by
> seatbelts and my face against the glare shield. The real value of the
Cirrus
> system is the elimination of that forward motion and the rugged seats and
> airframe. However, deploying it in a 40 knot wind could change the
> horizontal motion part of that.
>
> Still, it demonstrates that flying a conventional plane in distress all
the
> way to the ground provides lots of options for impact reduction. If I'd
gone
> into treetops in the dark like that, I think I would have had a good
chance
> of walking home.
>
> --
> Roger Long


I believe one of the Stinson models advertised that doing what you did into
the ground was a legit emergency maneuver. It was done and the pilot walked
away.

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Roger Long m> wrote:
>Still, it demonstrates that flying a conventional plane in distress all the
>way to the ground provides lots of options for impact reduction. If I'd gone
>into treetops in the dark like that, I think I would have had a good chance
>of walking home.

There are lots and lots of NTSB reports that contradict that. Stalling
and dropping into the trees vs maintaining flying speed into the canopy
seems to have a much higher fatality rate.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[JJS]

I had a flying buddy do something similar last fall in a Velocity.
Sort of a falling leaf maneuver that he inadvertently entered and
could not escape from. He went all the way to planet earth. He
walked away alright, but never would have left the field alive if not
for a farmer who saw him go down. He now sees the world with one eye,
and just returned to work last week after a 4 month recovery from
broken ribs and other very serious injuries. Don't try it! Also,
there have been many people suffer broken backs in Piper Cherokees
from hitting the ground flat with little forward speed. Or, so I've
been told. Don't ask me for proof as I have none. More than one
flying instructor has relayed the story to me, though. Something to
do with sorry seats and the way they stall I suppose.

Joe Schneider
CHEROKEE 8437R

"Roger Long" m>
wrote in message ...
> I prefer doing long controlled mush descents instead of classic
stalls
> because it provides more of the really valuable part of the stall
practice,
> experience with the aircraft at absolute minimum airspeed. Today I
rode our
> 172 N down about 2000 feet with the yoke full back and the airspeed
on the
> bottom peg. I was able to make gradual heading changes and rock the
wings up
> and down with the rudder pedals. This is super practice compared to
the
> fleeting moments of wallow you get in the textbook stall.
>
> I looked at the VSI and realized that my descent rate was within the
range
> of a Cirrus with the BRS deployed. Of course, the Cirrus under its
parachute
> wouldn't have had my 40 knots or so of forward speed to be absorbed
by
> seatbelts and my face against the glare shield. The real value of
the Cirrus
> system is the elimination of that forward motion and the rugged
seats and
> airframe. However, deploying it in a 40 knot wind could change the
> horizontal motion part of that.
>
> Still, it demonstrates that flying a conventional plane in distress
all the
> way to the ground provides lots of options for impact reduction. If
I'd gone
> into treetops in the dark like that, I think I would have had a good
chance
> of walking home.
>
> --
> Roger Long
>
>

[Roger Long]

Undoubtedly true. However, most planes, even 172's when more heavily
loaded, will break and then drop nose first into the trees after stalling.
My plane, loaded as it was today with just me in it, will break and drop
nose first if you pull quickly back on the yoke as you might panicking when
a taller tree suddenly looms out of the fog or the pilot instinctively pulls
the nose up to postpone the impact.

What I was doing today is a very controlled maneuver in which you bleed off
speed while gradually pitching up until you are so slow that the elevator
not longer has enough authority to push the plane into a full break stall.
It then starts mushing down in a fairly stable state. I'm not sure I would
try this in just any plane. Ours is very well rigged. If yours drops a
wing in the break, it might bite you trying this maneuver.

I don't advocate mushing as an emergency maneuver. The circumstances I
would foresee using it would be pretty narrow, maybe trying to get down in
the dark or murk over heavily forested terrain where you were pretty sure
you would feel the ground before you saw it. I stop adding trim when just
before I get to the bottom of the white arc so that the plane will want to
return to a safer flying speed if I just release the controls. If you roll
in full up trim slowly with power off in a properly rigged 172, it will
adopt an attitude fairly close to this mush and be very stable in roll. It
puts you at maximum endurance airspeed and is a good way to free up your
hands for things like trying to get an engine restarted or pulling out coats
and duffel to pad your face and head against an imminent off airport
landing. This would also probably be a good way for a VFR only pilot to let
down through a cloud layer to VFR below.

