PA28 stall characteristics

[SquawkModeA]

Greetings,

Could some kind soul tell me a bit about the stall characteristics of the early PA28's? All my flying so far has been on Cessnas and my understanding is that the PA28 is a bit more nasty in the stalling regime, is that true? Could be interesting to know in preparation for a future "change of steed". The differences are obviously not that large but at least I killed another five boring minutes by creating this topic. :)

Thanks,

MA

[Diamond 'katana' geezer]

SquawkModeA

I learnt in the Piper Warrior, still classified as a PA-28. The stall is completely mundane from what i've done.:ok: The Warrior has a tapered wing though, not so sure if that Mars bar slab of a wing on the Cherokee makes any difference.

Makes about 10 minutes wasted now:}

Geez

[coolpilot]

A pa-28 is a very gentle and forgiving aircraft to fly, you'll enjoy every minute of it, that is, if you like your flying straight and level ;-) However, study the poh carefully. They are not cleared for spins, something which you may be used to practising in a cessna. Get checked out by an instructor before going solo. Have fun!!

[BEagle]

Some PA28s are cleared for intentional spinning, the slab wing PA28-140C Cherokee being one of them.

All PA28 stall characteristics are very benign; in fact the only anger is that pilots will assume that all aircraft are so forgiving at the stall. The T67A and Chipmunk have far more 'classic' stalls....

Regarding spinning the PA28, it is a very unconvincing manoeuvre. The POH outlines the mandatory entry technique which must be used. Th technique involves trimming to a speed well above the normal gliding speed and then entering the spin at the point of stall. This means that considerable back pressure is needed during the entry and maintenance of the spin - if it will spin properly at all, that is! The recovery is very prompt, but the most difficult part is revovering from the dive without overstressing or exceeding Vne. Before the POH amendment was issued, we used the Bulldog entry technique which was far better at ensuring a clean spin entry. Moreover the recovery was easier, particularly from the dive after the spin had stopped.

Do NOT, under any circumstances, try spinning a PA28 unless you've studied the POH insert thoroughly and are with a FI.

The only real bad point I have about the PA28's stalling characteristics is that the stall warning system activates too early!

[Genghis the Engineer]

I've met people who consider the early acting stall warner on a PA28 as a good indicator of the best short-field approach speed. A little extreme for my taste, but you can see their point.

Seriously, I don't think that you'll find the PA28 much different to the C152/C172, the main difference is an electrical stall warner (check it pre-flight) rather than Cessna's rather clever airflow based device.

The Piper with the exciting stall is the PA38 (Tomahawk) and I suspect that's what you've been hearing stories about. It's a totally different beast in many ways (not say that it's not a good aeroplane, but it's still not a PA28).

G

[Keef]

Confirm all the above - the PA28, straight or taper wing, is a pussycat in the stall.

One of my US checkouts (with a good friend and CFI in Detroit) included a ten minute route sector with the stall warner going the whole time. We even played morse on it for a giggle. The stall warner is a good "landing speed indicator" - ours beeps for the last few seconds if we've got it right. If it doesn't beep at all, you landed too fast.

The "spinnable" PA28s are few, and if you check, the C of G limits for spinning are so narrow that you could be outside them if your seat is one notch too far back or forward. I wouldn't bother - if you're going to spin, do it in something more suitable. My pal Dave uses his Yak to get all that nonsense out of his system before we go on a trip in the Arrer.

[E1453]

I used to fly the PA28 Archer II a lot. I tried to stall it many many times, but for me, that is not a stall.

It just sinks, with little buffeting, and the nose drops just a little while the yoke is fully pulled.

A distinctive buffet in the tail can be felt a moment before the main (wing) buffet.

For training purposes, I think it's is too easy.

But the landing needs some care. If you arrive fast and/or high on final, it's better to go around, unless you got a LOT of runway to spare.

That's a very forgiving machine, the Archer.

[duir]

I learned to fly on the Tomohawk then converted to the Warrior 161. The Tomohawk is quite hard to fly in comparison to the Warrior. The pa 28 is very benign and a joy to fly. I also find it has a more sturdy feel and find it very easy to land well time after time even in poor weather/x wind etc. I think you will have no problems with it. However the foreward view is qite restricted compared to the Tommy and I personally favour a cusion to get a better pilots perspective(and I am 6ft)

[Saab Dastard]

SquawkModeA,

the stall characteristics of the early PA28's -

To the tune of Monty Python's "spam song":

"Mush, Mush, Mush, Mush,
Mush, Mush, Mush, Mush,"

etc. ad infinitum (or you hit the ground!) :D

SD

[phnuff]

I agree with eveyone else who has commented. The PA28 Archer and Warriors are pussycats in the stall compared to C150/152/172. THey have nice noisy stall warners and controls which go very sloppy way before the warner goes off. Even in IMC/limited panel, it seemed pretty easy and predicatable to handle.

