Stalls??

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:52:00 +0100, Stefan
wrote:

John Smith schrieb:

How many instructors teach their students that it only takes a slight
push on the yoke at the onset of buffet to prevent the stall. Too many
pilots shove the yoke much farther forward (into a descent) than is
necessary.

While not necessairy, it is'n a bad thing, either. Get that sped up
quickly, and it's much better to drop the nose too much than too little.
Why should a pilot be afraid of a dive?

One of the goals when doing stalls is minimum altitude loss.
That can be kinda important in real conditions when close to the
ground.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:22:19 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"
wrote:

On Feb 13, 12:53*pm, "Ol Shy & Bashful" wrote:
Why is it so many pilots are afraid of stalls? I see it over an over
when doing flight reviews and checks. Why are pilots so afraid of
flying in the low end of the speed envelope? Isn't that where the
nasty things can happen? Isn't that where a pilot should be
comfortable and competent?
What do you think?
Its a loaded? question and comes from a 24,000+ hour pilot and active
instructor. I'd really like to see some active discussion on this
subject. I'm tired of seeing aircraft damaged by sloppy flying, and
even more tired of seeing people injured by same.
Got any comments?
Ol S&B

As an instructor I approach the first stall with a student with some
caution just because I don't know the plane. I've had a few planes end
up with the blue side down (a Bonanza and a Mooney) in the stall.
These owners had not stalled their planes before. When i was a student
pilot in the Cessna 140 I also thought it odd that some people didn't
like stalls. That was because the C-140 doesn't really stall, it just
buffets along. However, you jump into something with a more
interesting stall characteristic and you can see why some students
don't like stalls.
I'm actually becoming a bit of an odd ball in the Mooney community
because I still do full stalls in the plane. Most of the other CFIs
only go to the first nose drop, not a full stall and when teaching at
the Mooney Pilot Prof. courses you are prohibited from doing full
stalls with students. There are a lot of 10,000+ hour Mooney

If I signed up for a PP course and they wouldn't do full stalls I'd
demand my money back. WE did them at the Bo specific training.
Incidentally only 3 of us out of 63 had done full stalls in a Bo and
only one of us still practiced them regularly. Other than abrupt the
Bo and Mooney are both predictable and easily handled in the hands of
an experienced pilot.

instructors that say you simply shouldn't be doing full stalls in
these types of planes.

IMO Pure BS over hip deep and a very dangerous attitude for them to
take.


-Robert, CFII
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:50:09 -0800 (PST), "Ol Shy & Bashful"
wrote:

snip

Robert
What is a full stall? Does it have anything to do with the pitch
attitude of the aircraft? The whole purpose of doing stall practice is
to teach a pilot how not to get into a stall that makes him NewsAt 9
and a smoking hole in the ground...??!!
What is the advantage of going into a "deep stall" that pitches the
nose down steeply and results in a severe loss of altitude? Isn't the
purpose of stall practice to simulate stalls in the departure or
approach phase? And how much altitude is there to play with? I don't
think it should be thought of as 2-3000 feet as done in practice.

Our goals in practice were zero loss although up to a 100 was
acceptable.

Rather it should be thought of as 50 feet as in an approach stall, or
as 100 feet in a departure stall. Now we are getting realistic in the

Altitude loss in a departure stall can easily be held to zero in a Bo.
Gear and flaps down in approach mode should be 50 (or less) unless
you hold it in the stall for effect.

dangers of stalls and how to make an effective recovery without
hitting the ground.
Your comment about not knowing the plane has me curious. In fact, most
of your post has me confused as regards stalls.
Cheers
Ol S&B
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:22:19 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"
wrote:
instructors that say you simply shouldn't be doing full stalls in
these types of planes.
IMO Pure BS over hip deep and a very dangerous attitude for them to
take.

I FULLY Agree. I own an M20J (since 1979) and have done CFI work in
other Mooneys in the past, and stalls are not much different in them. I
also was part owner in a BE33 from '70-'79. In both cases, the stalls
were and are not particularly unstable. Sure they buffet, and sure they
might fall off one way or the other. One should know that they both have
factory installed stall strips on a particular place on the wing leading
edges that make stalls reasonable.

Students must be taught to be comfortable with stalls in such aircraft.
Instructors and check-out pilots must demonstrate them in all
check-outs. The student must not only be comfortable in executing them
(stall and recovery); they also should be willing to repeatedly
demonstrate them confidently for you without any assistance from you.

One thing to be careful of is the CG during checkouts. It must be well
forward. Do not have anyone in the back seat since the further aft is
the CG, the harder it is to recover from an inadvertent spin entry. And
of course have plenty of altitude; minimum of 3,000 feet above local
terrain, higher if recoveries cannot be completed above 2,000' above
local terrain. One time in the '70's I was instructing in a CAP T41
(like a Cessna 172). I had that student climb it to 10,000 feet to
practice spins and their recovery. That T41 would immediately and
repeatedly recover on its own when we let go of all controls. The CG was
quite forward with only us two in the front seats, rear and baggage
totally empty.

