Stalls??

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:51:37 -0500, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

Big John wrote:
-----------------------------clip-------------------------


But when they break to a stall, it happens abruptly, at too
low a speed. They are totally stalled, and to boot one wing always
stalls first, falls of and immediately a spin develops in that
direction. One simply has to know that slow flight is always a touchy
thing to do and airspeed observation is crucial. The Mooney series
has leading edge stall strips about 30% out from the wing root to make
the stall beak earlier at a faster airspeed where control effectivenes
is better. light and powerful rudder and you have one easily spun
airplane.


-------------------------clip---------------------


Angelo campanella

************************************************** *************************

Angelo

Stall strip on inboard portion of wings are to cause the inboard
section of wing to stall before the tips, where ailerons are located..

This is to give you some aileron control in early part of a stall.

You say "But when they break to a stall, it happens abruptly, at too
low a speed".

I've stalled aircraft at 400-500 mph. Not a big deal.

Big John

I agree John. I hate to see stall linked to airspeed in any way but to
note that the stall speeds on the ASI are based on 1g flight at a
specific gross weight.
I don't even like stall warning devices. I want pilots recognizing
approach to stall by how the airplane feels and is behaving.

************************************************** **************

Dudley

No one learns to fly by feel any more and haven't for years.

I saw many Air Force students that could fly 60/30 super. They made
adequate bomber and transport pilots but were an accident waiting to
happen in Fighters.

Guess I was lucky (or damn good). I was able to recognize approaching
a stall in all the aircraft I have flown and was able to take
corrective action if it was inadvertent. Best I can remember was roll
off to a max of 90 degrees before I stopped roll and recovered with a
minimum loss of altitude. If a bird departs you need to get ahead of
it immediately.

I've been in programs where the airspeed was taped over and bird flown
and landed without it. Closest I've come to flying by feel since my
open cockpit days.

All this being said, if you get a nervous nellie then they are unable
to even stand a program like that even if it might save their life
some day.

And a good day to you and all.

Big John

Big John wrote:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:51:37 -0500, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

Big John wrote:
-----------------------------clip-------------------------


But when they break to a stall, it happens abruptly, at too
low a speed. They are totally stalled, and to boot one wing always
stalls first, falls of and immediately a spin develops in that
direction. One simply has to know that slow flight is always a touchy
thing to do and airspeed observation is crucial. The Mooney series
has leading edge stall strips about 30% out from the wing root to make
the stall beak earlier at a faster airspeed where control effectivenes
is better. light and powerful rudder and you have one easily spun
airplane.


-------------------------clip---------------------


Angelo campanella

************************************************** *************************

Angelo

Stall strip on inboard portion of wings are to cause the inboard
section of wing to stall before the tips, where ailerons are located..

This is to give you some aileron control in early part of a stall.

You say "But when they break to a stall, it happens abruptly, at too
low a speed".

I've stalled aircraft at 400-500 mph. Not a big deal.

Big John
I agree John. I hate to see stall linked to airspeed in any way but to
note that the stall speeds on the ASI are based on 1g flight at a
specific gross weight.
I don't even like stall warning devices. I want pilots recognizing
approach to stall by how the airplane feels and is behaving.

************************************************** **************

Dudley

No one learns to fly by feel any more and haven't for years.

I saw many Air Force students that could fly 60/30 super. They made
adequate bomber and transport pilots but were an accident waiting to
happen in Fighters.

Guess I was lucky (or damn good). I was able to recognize approaching
a stall in all the aircraft I have flown and was able to take
corrective action if it was inadvertent. Best I can remember was roll
off to a max of 90 degrees before I stopped roll and recovered with a
minimum loss of altitude. If a bird departs you need to get ahead of
it immediately.

I've been in programs where the airspeed was taped over and bird flown
and landed without it. Closest I've come to flying by feel since my
open cockpit days.

All this being said, if you get a nervous nellie then they are unable
to even stand a program like that even if it might save their life
some day.

And a good day to you and all.

