Stalling
Mintflavour,
During an MEPL test I expect people to follow the standard patter and to move the stick "sufficiently far forward to unstall the wing" slightly before smoothly adding power. Some people seem to think they need to enter a 30 degree dive and some slam the throttles open - either of these actions will lead to a reminder of the requirement for "minimum height loss" and a question about why throttles need to be handled smoothly (especially near the stall) before (usually) being given a second chance.
Is it possible that you were guilty of stuffing the nose down too far and causing excessive height loss?
HFD
During an MEPL test I expect people to follow the standard patter and to move the stick "sufficiently far forward to unstall the wing" slightly before smoothly adding power. Some people seem to think they need to enter a 30 degree dive and some slam the throttles open - either of these actions will lead to a reminder of the requirement for "minimum height loss" and a question about why throttles need to be handled smoothly (especially near the stall) before (usually) being given a second chance.
Is it possible that you were guilty of stuffing the nose down too far and causing excessive height loss?
HFD
Again this comes down to the phrase 'control column centrally forward until the buffet stops' or whatever words you have been taught to use (these are the CFS words).
In a deep stall, the control column may have to go quite a way forward until you reach the unstalled state - i.e. no buffet. However, if for example you are recovering from a stall in the approach configuration, you may decide that an early recovery is best and you recover at the first recognisable warning. This may be a high nose attitude or the aircraft's stall warning system, or any of the other warnings you know about. Whatever it is, it is likely that it won't be any buffet - so if there is no buffet to remove, you don't have to move the control column very far forward - if at all.
This is why it is so important to get the recognition properly learnt before continuing with the recovery. And as the key to the exercise is life preservation with the key phrase 'with minimum height loss' being the most elemental part of the lesson objective. It should be stressed that an automatic reaction of burying the stick in the instrument panel is not necessarily the best course of action if you stall on the approach at 100'.
In a deep stall, the control column may have to go quite a way forward until you reach the unstalled state - i.e. no buffet. However, if for example you are recovering from a stall in the approach configuration, you may decide that an early recovery is best and you recover at the first recognisable warning. This may be a high nose attitude or the aircraft's stall warning system, or any of the other warnings you know about. Whatever it is, it is likely that it won't be any buffet - so if there is no buffet to remove, you don't have to move the control column very far forward - if at all.
This is why it is so important to get the recognition properly learnt before continuing with the recovery. And as the key to the exercise is life preservation with the key phrase 'with minimum height loss' being the most elemental part of the lesson objective. It should be stressed that an automatic reaction of burying the stick in the instrument panel is not necessarily the best course of action if you stall on the approach at 100'.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was lucky enough on a canceled days flying to have a brief from a visiting CAA exam callsign. Which as you might expect was listened to by students and instructors alike.
The MEP stall recover using the power, only dropping the nose to straight and level attitude was explained as the following.
The recovery is started on the activation of the stall warning system which indicates you are approaching the stall and not actually in the stall. So as such all you are doing is speeding up in a flyable condition. And as such dropping the nose below S&L is an over reaction. The lecture was over 4 years ago now but he did then go on to cover the case of engine failure while performing the manover. If the engine fails before minimum control airbourne is reached you apply full rudder and retard the good engine just enough to remain in control and then advance the power to max as you speed up past any limiting speeds.
In a clean stall to the onset of buffet he was an ex-RAF chap so briefed the RAF standard minimal unload recovery which Dan is doing a fair job explaining.
As Dan said earlier how on earth can Joe Bloggs be expected to know what they are doing when all the major subjects ie PFL's, stalling, standard checks etc are all debated on this forum with very varied opinions on the methods. Joe is going to go from one check ride where he is told to stuff the nose down to one where he will get re-trained if he drops below the horizon.
If the CAA payed someone in the know to write briefing sheets on the topics brought up on this forum and endorsed them as the "method to use" and sent them to all FI's and CRI's and publish them at the back of lasor's for the rest it would be a relatively cheap way of getting some sort of standards in the UK.
The MEP stall recover using the power, only dropping the nose to straight and level attitude was explained as the following.
The recovery is started on the activation of the stall warning system which indicates you are approaching the stall and not actually in the stall. So as such all you are doing is speeding up in a flyable condition. And as such dropping the nose below S&L is an over reaction. The lecture was over 4 years ago now but he did then go on to cover the case of engine failure while performing the manover. If the engine fails before minimum control airbourne is reached you apply full rudder and retard the good engine just enough to remain in control and then advance the power to max as you speed up past any limiting speeds.
