Originally Posted by
pilotmike
Why are you disagreeing? What I actually stated was "In almost any position the prop stops, there is likely to be disrupted airflow to the wing, hence increased stall speed is a further issue" . This is factually correct. So there is nothing to disagree with. I never compared the drag of a genuine windmilling propeller (ie. driving a completely failed engine which is producing ZERO power whatsoever) to a stationary propeller. However in your example of an engine / propeller at idle, almost certainly the stationary propeller creates more drag, and definitely it increases stall speed if it disrupts airflow over the wing at all, which is almost inevitable.
Regarding your false claim that "And there is absolutely no need to "compensate for increased stall speed"", you are mistaken. Of course a stopped propeller disrupting airflow to the wing will increase the stall speed! Any disruption to airflow to a wing will reduce the lift it produces for any given angle of attack & airspeed combination. Therefore the increased angle of attack required for any given airspeed will be closer to stalling. THAT is the relevant definition of stalling and its relationship to stall speed, as in this example. What alternative "definition of stall speed" were you suggesting I should be checking? Please let us know, I'd love to hear it.
It seems you are confused by this.
To make it very clear and simple for you, take an extreme example which proves the general case: if you progressively disrupt the airflow to let's say 50% of the wing, more, 60%... more , say to 90% of a wing, do you honestly believe the stall characteristics of that wing remain identical to the undisturbed case? You are trying to claim that in all these cases, the wing flies as normal and still stalls at exactly the same airspeed, and that "there is absolutely no need to "compensate for increased stall speed" for any wing with disturbed airflow, which is completely wrong. That is dangerously flawed advice, potentially very dangerous.
As for your further comments " plus the slipstream from produced by a windmilling propeller of an engine running on idle power has zero effect anyway" this is so muddled and unclear as to make zero sense. Whichever way, and whatever you intended to say, trust me, the difference between the flight characteristics with an engine at idle and a stopped propeller are significantly different. For you to claim otherwise proves you have never experience a stopped propeller, unlike some of us who can tell for definite that it does - significantly.
So, disagree all you like, but I recommend you check a few facts and try to understand the physics and fundamentals of stalls and stalling before criticising pilots, flying instructors, who clearly understand aerodynamics rather better than you. Some of the misconceptions you hold are potentially quite dangerous in flight, especially in emergency situations such as total engine failure.
May we enquire your flying instructing experience, and where you claim to find these aeronautical myths from, which you then try to correct flying instructors about, please? But please stop the potentially dangerous claims of absolutely no need to "compensate for increased stall speed" for cases of total engine failure; you could cost people's lives if they make the mistake of believing your myths and misunderstandings.