Big John

Instructors who teach stall "feel" are still out here, but you have to
spend some time finding the right ones.
When you find a CFI who tapes up the ASI and pulls the circuit breaker
on the stall warning horn to teach you to "feel" the airplane...GRAB
THEM, you've found the right one :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

On Feb 16, 8:46 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:

Instructors who teach stall "feel" are still out here, but you have to
spend some time finding the right ones.
When you find a CFI who tapes up the ASI and pulls the circuit breaker
on the stall warning horn to teach you to "feel" the airplane...GRAB
THEM, you've found the right one :-))

I have hear a few different people on this ng say things like this.
And yet if you fly by feel in an incursion into IMC, it kills (or can
kill) non instrument rated pilots. Am I missing a step here? Do you
have to learn by feel before you can learn by instrument?

This question comes to you from the "A little knowledge is dangerous"
trite statement...

-SPCT

On Feb 17, 9:05*am, wrote:
On Feb 16, 8:46 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Instructors who teach stall "feel" are still out here, but you have to
spend some time finding the right ones.
When you find a CFI who tapes up the ASI and pulls the circuit breaker
on the stall warning horn to teach you to "feel" the airplane...GRAB
THEM, you've found the right one :-))

I have hear a few different people on this ng say things like this.
And yet if you fly by feel in an incursion into IMC, it kills (or can
kill) non instrument rated pilots. *Am I missing a step here? *Do you
have to learn by feel before you can learn by instrument?

Good question. Dudley's talking about flying in visual conditions.
Then, a pilot should be looking out the window as much as possible, in
part to see and avoid other aircraft. So it's good to be able to
perceive as much as possible without reference to the instruments
(even though some use of instruments, as a crosscheck for airspeed
etc., is ordinarily advisable even in visual flight; aviation is all
about redundancy).

But in instrument conditions, when you can't see anything out the
window, you can't keep the plane upright for long without using the
instruments. But even in those conditions, it's possible to perceive
such things as coordinated vs. uncoordinated flight, or the onset of a
stall, just by the feel of the plane. And it's good to be able to do
so, for the sake of redundancy, even though the instruments should be
giving you that information too.

wrote in news:dc23e3cf-7070-4210-a22a-
:

On Feb 17, 9:05*am, wrote:
On Feb 16, 8:46 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Instructors who teach stall "feel" are still out here, but you have
to
spend some time finding the right ones.
When you find a CFI who tapes up the ASI and pulls the circuit
breaker
on the stall warning horn to teach you to "feel" the
airplane...GRAB
THEM, you've found the right one :-))

I have hear a few different people on this ng say things like this.
And yet if you fly by feel in an incursion into IMC, it kills (or can
kill) non instrument rated pilots. *Am I missing a step here? *Do you
have to learn by feel before you can learn by instrument?

Good question. Dudley's talking about flying in visual conditions.
Then, a pilot should be looking out the window as much as possible, in
part to see and avoid other aircraft. So it's good to be able to
perceive as much as possible without reference to the instruments
(even though some use of instruments, as a crosscheck for airspeed
etc., is ordinarily advisable even in visual flight; aviation is all
about redundancy).

But in instrument conditions, when you can't see anything out the
window, you can't keep the plane upright for long without using the
instruments. But even in those conditions, it's possible to perceive
such things as coordinated vs. uncoordinated flight, or the onset of a
stall, just by the feel of the plane. And it's good to be able to do
so, for the sake of redundancy, even though the instruments should be
giving you that information too.


True, but having said that, the ASI should e regarded with some
suspicion even IMC. Most pilots ( and I did this exercise in the sim the
other day) when presented with bad airspeed info will chase it in
preference to attitude info. this has caused lots of accidensts over the
years. Two I can remember off the top of my head are the 757 off the
coast of Peru, I think, and the 727 in upstate new york. I'm sure there
have been lots of others in light airplanes. It's amazing to watch. The
airspeed sems to run away and the guy just zeroes in on it and pulls or
pushes until the whole scene is just such a mess recovery would be a
miracle.


