Backcountry Pilot • Anatomy of a stall

Anatomy of a stall

Share tips, techniques, or anything else related to flying.
28 postsPage 1 of 21, 2

Anatomy of a stall

Split from the Valdez Competion Video for a great new topic... -Z
-----------------------------------------------

Oregon180 wrote:Check out Paul Claus's rudder work on short final in the 185 at super high angle of attack. It's amazing to see how he can be so controlled just a hair from the stall.


...mmm... perhaps you mean "beyond the stall". He's well within the region of reverse command, beyond critical angle of attack. Wings don't stop flying when they stall... no matter what the FAA syllabi teaches us. In fact, they generate a huge amount of lift here... and drag. Which is what the pilots are using to get to max power and slowest speed.

This is a pet peeve of mine because the military teaches this. The FAA, however, teaches how to pass bogus tests and pilots to be scared. I guess the FAA thinks they are above (like lots of other things) physics.
Spinner offline
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:06 pm
Location: Texas and Colorado

Re: Valdez STOL Competition Video

Spinner wrote:
Oregon180 wrote:Check out Paul Claus's rudder work on short final in the 185 at super high angle of attack. It's amazing to see how he can be so controlled just a hair from the stall.


...mmm... perhaps you mean "beyond the stall". He's well within the region of reverse command, beyond critical angle of attack. Wings don't stop flying when they stall... no matter what the FAA syllabi teaches us. In fact, they generate a huge amount of lift here... and drag. Which is what the pilots are using to get to max power and slowest speed.

This is a pet peeve of mine because the military teaches this. The FAA, however, teaches how to pass bogus tests and pilots to be scared. I guess the FAA thinks they are above (like lots of other things) physics.


You're right. But I think/hope you also know what I meant. :D

I was lucky to have a primary instructor who had me doing (and more importantly recovering from) spins before I even soloed. Later, I was fortunate to get some great aerobatic and upset training in various aircraft. Not in the military though, I admit. I agree that all pilots would benefit from that type of training.

If nothing else, the "falling leaf", or "walking the stall" is a great maneuver to get the feel for using your rudder to keep the aircraft from departing controlled flight. Paul Claus is doing this expertly, albeit not *that* deep into the stall, in the video above.
Oregon180 offline
KB and Supporter
User avatar
Posts: 1259
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2007 10:37 am
Location: Ashland
Aircraft: C180B

Re: Valdez STOL Competition Video

Spinner wrote:Wings don't stop flying when they stall...


I think the key here is your definition of "flying," and how effective a particular aircraft is at being controlled when the majority of lift is being provided by thrust. Unlimited aerobatic planes are incredibly effective at being controlled long after the wing has stopped providing enough lift and airflow has detached. Also, if the wings have been unloaded so severely due to the balance of lift being provided by thrust, and the aircraft is in an extremely high pitch angle, the wings may in fact not be stalled at all, at least not until thrust is reduced and the wing becomes loaded again.

If your definition of "flying" is that the wing is creating enough lift to keep the aircraft aloft, then it most certainly stops "flying" after the stall, though it may continue to be controllable. But I agree that the curriculum covers the dynamics of a stall only for a particular scenario, the kind that kills pilots most often.

What I find fascinating is that our aircraft handle those low-airspeed conditions so well and can be so effectively controlled in such high angles of attack with merely prop blast over the control surfaces.


Oregon180 wrote:If nothing else, the "falling leaf", or "walking the stall" is a great maneuver to get the feel for using your rudder to keep the aircraft from departing controlled flight.


Yes! That is a great exercise, one of the most useful I have ever been taught (during aerobatic/emergency maneuvers training in a 8KCAB.) I wish it was part of the basic ASEL curriculum.
Zzz offline
Janitorial Staff
User avatar
Posts: 2855
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: northern
Aircraft: Swiveling desk chair
Half a century spent proving “it is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

Re: Valdez STOL Competition Video

Zane wrote:If your definition of "flying" is that the wing is creating enough lift to keep the aircraft aloft, then it most certainly stops "flying" after the stall, though it may continue to be controllable.


Nope... sorry... the physics say otherwise, Zane.

