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

HFD
Yes i did over cook the forward stick, but I knew that straight away, it was the demonstartion afterwards that I was more suprised about.
Mint

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'.

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.

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 !:)

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

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!

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,

And 4/ trying to turn back efato.

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.

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!

Neither loading nor speed will change the stick position required to get a stall. In recovering from a stall, speed of recovery is a good thing. You can move the stick quicker than you can change your speed.

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?

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. :ok:

'72.

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
--------------

POWER SETTINGS WILL NOT CHANGE THE STICK POSITION REQUIRED TO GENERATE A STALL.
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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Set the aircraft up in S&L flight and without altering the fore and aft stick position, roll into a 60 degree bank. You'll go into a spiral descent, but stay at 1G. The G forces don't increase unless you make them.

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.

I've not flown them much, but I seem to remember that Piper achieved something similar with the Cherokee, by limiting the elevator authority such that it tends to mush rather go into a fully developed stall, preumably due to a lack of elevator size.

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.

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.

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
-----------

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

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 hanger 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.

OK thanks for the replies.

Angus

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.

So when you say, "at the edge of the stall at a low power setting" are you saying that the aircraft is not quite stalled but that addition of power causes a stall?

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
--------------

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

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.:hmm:

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.

HG,
No problem with what you say here, just that there seems to be a drift towards not using rudder at all during the stall.

SF260 is one of these... if you don't control yaw with rudder it always drops a wing and starts a spin!!!

Ciao!!!

Rosanna

No splip of the tongue, homeguard, but perhaps I didn't make it clear.Generally, the CofG is in front of the CofP. This causes pitch down. The downforce from the elevator causes pitch up, which counteracts (some of) the pitch down moment from the CofP.

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
-------------

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

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!

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