--
Roger Long
"Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
news:W3gmc.37062$0H1.3285873@attbi_s54...
> In article >,
> Roger Long m> wrote:
> >Still, it demonstrates that flying a conventional plane in distress all
the
> >way to the ground provides lots of options for impact reduction. If I'd
gone
> >into treetops in the dark like that, I think I would have had a good
chance
> >of walking home.
>
> There are lots and lots of NTSB reports that contradict that. Stalling
> and dropping into the trees vs maintaining flying speed into the canopy
> seems to have a much higher fatality rate.
>
> --
> Ben Jackson
> >
> http://www.ben.com/

[Roger Long]

"JJS" <jschneider@REMOVE SOCKSpldi.net> wrote in message
...
> I had a flying buddy do something similar last fall in a Velocity.
> Sort of a falling leaf maneuver that he inadvertently entered and
> could not escape from. He went all the way to planet earth. He
> walked away alright, but never would have left the field alive if not
> for a farmer who saw him go down. Don't try it! >
> Joe Schneider
> CHEROKEE 8437R

A Velocity is a Canard, isn't it? They have some weird issues with
mushing. Leaving my plane trimmed for the bottom of the green arc, I was
pulling back pretty hard to maintain this attitude. The slightest
relaxation and the plane was picking up speed again. Like any stall, I make
sure recovery is complete and level flight regained at least 2000 agl.
--
Roger Long

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Roger Long" m> said:
>"JJS" <jschneider@REMOVE SOCKSpldi.net> wrote in message
...
>> I had a flying buddy do something similar last fall in a Velocity.
>> Sort of a falling leaf maneuver that he inadvertently entered and
>A Velocity is a Canard, isn't it? They have some weird issues with
>mushing. Leaving my plane trimmed for the bottom of the green arc, I was

Yeah, they get into something called "deep stall". I don't know the
aerodynamics exactly - something about the wing and the canard being
stalled at the same time or something, but I do remember a test pilot (and
Shuttle astronaut) getting killed testing this phenomena on a canard.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
God was co-pilot
But then we crashed in mountains
I had to eat Him.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Roger Long wrote:
>
> I prefer doing long controlled mush descents instead of classic stalls
> because it provides more of the really valuable part of the stall practice,

That would be true if you want to practice stalls. I prefer to practice *recovery*
from a stall, or, better yet, stall *avoidance*.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[Peter Duniho]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> Yeah, they get into something called "deep stall". I don't know the
> aerodynamics exactly - something about the wing and the canard being
> stalled at the same time or something

They are designed not to. If the CG is too far aft, or the airplane is
constructed wrong, then yes...a deep stall can occur (main wing stalls
before the canard, causing more pitch-up rather than a recovering
pitch-down). But a properly designed, constructed, and loaded canard
airplane will have the canard stall before the main wing, preventing the
deep stall from happening.

In particular, the Velocity being referred to in this thread was most likely
constructed and loaded correctly and did not get into a deep stall. If the
elevator is held nose-up, the canard will stall, recover, stall, recover,
etc. without the main wing stalling at all (preventing an overly dramatic
descent rate).

Pete

[Teacherjh]

Can a (properly constructed) canard deep-stall if the nose is brought down, and
then up rapidly so that momentum helps carry it high enough (even after the
canard stalls) so that the main wing stalls?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Peter Duniho]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> Can a (properly constructed) canard deep-stall if the nose is brought
down, and
> then up rapidly so that momentum helps carry it high enough (even after
the
> canard stalls) so that the main wing stalls?

I don't think so, but I don't know for sure.

The problem with the deep stall is that the canard is still flying and even
as it stalls, it starts flying again before the main wing does. Since in
the momentum-driven stall you're talking about, the canard would not be
flying, I believe that the airplane would eventually pitch back down again,
given the large amount of drag being created by the main wing below and aft
of the CG. The canard would not be opposing the pitch-down moment, since it
wouldn't start flying until after the main wing had recovered.

Of course, if the CG were too far aft, that might not happen, but then if
the CG were too far aft, you'd probably be dealing with a more conventional
deep-stall condition anyway.

Pete

[C J Campbell]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "Roger Long"
m> said:
> >"JJS" <jschneider@REMOVE SOCKSpldi.net> wrote in message
> ...
> >> I had a flying buddy do something similar last fall in a Velocity.
> >> Sort of a falling leaf maneuver that he inadvertently entered and
> >A Velocity is a Canard, isn't it? They have some weird issues with
> >mushing. Leaving my plane trimmed for the bottom of the green arc, I was
>
> Yeah, they get into something called "deep stall". I don't know the
> aerodynamics exactly - something about the wing and the canard being
> stalled at the same time or something, but I do remember a test pilot (and
> Shuttle astronaut) getting killed testing this phenomena on a canard.

