Stalling
Having just read the article, I think in his attempt to simplify the process the author has made assumptions which are either not strictly correct or misleading.
Firstly, he tries to explain the function of stalling by linking the angle of attack to the elevator position. Although the angle of attack is controlled by the elevator, it is not a function of it. In many cases you can link a stall speed to a stick position, but not all. 'Stall stick position' will change on various circumstances. For example, try the difference in stick position between the clean and approach configuration in a Rallye.
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.
Leveling the wings with rudder? NO!!!!!! Use rudder to prevent further yaw - and that only. This concept should have been eradicated years ago.
FYI, the DC10 has swept wings which have different stall characteristics to GA aircraft. An A320 stick selects a g loading it pitch and returns to neutral when the selected loading is 1g. It will be in the same position at any phase of flight at 1g, but the safety systems won't let you get near the stall anyway.
Firstly, he tries to explain the function of stalling by linking the angle of attack to the elevator position. Although the angle of attack is controlled by the elevator, it is not a function of it. In many cases you can link a stall speed to a stick position, but not all. 'Stall stick position' will change on various circumstances. For example, try the difference in stick position between the clean and approach configuration in a Rallye.
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.
Leveling the wings with rudder? NO!!!!!! Use rudder to prevent further yaw - and that only. This concept should have been eradicated years ago.
FYI, the DC10 has swept wings which have different stall characteristics to GA aircraft. An A320 stick selects a g loading it pitch and returns to neutral when the selected loading is 1g. It will be in the same position at any phase of flight at 1g, but the safety systems won't let you get near the stall anyway.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 61
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 61
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bogbeagle
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.
The Eagle, with its canard/staggerwing biplane (take your pick) configuration is also designed to make stalls impossible, by ensuring (I believe) that the front wing stalls before the main wing, causing the nose to drop and restoring airflow over the main wing.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm having flying lessons at the moment so this thread makes interesting reading. I've had just over 6 hours and did my first stalls last lesson. I first watched, and then flew into and recovered myself from stalls with "clean" and "full flap" configurations in a C152. These stalls were all with the wings level and power off. I was taught to recognise the stall, and lower the nose below the horizon once it occurred, applying full power at the same time and levelling off once the airspeed had recovered to 60 knots. The height loss using this method was about 200 feet with both aircraft configurations. This method of stall recovery seems to be broadly correct, but some posts on this thread have advised doing things differently (i.e. not lowering the nose below the horizon, not applying full power at the same time).
Although there are some seemingly contradicting arguments in this thread, can I take it that the general principles for stall recovery are:
1) Move the nose down (using elevator) to an unstalled attitude (which can be recognised by loss of buffet), but not any lower (in order to minimise altitude loss)
2) Apply power smoothly once attitude is lowered and buffet removed (or is it apply power smoothly and simultaneously with lowering of nose?)
3) Use rudder to prevent yaw during above actions (but not to correct any wing-drop)
4) Once wings unstalled and airspeed sufficient, use ailerons to align aircraft with horizon (if wings not already level)
Is this correct? Having read about accidents caused by picking up a dropped wing with rudder long before I started lessons, I have never used rudder to pick up a dropped wing, even though I am aware that roll is the secondary effect of rudder (instead using the ailerons). However, I am also aware that using ailerons in or close to the stall in an attempt to pick up a dropped wing can actually make that wing drop further by stalling it (due to the increased attitude of the lowered wing with the "down" aileron).
So I take it that you don't use either rudder or ailerons therefore to pick up a dropped wing in a stall, and instead ignore a dropped wing (or any increasing wing drop?) until the stall recovery is complete, when aileron can be used to pick it up?
Any comment and correction would be appreciated.
Although there are some seemingly contradicting arguments in this thread, can I take it that the general principles for stall recovery are:
1) Move the nose down (using elevator) to an unstalled attitude (which can be recognised by loss of buffet), but not any lower (in order to minimise altitude loss)
2) Apply power smoothly once attitude is lowered and buffet removed (or is it apply power smoothly and simultaneously with lowering of nose?)
3) Use rudder to prevent yaw during above actions (but not to correct any wing-drop)
4) Once wings unstalled and airspeed sufficient, use ailerons to align aircraft with horizon (if wings not already level)
Is this correct? Having read about accidents caused by picking up a dropped wing with rudder long before I started lessons, I have never used rudder to pick up a dropped wing, even though I am aware that roll is the secondary effect of rudder (instead using the ailerons). However, I am also aware that using ailerons in or close to the stall in an attempt to pick up a dropped wing can actually make that wing drop further by stalling it (due to the increased attitude of the lowered wing with the "down" aileron).
