About Stall Psychology and Pilots

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in news:J6mdnf-
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Private" wrote in :

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
It's interesting to note that although stall recovery should be
thought of as something done with a minimum loss of altitude, the
emphasis on recovery should always be placed on the regaining of
angle of attack as PRIME to recovery.
Agreed, I have always thought of myself as flying a wing to which
is attached a fuselage rather than the reverse.


Xactly right IMO. All you need is a wing to fly, after all.

Bertie

As you already know and I can confirm emphatically , as soon as you
start flying high performance jets, it's all about wing management.

Actualy, in the turkeys we fly it's all about nailing your pitch to
what the computer wants, but you're right, they're all about the
wing. I've always understood that to be the case, but I learned to
fly in gliders, so it was more about pefromance and less about
procedure like it is in a lot of lightplane instruction.


Bertie
In the T38 for example, the approach is flown at an optimum alpha on
the indexer or at a specific airspeed plus fuel. Either way, the
object is to keep the wing within specific limits aoa wise. The bird
will develop a sink rate that can't be recovered otherwise.
I've always wondered why you guys in the big jets don't use alpha more
on the approach. I'm guessing it's because of the complicated fuel
loads possible which gives you such a wide range of approach speeds to
bug to keep the pitch angle right at touchdown.
I know that Boeing for one is doing some research into providing
better aoa data to you on the ADI for approaches but haven't heard
much about how this outreach is being accepted by the carriers.


Well, the military guys have it. I was in a 141 sim once and that had
it. We bug a diffeent approach speed for each weight. The takeoff speeds
provide for a variety of AoAs depending on whether we want to climb, get
off a short runway or get over some obstacles. We can select a range of
V2s based on a runway analysis to get the most weight possible off the
ground on a given takeoff. That, of course, gives us different AoAs
depending on whether we're looking for best angle or best rate. We don't
call it any of that, but it's exaclty what we do. on approach we select
Vso 1.3 based on the weight. So we do use a constant alpha. It's
important to avoid float, and to touch down at the right attitude so we
don't end up bouncing off the nosewheel or the tail as well. I do it in
light planes as well, and hopefully most guys do have nominal approach
speeds for different weights.. I just knock off a few knots if I'm
light, basically.


Bertie

Bertie


I've always said that if I could only have one instrument in the
airplane I'd like an angle of attack indicator. :-))
In a way we have the same problems landing in airplanes like the T38 as
you do in the big jobs. We usually are dealing with a long fuselage mass
to wing mass configuration in the fast jets that requires a specific aoa
spread at touchdown to keep from catching the tail feathers. The F104
was particularly susceptible to this. (never flew the zipper but always
wanted to). The F14 and the F16 (have flown these) are a narrow alpha
spread at touchdown.
The approaches in these airplanes all require strict wing management
right down to the ground.
With you guys, the GW can be so wide an available spread that flying an
optimum aoa would probably put you outside your landing allowance spread
to clear your tails if I understand correctly. This makes sense anyway,
considering how long some of the stuff is you guys are handling.


--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote in
news
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in news:J6mdnf-
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Private" wrote in
:

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
It's interesting to note that although stall recovery should be
thought of as something done with a minimum loss of altitude,
the emphasis on recovery should always be placed on the
regaining of angle of attack as PRIME to recovery.
Agreed, I have always thought of myself as flying a wing to
which is attached a fuselage rather than the reverse.


Xactly right IMO. All you need is a wing to fly, after all.

Bertie

As you already know and I can confirm emphatically , as soon as
you start flying high performance jets, it's all about wing
management.

Actualy, in the turkeys we fly it's all about nailing your pitch to
what the computer wants, but you're right, they're all about the
wing. I've always understood that to be the case, but I learned to
fly in gliders, so it was more about pefromance and less about
procedure like it is in a lot of lightplane instruction.


Bertie
In the T38 for example, the approach is flown at an optimum alpha on
the indexer or at a specific airspeed plus fuel. Either way, the
object is to keep the wing within specific limits aoa wise. The bird
will develop a sink rate that can't be recovered otherwise.
I've always wondered why you guys in the big jets don't use alpha
more on the approach. I'm guessing it's because of the complicated
fuel loads possible which gives you such a wide range of approach
speeds to bug to keep the pitch angle right at touchdown.
I know that Boeing for one is doing some research into providing
better aoa data to you on the ADI for approaches but haven't heard
much about how this outreach is being accepted by the carriers.