Actually, the Velocity will not get into a "deep stall." There was one
example that did do this a few years ago -- twice! Both times the plane
landed in water and was salvaged. The pilot was unhurt both times. The
second time was deliberate. The test pilot even tried to climb out onto the
nose to break the stall. Although he was wearing a parachute, he elected to
ride the airplane down as it was descending more slowly than a parachute
would. A Velocity rep told me that this plane had been modified from the
original design. Mounting the airplane on a flatbed truck with a hydraulic
lift to raise the nose identified a problem with the trailing edge of the
wing. There was a lot of discussion about it in Velocity groups, but the
"deep stall" problem was peculiar to just this one airplane.

Canard aircraft are designed to have the canard stall before the main wing,
forcing the nose to drop and break the stall. Consequently you can never
achieve maximum lift from the main wing because the canard will always stall
before the wing can reach its maximum angle of attack. Canard aircraft
therefore need longer runways and often need more runway to land than they
need to take off. Soft field capability is also limited by the canard
design. OTOH canard aircraft have less drag in level flight since both the
canard and the wing generate upward lift. They tend to be much more fuel
efficient than their tail-feathered counterparts.

There are a few canard aircraft that do have a problem with deep stalls.
IIRC the Dragonfly is one. And of course the original Wright Flyer was not
only a canard design, but also was a pusher type with counter-rotating props
and a variable geometry wing -- just like the "advanced" designs that NASA
is looking at today.

[Roger Long]

Actually, that is exactly what I am practicing. When I look at how much
work and intent is required to stall a 172 I can't imagine doing it
accidentally. What I can easily see happening is letting speed get too low
while close to the ground and suddenly discovering that I have to tiptoe out
of the situation without dropping the nose while possibly maintaining some
directional control due to surrounding terrain.

The slow transition into the mush without using speed to zoom up slightly
into a more nose high attitude and shoving on the throttle and yoke at the
break provides much more time to experience the way the plane feels just
before the sink starts. Maintaining control in the sink is handling it at
the absolute minimum controllable airspeed. Riding the sink down engrains
the feel so that you are more likely to recognize it in time. Actually,
what it shows you is that you could easily not notice the sink and better be
paying attention during slow flight. There is much less buffet once the
mush starts and less in the transition to the mush than in the textbook
practice stall. If you were looking at a nude beach, you could easily miss
it:)

Transitioning out of the mush gracefully, perhaps with a direction change at
the same time, is the best part. Try arresting the descent and then
transitioning in and out of the mush.

This may be a 172 characteristic and I would only do it in a plane I knew to
break cleanly without wing drop. I don't think I would try it at my 200
hours in a 150 or 152 which will flip over much more readily in this flight
regime.
--
Roger Long

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Roger Long wrote:
> >
> > I prefer doing long controlled mush descents instead of classic stalls
> > because it provides more of the really valuable part of the stall
practice,
>
> That would be true if you want to practice stalls. I prefer to practice
*recovery*
> from a stall, or, better yet, stall *avoidance*.
>
> George Patterson
> If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[JJS]

C.J.,

Most of what you say is true. His was an early model without
vortilons and had the smaller main wing and larger fuel capacity. His
was a newly purchased airplane. He did not build it. He was doing
slow flight trying to find the edge of the envelope and determine a
safe minimum landing speed. He should have gotten specific training
in a Velocity. There have been many changes since these early ones.
See the following links.

http://www.ez.org/cp76-p2.htm

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?ev_id=20031212X02021&ntsbno=FTW04LA019&akey=1

Anyway, my point was that I personally would not ride a mush all the
way to the ground.