So I take it that you don't use either rudder or ailerons therefore to pick up a dropped wing in a stall, and instead ignore a dropped wing (or any increasing wing drop?) until the stall recovery is complete, when aileron can be used to pick it up?
Any comment and correction would be appreciated.
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
Alogan,
Yes, it sounds like you have exactly the right idea. If you do in the air exactly what you've described in your post, you should get plenty of praise from your instructor.
There is a danger for people with little experience, such as yourself, when reading this thread: many people have said many things which, although correct, do not apply in every situation.
For example, you mentioned not lowering the nose during the recovery. I think that what you have picked up on specifically relates to a recovery from an incipient stall in a light twin-engined aircraft - these aircraft have sufficient power that, from an incipient stall, this recovery technique will work fine, because the forward pressure on the controls necessary to maintain the attitude, and the resulting decrease in angle of attack, are sufficient to remove the symptoms of the approaching stall.
Although the instructors and other experienced pilots on this forum can use their experience to understand why this technique (and others that have also been discussed) might not be appropriate for all aircraft, or why a technique might be technically correct but not using the most appropriate cues, and so on, it is very difficult for someone with very little experience to see these subtleties.
Therefore, for any other students who are following this thread, I would suggest reading Alogan's post and ignoring the rest of the thread!!!
FFF
-----------
Yes, it sounds like you have exactly the right idea. If you do in the air exactly what you've described in your post, you should get plenty of praise from your instructor.
There is a danger for people with little experience, such as yourself, when reading this thread: many people have said many things which, although correct, do not apply in every situation.
For example, you mentioned not lowering the nose during the recovery. I think that what you have picked up on specifically relates to a recovery from an incipient stall in a light twin-engined aircraft - these aircraft have sufficient power that, from an incipient stall, this recovery technique will work fine, because the forward pressure on the controls necessary to maintain the attitude, and the resulting decrease in angle of attack, are sufficient to remove the symptoms of the approaching stall.
Although the instructors and other experienced pilots on this forum can use their experience to understand why this technique (and others that have also been discussed) might not be appropriate for all aircraft, or why a technique might be technically correct but not using the most appropriate cues, and so on, it is very difficult for someone with very little experience to see these subtleties.
Therefore, for any other students who are following this thread, I would suggest reading Alogan's post and ignoring the rest of the thread!!!
FFF
-----------
FFF - an excellent reply!
Alogan - you've got it spot on! There has been a lot of nonsense in this thread - stick to the standard patter that your instructor is (hopefully) using:
"Stick sufficiently far forward to unstall the wing (ailerons neutral), full power, prevent yaw with rudder. When unstalled, level the wings with aileron and smoothly pitch to put the cowling on the horizon then raise flaps and pitch to the climbing attitude as speed increases".
Note that there is no reference to the horizon in the first part of this patter, only that the wing is unstalled.
You ask:
Absolutely!!! As soon as you unstall the wing it will stop dropping and you can then use aileron to level the wings.
HFD
Alogan - you've got it spot on! There has been a lot of nonsense in this thread - stick to the standard patter that your instructor is (hopefully) using:
"Stick sufficiently far forward to unstall the wing (ailerons neutral), full power, prevent yaw with rudder. When unstalled, level the wings with aileron and smoothly pitch to put the cowling on the horizon then raise flaps and pitch to the climbing attitude as speed increases".
Note that there is no reference to the horizon in the first part of this patter, only that the wing is unstalled.
You ask:
So I take it that you don't use either rudder or ailerons therefore to pick up a dropped wing in a stall, and instead ignore a dropped wing (or any increasing wing drop?) ...
HFD
Last edited by hugh flung_dung; 20th Apr 2006 at 12:54.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the use of rudder depends on the severity of the wing drop.
Take a typical worn out Cessna 152 with a bit of hangar rash.
1500 rpm, 2nd flap, back to stall and most Cessna 152 react as though they have had the left wing (usually) chopped off.
Recovery
1/ opposite rudder (step on the wing)
2/ stick forward
3/ smoothly apply full power
4/ centralise rudder as airspeed increases towards 60
5/ roll wings level to nearest horizon
6/ pitch to +ve climb and raise flap
With practise altitude loss less than 100 feet.
If nothing else the exercise serves to frighten a student into the consequences of stalling. Let the student have a go, they will apply opposite aileron, making the situation worse, let them, be ready to raise the flap! What happens is what most observers see when they describe the aircraft spinning down in most accidents, actually a tight 'graveyard' spiral. Too much practise may give the student too much confidence that he could handle this type of stall situation. The emphasise should be on pre stall recovery.