Bertie


Bertie

On Feb 17, 3:58*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
True, but having said that, the ASI should e regarded with some
suspicion even IMC. Most pilots ( and I did this exercise in the sim the
other day) when presented with bad airspeed info will chase it in
preference to attitude info. this has caused lots of accidensts over the
years. Two I can remember off the top of my head are the 757 off the
coast of Peru, I think, and the 727 in upstate new york. I'm sure there
have been lots of others in light airplanes. It's amazing to watch. The
airspeed sems to run away and the guy just zeroes in on it and pulls or
pushes until the whole scene is just such a mess recovery would be a
miracle.

Yeah, worst case is when the pitot freezes over or otherwise gets
sealed off, so the ASI says you're slowing down when you're speeding
up, and vice versa (because of the changing static-port pressure as
you climb or descend). In theory, the ASI should then be out-voted by
the altimeter and the attitude indicator, but I imagine it's tricky
(I've never experienced it myself).

That's one situation where the mushy response of a slow plane, or the
stiff controls and whooshing sound in a diving one, might be
especially helpful in augmenting what the instruments are saying (at
least for the light planes I fly--dunno how well that applies to
airliners).

wrote in news:c2611450-2801-4cb7-9fc9-
:

On Feb 17, 3:58*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
True, but having said that, the ASI should e regarded with some
suspicion even IMC. Most pilots ( and I did this exercise in the sim
the
other day) when presented with bad airspeed info will chase it in
preference to attitude info. this has caused lots of accidensts over
the
years. Two I can remember off the top of my head are the 757 off the
coast of Peru, I think, and the 727 in upstate new york. I'm sure
there
have been lots of others in light airplanes. It's amazing to watch.
The
airspeed sems to run away and the guy just zeroes in on it and pulls
or
pushes until the whole scene is just such a mess recovery would be a
miracle.

Yeah, worst case is when the pitot freezes over or otherwise gets
sealed off, so the ASI says you're slowing down when you're speeding
up, and vice versa (because of the changing static-port pressure as
you climb or descend). In theory, the ASI should then be out-voted by
the altimeter and the attitude indicator, but I imagine it's tricky
(I've never experienced it myself).

I have a couple of times and I had no problem, but apparently it can be.
it certainly gives you a jolt when you see it. I had it in a Twin Beech
once and the airspeed instantly went to the barberpole. Had it in some
singles as well I t doesn't take much to clog them.

That's one situation where the mushy response of a slow plane, or the
stiff controls and whooshing sound in a diving one, might be
especially helpful in augmenting what the instruments are saying (at
least for the light planes I fly--dunno how well that applies to
airliners).

It's the same, though the feel is simulated through an artificial system
that is reliant on.. you guessed it, airspeed! Older airplanes had
dedicated pitots for this ( you can see them on the fin of older
Boeings) but newer machines tend to use the air data computer which is
fed by standad pitots on the nose.

Bertie

wrote:
On Feb 16, 8:46 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Instructors who teach stall "feel" are still out here, but you have to
spend some time finding the right ones.
When you find a CFI who tapes up the ASI and pulls the circuit breaker
on the stall warning horn to teach you to "feel" the airplane...GRAB
THEM, you've found the right one :-))

I have hear a few different people on this ng say things like this.
And yet if you fly by feel in an incursion into IMC, it kills (or can
kill) non instrument rated pilots. Am I missing a step here? Do you
have to learn by feel before you can learn by instrument?

This question comes to you from the "A little knowledge is dangerous"
trite statement...

-SPCT

Yes. You are missing something, and it's vitally important you
understand it....and understand it completely.

Instrument flying is a totally separate issue from the way one learns to
fly an airplane during initial training. They are integrated in certain
ways. In other ways the two are entirely separate.

We are discussing here the initial process of learning to fly, NOT
flying in instrument conditions.

VFR is one thing IFR is quite another.

When an instructor discusses "flying by feel", they are in no way
advocating the non-use of instruments and warning sensors available to
the pilot in the aircraft. They are simply reducing the available
"tools" the pilot relies on to a lower level to help the pilot
understand his/her flight evironment more closely without the aid of
artificial help.

In the IFR scenario, an instructor will do the same thing when they
reduce a pilot to flying on the primary panel only.

Don't think of flying VFR and IFR in the same breath. This attitude can
get a pilot into deep trouble down the line.