In a clean stall to the onset of buffet he was an ex-RAF chap so briefed the RAF standard minimal unload recovery which Dan is doing a fair job explaining.
As Dan said earlier how on earth can Joe Bloggs be expected to know what they are doing when all the major subjects ie PFL's, stalling, standard checks etc are all debated on this forum with very varied opinions on the methods. Joe is going to go from one check ride where he is told to stuff the nose down to one where he will get re-trained if he drops below the horizon.
If the CAA payed someone in the know to write briefing sheets on the topics brought up on this forum and endorsed them as the "method to use" and sent them to all FI's and CRI's and publish them at the back of lasor's for the rest it would be a relatively cheap way of getting some sort of standards in the UK.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: essex
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the CAA payed someone in the know to write briefing sheets on the topics brought up on this forum and endorsed them as the "method to use" and sent them to all FI's and CRI's and publish them at the back of lasor's for the rest it would be a relatively cheap way of getting some sort of standards in the UK.
And they would be out of date the very next day
Diversity is not a bad thing and there are many ways to skin a cat !
And they would be out of date the very next day
Diversity is not a bad thing and there are many ways to skin a cat !
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They wouldn't, the RAF have been using the same basic instruction manual for years the one Dan and BEagle got issued proberly only have changes included for the purposes of new aircraft types compared to the one issued today the basic principles of how to fly haven't changed for 50 years.
This diversity line about so many ways to skin a cat is just an excuse so instructors can carry on re-inventing the wheel and plugging there own ideas about how it is meant to be done. The end result is that the whole sylabus has become a mish mash of methods with no real standard. Which people haven't a clue whats expected of them or which one of many perversions along a general theme they are meant to produce.
The instructors think they have found the new in thing but the old method has incorporated years of cock ups and rules of thumb that the boy that killed himself learning that wasn't the way to do it has been forgotten. I suspose its the old stable extravert thing and the personalitys involved which make us all think we know better than the old fart who smells of wee who learn't to fly in a tiger moth after 300 hours of instructing.
The differences between FIC's is becoming more and more marked and now there are no checks now before becoming unrestricted there is no real check on any FI's and their methods. Most get an airline job before the renewal and after that if they decided they want to instruct for a hobby they have had the crap kicked out of them in the sim 8-10 times with defined methods of dealing with stalls etc. And knowing the importance of SOP's and standard methods they forget the invented ones they used as an FI and use the "RAF" methods which work for all types.
I have a feeling that most on this forum if flying together would try and retrain each other if they had a blind flight test with each other.
MJ
This diversity line about so many ways to skin a cat is just an excuse so instructors can carry on re-inventing the wheel and plugging there own ideas about how it is meant to be done. The end result is that the whole sylabus has become a mish mash of methods with no real standard. Which people haven't a clue whats expected of them or which one of many perversions along a general theme they are meant to produce.
The instructors think they have found the new in thing but the old method has incorporated years of cock ups and rules of thumb that the boy that killed himself learning that wasn't the way to do it has been forgotten. I suspose its the old stable extravert thing and the personalitys involved which make us all think we know better than the old fart who smells of wee who learn't to fly in a tiger moth after 300 hours of instructing.
The differences between FIC's is becoming more and more marked and now there are no checks now before becoming unrestricted there is no real check on any FI's and their methods. Most get an airline job before the renewal and after that if they decided they want to instruct for a hobby they have had the crap kicked out of them in the sim 8-10 times with defined methods of dealing with stalls etc. And knowing the importance of SOP's and standard methods they forget the invented ones they used as an FI and use the "RAF" methods which work for all types.
I have a feeling that most on this forum if flying together would try and retrain each other if they had a blind flight test with each other.
MJ
Last edited by mad_jock; 8th Apr 2006 at 07:22.
I have a WW2 RAF flying manual for the Miles Magister. The syllabus is very similar to the current RAF and PPL ones. The lesson numbers course construction are almost identical.
Although aircraft have different characteristics, the laws of aerodynamics don't change and the best way to recover from a stall with minimum height loss has not changed since then.
And until we're all flying hover cars, I doubt it will change much in the future either!
Although aircraft have different characteristics, the laws of aerodynamics don't change and the best way to recover from a stall with minimum height loss has not changed since then.
