Newbie Qs on stalls and spins

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...

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

Wow, thanks for adding so much to the conversation.

Bill Denton wrote:

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.

No, the definition of an aerodynamic stall is when the airflow passing over the
upper surface of the wing separates from it and produces a burble. Lift is
certainly reduced when this occurs, but the absence of lift by itself is not the
definition of 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.

"Terry Bolands" wrote in message
om...
Wow, thanks for adding so much to the conversation.

You're welcome, and thank YOU very much for the same.

At least I have *some* posts in this thread with actual content. Too bad
you can't say the same.

"Morgans" wrote
So CFI's get to do stuff that we can not do without them. With no chutes,
CFI's and students, and others all splat the same. Just a comment.

And a valid one. CFI's are presumed to have a high level of skill and
judgment, and thus it is assumed that an adequate level of safety will
be maintained even without parachutes.

The presumption is wrong. Holding a CFI ticket only proves an ability
to jump through some FAA hoops. Because of this, spin training
accidents killed more people than inadvertent spins back when spin
training was required for all pilots. The solution SHOULD have been a
higher level of spin qualification for CFI's, both so the accidents in
training would not happen and so the people teaching spins actually
knew what they were teaching. The solution WAS to stop requiring spin
training.

Michael

(John Galban) wrote in message . com...
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message ...

Are there Cherokees that permit intentional spins? The Arrow and Warrior
POHs prohibit them.


Yes. It depends on the year and equipment configuration. Most
-140s are approved for intentional spins in the Utility category.

Please have a look at what the FAA officially says about spinning a
Cherokee. Specifically the 140 model.

http://www.faa.gov/certification/air.../ACE-97-02.htm

I took my spin training in a Cherokee 140 and we had a difficult time
keeping it held in a spin, simply letting up a little on the rudder
pedal would exit the spin. We were probably a little too low on the
weight and forward on the CG to get a clearly defined spin going, and
neither I nor my instructor had the balls to want to try "aggravating"
the spin with ailerons or added power. Simply letting go of all the
controls and the little plane would straighten up and begin flying
again, but the airspeed does climb quite disturbingly briskly when the
nose is pointed straight down and the wing starts flying again.
Recovering out of the dive frightened me more than the spin itself.
Reading the FAA's SAIB at the URL above, seems to suggest that a 140
can wrap up in a really tight and scary rapid spin, but we were only
able to to get a really mushy, slow spin going. And before anyone
flames me about it, yes we both were wearing chutes and we looked and
felt really dorky wearing the "acro chutes" in a Cherokee. In
retrospect, if something had gone so badly wrong that we would have
needed the chutes, we probably both could not have been able to egress
a tumbling, plummeting Cherokee thru it's single door anyway.

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 :-)

I was really astonished, the first time I landed as a passenger in a
small plane, to be told by the pilot that the horn that blared just
before touchdown was a stall warning. I assumed the pilot had made a
mistake (in his landing technique, not in his explanation for the
horn)!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
the blog www.danford.net

On 17 Nov 2004 12:12:55 -0800, (John Galban)
wrote:

(2) Spins and other flight maneuvers required by the regulations for
any certificate or rating when given by—

(i) A certificated flight instructor; or

So ... the instructor who spun the Cub with me in the back was in
violation of the FARs? The maneuver was required for my certificate!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
the blog www.danford.net

"Cub Driver" wrote

I was really astonished, the first time I landed as a passenger in a
small plane, to be told by the pilot that the horn that blared just
before touchdown was a stall warning. I assumed the pilot had made a
mistake (in his landing technique, not in his explanation for the
horn)!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

But remember, stall horns are usually 8 mph before stall.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/16/2004

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 at 09:26:27 in message
, Bill Denton
wrote:

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

Airliners do not land like that. They fly gently on to the runway and
then the lift is killed by lowering the nose. The lift is reduced but
the angle of attack for a stall is not reached.
--
David CL Francis

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.