Let's define stall as the critical angle of attack where airflow first starts to separate. At that point the stall has begun and can get deeper from that point. Let's also, for our discussion, keep the plane at 1 "G" since I'm NOT talking about an aerodynamic stall. Any wing will generate its maximum coefficient of lift at exactly critical AOA. There is a whole region of flight that can and does occur beyond critical angle of attack. The reason is simple... an (almost) maximum amount of lift is generated by the wing on both sides of the stalling point. There's more than enough lift to keep the aircraft aloft. Look at a coefficient of Lift/Drag curve you'll see that the wing does not stop flying at stall. That idea needs to die and be forgotten by all pilots. It's not just semantics... it's real-world, save-your-ass, execute-at-a-higher-level type of understanding.

This might help...http://www.apstraining.com/2009/the-coefficient-of-liftdrag-curve/

Good on ya, Oregon180 for taking your training well beyond what most guys will ever think is necessary! It's a blast too, huh?
Spinner offline
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:06 pm
Location: Texas and Colorado

Re: Valdez STOL Competition Video

Spinner wrote: There is a whole region of flight that can and does occur beyond critical angle of attack. The reason is simple... an (almost) maximum amount of lift is generated by the wing on both sides of the stalling point. There's more than enough lift to keep the aircraft aloft. Look at a coefficient of Lift/Drag curve you'll see that the wing does not stop flying at stall. That idea needs to die and be forgotten by all pilots. It's not just semantics... it's real-world, save-your-ass, execute-at-a-higher-level type of understanding.

This might help...http://www.apstraining.com/2009/the-coefficient-of-liftdrag-curve/


Spinner, that was a great video/reference, thanks. So how do you think the concept of the stall and the disruptive effects of moving through the critical AOA into a less stable area of the L/D curve should be taught to primary students? We've been flying for years and we're still dissecting it, so I think there is some validity as to why it's packaged to be more palatable for new students.

Current stall exercises are regarded as the boogeyman by a lot of instructors, the gateway to spinning and certain death, when in reality more time should be spent in that area of the envelope so that students can get a feel for how control input requirements change, and the perils of uncoordinated flight. In my opinion, spin recovery is only a necessary tool for teaching the real valuable lesson, which is spin entry. For me, the rudder stalls were more valuable than the PARE exercise.

Years ago during my simulated checkride for my ASEL, with an another instructor, he announced that he did not like how resigned I was on the ailerons in the midst of the stall (this was in a 152.) He took the controls and configured us in a continuous stalled condition, full aft elevator, power at idle, and just worked the rudder and ailerons to "fly" us around, maneuvering in shallow banks with huge control inputs. Even though I got queasy, it was a good lesson that control effectiveness continues, and the use of washout in a wing is a beautiful thing.
Zzz offline
Janitorial Staff
User avatar
Posts: 2855
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: northern
Aircraft: Swiveling desk chair
Half a century spent proving “it is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

Re: Valdez STOL Competition Video

Zane wrote:....Even though I got queasy, it was a good lesson that control effectiveness continues, and the use of washout in a wing is a beautiful thing.



I am of the opinion that for the most part on our type of aircraft, 'washout' is a placebo and a waste of good lift. It currently exists on my cub only because it is not experimental, and I fly for a living. Otherwise it would be gone...

Consider this: Are you most likely to stall in; A) a clean configuration cruising along fat dumb and happy, or B) a dirty configuration spying on critters, naked women on the river bank, etc... If the answer was B, then by dropping flaps out you have induced anywhere from 5 to 25 times more 'twist' in your wing than the average 'washed out' wing :wink:

I bought my cub from an old crusty guide type. It was rigged dead flat and I unwittingly flew it like that for the first several hundred hours. While I can't quantify the lost performance when I corrected the rigging, I can say that it never exhibited any bad habits rigged flat.

Food for thought

Take care, Rob
Rob offline
Supporter
User avatar
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 10:34 am

Re: Valdez STOL Competition Video

Rob wrote:
Zane wrote:....Even though I got queasy, it was a good lesson that control effectiveness continues, and the use of washout in a wing is a beautiful thing.



I am of the opinion that for the most part on our type of aircraft, 'washout' is a placebo and a waste of good lift. It currently exists on my cub only because it is not experimental, and I fly for a living. Otherwise it would be gone...

Consider this: Are you most likely to stall in; A) a clean configuration cruising along fat dumb and happy, or B) a dirty configuration spying on critters, naked women on the river bank, etc... If the answer was B, then by dropping flaps out you have induced anywhere from 5 to 25 times more 'twist' in your wing than the average 'washed out' wing :wink:

I bought my cub from an old crusty guide type. It was rigged dead flat and I unwittingly flew it like that for the first several hundred hours. While I can't quantify the lost performance when I corrected the rigging, I can say that it never exhibited any bad habits rigged flat.