And until we're all flying hover cars, I doubt it will change much in the future either!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stall recoveries are simple....what method would you use if the aircraft was being held off feet above the runway, which then resulted in a balloon.
We all teach that recovery.
The only time pilots stall aircraft;
1/ Overcooked climbing turn, pilot showing off.
2/ Tight turn to final, low level, crap weather.
3/ Overpitching at roundout with excess speed, power off.
Too many bang on about being in balance on final turn, had this when being checked out by an instructor in the States, i later showed him the balance indicator was not set level on the panel. Keeping in perfect balance may have been true in the Sopwith camel,
We all teach that recovery.
The only time pilots stall aircraft;
1/ Overcooked climbing turn, pilot showing off.
2/ Tight turn to final, low level, crap weather.
3/ Overpitching at roundout with excess speed, power off.
Too many bang on about being in balance on final turn, had this when being checked out by an instructor in the States, i later showed him the balance indicator was not set level on the panel. Keeping in perfect balance may have been true in the Sopwith camel,
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 61
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stalling is caused by stick position (via pitching aerofoil up too high relative to airflow). You can demonstrate this by bringing the stick back abruptly, or slowly, at higher speeds, or at low speeds, upright or vertical, level or banked. In all cases the stall will occur at the same stick position (assuming W&B remains constant). Once you know where that stalling point is, it's a simple matter to ensure that (a) you keep the stick forward of it, whilst in the air and (b) if you bring the stick aft of it and cause a stall, you move the stick forward through it to get out of the stall. In the case of inverted flight, for forward read aft, and vice-versa.
But once you're out of the stall, you may be going too slowly to maintain height, so you need power to stay airborne.
Rudder helps keep you balanced and prevents the stall turning into a spin. An interesting exercise is to put the aircraft into a fully stalled position, power off, and then use alternate rudder to keep the ball centred and the aircraft upright - sometimes referred to as a "falling leaf", or a "rudder walk". You'll be losing height the whole time, and you'll be stalled the whole time, but you won't be in a spin.
This sort of practice helped me once when I had an EFATO about 100' off the runway, in a Marchetti SF260 with nowhere to go ahead, and had to crank around 60 degrees to get down on the airfield in one piece, albeitwith a firm arrival, gear up, followed by hospitalisation for both me and the aircraft. Someone killed himself a couple of weeks ago in an EFATO at the same airfield in a Lancair 360.
Avoiding a stall is a good idea; recovering from it will always require stick movement, but in an engine-out situation, or in a glider, or in the Spitfire doing a go-around at Goodwood a few years ago, adding full power is not the first thing to do, and may not be an option.
But once you're out of the stall, you may be going too slowly to maintain height, so you need power to stay airborne.
Rudder helps keep you balanced and prevents the stall turning into a spin. An interesting exercise is to put the aircraft into a fully stalled position, power off, and then use alternate rudder to keep the ball centred and the aircraft upright - sometimes referred to as a "falling leaf", or a "rudder walk". You'll be losing height the whole time, and you'll be stalled the whole time, but you won't be in a spin.
This sort of practice helped me once when I had an EFATO about 100' off the runway, in a Marchetti SF260 with nowhere to go ahead, and had to crank around 60 degrees to get down on the airfield in one piece, albeitwith a firm arrival, gear up, followed by hospitalisation for both me and the aircraft. Someone killed himself a couple of weeks ago in an EFATO at the same airfield in a Lancair 360.
Avoiding a stall is a good idea; recovering from it will always require stick movement, but in an engine-out situation, or in a glider, or in the Spitfire doing a go-around at Goodwood a few years ago, adding full power is not the first thing to do, and may not be an option.
Interesting! So a stall will always occur at the same stick position if the weight and balance is the same. So what about loading then? The speed at which a stall will occur is more relevant - and this speed will change at the square root of the load factor. At 1g, if the stalling speed of an aircraft is 60 knots, at 2g, it will be 60 x 1.4 = 84 knots, at 4g it will be 60 x 2 = 120 knots. At 0g, the aircraft will not stall. I suggest that in each of these cases the stick position will be very different.
As for 'walking the rudder' in a stall, enough has been mentioned here for me to not go into why this is not sensible.
I hope you're not teaching your students this nonsense - assuming you're an instructor. Which I hope you're not!
As for 'walking the rudder' in a stall, enough has been mentioned here for me to not go into why this is not sensible.