Well, the military guys have it. I was in a 141 sim once and that had
it. We bug a diffeent approach speed for each weight. The takeoff
speeds provide for a variety of AoAs depending on whether we want to
climb, get off a short runway or get over some obstacles. We can
select a range of V2s based on a runway analysis to get the most
weight possible off the ground on a given takeoff. That, of course,
gives us different AoAs depending on whether we're looking for best
angle or best rate. We don't call it any of that, but it's exaclty
what we do. on approach we select Vso 1.3 based on the weight. So we
do use a constant alpha. It's important to avoid float, and to touch
down at the right attitude so we don't end up bouncing off the
nosewheel or the tail as well. I do it in light planes as well, and
hopefully most guys do have nominal approach speeds for different
weights.. I just knock off a few knots if I'm light, basically.


Bertie

Bertie


I've always said that if I could only have one instrument in the
airplane I'd like an angle of attack indicator. :-))
In a way we have the same problems landing in airplanes like the T38
as you do in the big jobs. We usually are dealing with a long fuselage
mass to wing mass configuration in the fast jets that requires a
specific aoa spread at touchdown to keep from catching the tail
feathers. The F104 was particularly susceptible to this. (never flew
the zipper but always wanted to). The F14 and the F16 (have flown
these) are a narrow alpha spread at touchdown.


Yeah, I could well imagine with an airfoil like that.

The approaches in these airplanes all require strict wing management
right down to the ground.
With you guys, the GW can be so wide an available spread that flying
an optimum aoa would probably put you outside your landing allowance
spread to clear your tails if I understand correctly. This makes sense
anyway, considering how long some of the stuff is you guys are
handling.

Well, it depends on what you mean by optimum. I presume you're talking
about maintaining a healthy enough Alpha to prevent a departure, then
controllability, and finally due consideration to touchdown attitude. I
know most of the fast jet guys I fly with can't do a crosswind landing
worth a damn! They fly a straight line down to touchdonw ( good) then
pull the taps closed, yank and close their eyes. It seems to work but it
ain't pretty! We fly most of them just like airplanes, really.


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
news
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in news:J6mdnf-
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Private" wrote in
:

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
It's interesting to note that although stall recovery should be
thought of as something done with a minimum loss of altitude,
the emphasis on recovery should always be placed on the
regaining of angle of attack as PRIME to recovery.
Agreed, I have always thought of myself as flying a wing to
which is attached a fuselage rather than the reverse.


Xactly right IMO. All you need is a wing to fly, after all.

Bertie

As you already know and I can confirm emphatically , as soon as
you start flying high performance jets, it's all about wing
management.
Actualy, in the turkeys we fly it's all about nailing your pitch to
what the computer wants, but you're right, they're all about the
wing. I've always understood that to be the case, but I learned to
fly in gliders, so it was more about pefromance and less about
procedure like it is in a lot of lightplane instruction.


Bertie
In the T38 for example, the approach is flown at an optimum alpha on
the indexer or at a specific airspeed plus fuel. Either way, the
object is to keep the wing within specific limits aoa wise. The bird
will develop a sink rate that can't be recovered otherwise.
I've always wondered why you guys in the big jets don't use alpha
more on the approach. I'm guessing it's because of the complicated
fuel loads possible which gives you such a wide range of approach
speeds to bug to keep the pitch angle right at touchdown.
I know that Boeing for one is doing some research into providing
better aoa data to you on the ADI for approaches but haven't heard
much about how this outreach is being accepted by the carriers.

Well, the military guys have it. I was in a 141 sim once and that had
it. We bug a diffeent approach speed for each weight. The takeoff
speeds provide for a variety of AoAs depending on whether we want to
climb, get off a short runway or get over some obstacles. We can
select a range of V2s based on a runway analysis to get the most
weight possible off the ground on a given takeoff. That, of course,
gives us different AoAs depending on whether we're looking for best
angle or best rate. We don't call it any of that, but it's exaclty
what we do. on approach we select Vso 1.3 based on the weight. So we
do use a constant alpha. It's important to avoid float, and to touch
down at the right attitude so we don't end up bouncing off the
nosewheel or the tail as well. I do it in light planes as well, and
hopefully most guys do have nominal approach speeds for different
weights.. I just knock off a few knots if I'm light, basically.