Recovery
1/ at stall warn smoothly apply full power
2/ ease stick forward to reduce a of a
3/ roll wings level if banked
4/ establish +ve rate of climb.
This can be done quite quickly by going from one stall attitude to another each time practise the above recovery.
Most of all know your aircraft, some have pre stall buffet, some don't (C152).
Multi piston benefit from slipstream effect over the wings to generate lift on recovery. Larger aircraft have angle of attack sensors, so i suppose they are linked to the flight computers to prevent stalls?
Also good demo. use the half mill rule as a wing and play with it under a running tap, to demonstarte the breakaway of flow over a wing.
Take a typical worn out Cessna 152 with a bit of hangar rash.
1500 rpm, 2nd flap, back to stall and most Cessna 152 react as though they have had the left wing (usually) chopped off.
Recovery
1/ opposite rudder (step on the wing)
2/ stick forward
3/ smoothly apply full power
4/ centralise rudder as airspeed increases towards 60
5/ roll wings level to nearest horizon
6/ pitch to +ve climb and raise flap
With practise altitude loss less than 100 feet.
If nothing else the exercise serves to frighten a student into the consequences of stalling. Let the student have a go, they will apply opposite aileron, making the situation worse, let them, be ready to raise the flap! What happens is what most observers see when they describe the aircraft spinning down in most accidents, actually a tight 'graveyard' spiral. Too much practise may give the student too much confidence that he could handle this type of stall situation. The emphasise should be on pre stall recovery.
Recovery
1/ at stall warn smoothly apply full power
2/ ease stick forward to reduce a of a
3/ roll wings level if banked
4/ establish +ve rate of climb.
This can be done quite quickly by going from one stall attitude to another each time practise the above recovery.
Most of all know your aircraft, some have pre stall buffet, some don't (C152).
Multi piston benefit from slipstream effect over the wings to generate lift on recovery. Larger aircraft have angle of attack sensors, so i suppose they are linked to the flight computers to prevent stalls?
Also good demo. use the half mill rule as a wing and play with it under a running tap, to demonstarte the breakaway of flow over a wing.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: yorkshire
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
try this Happy Jack.
1.....get your hands on a 150, or similar..take a pal along.
2.....fly at the edge of the stall at a low power setting, then concentrate on holding the control column in a fixed position.
3.....have your pal apply full power
I think you'll find that, although the stick position is fixed (by you), the aircraft will briskly transition from an unstalled condition to a stalled one.
1.....get your hands on a 150, or similar..take a pal along.
2.....fly at the edge of the stall at a low power setting, then concentrate on holding the control column in a fixed position.
3.....have your pal apply full power
I think you'll find that, although the stick position is fixed (by you), the aircraft will briskly transition from an unstalled condition to a stalled one.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 61
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bogbeagle
try this Happy Jack.
1.....get your hands on a 150, or similar..take a pal along.
2.....fly at the edge of the stall at a low power setting, then concentrate on holding the control column in a fixed position.
3.....have your pal apply full power
I think you'll find that, although the stick position is fixed (by you), the aircraft will briskly transition from an unstalled condition to a stalled one.
1.....get your hands on a 150, or similar..take a pal along.
2.....fly at the edge of the stall at a low power setting, then concentrate on holding the control column in a fixed position.
3.....have your pal apply full power
I think you'll find that, although the stick position is fixed (by you), the aircraft will briskly transition from an unstalled condition to a stalled one.
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
HappyJack,
You have understood bogbeagle correctly. This is type specific, but in broad terms what will happen is this.
The elevators produce a downwards force, which causes a pitch-up moment. (This is cancelled out in steady flight by other forces, such as drag and lift.)
With the aircraft close to the stall, stall warner going and possibly even some light buffet, apply power whilst holding the control column still. The increased airflow over the elevator will cause an increase in the amount of (downwards) lift produced by the elevator. This in turn causes the aircraft to pitch up, increasing the angle of attack on the wings, and causing what was originally an incipient stall to turn into a fully developed stall.
This is the theory. I've never tried it in practice as bogbeagle suggests, although I might give it a go. I don't know if bogbeagle has ever tried it?
FFF
--------------
You have understood bogbeagle correctly. This is type specific, but in broad terms what will happen is this.
The elevators produce a downwards force, which causes a pitch-up moment. (This is cancelled out in steady flight by other forces, such as drag and lift.)