Food for thought

Take care, Rob


Very interesting thoughts Rob, it would be fun to rig a plane both ways and see for ourselves if washout is really desireable or a little more lift at low speeds is the greater benefit.
Dale
Lizard offline
User avatar
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 8:35 pm
Location: S. Arizona

Re: Anatomy of a stall

Washout is a method to increase controllability at slow speeds, and make the break point at stall more forgiving. I prefer having some safety margin when I'm flying low and slow. (literally) At altitude you have plenty of time to react, but down low you don't.

As far as the stall it self is concerned, my personal definition is when the wing won't support the weight of the aircraft due to high angle of attack. On slick, high performance wings it comes abruptly and the plane usually pitches nose down quickly or a wing drops off. On a fat high lift wing like the Savannah, the stall simply is a smooth transition from having enough lift to support the plane to one of a nose high sink that is a little faster than a normal glide.

You can see this on the graphs showing Lift vs Angle of Attach. A high performance wing will reach a peak at the stall, then separation reduces lift so rapidly that the plane quickly can't support itself. The plodding high lift wing will show a more rounded curve that continues to provide lift well beyond the peak. This is the kind of wing that can, more or less easily, be flown "behind the curve"

Here's a Java based airfoil applet that allows you to measure the lift of a wing while you change the angle of attack:

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/incline.html

Playing with it you can see the lift decrease to the right of the peak. I couldn't see any way to use other airfoils. That's too bad, because then you could have explored the differences between a Lancair IP IV and a Cub airfoil.

So the anatomy of a stall depends on the beast you are talking about. One thing is sure, you get a lot of different answers depending on what a particular pilot's experience has been.

tom
Savannah-Tom offline
User avatar
Posts: 891
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 3:26 pm
Location: Corvallis, OR

Re: Anatomy of a stall

Savannah-Tom wrote:Here's a Java based airfoil applet that allows you to measure the lift of a wing while you change the angle of attack:

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/incline.html

Playing with it you can see the lift decrease to the right of the peak. I couldn't see any way to use other airfoils. That's too bad, because then you could have explored the differences between a Lancair IP IV and a Cub airfoil.


Try their FoilSim. It will let you approximate most airfoils:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/foil3.html

They've got several other interesting simulations as well:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/freesoftware_page.htm
kevbert offline
Posts: 948
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:10 am
Location: Idaho

Re: Valdez STOL Competition Video

Zzz wrote:
Spinner wrote: There is a whole region of flight that can and does occur beyond critical angle of attack. The reason is simple... an (almost) maximum amount of lift is generated by the wing on both sides of the stalling point. There's more than enough lift to keep the aircraft aloft. Look at a coefficient of Lift/Drag curve you'll see that the wing does not stop flying at stall. That idea needs to die and be forgotten by all pilots. It's not just semantics... it's real-world, save-your-ass, execute-at-a-higher-level type of understanding.

This might help...http://www.apstraining.com/2009/the-coefficient-of-liftdrag-curve/


Spinner, that was a great video/reference, thanks. So how do you think the concept of the stall and the disruptive effects of moving through the critical AOA into a less stable area of the L/D curve should be taught to primary students? .


Zzz... how about my late response, huh? I'm not sure... when I trained with the Luke AFB F16 guys this was the first question I was asked. I sputtered out the standard FAA taught drivel about how the wings stops flying at stall... and my aircraft stalls at Xmph indicated. They laughed and said, "Yeah, we know what you've been taught. But that's ridiculous. The wing doesn't just stop flying.." and went on to make me feel completely stupid... before building me back up over the next three days. They were great at TEACHING me what the FAA syllabus doesn't. They made me become fearless about spins and how to take the plane beyond stall and bring it back. FWIW, when I got back my CFI asked if I could take him up and do spins. He was completley afraid of this and in awe once we went through a couple. He had seen and been through spins before but didn't understand them. He didn't trust himself but he trusted me... once I had some "military" training. And that is the biggest thing I learned. Military pilots are better than cilvilian pilots because they learn completely differently. They are allowed to make mistakes on their way to real world learning. The FAA just teaches to a test score.
Spinner offline
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:06 pm
Location: Texas and Colorado