As the countermeasure for such pilot troubles (fear and aft CG), it
must be taught that the pilot must detect ASAP the direction of turn and
then firmly apply a lot to full opposite rudder and hold it in until the
turn rate stops. Ailerons are best kept neutral until the turning stops
and speed comes up to normal. Getting the student comfortable with these
interesting (to me) actions is vital to that pilot's future.

-Robert, CFII
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)

OK. Now that we are bragging:

Angelo Campanella, CFII
was A-33 N355Z (I heard that the next owner put it in gear up in the
1980's)

Now M20J N4668H

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

John Smith wrote in
:
In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
On Feb 15, 4:11 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
If you're flying a Luscombe and afraid of stalls, please stop
flying it. Far too many have been wrecked already.

The Luscomb and the Taylorcraft (as well as all Mooneys) obtained a
faster cruise speed by using a thin laminar flow-like airfoil. As
efficient as they are, when the nose (angle of attack) comes up, they
efficently hang on and keep lifting as the airspeed slows.

I don't understand this, are you saying that they stall all the
time - please explain?

But when they break to a stall, it happens abruptly, at too low a
speed. They are totally stalled, and to boot one wing always stalls
first, falls of and immediately a spin develops in that direction. One
simply has to know that slow flight is always a touchy thing to do and
airspeed observation is crucial. The Mooney series has leading edge
stall strips about 30% out from the wing root to make the stall beak
earlier at a faster airspeed where control effectivenes is better.

No, but the stall, while not violent, is not as wussy as a 150 or
cherokee's stall. It's one of the easiest to spin light airplanes
ever ( it's stall-spin accident rate is ferocious) and it's approach
speed is neccesarily fairly low so as to avoid floating. It's a
wonderful airplane. I've owned three. But it is not an airplane that
suffers fools gladly. And anyone who flies one and shies away form
stalling it because it makes him uncomfortable is a future statistic.
You have to know every way that airplane can enter a spin and what
every type of stall looks and feels like or you are not safe to fly
it.
A Luscombe doesn't give the pilot as much warning as many similar
airplanes will. Instead of nibbling at the stall with a buffet, the
Luscombe can break abruptly.

OK.

That's right. It's airfoil gives a more laminar flow that somethign like
a Cub. Add to this long wings, gobs of adverse yaw and an extremely
light and powerful rudder and you have one easily spun airplane.

The evolution of more sensible aileron design did not happen until way
after the Luscomb and Taylorcraft went out of production.

Two measures improved saftey vis-a-vis ailerons:

1- Earlier attmpts wre made at improving the lift characteristics of
ailerons. bu hinging them so that the aileron leading edge dipped down
to for a "slot" action that has a better lift/drag ratio. But that did
not do well for safety.

The next generation of ailerons fully faced that fact that adverse yaw
was more due to induced drag; the back-force that arises from demanding
lift out of the air flow. This pulls back the lifting wing (the opposite
of what the pilot wants, so

2- "Differential Aileron" was introduced (you will see this in all
airliners today; look out of windows on both sides when aircraft is
turning on your next commercial trip). ONLY the aileron on the side of
the turn is deflected up, reducing wing lift (and creating some profile
drag) on that side. That wing drops and the turn proceeds as desired.
The opposite aileron is turned down just a little bit to provde some
lift to assist that wing in rising as desired with no profile drag and
minimal induced drag. This aileron system design makes turns more safe
at slow speeds.

But the old craft from the'40's did not have it.

It's
also fairly lightly loaded and relatively low powered.

Not much of a factor in spin devlopment.

Angelo campanella

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
WingFlaps wrote in news:b0142804-b73a-49e9-8670-
:

On Feb 15, 4:11�am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:


If you're flying a Luscombe and afraid of stalls, please stop flying it..
Far too many have been wrecked already.


I don't understand this, are you saying that they stall all the time -
please explain?

No, but the stall, while not violent, is not as wussy as a 150 or
cherokee's stall. It's one of the easiest to spin light airplanes ever (
it's stall-spin accident rate is ferocious) and it's approach speed is
neccesarily fairly low so as to avoid floating. It's a wonderful airplane.
I've owned three. But it is not an airplane that suffers fools gladly. And
anyone who flies one and shies away form stalling it because it makes him
uncomfortable is a future statistic. You have to know every way that
airplane can enter a spin and what every type of stall looks and feels like
or you are not safe to fly it.

I see thnx. I'll bear that in mind if I get the chance to try one.

Cheers

On Feb 14, 5:57 am, "Blueskies" wrote:

Every flight in a light GA single should end in a full stall...right as the wheels roll on to the runway...


Interesting... is the nosewheel strut generally designed to bear the
impact of a full-stalled landing?

Ramapriya

Angelo Campanella wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

John Smith wrote in
:
In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
On Feb 15, 4:11 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
If you're flying a Luscombe and afraid of stalls, please stop
flying it. Far too many have been wrecked already.

