Originally Posted by djpil
Airflow separation results from adverse pressure gradient. Deflecting that flap or aileron increases the negative Cp near the leading edge therefore that adverse pressure gradient will increase so ....
... it will separate (stall) sooner.
I get that. And I get that more camber = more lift = more drag. And that reducing XTE (trailing edge position) increases Cl.
But then once the wing-drop has gotten into it's stride the only thing that will do any good is unstalling the wing anyway - using ailerons won't be any worse than using rudder. If fact using the ailerons will recamber the wing such that it will "unstall" in the vicinity of the ailons a lttle soon, where as if the aeroplane has any dihederal the yaw from any anti-rudder input will increase the angle of attack of the dropped wing and delay the "unstalling" (due to the geometry of yaw and dihederal).
What I am trying to come to terms with is how recambering the wing and increasing the chord line AoA (through use of aileron) helps unstall a dropped wing? Is not that the whole point of washout?
And in reality - as demonstrated in the video I posted - opposite aileron at the point of stall can actually facilitate a wing drop.
I know I am only referring to basic GA type aircraft, but for the purposes of this conversation, that's what most of us fly. Also, most of us have done a few stalls and spins in our time and at least in my experience, wing drop at the point of stall can be countered through use of opposite rudder, whilst opposite aileron has the reverse (and undesired) effect.
My point is, I can't see how "ailerons won't be any worse than using rudder" when experience has taught me that's not the case. That's just my experience in what few types I've stalled and spun, including those with dihedral (Piper's etc). Even an aero trainer like the Decathlon has a small amount of dihedral.
I know you guys do this for a living, so what is it I'm missing?