Approaching Deep Stall

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?

--

FF

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
oups.com...
For a while I have been wondering why there seem to be no
airplanes with a low wing and a high tail.

Like This?

http://www.kesnat.com/DSC06717.JPG


ISTM .....

ISTM????

On Sep 5, 6:39 pm, "El Maximo" wrote:
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in ooglegroups.com...

For a while I have been wondering why there seem to be no
airplanes with a low wing and a high tail.
[rest of description deleted by EM]

Like This?

http://www.kesnat.com/DSC06717.JPG

Not quite. I was thinking of a conventional tail with the fin
and rudder extending above the stabilizer, rather than a
T-tail with the stabilizer perched on top of the fin.

That is why I described it as being like a Zodiac 701, but
with the wing dropped down to a low-wing position.


ISTM .....

ISTM????

It Seems To Me.

--

FF

On Sep 5, 12:45 pm, Fred the Red Shirt
wrote:
On Sep 5, 6:39 pm, "El Maximo" wrote:

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in ooglegroups.com...

For a while I have been wondering why there seem to be no
airplanes with a low wing and a high tail.
[rest of description deleted by EM]

Like This?

http://www.kesnat.com/DSC06717.JPG

Not quite. I was thinking of a conventional tail with the fin
and rudder extending above the stabilizer, rather than a
T-tail with the stabilizer perched on top of the fin.

That is why I described it as being like a Zodiac 701, but
with the wing dropped down to a low-wing position.



ISTM .....

ISTM????

It Seems To Me.

--

FF

Commander 112 is sort of like this if I understand what you
describing.

http://www.commander.org/

Biran

On Sep 5, 7:31 pm, Brian wrote:
On Sep 5, 12:45 pm, Fred the Red Shirt
wrote:



On Sep 5, 6:39 pm, "El Maximo" wrote:

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in ooglegroups.com...

For a while I have been wondering why there seem to be no
airplanes with a low wing and a high tail.
[rest of description deleted by EM]

Like This?

http://www.kesnat.com/DSC06717.JPG

Not quite. I was thinking of a conventional tail with the fin
and rudder extending above the stabilizer, rather than a
T-tail with the stabilizer perched on top of the fin.

That is why I described it as being like a Zodiac 701, but
with the wing dropped down to a low-wing position.

ISTM .....

ISTM????

It Seems To Me.

--

FF

Commander 112 is sort of like this if I understand what you
describing.

http://www.commander.org/


Ah yes, that looks pretty close to what I was
thinking.

--

FF

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 17:59:53 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt
wrote in
.com:

Commander 112 is sort of like this if I understand what you
describing.

http://www.commander.org/


Ah yes, that looks pretty close to what I was
thinking.

The Commander 112/114 has what is termed a 'cruciform empennage.

On Sep 5, 6:39 pm, "El Maximo" wrote:
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in ooglegroups.com...

For a while I have been wondering why there seem to be no
airplanes with a low wing and a high tail.

Like This?

http://www.kesnat.com/DSC06717.JPG


Perhaps your point is that if the designer wants to put the
horizontal stabilizer higher than the main wind, a T-tail is
more aerodynamically efficient than using a cruciform tail
which would put the rubber REALLY high.

--

FF

On Sep 5, 11:29 am, Fred the Red Shirt
wrote:
For a while I have been wondering why there seem to be no
airplanes with a low wing and a high tail.

Duchess and Seminole come to mind.

In article . com,
says...


On Sep 5, 11:29 am, Fred the Red Shirt
wrote:
For a while I have been wondering why there seem to be no
airplanes with a low wing and a high tail.

Duchess and Seminole come to mind.


Not to mention the DC-9 and MDxx variants
or the KingAir200

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 21:18:53 -0700, Airbus wrote:

In article . com,
says...


On Sep 5, 11:29 am, Fred the Red Shirt
wrote:
For a while I have been wondering why there seem to be no
airplanes with a low wing and a high tail.

Duchess and Seminole come to mind.


Not to mention the DC-9 and MDxx variants
or the KingAir200

And the Lockheed military transports.

AFIK, the only plane that had a problem with it ws the BAC 111, That
was Braniff 250 in August of 1966. But that was a case of a severe
T-storm ripping the tail off.

Don