I hope you're not teaching your students this nonsense - assuming you're an instructor. Which I hope you're not!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 61
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dan Winterland
Interesting! So a stall will always occur at the same stick position if the weight and balance is the same. So what about loading then? The speed at which a stall will occur is more relevant - and this speed will change at the square root of the load factor. At 1g, if the stalling speed of an aircraft is 60 knots, at 2g, it will be 60 x 1.4 = 84 knots, at 4g it will be 60 x 2 = 120 knots. At 0g, the aircraft will not stall. I suggest that in each of these cases the stick position will be very different.
As for 'walking the rudder' in a stall, enough has been mentioned here for me to not go into why this is not sensible.
I hope you're not teaching your students this nonsense - assuming you're an instructor. Which I hope you're not!
As for 'walking the rudder' in a stall, enough has been mentioned here for me to not go into why this is not sensible.
I hope you're not teaching your students this nonsense - assuming you're an instructor. Which I hope you're not!
And if you put the stick into a position where you are not stalled, chnaging speed or g loading won't make you stall. If you move the stick and thus stall the aircraft, changing the speed or the loading won't unstall it, either.
I've also explained that "walking the rudder" can allow you to keep the aircraft level in a deep stall. I didn't suggest that keeping the aircraft in a deep stall was a good idea.
No, I'm not an instructor. I have found that many instructors are ignorant on this point though. I myself learned this relatively recently from a couple of highly experienced instructors, both of whom teach aerobatics and therefore get to explore aircraft behaviour across a wider range of attitudes than many pilots usually experience. I didn't believe it until I climbed into an aerobatic aircraft and checked this explanation out for myself across a wide range of speeds, loadings, pitch and bank angles. I found it holds good.
You might like to get off your keyboard and into the cockpit if you want to check this out, too. Or have your prejudices overcome your willingness to learn from experience?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Western Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to intrude, I'm no FI or Examiner (pre-GFPT) but have to say that as a student who is having some difficulty with mastering stalls, this thread is great stuff.
Despite being very happy with my FI who is very encouraging and doing everything they can to help me master the stall, I've probably got a problem with the exercise. I think I'm okay with the theory side of things but putting it into practice appears to be a stumbling block! And most of it is probably not having enough bottle!
This was probably due to the unexpected experience (and sensation) of bad wing-drop. I 'instinctively' used aileron in the heat of the moment to correct (despite being briefed to use rudder) and obviously things only got worse till I let go of the controls and let my FI get us out of it. On the outside I probably seemed fairly calm, inside I was s***ting myself!
Have now had 1.5 hours on the stall and still have a few to complete. (FI doesn't want to scare me away)! Is this time-frame for your first stall exercises 'normal' for students?
Sorry for the thread-creep, but if anyone can answer I'd really appreciate a PM assuming you don't want to deviate from the topic by posting here.
'72.
Despite being very happy with my FI who is very encouraging and doing everything they can to help me master the stall, I've probably got a problem with the exercise. I think I'm okay with the theory side of things but putting it into practice appears to be a stumbling block! And most of it is probably not having enough bottle!
This was probably due to the unexpected experience (and sensation) of bad wing-drop. I 'instinctively' used aileron in the heat of the moment to correct (despite being briefed to use rudder) and obviously things only got worse till I let go of the controls and let my FI get us out of it. On the outside I probably seemed fairly calm, inside I was s***ting myself!
Have now had 1.5 hours on the stall and still have a few to complete. (FI doesn't want to scare me away)! Is this time-frame for your first stall exercises 'normal' for students?
Sorry for the thread-creep, but if anyone can answer I'd really appreciate a PM assuming you don't want to deviate from the topic by posting here.
'72.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1972,
It's unfortunate that you experienced this wing drop. The aim of the stalling exercises is to absolutely drill into you the recognition and correct recovery from a stall, so that you hopefully recognise the stall before it happens, and if by some chance you don't you then automatically use rudder to prevent yaw which in turn will prevent any wing-drop from developing. These must be instinctive reactions if you are to avoid scaring yourself like this again!
The answer to your question is that, if you can not carry out the correct recovery instinctively, you have not finished the exercise. There is no set time that it takes to complete the exericise - in fact, before JAR, there was a requirement for a minimum of 2 hours of stalling, so your 1.5 hours so far are certainly nothing to be ashamed of. Good luck in learning to be a safe pilot!
