Originally Posted by Dan Winterland
He also mentions that a steep turn of 60 degrees will not change the stall speed. If descending at 1g this would be the case, but if you were to maintain level, you would have to pull 2g. If your 1g stall speed was 44 knots, at 2g it will be 61 knots.
Set the aircraft up in S&L flight and without altering the fore and aft stick position, roll into a 60 degree bank. You'll go into a spiral descent, but stay at 1G. The G forces don't increase unless you make them.
If you were to try to maintain level flight, you would have to pull 2g - so your stall speed would go up - agreed.
The reason that you might stall, though, is not that you're experiencing 2g but that you've moved the stick back far enough to enable you to pull 2G, possibly through the stall stick position.
An Airbus' computer may determine how to
respond to control inputs in order to keep the aircraft out of the stalling part of the envelope. GA pilot's don't have that sort of hardware. But we can discover the stall stick position and resolve to
determine control inputs to keep it away from that position. Unless, of course we want to stall the aircraft - such as in a landing or during aerobatics.
And going back to this "control yaw with rudder" vs "pick up the wing with rudder" argument, I seem to remember some very early lesson on the secondary effect of controls. Surely the point is not about which the use of rudder is doing, so much as what is the outcome?
A spin occurs when one wing is stalled, losing lift and increasing drag and the other accelerates as a result, gaining lift, in a self-perpetuating cycle. The use of rudder arrests that cycle and the restoration of matching airflows over each wing brings the aircraft back upright. The reason we don't use ailerons in a stall, is that to do so creates additional drag on the stalled wing and reinforces the cycle.