[Rupert S]

the stall in the pa28 is pretty uneventful, it's almost impossible to get it to spin unless you stamp on the rudder.

[Cusco]

Hershey Bar not Mars bar!

The aerodynamics of a Mars bar, especially the big chunky ones would be less than ideal.

I fly an Arrer 2 but still a PA28 by any other name, with the Hershey bar wing and the stall is a mush filled non- event.

Only problem is that when I'm doing the biennial (or do I mean bi-annual) flight review, I have to get the instructor to hold up the 'auto-land' lever or the gear warner sounds as well as the stall warner and the gear comes tumbling down.

Scared the cr*p out of a low hours instructor who did my review a few years ago who had no hours on type: But that's another question.

Safe flying


Cusco

[SquawkModeA]

Thanks everyone. Seems to be generally agreed that the PA28 has none of the scary characteristics I imagined so long as you don't try to spin it. (I actually have spun twice in a C172 but that didn't do much for me as it was very reluctant to enter the spin and would then exit as soon as back pressure was removed)

I, too, suspect that what I have heard about is in fact the PA38 which I don't think is very common over here. What will that one do?

[DubTrub]

SMA (Baby food? ...sorry!...)

Ball in the middle, stalls OK. Ask a pal at your flying club/airfield to take you in a Pitts..or a Yak..or a Cub..or a 747...with the ball in the middle and S&L, the stall is also benign, because the aircraft is in balance.

All aircraft have their differences, particularly in an accelerated stall, so ask a QFI to show you in your PA28 (I am thinking of the base-turn-to-final scenario). It is also benign, but you need to be aware of the dangers (meaning when the ball is not in the middle, and/or no height to recover).

But Straight & Level, it's a pussy cat.

What's a PA38? Is that a Tomahawk? If so, it's also OK in the spin, if you understand the recovery technique. It's in the POH, and is pretty standard. I know a lot of folk came to grief in these in years gone by, but usually from a misunderstanding of the type.

Hope this helps

[Cusco]

Aha the PA38 Tomahawk:

Now that's a slightly different kettle o' fish.

This was the trainer designed by a panel of instructors to have all the good features of a trainer and none of the bad.

I trained in the Tomahawk at Ipswich (RIP) in the early 90's:
Spin training by then had been banned so I did the usual stall/spin awareness bit in the PPL syllabus

However I did persuade my instructor at the time (now a well-known aerobatics pilot) to do a few spins with me.

The PA38 is much easier to get into the spin and by chr*st does it take you by surprise with its suddenness.

However: spin recovery is textbook so long as you're within limits (as you are on a training flight, aren't you?).

However after a couple of spins I was invited to look over my shoulder at the tail/fin during the spin.

Now that's a ring tweaking sight!, as any PA38 pilot will tell you.

However , it stayed on, and we landed safely.

For what it's worth however: both the PA28 and 38 do not land themselves like the Cessnas do: you need a trickle of power throughout the flare or else you will 'arrive' rather than land.

Just my 2 pennorth.

Safe flying

Cusco.

[DubTrub]

Cusco: "a trickle of power"?

With due respect, I should say that I disagree. Both the PA28 and PA38 land very well, and in a repeatable manner, without power (and on most occasions I land them with the throttle at idle, and only occasionally have they not been at idle [i.e. prop stopped]). Mind you, I like to "arrive" the Cessnas as well, so perhaps you are correct!

I should argue that they are equably as landable as a Cessna in this respect, but the Cessna variety do have more forgiving landing gear (the "ooh-err stalling-too-high" factor) than the Pipers, which cost more in spar replacement due to heavier landings than out Wichita cousins.

The only time I land (sorry...touch down) any light aircraft (both single and multi) with power is when they are equipped with floats, and I only have a few hours on those, so I am yet to learn all the skills necessary thereof.

Anyway, an interesting discourse for me, still learning.

(Oh, you are right, the tailplane wobble in a spin is frightening for the Traumahawk, but well within its structural limits).

