On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 13:34:48 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
In theory of course. In the case of the 172 with 40 degrees of flaps they
contribute more drag than lift.

In practice too. The relative amounts of drag and lift are irrelevant to
the fact that using the flaps lowers the stall speed, and that doing so does
not make it any easier "to end up real slow in a slip".

Your assertion that "With full flaps its easy to end up real slow in a slip
and approach a stall" is just plain nonsense, and certainly has nothing to
do with the *warning* (not prohibition) against slipping while flaps are
extended (even if there were something to your claim about flaps making it
easier to stall).

Pete


Odd, but interesting thread. I haven't heard of tail stall before.
But if I've got the basics correct, don't flaps allow the aircraft to
fly at slow airspeeds with a lower angle of attack, including both
wing and tailplane? So flaps should reduce the likelihood of any
stall, provided enough power is applied to those draggy 40 deg
settings. The wing stalls at a specific angle of attack, and I don't
think the flaps change that characteristic; not that it has been
suggested anywhere.

I may be wrong, but isn't this one reason why airliners need flaps at
landing? So they don't bounce the tail on touchdown? Or more likely
so the pilot can see the landing area; aside from just reducing
required runway length.
--
Mike