With the aircraft close to the stall, stall warner going and possibly even some light buffet, apply power whilst holding the control column still. The increased airflow over the elevator will cause an increase in the amount of (downwards) lift produced by the elevator. This in turn causes the aircraft to pitch up, increasing the angle of attack on the wings, and causing what was originally an incipient stall to turn into a fully developed stall.
This is the theory. I've never tried it in practice as bogbeagle suggests, although I might give it a go. I don't know if bogbeagle has ever tried it?
FFF
--------------
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do what?
BigEndBob,
I would suggest caution in using stage 1/ of this method. This may work some of the time in a 152 but on many ac applying rudder while the wing is stalled will only serve to create autorotation and worsen the situation. The fact that the wing has dropped does not change this. The fact is that the wing is stalled (by definition, above alpha.crit) and you are applying a yawing moment. The AOPA Stall/Spin review has some interesting stats/comments on what happens when you make incorrect recovery actions.
The priority in Stall recovery must be to get the wing flying again, so simultaneous application of full power and forward elevator(til buffet stops) should be the first actions. Unless your AFM suggest something different.....
Uncle G
Recovery
1/ opposite rudder (step on the wing)
2/ stick forward
3/ smoothly apply full power
4/ centralise rudder as airspeed increases towards 60
5/ roll wings level to nearest horizon
6/ pitch to +ve climb and raise flap
With practise altitude loss less than 100 feet
1/ opposite rudder (step on the wing)
2/ stick forward
3/ smoothly apply full power
4/ centralise rudder as airspeed increases towards 60
5/ roll wings level to nearest horizon
6/ pitch to +ve climb and raise flap
With practise altitude loss less than 100 feet
The priority in Stall recovery must be to get the wing flying again, so simultaneous application of full power and forward elevator(til buffet stops) should be the first actions. Unless your AFM suggest something different.....
Uncle G
Last edited by Uncle Ginsters; 21st Apr 2006 at 10:18.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seems to be a suggestion creeping in here that you should not prevent further wing drop in a stall with rudder, whilst this is fine in some aircraft there are others (anyone stalled an Emeraude?) where if this is not done instinctively you can end up on your back, so I would much rather see this taught as standard. I have flown many types and have not come across any that this causes a problem on, but as said, there are aircraft that not preventing further wingdrop will cause a problem. (and yes, the aircraft was in balance at the stall!!). Of course what I am not advocating here is the picking up of the wing with rudder.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Stall
Foxmouth
Lets make it clear and succinct.
To prevent yaw will in it self prevent the stall becoming a spin. (you must be yawing to be spinning). Following the initial 'wing drop' the correct use of rudder will be to prevent yaw or any further yaw which gives to the secondary effect of roll / slip, further yaw and further roll/slip/yaw and so on. You are not controlling roll with rudder but rather preventing the cause of it.
FFF
I'm sure it is a slip of the tongue. The four forces; pitch down = Lift and Weight. Thrust and Drag = pitch up. Therefore the pitch down moment of the tail plane is primarily balanced by Lift and Weight. Weight becomes dominent at the stall causing a safe pitch down movement.
Lets make it clear and succinct.
To prevent yaw will in it self prevent the stall becoming a spin. (you must be yawing to be spinning). Following the initial 'wing drop' the correct use of rudder will be to prevent yaw or any further yaw which gives to the secondary effect of roll / slip, further yaw and further roll/slip/yaw and so on. You are not controlling roll with rudder but rather preventing the cause of it.
FFF
I'm sure it is a slip of the tongue. The four forces; pitch down = Lift and Weight. Thrust and Drag = pitch up. Therefore the pitch down moment of the tail plane is primarily balanced by Lift and Weight. Weight becomes dominent at the stall causing a safe pitch down movement.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: LILE
Age: 55
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by foxmoth
there are aircraft that not preventing further wingdrop will cause a problem. (and yes, the aircraft was in balance at the stall!!).
Ciao!!!
Rosanna
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
I'm sure it is a slip of the tongue. The four forces; pitch down = Lift and Weight. Thrust and Drag = pitch up. Therefore the pitch down moment of the tail plane is primarily balanced by Lift and Weight
pitch down = Lift and Weight
As you correctly say, the thrust/drag couple causes more pitch up too, but I wasn't discussing that. If you add power, the change to the thrust/drag couple will cause the aircraft to pitch up, but very little change in the AoA because it will cause a rate of climb, or a reduced rate of descent, too. That's why I'm not bringing the thrust/drag couple into the equation.
However, as well as providing a pitch up due to the thrust/drag couple, adding power will also increase the (downwards) lift from the elevator - and this will cause a change in the AoA, and therefore, according to my understanding, a change in the stick position at which the stall occurs.