[Cusco]

Hi D-T

As I said, just my two pennorth.

My 200HP Arrer 2 Hershey - Flying Brick (but still a PA28 and that's what the original poster was on about) needs a trickle of power on landing, or else , at low speeds on short East Anglian grass strips, one runs out of stabilator authority.

You have every right to disagree: that's what PPRUNE is all about.

Safe flying, and safe arrivals.

Cusco.

[DubTrub]

Hey Cusco, no disrespect meant..in fact your opinion sought. Is your Arrer with wobbly prop & stuff..I guess so with 200 'oggins on the front. How do you train for the unforeseen engine failure (say in the cruise)? In reality, of course, if it happened you land the plane where you can, but how do you "practice" for it?

[Cusco]

HI DT

Yup, we've got wobbly prop and flappy Dunlops.

The 'Auto-land' feature is a magical gadget designed to monitor the manifold pressure and airspeed, so that if you got too slow, and with too low airspeed it would drop the undercarraige automatically (auto land) and stop you landing gear - up.

Apparently the death rate in Californian Doctors (getting close to home here) was so high when they forgot to put the gear down that the auto land (or summink like that) was designed.

However, in later Arrers this feature could be disabled by sliding a pin under the emergency hydraulic dump lever.

This however led to a permanently flashing yellow light on the panel which drove many pilots barking.

Fortunately, in our ante-diluvian Arrer there is no pin.

This does mean however, if you really must prat about with stall testing, someone (the instructor) must do the job of the absent pin and haul up on the lever,
to prevent the gear being dropped automatically, and mucking up the stall characteristics of the a/c.

To the un - initiated (low hours and non type-rated) instructor , the additional Klaxon, which is a bl**dy sight louder than the stall warner, can provide a ring tweaking entertainer.



Safe flying

Cusco.

[Rupert S]

I've never usually needed extral power on the flare in a pa28, in fact I usually completely cut the power just before passing over the threshold otherwise i just glide the thing in.

[BEagle]

If you fly the correct POH approach speed in a PA28 and close the throttle fully as you flare, it will land properly.

However, those who fly non-POH 'short field landings' for their own private purposes would indeed need to use power at touchdown, closing the throttle only when the main wheels touch.

We used to fly such an approach in the PA28; however, when we researched the correct speeds in order to standardise, we discovered that there wasn't anything in the POH to give formal guidance - hence we stopped doing it. I think in the Warrior it was something like a 55 KIAS approach with full flap and a lot of power, closing the throttle before touchdown would result in rapid deceleration, a high sink rate and the inevitable 'arrival'. We demo'd that at a safe height, of course!

[knobbygb]

I trained on the Warrior and am in the process of getting used to the Archer, so I'm no expert on it, but the two types are a little different to land, although both are Pa-28's.

The Warrior will float, and float and float... whereas the Archer is more nose-heavy and benefits from just a trickle of power right into the flare, as Cusco says. I assume the same is true of the Arrow.

I've only flown a Cessna once, but I was surprised by the lack of float. I think it's a low wing/high wing thing - the more pronounced ground effect should be very noticable if you switch from Cessna's to Pa28's, thus making a correct over-the-fence speed more critical.

That slow speed is the key to good landnings in the Warrior - the stall warner should be blaring away right through the flare. Don't be tempted to put the wheels on the ground too early - holding the aircraft 6 inches above the ground in a nose-high attitude will still cause it to slow down quite a lot and even quite short strips don't require a touchdown right on the numbers as long as the speed is right.

[Ace Rimmer]

Ahh the great landing a 28 debate. Here's 2p worth... I agree with Cusco. On Hershey Bar Arrers and 235s you'd better have a nadge of power in or you'll know all about it!

(Dub Trub if it wre a deadstick I don't think I'd care if it was a bit firm as long as every body walked and even better you could still use the a/c) Do the same thing in a Warrior or and Archer and you'd better have a lot of runway (never had an elevator authority probem at idle on the Acrher myself one two three or four up.. I 've always found that power to idle at round out then hold it off and land with the warner hooting -usually gives a crowd pleasing result)

I suspect this is to do with greater wing loading... after all bigger engines, wobbly props, gear up and down stuff, more fuel (in the case of the 235) all weighs after all. Don't have any Arrer 3 or much 4 time and zilch Dakota time so can't say how they behave.