Joe Schneider
8437R

"C J Campbell" > wrote in
message ...
>
> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In a previous article, "Roger Long"
> m> said:
> > >"JJS" <jschneider@REMOVE SOCKSpldi.net> wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> I had a flying buddy do something similar last fall in a
Velocity.
> > >> Sort of a falling leaf maneuver that he inadvertently entered
and
> > >A Velocity is a Canard, isn't it? They have some weird issues
with
> > >mushing. Leaving my plane trimmed for the bottom of the green
arc, I was
> >
> > Yeah, they get into something called "deep stall". I don't know
the
> > aerodynamics exactly - something about the wing and the canard
being
> > stalled at the same time or something, but I do remember a test
pilot (and
> > Shuttle astronaut) getting killed testing this phenomena on a
canard.
>
> Actually, the Velocity will not get into a "deep stall." There was
one
> example that did do this a few years ago -- twice! Both times the
plane
> landed in water and was salvaged. The pilot was unhurt both times.
The
> second time was deliberate. The test pilot even tried to climb out
onto the
> nose to break the stall. Although he was wearing a parachute, he
elected to
> ride the airplane down as it was descending more slowly than a
parachute
> would. A Velocity rep told me that this plane had been modified from
the
> original design. Mounting the airplane on a flatbed truck with a
hydraulic
> lift to raise the nose identified a problem with the trailing edge
of the
> wing. There was a lot of discussion about it in Velocity groups, but
the
> "deep stall" problem was peculiar to just this one airplane.
>
> Canard aircraft are designed to have the canard stall before the
main wing,
> forcing the nose to drop and break the stall. Consequently you can
never
> achieve maximum lift from the main wing because the canard will
always stall
> before the wing can reach its maximum angle of attack. Canard
aircraft
> therefore need longer runways and often need more runway to land
than they
> need to take off. Soft field capability is also limited by the
canard
> design. OTOH canard aircraft have less drag in level flight since
both the
> canard and the wing generate upward lift. They tend to be much more
fuel
> efficient than their tail-feathered counterparts.
>
> There are a few canard aircraft that do have a problem with deep
stalls.
> IIRC the Dragonfly is one. And of course the original Wright Flyer
was not
> only a canard design, but also was a pusher type with
counter-rotating props
> and a variable geometry wing -- just like the "advanced" designs
that NASA
> is looking at today.
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Roger Long wrote:
>
> Actually, that is exactly what I am practicing. When I look at how much
> work and intent is required to stall a 172 I can't imagine doing it
> accidentally. What I can easily see happening is letting speed get too low
> while close to the ground and suddenly discovering that I have to tiptoe out
> of the situation without dropping the nose while possibly maintaining some
> directional control due to surrounding terrain.

Ah. Different strokes, then. It's pretty easy to stall a Maule at low power settings
if you don't pay attention, but you'd have to be asleep to not notice. They tend to
buck a bit before they stall. You *can* get a pretty high descent rate at about 1.3
times the stall speed with full flaps, but the plane isn't mushing, and it handles
pretty well.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[Scott Lowrey]

Roger Long wrote:
>
> This may be a 172 characteristic and I would only do it in a plane I knew to
> break cleanly without wing drop.

Y'know, what's up with that? I've had a few harrowing wing drops and,
although I've largely gotten past my stall fear, I'm starting to wonder
why coordinated flight doesn't necessarily guarantee a straight ahead break.

After one particular "oh ****" incident early in my training, I've paid
close attention to the ball when practicing stalls to avoid dropping a
wing. But some planes (I've only flown 152's and 172's) just seem to
say, "Nice job keeping the ball centered; now watch me roll over! Yee ha!"

I've asked various instructors about this and they just say, "Yeah this
one tends to do that." Hmm.

I know not all vehicles are created equal and there are other factors
like wind, turbulence, airframe wear, etc. Maybe it's the older
Cessna's? I haven't seen this with the newer S and R models.

-Scott

[G.R. Patterson III]

Scott Lowrey wrote:
>
> Y'know, what's up with that?

Usually it's caused by the typical dings and such common to trainers. One of the
150's in which I trained would drop the left wing every time. Another would drop
either one, but the drop was pretty nasty. My '69 model wouldn't drop a wing at all.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[Roger Long]

Aircraft need to be tuned, like pianos. The angles of the wings, the flight
control surfaces, the cable tensions, and lots of other things can be
adjusted. It's a time consuming process and not a legal airworthiness item
so its rare for school and rental planes. The planes you are flying could
be fixed but it would come off the FBO's bottom line. OTH, maybe it's good
for students to learn to deal with wing drop. (Ingrain in your mind not to
use the yoke. Step briskly on the top rudder pedal "If you think you will
die, step on the sky.")

The significant difference between the 152 and the 172 is that the 152 will
flip over in an eyeblink with clumsy rudder usage but you would really have
to work at it to flip a Skyhawk.

I've heard a lot of reports of the new Cessnas being delivered terribly
rigged but they have probably gotten on top of that by now.

