In article .com,
says...
For a while I have been wondering why there seem to be no
airplanes with a low wing and a high tail. Say for instance
with a fuselage and epenage like the Zodiac 701, but with
a low wing instead of the high wing. Then I read about deep
stall, as illustrated he

http://www.answers.com/topic/deep-stall-png

Here deep stall is defined as a condition in which the
main wing is stalled and the stabilizer is enveloped
in the turbulent wake of the stalled wing so that
the pilot has lost pitch control and thus cannot lower
the nose to recover. For certain airframe geometries,
(such as the illustration above) that condition can
occur even if the aircraft is within the proper CG limits.

My question regards the orientation that immediately
precedes the deep stall. If the angle of attack at stall
is exactly the same as the angle that puts the stabilizer
in the shadow of the wing, that will precipitate a deep
stall, right?

What if the wing stalls at a lower AOA? Would the
stabilizer then drop into the wake?

ISTM that if the AOA that stalls the wing is higher than
the AOA that puts the stabilizer in the wake of the wing
then that aircraft is immune to this sort of deep stall,
so long as it is flying within the CG limits, right?

Only Robert's mentioned the Traumahawk - which surely remains one of the
most popular/common training aircraft today.

I did all my ab-initio training in a Tomahawk, it's a great plane to
learn stalls and spins in, with it's sharp wing drop characteristics.

I went out one day and learnt to recover from spins under the hood - my
instructor told me my recovery atitudes were fairly radicle (pointing
almost straight up), but that I had read enough into the lag to nose
over and recover to straight and level (before stalling and possibly
spinning again). I had a lot of fun and my instructor got some laughs
out of it.

He tried some very dissorientating manuevoures that I was to recover
from, the worst was using a partial panel (no AH) going into a half
roll, and letting me recover from upside down (I had no sensation of the
attitude I was in). I am pleased to report that my intructor never had
to take control of the a/c - eg. I never wound the airspeed to redline.

Anyway, back on topic, I've never noted any significant blanketing
effect in the Tomahawk in any flight condition.

Maybe I'm re-opening a can of worms, but I've also never noted any
blanketing effect (again of significance, which is important I think) in
a C-172 on the elevator when sideslipping. My instructor(s) have never
let me sideslip the C-172, but I've done it myself to see the effect
above 4,000' AGL - and I can't make it happen at any airspeed.

--
Duncan