[BigEndBob]

Seem to remember PA-28-140 interesting in steep turn to the stall. Flips out of the turn. Also excellent short field lander.
Often thought this model in someways more superior to the later tarted up Pa-28 warriors.

[Final 3 Greens]

If you fly the correct POH approach speed in a PA28 and close the throttle fully as you flare, it will land properly.

This has been my experience on the PA28 -140, 180, 151, 161, 181, 200R and 201RT.

A very forgiving aeroplane to fly, which is why I come back to them time and time again. When you only fly 25-30 hours a year, you need a little bit of assistance :D

[24Right]

As a long-term Cessna jockey (150/152s mainly) but with a bit of Katana and several hours in the Beagle Pup (lovely aircraft, but there's another thread) I recently bought a share in a PA28-236 Dakota. I love it, but I'm really struggling with the arrivals.

Sure, keep on a bit of power (6 cylinders and wobbly prop up front and 64 gals in the wings) and the arrival is smoother, but uses a lot of runway in the float - which is fine so long as there's lots of runway for the float:O . Still working on the short field greaser, but have recently demonstrated to the assembled viewers a number of impressive kangaroo arrivals.

Back to Ex 12/13, I think.

24R

[Final 3 Greens]

24R

I had exactly the same problem when I frst flew the PA32.

The solution for me was a few flights with a smart instructor who built my confidence in handling 'the beast' and showed me that it would land just fine if you nailed the approach speed and got the tirm right - remember that you have a bigger, heavier, engine up front and need to pull back pretty hard during the flare.

I ended up being able to land the Cherokee 6 in little further distance than the Cherokee 180 - funnily enough, I had the same experience when converting to the Arrow 4, with the T tail .... it justs takes some good instruction and a bit of practice, so don't worry.

[Stampe]

Surprised no one has mentioned this fatal accident to a PA28 very experieced crew on instructor training.Even the most benign aircraft can bite!!Extracts from AAIB report copied well worth reading all!!
Home > Accident Investigation > Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) > Bulletins > 1997 > March

Piper PA-28-140, G-BBLA
Other Formats: 104 Kb 48 Kb Download help

AAIB Bulletin No: 3/97 Ref: EW/C96/9/6 Category: 1.3
Aircraft Type and Registration:
Piper PA-28-140, G-BBLA

No & Type of Engines:
1 Lycoming O-320-E3D piston engine

Year of Manufacture:
1971

Date & Time (UTC):
25 September 1996 at 1238 hrs

Location:
2 nm west of Southport Pier

Type of Flight:
Instruction

Persons on Board:
Crew - 2 - Passengers - None

Injuries:
Crew - 2 - Fatal - Passengers - N/A

Nature of Damage:
Aircraft destroyed

Commander's Licence:
Commercial Pilot's Licence with Flying Instructor's Rating

Commander's Age:
49 years

Commander's Flying Experience:
Approximately 7,350 hours (much of which were instructional hours on PA 28 variants)

Last 90 days - 135 hours

Last 28 days - 55 hours

Information Source:
AAIB Field Investigation



Background

Recoveries from fully developed spins are not required duringtraining for the Private Pilot's Licence but they remain in thesyllabus for pilots who aspire to be a flying instructor. In thisaccident the commander was training another pilot to become anassistant flying instructor. The trainee, a retired airline TrainingCaptain with some 13,000 hours of flying experience, had verylittle recent experience of light single-engined aircraft andprobably had not practised spinning for many years. At the timeof the accident the weather was suitable for spinning; the cloudstructure was two octas base 3,000 feet and the visibility was23 kilometres.

History of the flight

The club-owned aircraft took off from Royal Air Force Woodvaleat 1206 hrs and changed frequency to Warton Approach for a FlightInformation Service whilst carrying out general handling exercises.About 15 minutes after take off the instructor informed ATC that"WE'RE JUST LEAVING TWO THOUSAND FEET NOW... WE'D LIKETO CLIMB TO FIVE SIX FOR SOME SPINNING FOR THE NEXT FIVE OR TENMINUTES IN MORE OR LESS THE POSITION WE ARE IN NOW".Some five minutes later the instructor reported that the aircraftwas climbing through 4,000 feet on the QNH and that the base heightfor the spinning exercise would be 3,000 feet. ATC replied withtraffic information and the instructor's acknowledgement was thelast coherent transmission received from the aircraft.