Re: Anatomy of a stall

Military pilots are better than civilian pilots.... Uh oh. Can of worm opened... I know many of both kinds. I've flown w some crappy ones on both sides as well as some greats. My experience most just military guys THINK they are better. Just ask em. The baddest I know... Aren't military. But god bless our military!
55wagon offline
Posts: 283
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:35 pm

Re: Valdez STOL Competition Video

Spinner wrote:
Zzz wrote:
Spinner wrote: There is a whole region of flight that can and does occur beyond critical angle of attack. The reason is simple... an (almost) maximum amount of lift is generated by the wing on both sides of the stalling point. There's more than enough lift to keep the aircraft aloft. Look at a coefficient of Lift/Drag curve you'll see that the wing does not stop flying at stall. That idea needs to die and be forgotten by all pilots. It's not just semantics... it's real-world, save-your-ass, execute-at-a-higher-level type of understanding.

This might help...http://www.apstraining.com/2009/the-coefficient-of-liftdrag-curve/


Spinner, that was a great video/reference, thanks. So how do you think the concept of the stall and the disruptive effects of moving through the critical AOA into a less stable area of the L/D curve should be taught to primary students? .


Zzz... how about my late response, huh? I'm not sure... when I trained with the Luke AFB F16 guys this was the first question I was asked. I sputtered out the standard FAA taught drivel about how the wings stops flying at stall... and my aircraft stalls at Xmph indicated. They laughed and said, "Yeah, we know what you've been taught. But that's ridiculous. The wing doesn't just stop flying.." and went on to make me feel completely stupid... before building me back up over the next three days. They were great at TEACHING me what the FAA syllabus doesn't. They made me become fearless about spins and how to take the plane beyond stall and bring it back. FWIW, when I got back my CFI asked if I could take him up and do spins. He was completley afraid of this and in awe once we went through a couple. He had seen and been through spins before but didn't understand them. He didn't trust himself but he trusted me... once I had some "military" training. And that is the biggest thing I learned. Military pilots are better than cilvilian pilots because they learn completely differently. They are allowed to make mistakes on their way to real world learning. The FAA just teaches to a test score.


Spinner,

Give credit where credit is due. APS based their program on Rich Stowell's EMT program (copyrighted and used by APS with permission). Do a search for Rich Stowell.com. Rich has done more to advance general aviation's understanding of the fearful stall than anyone I am aware of. The guys in Mesa have adapted his program to fit their aircraft and "style". Rich developed the program in cooperation with Tony Levier of Lockheed Skunk Works fame.

I too have flown with some super military pilots, and some who weren't so super, too.

Check out Rich's web site...lots of learning resources there.

MTV
mtv offline
Knowledge Base Author
User avatar
Posts: 10515
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:47 am
Location: Bozeman

Re: Anatomy of a stall

Old news... I got my tailwheel endorsement and spin endorsement from Rich many years ago. The first time I spun my Cardinal, he was in the right seat talking me through it. Went through his EMT course and also went through a full aerobatics course with him over two days in the Super Decathalon. His and Wolfgang's are my two favorite aviation books... by far! You're right MTV... He's excellent.
Spinner offline
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:06 pm
Location: Texas and Colorado

Re: Anatomy of a stall

This has been an interesting thread, with good stuff for thought.

Not yet mentioned are tail plane stalls. This is thought to be responsible for many of the "moose stalls", where the aircraft is circling low and slow, usually dirty (flaps), and crosses its own wake turbulence. If the horizontal stab stalls, without downforce, the tail goes up the nose drops through, often with not enough altitude for recovery.

I've watched amazingly large wing tip vorticies from a Husky just after the start of the take off roll from a wind sheltered dry lake bed (had very fine alkali dust). The vortices had a radius of near a third of a wing span, though neither the Husky or the wind rotation was fast moving at that point - - dirtied up, heavy and slow, I'm certain they'd be significant

The Husky got a bad rap for this when used for coyote control, though it happens with makes as well. Maybe it is more of an issue with the Husky, or maybe an undeserved bad rap, I'm not sure. I've intentionally tried to induce this at altitude, but other than moderate turbulence hitting my wake, no loss of control. So it appears that things have to come together just right (or rather just wrong) for it to occur. I make it a point to avoid flying tight circles at low altitude.

Tail plane stalls are doubtless responsible for many of the icing related crashes.
bumper offline
User avatar
Posts: 665
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:16 pm
Location: Minden
bumper
Minden, NV
Husky A1-B

Re: Anatomy of a stall

bumper wrote:This has been an interesting thread, with good stuff for thought.