HappyJack,
I can not disagree with your post, but I don't think it's very helpful. People (including students) fly different aircraft at different weights all the time, so learning a particular stick position at which the stall occurs (and bearing in mind it will also change with flap settings due to the different AoA required, and, I think, power settings due to the effect of the power on the elevator) is not helpful. The only reason I cn think of why it is helpful for a PPL student to know that the stick position is important in determining when the stall occurs is because, as you rightly say, some forward movement of the stick (assuming it's not an inverted stall) is required on the recovery. But the aim of the exercise we teach PPLs is to recover with minimum height loss - and to achieve minimum height loss, more is required than simply moving the stick forward.
The "Falling Leaf" is of very little benefit to PPL students, and has been discussed enough on this forum recently to not need to be discussed again.
FFF
--------------
It's unfortunate that you experienced this wing drop. The aim of the stalling exercises is to absolutely drill into you the recognition and correct recovery from a stall, so that you hopefully recognise the stall before it happens, and if by some chance you don't you then automatically use rudder to prevent yaw which in turn will prevent any wing-drop from developing. These must be instinctive reactions if you are to avoid scaring yourself like this again!
The answer to your question is that, if you can not carry out the correct recovery instinctively, you have not finished the exercise. There is no set time that it takes to complete the exericise - in fact, before JAR, there was a requirement for a minimum of 2 hours of stalling, so your 1.5 hours so far are certainly nothing to be ashamed of. Good luck in learning to be a safe pilot!
HappyJack,
I can not disagree with your post, but I don't think it's very helpful. People (including students) fly different aircraft at different weights all the time, so learning a particular stick position at which the stall occurs (and bearing in mind it will also change with flap settings due to the different AoA required, and, I think, power settings due to the effect of the power on the elevator) is not helpful. The only reason I cn think of why it is helpful for a PPL student to know that the stick position is important in determining when the stall occurs is because, as you rightly say, some forward movement of the stick (assuming it's not an inverted stall) is required on the recovery. But the aim of the exercise we teach PPLs is to recover with minimum height loss - and to achieve minimum height loss, more is required than simply moving the stick forward.
The "Falling Leaf" is of very little benefit to PPL students, and has been discussed enough on this forum recently to not need to be discussed again.
FFF
--------------
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 61
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FlyingForFun
1972,
I can not disagree with your post, but I don't think it's very helpful. People (including students) fly different aircraft at different weights all the time, so learning a particular stick position at which the stall occurs (and bearing in mind it will also change with flap settings due to the different AoA required, and, I think, power settings due to the effect of the power on the elevator) is not helpful. The only reason I cn think of why it is helpful for a PPL student to know that the stick position is important in determining when the stall occurs is because, as you rightly say, some forward movement of the stick (assuming it's not an inverted stall) is required on the recovery. But the aim of the exercise we teach PPLs is to recover with minimum height loss - and to achieve minimum height loss, more is required than simply moving the stick forward.
FFF
--------------
I can not disagree with your post, but I don't think it's very helpful. People (including students) fly different aircraft at different weights all the time, so learning a particular stick position at which the stall occurs (and bearing in mind it will also change with flap settings due to the different AoA required, and, I think, power settings due to the effect of the power on the elevator) is not helpful. The only reason I cn think of why it is helpful for a PPL student to know that the stick position is important in determining when the stall occurs is because, as you rightly say, some forward movement of the stick (assuming it's not an inverted stall) is required on the recovery. But the aim of the exercise we teach PPLs is to recover with minimum height loss - and to achieve minimum height loss, more is required than simply moving the stick forward.
FFF
--------------
The reason why I'm banging on like this is that I agree will all the comment about it being preferable not to get into a stall in the first place. And if you know the stick position where this occurs, you can avoid this. Most students and many PPL's flying, say, a 152, two-up, don't know this. And I think there was a case of a DC-10 in South America a few years ago, which deep stalled into the ground from 20,000 feet with the power full on and the column fully aft, past the stall stick position As I said, when it comes to recovery, you need power in to give you the speed to prevent or recover your height loss. But it's stick position, not power settings, that caused the stall in the first place.
I can't comment on how this applies to a fly-by-wire aircraft such as the F-16 or the Airbus. But this applies for GA aircraft, certainly.
Have a read of this article in the CASA Flight Safety Magazine from 2000:
http://www.casa.gov.au/fsa/2000/sep/FSA34-35.pdf
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Stall
The application of rudder for stall recovery is not to prevent further 'wing drop' but to prevent FURTHER YAW!