At about 1240 hrs a witness being driven in a car near Southportbeach saw a white coloured aircraft spinning - she thought tothe right - through several rotations before it hit the water,still spinning. From the beach the witness and her husband couldsee a white coloured object floating in the water but they wereunsure whether this was the same object they had seen spinning.Because model aircraft are often flown from the beach, there hadbeen no smoke and no visible markings, and there were other peopleon the beach who were apparently uninterested in the floatingobject, they concluded that the object was a model aircraft. Itwas not until later when she saw a news report of the crash thatshe reported her sighting to the police.

Radar data analysis

Recorded radar data for the last few minutes of flight were obtainedand analysed by the AAIB. The early data points showed the aircraftcircling to the west of Southport at an airspeed of about 82 ktwhich is consistent with the normal climb speed of 83 mph. Theaircraft's transponder altitude code was corrupted and it wasnot possible to determine accurately the aircraft's vertical profile.Nevertheless, by correlating the data with the commander's altitudereports it was deduced that the aircraft climbed at a rate ofabout 400 ft per minute from 2000 feet altitude for up to 13 minutesgiving a probable spin entry altitude of at least 6,000 feet.At 12:36:56 hrs the aircraft entered a manoeuvre consistent witha spin or spiral dive and the final radar return was recorded62 seconds later. At about this time the Warton Approach controlleralso noticed the aircraft enter a manoeuvre which rendered theaircraft almost stationary on the display, a manoeuvre he knewto be consistent with a spin.

At 12:38:08 hrs (10 seconds after the final radar return) an unusualsound was recorded on the Warton Approach Frequency. Spectralanalysis of the sound indicated that it was a complex sound ofabout 2.5 kHz pitch and 2 seconds duration which was most probablytransmitted from the accident aircraft.

G-BBLA's Spin Behaviour

The aircraft was acquired in 1978 by the previous owners of theflying club. The CFI at the time, who remained in post until 1985,informed the AAIB that from the time the aircraft was acquired,compared with two other PA28-140 aircraft belonging to the club,G-BBLA had always exhibited a tendency to spin with an unusuallynose-up pitch attitude. No reason for this idiosyncratic behaviourwas identified and the club preferred to use other aircraft forspin training.

The commander and the club's deputy chief engineer (who held aPPL) were also aware of G-BBLA's unusual spin characteristicsbut the aircraft had not previously showed any extreme reluctanceto recover from a spin. However, a few days before the accidentthe commander told the deputy chief engineer that he had attemptedto enter a spin but the aircraft would not enter a spinin either direction. The engineer offered to investigate thisproblem but the commander decided that it was unnecessary.

In his personal folder for briefing students, the commander hadnotes on spinning technique which for spin entry recommended closingthe throttle as if practising a stall and then applying full rudderand easing the stick fully back at a speed of 60 to 65 mph. Aphotocopy of this page was found on a desk in the club's classroom;the original speeds had been amended by hand to read 65 to 70mph. There was only one student at the club who was undergoingspin training at the time and so it seems likely that the commanderbriefed the student that they would attempt to induce the aircraftto spin by raising the entry speed.

According to the club records and his own logbook, before theaccident spin the commander had not spun G-BBLA since its Certificateof Airworthiness Flight Test, flown by him, reportedly on 10 September1995. During this test he recorded 'SATIS'in the check boxes labelled 'Any abnormalityof spin or recovery' during spins in both directions andthe aircraft recovered after one and half turns.

Although he had not practised spinning in the PA28-140 since September1995, the commander had practised spinning a Chipmunk as recentlyas 15 August 1996. He was unable to spin the club Chipmunk after15 August because the club sold it on that day leaving it withonly PA28-140 aircraft in which to practice spinning. The spinrecovery technique in the commander's briefing notes followedthe procedure common to most light aircraft types. Essentiallythe technique was: check throttle closed; full opposite rudder;pause; ease stick forward until spin stops and then centralisethe controls before easing out of the ensuing dive.

Spinning the PA28-140

The Manufacturer's Flight Manual for G-BBLA dated 27 April 1973stated that the aircraft may be intentionally spun provided thatthe weight and balance are within permitted limits.

The two pages in the Flight Manual allocated to 'Handling' madeno mention of spin entry or recovery techniques. In 1982 the PiperAircraft Corporation issued Service Bulletin (SB) No 753whose purpose was as follows (quoted verbatim):

To provide expanded spin recovery procedures to assurethat proper safety practices and procedures relative to utilitycategory flight operations are in effect. Spin training is permittedonly in the utility category.