The Luscomb and the Taylorcraft (as well as all Mooneys) obtained
a
faster cruise speed by using a thin laminar flow-like airfoil. As
efficient as they are, when the nose (angle of attack) comes up, they
efficently hang on and keep lifting as the airspeed slows.

I don't understand this, are you saying that they stall all the
time - please explain?

But when they break to a stall, it happens abruptly, at too low a
speed. They are totally stalled, and to boot one wing always stalls
first, falls of and immediately a spin develops in that direction. One
simply has to know that slow flight is always a touchy thing to do and
airspeed observation is crucial. The Mooney series has leading edge
stall strips about 30% out from the wing root to make the stall beak
earlier at a faster airspeed where control effectivenes is better.

No, but the stall, while not violent, is not as wussy as a 150 or
cherokee's stall. It's one of the easiest to spin light airplanes
ever ( it's stall-spin accident rate is ferocious) and it's approach
speed is neccesarily fairly low so as to avoid floating. It's a
wonderful airplane. I've owned three. But it is not an airplane that
suffers fools gladly. And anyone who flies one and shies away form
stalling it because it makes him uncomfortable is a future
statistic. You have to know every way that airplane can enter a spin
and what every type of stall looks and feels like or you are not
safe to fly it.
A Luscombe doesn't give the pilot as much warning as many similar
airplanes will. Instead of nibbling at the stall with a buffet, the
Luscombe can break abruptly.

OK.

That's right. It's airfoil gives a more laminar flow that somethign
like a Cub. Add to this long wings, gobs of adverse yaw and an
extremely light and powerful rudder and you have one easily spun
airplane.

The evolution of more sensible aileron design did not happen until way
after the Luscomb and Taylorcraft went out of production.

Well, the Luscombe was in production at the same time as the Cessna
150.. and as to sensible, differential aileron is not sensible, it's
just what it is. The Luscombe has Friese type ailerons and adverse yaw
was not a mystery to be solved, it was just part of a design, and it is,
in fact, a tool that can be used. Adverse yaw is something that can be
used to good effect in crosswind landings, for one thing, and
differential ailerons are a liability during aerobatics.

Two measures improved saftey vis-a-vis ailerons:

1- Earlier attmpts wre made at improving the lift characteristics of
ailerons. bu hinging them so that the aileron leading edge dipped down
to for a "slot" action that has a better lift/drag ratio. But that did
not do well for safety.


Nope.


The next generation of ailerons fully faced that fact that
adverse yaw
was more due to induced drag; the back-force that arises from
demanding lift out of the air flow. This pulls back the lifting wing
(the opposite of what the pilot wants, so

2- "Differential Aileron" was introduced (you will see this in all
airliners today; look out of windows on both sides when aircraft is
turning on your next commercial trip). ONLY the aileron on the side of
the turn is deflected up, reducing wing lift (and creating some
profile drag) on that side. That wing drops and the turn proceeds as
desired. The opposite aileron is turned down just a little bit to
provde some lift to assist that wing in rising as desired with no
profile drag and minimal induced drag. This aileron system design
makes turns more safe at slow speeds.



This is completely wrong. The ailerons go up and down on every airoknier
I've flown, and I've flown lots of them.


But the old craft from the'40's did not have it.


Many did. Besides, the Luscombe and the T-cart were both thirties
airplanes.


It's
also fairly lightly loaded and relatively low powered.

Not much of a factor in spin devlopment.

Actually it is.



Bertie

WingFlaps wrote in
:



Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
WingFlaps wrote in
news:b0142804-b73a-49e9-8670-
:

On Feb 15, 4:11�am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:


If you're flying a Luscombe and afraid of stalls, please stop
flying it
.
Far too many have been wrecked already.


I don't understand this, are you saying that they stall all the
time - please explain?

No, but the stall, while not violent, is not as wussy as a 150 or
cherokee's stall. It's one of the easiest to spin light airplanes
ever ( it's stall-spin accident rate is ferocious) and it's approach
speed is neccesarily fairly low so as to avoid floating. It's a
wonderful airplane.

I've owned three. But it is not an airplane that suffers fools
gladly. And

anyone who flies one and shies away form stalling it because it makes
him uncomfortable is a future statistic. You have to know every way
that airplane can enter a spin and what every type of stall looks and
feels lik
e
or you are not safe to fly it.

I see thnx. I'll bear that in mind if I get the chance to try one.


Sorry, I got confused, I thought you said you were flying one, bu tI
obviously got you mixed up with another poster ( didn't look back up the
thread as I was posting) But the comments are relevant to all flying and
all stalls and spins to some degree or another. You have to be able to
fly an airplane comfortably at the edge of a stall or you're not as safe
as you might or can be.

Bertie

D Ramapriya wrote in
:

On Feb 14, 5:57 am, "Blueskies" wrote:

Every flight in a light GA single should end in a full stall...right
as the wheels roll on to the runway...


Interesting... is the nosewheel strut generally designed to bear the
impact of a full-stalled landing?


Good grief. If it isn't we could always use your head in it's place.

Bertie