Originally Posted by Islander2
Am I alone in thinking that, in advising this maneuver be flown using a 45deg banked turn at 5% above the stalling speed, Rogers must therefore be completely barking?
I was reading through it yesterday, and it did strike me as a nice bit of theory mercifully untainted by too much contact with the real world.
Whilst without doubt, it's a useful start to any analysis of the problem, and that you'd not really want to go below 1.05Vs - one's ability to fly this would depend a lot upon the aeroplane. I dont know the Bonanza personally, but if taking (say) a PA28 or Hawk you'd probably get away with it - the combination of high stick forces, clear audible stall warning at about that margin, and benign stalling characteristics should allow you to nibble the stall effectively. On the other hand, there are aeroplanes with poor stall warning, low pitch forces less than glaring stall warning, and less than benign stalling characteristics that I suspect would offer much too high a probability of crossing over into the stall - most likely fatally.
Oh yes, and how accurately can somebody hold a precise bank angle? At low level, under stress, and whilst keeping looking out of the window most of the time.
I certainly hope that if I'd been asked to referee that paper (I wasn't), I'd have had the sense to ask for inclusion of a few test points in support of the theoretical analysis. Without that, the drawing of conclusions is arguably a bit over-confident.
G