BRS and descent rate

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" om 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.

In article ,
Roger Long om 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/

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" om
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

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 om 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" 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

In a previous article, "Roger Long" om 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.

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.

"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

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)