Not yet mentioned are tail plane stalls. This is thought to be responsible for many of the "moose stalls", where the aircraft is circling low and slow, usually dirty (flaps), and crosses its own wake turbulence. If the horizontal stab stalls, without downforce, the tail goes up the nose drops through, often with not enough altitude for recovery.

I've watched amazingly large wing tip vorticies from a Husky just after the start of the take off roll from a wind sheltered dry lake bed (had very fine alkali dust). The vortices had a radius of near a third of a wing span, though neither the Husky or the wind rotation was fast moving at that point - - dirtied up, heavy and slow, I'm certain they'd be significant

The Husky got a bad rap for this when used for coyote control, though it happens with makes as well. Maybe it is more of an issue with the Husky, or maybe an undeserved bad rap, I'm not sure. I've intentionally tried to induce this at altitude, but other than moderate turbulence hitting my wake, no loss of control. So it appears that things have to come together just right (or rather just wrong) for it to occur. I make it a point to avoid flying tight circles at low altitude.

Tail plane stalls are doubtless responsible for many of the icing related crashes.


Bumper,

I don't buy the tail plane stall as a cause for "Moose stalls". I DO believe that "Moose stalls" are caused by wing tip vortices, but they aren't causing a tail plane stall.

Aircraft designers work really hard to avoid designs that will permit a tail stall, and tail stalls are pretty rare.

That said, the two accidents that the Border Patrol had with Huskys probably WERE precipitated by tail stalls, but they weren't caused by wing tip vortices, but rather by a big burble of disturbed air near the surface that the airplane left in its wake. They were doing a pitch up with full power, with very slow speed, flying a race track pattern, then running through their own wake somewhat lower, and close to the ground. This "tripped" the flow over the tail, airplane pitched hard nose down, and went straight in, no rotation.

Moose stalls, on the other hand, almost always involve rotation, in otherwords, they are in fact a stall/spin. And, the ADC accidents with Huskys and Cubs for that matter, were probably stall/spins, NOT tail stalls.

Aviat was able to replicate the tail stall scenario at altitude, using TWO airplanes, one in trail and below the other. I know both the test pilots that ran this experiment. I was told that both airplanes were at very slow speed (like in the range of 45-50 mph), full flaps to replicate the Border Patrol's profile, then the lead airplane pitched nose up hard and applied full power, leaving a big burble of disturbed air behind for the trailing airplane. They had to try this numerous times before they got a tail stall, but when it happened, the test pilot said they lost a LOT of altitude prior to recovery.

Point is, it's very difficult to get yourself into THIS SPECIFIC scenario....think about 45 mph, full flaps, stooging along at 50 feet AGL.....looking out the window man tracking.

I suspect that the Husky exhibits a somewhat stronger than "average" wing tip vortex. That may simply be because the airplane is heavier than many Cubs or it may have something to do with wing tips, etc.

Circling has it's own hazards, no doubt, and this is in fact where moose stalls come from, but I'm convinced that they are precipitated by running into one's own wing tip vortex assymetrically, causing an uncommanded roll, which the pilot then tries to correct by application of opposite control inputs. I've been in this exact scenario, and it's a VERY subtle effect, I suspect, right up till the airplane turns loose... I have an acquaintance who went through one of these, and it did in fact break on him. This is a VERY high time, VERY experienced pilot in Super CUbs and doing the kind of work he was doing. He and his gunner were very lucky and both survived, with a lot of injuries. He is convinced that he ran into his own wake vortex, which induced a rolling moment to the aircraft, which he tried to correct with opposite aileron and rudder (coordinated--he thought). He couldn't just roll out and go on his way because he was up against a steep canyon wall.

Tail stalls are nasty indeed, but the manufacturers of light aircraft make it VERY difficult to actually encounter one in their aircraft.

MTV
mtv offline
Knowledge Base Author
User avatar
Posts: 10515
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:47 am
Location: Bozeman

Re: Anatomy of a stall

During my initial training the crusty old flight instructor I had knew me and the family as he had been flying us out to the remote fish camp since before I was born. He hammered the crap out of me on "moose stalls" in the 12. It is just an accelerated cross controlled stall and when that wing breaks your in for a turn or two and alot of altitude lost before you can recover. He knew the type of flying I would be doing and just hammered and hammered them into me so I knew that it took to get into and out of them, and how far I could push the plane before it would break.

