Newbie Qs on stalls and spins

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...

[...]
Generally, I am using the term "stall" to indicate a state where the
object
is producing zero lift,

As has been pointed out numerous times, this is not the correct definition
of "stall".

If you want to participate in discussions in this newsgroup on the topic of
a stall, you need to use the same definition the rest of us are using. It
is pointless to make up your own definition and then go around telling US
that WE are wrong, just because we're not using the same screwed up
definition of a word you're using.

and "flying" to indicate that some lift is being
produced.

No, that's not how you're using the term "flying". If it were, then you
would not claim that "If the airfoil is flying you cannot take off", because
by your NEW definition of "flying" (given above) the airfoil is indeed
flying long before takeoff.

It's bad enough you're making up your own non-standard definitions for words
that have reasonably well-accepted definitions in aviation (and in the case
of "stall", that has a very specific and well-understood definition). But
if you can't even be consistent about your OWN use of the made-up
definitions, it's basically impossible to carry on any sort of discussion.

However, I sometimes use flying to indicate that the object is
generating enough lift to raise itself and it's load above the earth. I
will
try to be more consistent and clear in the future.

Yes, please do. As I said, you simply compound your basic error (using the
wrong definition in the first place) with your error of inconsistency.

I don't claim that this is absolutely, or in any way correct, but this is
how I am using the terms.

It's good you don't claim the uses are correct, because they are not.

[...]
I thought your claim was that an airplane that was flying (and thus
presumably parts of an airplane that are flying) cannot take off. Now
you
are saying parts of the airplane can fly while still on the ground. Your
statements are inconsistent with each other.

That was what I stated, if the ENTIRE airplane is flying, i.e. with no
parts
in contact with the earth, it cannot take off.

Again, the main problem here appears to be your lack of any semblance of
consistency. By at least one definition of "flying" that you are using, it
would be impossible for just some of the components of the airplane to be
"flying". As I said, your statements are inconsistent with each other.

But with a tail dragger, doesn't the horizontal stabilizer begin to
produce
enough lift to raise the tail, and raise the tailwheel above the earth,
before the wing produces enough lift to raise the entire airplane abouve
the
earth?

Yes, generally. But so what?

And given a relative wind even
slightly higher than the stall speed of the aircraft, it could
theoretically
take off and continue to ascend with no forward movement.

No, it could not. With a strong enough wind, the airplane might lift off
the ground, but it would immediately begin to slow within the airmass
(accelerating backwards relative to the ground) and descend back to the
ground. There would be no "continue to ascend" about it.

"accelerating backwards relative to the ground" is not the same as "no
forward movement".

No, it's not. So what?

I was incorrect with "continue to ascend".

Yes, you were. That was the entire point of that part of my reply.

But just a wing in a wind tunnel behaves differently than the same wing
when
attached to an airplane. And parts of an airplane other than the wing can
generate lift.

So what? They don't contribute much, and in any case, they don't stall the
way the wing does. We are still only talking about the main wing stalling.
No matter how many times you try to redirect the conversation to some
mythical component-based analysis of the airplane, we are still just talking
about the wing, its angle of attack, and what happens if and when that angle
of attack exceeds the critical angle of attack for a stall.

If an airplane is only moving at 1
kt. down a runway, it is probably not flying.

Again, you'll have to define "flying". But the wing certainly is
developing
lift, and certainly is NOT stalled.

I should have added "in a condition of zero wind". Given that, there are
probably wings out there that would not generate appreciable lift at 1 kt.

Most wings would not generate very much lift at all at 1 knot of relative
wind. But they do generate lift (ALL of them), and they are NOT stalled.

[...]
Again, that comes down to terminology; and I again state that I may well
be
using it incorrectly.

Yes, you are. Utterly. This entire subthread is a direct result of that
incorrect use of the terminology, and your insistence on *correcting* those
of us who are using the CORRECT terminology.

Pete