Having recovered from a stall and speed gained the wings should be levelled with the horizon BEFORE adopting the climb.
I too have my students maintain the aircraft in the stall in order that they have the full knowledge of the symtoms of the stall and the characteristics of their particular aeroplane during the stall. They will then better understand the actions that are required for recovery ie; the 'standard stall recovery' as we know it modified for the best action for a particular type.
Throughout all stall training emphasis must be on relaxing the student and removing fear. Fright and ignorance being their biggest hazard which will most likely to lead to an unsuccessful recovery when it matters.
I cannot understand how a properly conducted lesson should lead to an unrecoverable spin.
Having recovered from a stall and speed gained the wings should be levelled with the horizon BEFORE adopting the climb.
I too have my students maintain the aircraft in the stall in order that they have the full knowledge of the symtoms of the stall and the characteristics of their particular aeroplane during the stall. They will then better understand the actions that are required for recovery ie; the 'standard stall recovery' as we know it modified for the best action for a particular type.
Throughout all stall training emphasis must be on relaxing the student and removing fear. Fright and ignorance being their biggest hazard which will most likely to lead to an unsuccessful recovery when it matters.
I cannot understand how a properly conducted lesson should lead to an unrecoverable spin.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: yorkshire
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Happy Jack,
I hope that this doesn't upset you...please don't bite.....I'm afraid that you've got it wrong. Dan Winterland is correct.
Both loading and power (or rather, propwash) affect the stick position at the stall. If it were not so, we'd just do as Langesweische suggests and fit 10 cents' worth of wire to the joystick, limiting its movement and making aircraft unstallable and very safe.
I hope that this doesn't upset you...please don't bite.....I'm afraid that you've got it wrong. Dan Winterland is correct.
Both loading and power (or rather, propwash) affect the stick position at the stall. If it were not so, we'd just do as Langesweische suggests and fit 10 cents' worth of wire to the joystick, limiting its movement and making aircraft unstallable and very safe.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To me if you are flying looking at the stick position you are looking in the wrong place! The time you are most likely to stall is when you have your head out the window concentrating on something else, so you need to recognise a stall from cues other than stick position, also, how many control colums have a "position" indicator - most are just somewhere in the middle of the cockpit with little to reference them to.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 61
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know about you folks, but since there's not a lot to look at in the cockpit of a Pitts, looking outward is the only place to look, for me. You don't need to look at the controls in order to tell where they are - that's what feel - eg, the angle of your wrist with your hand resting on your knee - should tell you. If you know where the column/yoke is at the point of stalling, you can tell how far you are away from that.
Having an aircraft that cannot stall - thanks to a piece of wire across the back of the stick - would be unfortunate - it would make landings very much harder, because that's when you want to stall. In an aerobatic aircraft, also, there are times when you want to stall the wing - such as in the entry to a flick roll, or spin. I can tell you that the stick position is the same for a spin entry, horizontal flick roll or a flick on a 45 degree upline.
Phil Unicomb - in the article I linked to - explains this much better than me - but the concept does work. I know, I've tried it. All I can suggest is that you, who don't believe me or Phil Unicomb's article, get into an aircraft, get in the air, and try it for youself. Preferably with an aircraft certified for spinning; preferably not an Airbus 320 full of passengers.
Here's the link again to that stalling article:http://www.casa.gov.au/fsa/2000/sep/FSA34-35.pdf
Having an aircraft that cannot stall - thanks to a piece of wire across the back of the stick - would be unfortunate - it would make landings very much harder, because that's when you want to stall. In an aerobatic aircraft, also, there are times when you want to stall the wing - such as in the entry to a flick roll, or spin. I can tell you that the stick position is the same for a spin entry, horizontal flick roll or a flick on a 45 degree upline.
Phil Unicomb - in the article I linked to - explains this much better than me - but the concept does work. I know, I've tried it. All I can suggest is that you, who don't believe me or Phil Unicomb's article, get into an aircraft, get in the air, and try it for youself. Preferably with an aircraft certified for spinning; preferably not an Airbus 320 full of passengers.
Here's the link again to that stalling article:http://www.casa.gov.au/fsa/2000/sep/FSA34-35.pdf
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 61
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, and just to add to my last post - here's an invitation to the doubters - if you can make it to Sydney - come up with me in the Pitts S-2C and we'll test the theory and see who's right.