Of course, tight circles and hitting your own wake can have some affect on when it will break, and can push it over the edge when you hit it, but you can get the break real easy just by pushing a little more top rudder and pulling back on that stick just a tad bit more.
akavidflyer offline
User avatar
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:36 pm
Location: Soldotna AK

Re: Anatomy of a stall

Avid,

I don't buy that the moose stall necessarily requires the pilot to fly the airplane uncoordinated. That's one of the myths that a lot of pilots including old timers have passed on for decades, and there is absolutely NO doubt that staying coordinated in the airplane any time you are maneuvering will go a LONG ways to keeping you from hurting yourself in an airplane.

But, in my opinion, cross controlling an airplane simply cannot explain the "moose stalls" accidents that I am most familiar with. Every one of them occurred in absolutely buttery smooth air, with VERY low density altitude (as in cold air). It's hard to imagine a very experienced pilot would allow themselves to get so cross controlled in this type environment that the airplane would depart controlled flight. I've pushed Cubs, Huskys, Scouts, Cessnas and yes, even Maules into this corner literally hundreds of times trying to get them to turn loose, and, while they will depart, you have to get them so crossed up that it should be patently obvious to ANY competent pilot that he's dancing on the edge.

On the other hand, get with a buddy, go out in cold air, and calm conditions. Fly a loose trail formation behind your friend in another airplane. Slide in and out of their wake vortex, one side at a time. You'll find that even something as light as a Super Cub produces a pretty impressive wake vortex and a serious roll rate in the trail aircraft. Hit that at the wrong moment, and hit it assymetrically, and you have the formula for disaster.

I simply don't buy the concept that Moose stalls are so easy to describe and avoid. Some of the folks I know who died in these things were VERY experienced pilots, and VERY experienced in that type flying.

Try the vortex thing I just described, but be prepared for a really powerful roll induced.

MTV
mtv offline
Knowledge Base Author
User avatar
Posts: 10515
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:47 am
Location: Bozeman

Anatomy of a stall

If I recall, it is aptly named purely because of the activity being performed when the stall/spin occurs-- Spotting game at low altitude which distracts the pilot, who allows the aircraft to slow too much, in a bank, leading to stall/spin.
Zzz offline
Janitorial Staff
User avatar
Posts: 2855
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: northern
Aircraft: Swiveling desk chair
Half a century spent proving “it is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

Re: Anatomy of a stall

MTV, you want an eye opener, fly trail behind an Avid or a Kitfox. For a 500# plane flying at 60-80 MPH you wont believe the wake they leave. It is twice as bad as a cub. I am not sure of it is the undercambered wing that is doing it or what, but I have never gotten tossed around as much behind a cub, 12, 22, 152, 172, 180 etc as much as I do behind a little bitty kitfox.

Yes, I agree that you get dumped worse when slow and dirty behind another bird, but you can indeed do it solo without hitting your wake. Yes you do have to depart the normal flight regime so much in the cross controlled department that we sit back and say HOW THE HELL did XYZ pilot get his head so far up his ass that he did that. He knows better and has 20,000 hrs of hard core bush flying to prove it... It happens. I was flying with a buddy in the back seat of his 12. I had flown hundreds of hours with him over the years hunting etc. 3 days before moose season we were out spotting and you would not belive the ammount of times I was scared shitless and was stomping on the rudder pedal to get the ball even close to center as he had it slung so far out I thought the glass would break as he was trying to show me a particular moose on the ground. This guy had been flying up here for 20+ yrs and had thousands of hours, yet he was flying like a rooky with his head up his ass he was so engrossed in the size of the rack on a couple bullwinkles.

Zane, Your right, it is named that due to the association of the prevelant activity. I too know alot of high time pilots that fell prey to this.
akavidflyer offline
User avatar
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:36 pm
Location: Soldotna AK

Re: Anatomy of a stall

Zzz wrote:aircraft to slow to much, in a bank


THIS seems to be the common denominator, and too easy to do when distracted.
Obvious solution is to NOT be in a banked attitude when slow & lookin' at stuff.
If you fly low/slow in a straight/level attitude & get too slow, your nose will drop & you'll be flying again. GoodThing!
NimpoCub offline
User avatar
Posts: 487
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:04 pm
Location: Nimpo Lake, BC 52.22N 125.14W
FindMeSpot URL: www.tinyurl.com/loganspot
Nimpo Lake Logan... boonie SuperCubber

DISPLAY OPTIONS

Next
28 postsPage 1 of 21, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

Latest Features

Latest Knowledge Base