FFF
-------------
Join Date: May 2005
Location: yorkshire
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFF,
Yes, I have tried this. Works well with the T67, too. Even the humble PA-28 starts to become quite unmanageable when you do this.
Then only machine that I have ever flown which probably wouldn't behave this way is the Thruster. If I recall correctly, the application of power in this aircraft produces a strong nose-down moment. Haven't tried it in the Thruster, though.
Never flown a Pitts, neither, but I would expect it to react as the 150.
Certainly, everything that I've ever attempted to stall, flick, spin, has entered said manoeuver much more easily with power applied. I'd bet that a Pitts does, too.
Never stalled an Emeraude, but the Cap 10 is the same animal (I think) in a different guise. Stall is crisp, but recovery is no different to any other machine of which I have had experience.
cheers, bogbeagle
Yes, I have tried this. Works well with the T67, too. Even the humble PA-28 starts to become quite unmanageable when you do this.
Then only machine that I have ever flown which probably wouldn't behave this way is the Thruster. If I recall correctly, the application of power in this aircraft produces a strong nose-down moment. Haven't tried it in the Thruster, though.
Never flown a Pitts, neither, but I would expect it to react as the 150.
Certainly, everything that I've ever attempted to stall, flick, spin, has entered said manoeuver much more easily with power applied. I'd bet that a Pitts does, too.
Never stalled an Emeraude, but the Cap 10 is the same animal (I think) in a different guise. Stall is crisp, but recovery is no different to any other machine of which I have had experience.
cheers, bogbeagle
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Western Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In reply to FFF and Alogan...
FFF, thanks for the reply to my previous post, your advice was greatly appreciated. Sorry it took so long to respond.
Alogan, I am a VERY long way away from being confident and competent at this exercise (!!!) as I have yet to complete all the stalls. (Clean were okay, flaps weren't - see my earlier post if you're interested). My FI drilled it into me that while a maximum 200ft loss of altitude was deemed to be perfectly acceptable, he wanted to see me manage 100ft losses - if not nearer 50! I guess that's to make you recover quicker at lower and more critical altitudes? Did your FI say anything like this to you? Anyway, keep up the good work. Sounds like you're getting to grips with the dreaded stalls better than I!
FFF, thanks for the reply to my previous post, your advice was greatly appreciated. Sorry it took so long to respond.
Alogan, I am a VERY long way away from being confident and competent at this exercise (!!!) as I have yet to complete all the stalls. (Clean were okay, flaps weren't - see my earlier post if you're interested). My FI drilled it into me that while a maximum 200ft loss of altitude was deemed to be perfectly acceptable, he wanted to see me manage 100ft losses - if not nearer 50! I guess that's to make you recover quicker at lower and more critical altitudes? Did your FI say anything like this to you? Anyway, keep up the good work. Sounds like you're getting to grips with the dreaded stalls better than I!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1972,
Thanks for the encouragement - hope you get to grips with them quickly.
No, my FI didn't specifically stress aiming to lose 100 feet or less - in fact when he demonstrated the stall recovery he lost about 200 feet himself, although that was perhaps due to the fact that he didn't recover from the stall immediately, but held the aircraft in the stall for a few seconds so that I could feel what the stall was like and observe the high nose-up pitch and altitude loss. I expect that I'll be doing a lot more stalls (that was only an introduction really), and perhaps then the emphasis will shift to minimising height loss.
I found doing stalls fine (I had expected them to be more dramatic), and the recovery procedure quite natural, but then I've only done very simple stalls in straight and level flight. Having read this thread, I should be aiming to lose less height and I've got a lot still to learn. Hopefully I'll be able to do some more stalls soon, so that I'll be able to put what I've learned here into practice.
Angus
Thanks for the encouragement - hope you get to grips with them quickly.
No, my FI didn't specifically stress aiming to lose 100 feet or less - in fact when he demonstrated the stall recovery he lost about 200 feet himself, although that was perhaps due to the fact that he didn't recover from the stall immediately, but held the aircraft in the stall for a few seconds so that I could feel what the stall was like and observe the high nose-up pitch and altitude loss. I expect that I'll be doing a lot more stalls (that was only an introduction really), and perhaps then the emphasis will shift to minimising height loss.
I found doing stalls fine (I had expected them to be more dramatic), and the recovery procedure quite natural, but then I've only done very simple stalls in straight and level flight. Having read this thread, I should be aiming to lose less height and I've got a lot still to learn. Hopefully I'll be able to do some more stalls soon, so that I'll be able to put what I've learned here into practice.
Angus
Last edited by Alogan; 23rd Apr 2006 at 11:17.