Newbie Qs on stalls and spins

Every landing involves a stall. But that is not the same as a stall during
flight because you don't fall more than a few inches. You would not want to
do stalls with passengers in midflight unless you have talked about this
with your passenger. Spins are more dramatic, and I don't think it would be
wise to do them even if you have talked about it with your passenger.
Besides, spins are aerobatic maneuvers and you are required to have
parachutes unless you are doing it as part of a certificate or rating.


(Ramapriya) wrote in news:30a8759c.0411160734.89e24d5
@posting.google.com:

I've seen that John Denker in his article advocating pilots to keep
practicing recoveries from stalls and spins at a safe altitude...
which prompts me to ask the following:

1. Since I don't think I've experienced a stall or spin before, is it
a nice sensation to experience as a passenger, or wouldn't one be able
to tell?

2. Is it ok for pilots to practice stalls and spins on commercial
passenger aircraft in mid-flight? I ask, since I don't think it's
happened on any flight I've flown so far - unless some pilot did it
without informing the passengers :\

Ramapriya



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
7...
Every landing involves a stall.

No, not every landing does. In fact, preferably few do.

But that is not the same as a stall during
flight because you don't fall more than a few inches.

IMHO, it is generally poor technique to "fall" at all during a landing. One
exception is a short field landing where minimum airspeed is the highest
priority, even if it means a "firm" landing. There may be other exceptions,
but otherwise the landing should be a smooth, controlled descent with the
airplane still flying when the tires touch the pavement and vertical speed
as close to zero as possible.

Pete

I have to respectfully disagree. A short field landing is where you
plonk the airplane on the runway while it still has some flying speed.
If the airplane is slow enough, the landing impact will absorb enough
energy to prevent a bounce back into the air. On a normal landing, it is
quite possible to squeeze out every bit of excess airspeed in the flare.
When the airplane starts to descend despite the pilot's attempts is what
we normally consider as the onset of stall. Perhaps the word 'fall' is a
bit too strong for this situation because you are not falling more than
a few inches. If you are only inches above the runway, the vertical
speed will be virtually zero, and the touchdown should be smooth.
However, it is quite possible to land an airplane in flying speed as you
described as long as it is not too fast. I believe in this case you are
using the energy dissipation due to the touchdown to prevent the
airplane from bouncing back.




"Peter Duniho" wrote in
:

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
7...
Every landing involves a stall.

No, not every landing does. In fact, preferably few do.

But that is not the same as a stall during
flight because you don't fall more than a few inches.

IMHO, it is generally poor technique to "fall" at all during a
landing. One exception is a short field landing where minimum
airspeed is the highest priority, even if it means a "firm" landing.
There may be other exceptions, but otherwise the landing should be a
smooth, controlled descent with the airplane still flying when the
tires touch the pavement and vertical speed as close to zero as
possible.

Pete





Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
7...

I have to respectfully disagree. A short field landing is where you
plonk the airplane on the runway while it still has some flying speed.

Sorry...weren't you the guy who just today posted "every landing involves a
stall"?

Usenet's going to be just that much less fun if you picking apart your *own*
posts.

Anyway, to each their own regarding technique. However, with a nice steep
approach and low airspeed, you can have both minimum flying speed (or even a
stall), and still have a rapid flare with no float. It's all about keeping
your approach speed sufficiently slow.

Yes, if you fly your approach at 1.3 Vs0, a full stall landing will mean a
nice long float. But that's not the correct airspeed for a short field
landing.

Anyway, I take it you now agree with what was my main point: that it's NOT
true that "every landing involves a stall". Thank you for your cooperation.


Pete

OK OK... What I meant was, every normal landing (other than short field
techniques) would involve a stall. I guess I have to be more careful in
my choice of words :-)



"Peter Duniho" wrote in
:

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
7...

I have to respectfully disagree. A short field landing is where you
plonk the airplane on the runway while it still has some flying
speed.

Sorry...weren't you the guy who just today posted "every landing
involves a stall"?

Usenet's going to be just that much less fun if you picking apart your
*own* posts.

Anyway, to each their own regarding technique. However, with a nice
steep approach and low airspeed, you can have both minimum flying
speed (or even a stall), and still have a rapid flare with no float.
It's all about keeping your approach speed sufficiently slow.

Yes, if you fly your approach at 1.3 Vs0, a full stall landing will
mean a nice long float. But that's not the correct airspeed for a
short field landing.

Anyway, I take it you now agree with what was my main point: that it's
NOT true that "every landing involves a stall". Thank you for your
cooperation.


Pete

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

OK OK... What I meant was, every normal landing (other than short field
techniques) would involve a stall. I guess I have to be more careful in
my choice of words :-)

No, you have to take another look at it. NO normal landing involves a stall.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

Well, from what I understand, the generally accepted aviation definition of
a "stall" is when a lifting portion of the aircraft is no longer lifting.

Given that, if the lifting parts never stalled the aircraft would never stop
flying.




"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Andrew Sarangan wrote:

OK OK... What I meant was, every normal landing (other than short field
techniques) would involve a stall. I guess I have to be more careful in
my choice of words :-)

No, you have to take another look at it. NO normal landing involves a
stall.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to
have
been looking for it.

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
1...
OK OK... What I meant was, every normal landing (other than short field
techniques) would involve a stall.

See George's post. Your modified statement is still incorrect.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...

See George's post. Your modified statement is still incorrect.

Wow, thanks for adding so much to the conversation.

You guys are challenging my understanding of landings :-)

The landing technique, as taught by many before us, is to
progressively increase elevator deflection to maintain zero vertical
speed. I suppose it is possible that you can reach max elevator
without reaching critical AOA. But I think that is unlikely, because
that would mean you will never be able to perform power-off stalls in
level unaccelerated flight.



"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
1...
OK OK... What I meant was, every normal landing (other than short field
techniques) would involve a stall.

See George's post. Your modified statement is still incorrect.