On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 03:13:06 GMT, Ryan Ferguson
wrote:
Tim Bengtson wrote:
Beyond the stall, the airplane will begin losing altitude; that much
everyone agrees on. If it were truly "falling", as if the wings were
not there, it would accelerate until it reached terminal velocity (I
believe a speed over 10000 ft/min). That doesn't happen. Instead, the
With the nose down many would well exceed the 10,000 fpm (120 mph)
which is for the human body in free fall.
You could throw out a sheet of plywood and if you could keep it
positioned perpendicular to the direction of travel it would fall
quite slowly. There might be some lift, but it is mainly drag. The
same thing is true for terminal velocity of a human...bout 120 mph.
Again it's mainly drag that keeps terminal velocity low.
vertical speed (in a bugsmasher) goes to some considerably smaller value
and sits there. Since the airplane is travelling in a straight line at
constant speed, the wing must not only be producing lift, it must be
producing exactly as much lift as it ever did--namely, the weight of the
plane. (I'm neglecting additional lift from the fuselage, prop, etc. I
think as a first approximation this is legal.)
As the plane is not maintaining level flight there would not be quite
that much lift. It may not be accelerating, but it's not holding
altitude. I's hazard a guess and say a good portion of the lift in
the stalled state is actually drag. Maybe not as much as the lift
produced by the wind...but who knows?
I base this on an article on deep stalls . The author stalled either
a Cozy or long eze I believe and actually climbed out on the wing
trying to get it un stalled. He rode it all the way to the water.
He remarked in the article that there was almost no airflow over the
wing and he felt only a slight breeze. The travel was almost vertical
with the plane in a horizontal position. As I recall he wasn't even
hurt.
If lift truly went away at the stall, pilots would *beg* to enter spins,
just to slow the plane down.
At extremely high angles of attack such as 90 degrees as in the above
example the drag is so high the speed never builds up to the point
where the wing is capable of flying. To me the deep stall is much
like an unrecoverable spin, but with a very slow rate of descent. Not
something I'd want to try in anything other than a plane with very
light wing loading.
Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
When I owned my Pitts Special, one of the exercises that my aerobatic coach had
me do frequently was precision turns to ground reference headings using nothing
but rudder. What made them interesting was the requirement that the airplane had
I've flown a number of planes where I kept them in a stalled
conditions. The cherokee was one where it was easy to make turns in
the stalled state. The 172 was not bad, but the Deb takes all the
rudder work to just stay upright.
Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
to be kept in a fully stalled condition while making those turns, which of course
meant that they were all done during a descent. Clearly there is a significant
amount of lift produced by an airfoil which has exceeded the critical angle of
attack. Whether an aircraft can maintain a certain altitude or attitude beyond
the critical angle of attack is a function of the thrust it can create from its
powerplant.
Going back to the remark made by the instructor (which I didn't catch, although
I've seen a few episodes of the show), I'm not inclined to denounce his
technically inaccurate remark. When you take a five hour student pilot up and
introduce stalls, you must make very basic explanations, sometimes filling in the
blanks later down the line (or later in the lesson.) I doubt that 'Kyle' would
have been ready to listen to a dissertation on aerodynamics at that moment in the
flight.
-Ryan
CFII-A/MEI/CFI-H