When you start talking instruments, you're in a whole new ball game when
it comes to cues. Everything changes. There are no more visual cues.
There is no more "feeling" of the airplane. There are ONLY the instruments.

It's a whole different flying world. You learn to fly by "feel" to
better understand the aerodynamics and how the airplane interfaces in
it's environment. Visual cues are part of this equation.
Once these things are learned, you TRANSITION into a whole new world
where instruments replace these cues. Don't EVER, as long as you fly,
get these two worlds mixed up in your mind. Doing that will kill you in
an airplane faster than you can imagine!


--
Dudley Henriques

I guess I'm going to have to start (and perhaps finish) my primary
training in order to understand this comment completely.

I understand that being able to see outside helps the brain make a
connection between the behavior of the airplane and what it looks
like. However, couldn't you learn to feel the airplane and how it
behaves only on instruments ever? Could you complete a PPL without
ever looking out the window? At the risk of sounding like a simmer,
why is this "feel" so necessary when training the beginning pilot and
then relearned for an instrument rating? I know I'm making an error
of logic here (otherwise pilot training would be much different), but
what is it exactly?

I have done enough research to understand the difference between VFR,
VMC, IFR, and IMC and who and why you would fly in each one. I would
imagine this is part of training when getting a PPL. So how would a
pilot mix up these two worlds?

-SPCT

On Feb 17, 9:34 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:

Yes. You are missing something, and it's vitally important you
understand it....and understand it completely.

Instrument flying is a totally separate issue from the way one learns to
fly an airplane during initial training. They are integrated in certain
ways. In other ways the two are entirely separate.

We are discussing here the initial process of learning to fly, NOT
flying in instrument conditions.

VFR is one thing IFR is quite another.

When an instructor discusses "flying by feel", they are in no way
advocating the non-use of instruments and warning sensors available to
the pilot in the aircraft. They are simply reducing the available
"tools" the pilot relies on to a lower level to help the pilot
understand his/her flight evironment more closely without the aid of
artificial help.

In the IFR scenario, an instructor will do the same thing when they
reduce a pilot to flying on the primary panel only.

Don't think of flying VFR and IFR in the same breath. This attitude can
get a pilot into deep trouble down the line.

When you start talking instruments, you're in a whole new ball game when
it comes to cues. Everything changes. There are no more visual cues.
There is no more "feeling" of the airplane. There are ONLY the instruments.

It's a whole different flying world. You learn to fly by "feel" to
better understand the aerodynamics and how the airplane interfaces in
it's environment. Visual cues are part of this equation.
Once these things are learned, you TRANSITION into a whole new world
where instruments replace these cues. Don't EVER, as long as you fly,
get these two worlds mixed up in your mind. Doing that will kill you in
an airplane faster than you can imagine!

--
Dudley Henriques

On Feb 17, 5:17*pm, wrote:
I guess I'm going to have to start (and perhaps finish) my primary
training in order to understand this comment completely.

I understand that being able to see outside helps the brain make a
connection between the behavior of the airplane and what it looks
like. *However, couldn't you learn to feel the airplane and how it
behaves only on instruments ever? *

Conceivably (except for landing, of course). But in VMC, you need to
be looking out the window almost all the time in order to scan for
other traffic (at least with current technology). The more time you
spend looking at your instruments, the less time you're devoting to
collision avoidance. So it's important to be able to perceive as much
as possible without reference to the instruments.

There's also the problem that instruments can fail, sometimes
unobviously. VFR aircraft aren't required to provide as much
rednundant information as IFR instruments. So again, it's important
not to rely too much on the instruments.

I have done enough research to understand the difference between VFR,
VMC, IFR, and IMC and who and why you would fly in each one. *I would
imagine this is part of training when getting a PPL. *So how would a
pilot mix up these two worlds?

If the transition to IMC is unexpected, a pilot may delay switching to
instrument flight, clinging instead to fading and inadequate visual
cues. Even in established, solid IMC, misleading perceptions of the
plane's orientation often conflict with the instruments, creating
illusions that can be dangerously hard to ignore.

Conversely, in VMC, many pilots spend too much time looking at their
instruments, creating an unnecessary collision hazard.