Accompanying this Service Bulletin is an expandedinformation placard to be installed in the cockpit in full viewof the pilot. This Service Bulletin is to be retained at all timesin the airplane with the aircraft paperwork.

There was no record of embodiment of this SB in the G-BBLA's logbooks.The SB re-iterated the utility category weight and balance limitations,described the need to take account of individual seat positionson the seat tracks, and itemised the manufacturer's recommendedspin recovery technique. In this technique the handling of thecontrol column in pitch was materially different to that containedin the commander's notes. The SB stated the procedure as follows:

1. Apply and maintain full rudder opposite the directionof rotation.

2. As the rudder hits the stop, rapidly move thecontrol wheel full forward and be ready to relax the forward pressurewhen the spin rotation has stopped.

3. As rotation stops, neutralize the rudder and smoothlyrecover from this dive.

Notes within the SB included the following statements:

In all spin recoveries the control column shouldbe moved full forward briskly. This is vitally important becausethe steep spin attitude may inhibit pilots from moving the controlcolumn forward positively.

Delay in moving the control wheel forward may resultin the aircraft suddenly entering a very fast, steep spin modewhich could disorient a pilot. Recovery will be achieved by brisklymoving the control wheel fully forward and holding it there whilemaintaining full recovery rudder.

Aircraft weight and balance

Being unaware of the refined limits in SB753, the commander shouldhave assessed the aircraft's weight and balance relative to theFlight Manual data which specified a nominal seat position of85.5 inches aft of datum. Calculations made following the accidentsuggested that, using the aircraft's weight and centre of gravityschedule dated 3 September 1992; the limits in the Flight Manual;the estimated fuel load of 8.3 Imperial gallons; and with theseats in their nominal positions, the centre of gravity wouldhave been 0.5 inches forward of the forward limit for aerobaticsat the time of the accident.

The AAIB then obtained accurate weights and leg lengths for bothpilots and assessed the likely seat positions they would haveadopted before practising spinning. These data were then usedto re-calculate the CG position using the seat position momentarms contained in SB753. The calculations showed that the CG duringthe spin was probably 0.2 inches forward of the forward limit.

The New Piper Aircraft company were asked if they could provideany likely reasons why the aircraft might be reluctant to recoverfrom a spin. Their suggestions were helpful but not applicableto GBBLA.

Safety recommendations

During the investigation it transpired that few PA28-140 operatorsused the type for spin training but many were unaware of the contentsof SB753. Therefore it was recommended that:

97-5 The CAA should bring to the attention of UK ownersand operators of the PA28-140 the existence and content of PiperService Bulletin No 753.

97-6 The CAA should make mandatory any manufacturer's ServiceBulletin which addresses important aspects of aircraft flyingqualities or handling techniques.

97-7 The FAA should require the Piper Aircraft Companyto re-issue the content of Service Bulletin 753 as an officialsupplement to the PA28-140 Flight Manual.

[24Right]

Final 3 Greens

Glad it's not just me.

In fact at the weekend I took up and instructor for a few circuits to try to improve things. He diagnosed the approach speed as the problem. I had been flying in accordance with the PoH (silly me!) suggesting an approach speed of 75 kts. He suggested that the correct speed was 85 kts and that this should be maintained until over the numbers. He also said that there should not be any "conscious" flair, but that once level with the runway the aircraft should just be kept flying at that height until the speed bled off and it touched down. Obviously, this amounts to a flair in practice, because the nose has to be raised in increments to maintain flight, but it is more gentle. Result: greaser:D

When I subsequently allowed the speed to drop below the magic 85, the arrival was rather less smooth, presumably because at the lower speed the rate of descent was slightly higher.

Just shows, instructors sometimes are right!

24R

[Tinstaafl]

I think the extra speed is only giving you an added enery buffer. This gives you more time to perceive what's happening & react. It allows you to be more gradual in your control inputs to alter the flight path from 'downwards' to 'horizontal'. The controls are also more effective.

Unless there's a misprint or miscalculation in the manual the recommended speed should provide adequate energy & control authority to transfer to level flight. The control inputs & pitch rates needed may be more than you're used to.

I'd suggest that over time you'll become more used to the behaviour of the a/c & more able to respond adequately (then with great skill! :ok: ) to the lesser time/lesser control authority using the book speed(s).