Little things can make a big difference. Our plane used to fly terribly.
Full right rudder trim all the time and you would still have your foot cramp
up after half an hour trying to keep the ball centered. On climbout, you
would have the pedal all the way to the firewall. Interestingly, when I
agitated to get it fixed, the board and a number of experienced pilots in
the club said, "Fix what? So, you need a little rudder, big deal."

We eventually got a new shop and a new maintenance officer (me). Our new
guy knew more than just how to take broken things out and put new ones in
like the pictures in the book. He replaced the little $100 piece of metal
that centers and aligns the nose gear. It was offset in flight and working
like a rudder right there behind in the prop blast. With a couple other
minor tweaks, it was a totally new airplane.

The difference was astounding. It was like going from a beat up old car
with misaligned suspension and a low tire to a well set up sports car.
Looking back, I can't believe I horsed that thing around the sky as long as
I did. Until you've flow a really well rigged plane, you have no idea how
enjoyable and sensual it can be.

--
Roger Long

"Scott Lowrey" > wrote in message
news:JeCmc.43813$kh4.2295957@attbi_s52...
> Roger Long wrote:
> >
> > This may be a 172 characteristic and I would only do it in a plane I
knew to
> > break cleanly without wing drop.
>
> Y'know, what's up with that? I've had a few harrowing wing drops and,
> although I've largely gotten past my stall fear, I'm starting to wonder
> why coordinated flight doesn't necessarily guarantee a straight ahead
break.
>
> After one particular "oh ****" incident early in my training, I've paid
> close attention to the ball when practicing stalls to avoid dropping a
> wing. But some planes (I've only flown 152's and 172's) just seem to
> say, "Nice job keeping the ball centered; now watch me roll over! Yee
ha!"
>
> I've asked various instructors about this and they just say, "Yeah this
> one tends to do that." Hmm.
>
> I know not all vehicles are created equal and there are other factors
> like wind, turbulence, airframe wear, etc. Maybe it's the older
> Cessna's? I haven't seen this with the newer S and R models.
>
> -Scott

[Scott Lowrey]

Roger Long wrote:
>
> The significant difference between the 152 and the 172 is that the 152 will
> flip over in an eyeblink with clumsy rudder usage but you would really have
> to work at it to flip a Skyhawk.

Interesting you say that. Now that I think about it, it was a 152 that
originally scared the crap out of me. It dropped left so fast and hard
that I felt like I did a 360 before I had time to react. When I
recovered, my heading had changed 180 degrees. The 172's were much more
docile when dropping a wing - still unnerving but not so surprising.

On the spin topic, though, I asked two different instructors (at two
different schools) for some spin recovery demonstrations. Although it
was probably frowned upon by the FBO's, both CFI's were happy to oblige.
;) We had a hell of a time getting the *152* to drop into a spin but
the 172 did it with ease.

Maybe it was instructor technique, maybe it was other factors...

-Scott

[Newps]

"Scott Lowrey" > wrote in message
news:JeCmc.43813$kh4.2295957@attbi_s52...

> After one particular "oh ****" incident early in my training, I've paid
> close attention to the ball when practicing stalls to avoid dropping a
> wing. But some planes (I've only flown 152's and 172's) just seem to
> say, "Nice job keeping the ball centered; now watch me roll over! Yee
ha!"

Put vortex generators on that 172 and it won't do that. In my 182 you can
go into a 45 degree bank turn, full opposite rudder, full back stick and
idle power. The normal 172/182 will roll over into the high wing as it
stalls. Put VG's on the plane and you will just sit there in your 45 degree
bank dropping at 1500 fpm.

[Newps]

"Scott Lowrey" > wrote in message
news:_eLmc.45395$kh4.2455155@attbi_s52...

> On the spin topic, though, I asked two different instructors (at two
> different schools) for some spin recovery demonstrations. Although it
> was probably frowned upon by the FBO's, both CFI's were happy to oblige.
> ;) We had a hell of a time getting the *152* to drop into a spin but
> the 172 did it with ease.
>
> Maybe it was instructor technique, maybe it was other factors...

No, that's about right. A 150/152 is damn near impossible to spin, but it
will if you do it right. It comes out of the spin as soon as you let go.

[Michael]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote
> I believe one of the Stinson models advertised that doing what you did into
> the ground was a legit emergency maneuver. It was done and the pilot walked
> away.

The AN-2 was a single engine airliner designed to do just that in the
event of engine failure at night. It was done more than once,
successfully.

Michael