Bertie

Bertie

I've always said that if I could only have one instrument in the
airplane I'd like an angle of attack indicator. :-))
In a way we have the same problems landing in airplanes like the T38
as you do in the big jobs. We usually are dealing with a long fuselage
mass to wing mass configuration in the fast jets that requires a
specific aoa spread at touchdown to keep from catching the tail
feathers. The F104 was particularly susceptible to this. (never flew
the zipper but always wanted to). The F14 and the F16 (have flown
these) are a narrow alpha spread at touchdown.


Yeah, I could well imagine with an airfoil like that.

The approaches in these airplanes all require strict wing management
right down to the ground.
With you guys, the GW can be so wide an available spread that flying
an optimum aoa would probably put you outside your landing allowance
spread to clear your tails if I understand correctly. This makes sense
anyway, considering how long some of the stuff is you guys are
handling.

Well, it depends on what you mean by optimum. I presume you're talking
about maintaining a healthy enough Alpha to prevent a departure, then
controllability, and finally due consideration to touchdown attitude. I
know most of the fast jet guys I fly with can't do a crosswind landing
worth a damn! They fly a straight line down to touchdonw ( good) then
pull the taps closed, yank and close their eyes. It seems to work but it
ain't pretty! We fly most of them just like airplanes, really.


Bertie



You're right. Those crosswind landings in fast jets are pretty much crab
um right into the concrete...a lot like the old Ercoupe really. You
touch down in the crab, and the impetus straightens you out (hopefully)
in the right direction :-))


--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote in
:




You're right. Those crosswind landings in fast jets are pretty much
crab um right into the concrete...a lot like the old Ercoupe really.
You touch down in the crab, and the impetus straightens you out
(hopefully) in the right direction :-))


Yep, that's what they do. A lot of screeching and lurching. It's not the
way to do it, but....
Another thing I've noticed about them is they tend to be quite coarse in
the way they handle the airplane. A smooth roll inot a 25 deg bank doesn't
seem to be an option with a lot of them. The roll has to be made as crisply
as possible. likewise with pitch changes. I imagine this comes form a lot
of formation flying and refueling and what not, but I don't know. I'm not
knocking them, but it's interesting to see there's more than one way to
skin a cat. Mine;s better, though.
I used to get a lot of ex military guys coming to fly cubs and Stearmans
and gliders. Most of them had forgotten what their feet were for and I
would have to point at the ball regularly. I noticed that ex-navy guys
never stepped on the ball, they moved the stick in the direction the ball
needed to go. I asked one about this and he told me that's what you do to
co-ordinate! Interesting. It works just as well and unless you're making a
gross correction you'd never notice the difference. I guess it comes from a
naval notion of the rudder being the primary control or something..


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

You're right. Those crosswind landings in fast jets are pretty much
crab um right into the concrete...a lot like the old Ercoupe really.
You touch down in the crab, and the impetus straightens you out
(hopefully) in the right direction :-))


Yep, that's what they do. A lot of screeching and lurching. It's not the
way to do it, but....
Another thing I've noticed about them is they tend to be quite coarse in
the way they handle the airplane. A smooth roll inot a 25 deg bank doesn't
seem to be an option with a lot of them. The roll has to be made as crisply
as possible. likewise with pitch changes. I imagine this comes form a lot
of formation flying and refueling and what not, but I don't know. I'm not
knocking them, but it's interesting to see there's more than one way to
skin a cat. Mine;s better, though.
I used to get a lot of ex military guys coming to fly cubs and Stearmans
and gliders. Most of them had forgotten what their feet were for and I
would have to point at the ball regularly. I noticed that ex-navy guys
never stepped on the ball, they moved the stick in the direction the ball
needed to go. I asked one about this and he told me that's what you do to
co-ordinate! Interesting. It works just as well and unless you're making a
gross correction you'd never notice the difference. I guess it comes from a
naval notion of the rudder being the primary control or something..


Bertie






It's strange about fighter guys. I've noticed the same thing when
teaching them. They can be very rough. I used to get a lot of them
wanting to join the display community that wanted to go pro on the
circuit with a Pitts or something more exotic. I found the best way to
deal with their roughness was to explain it back to them in terms they
understood....with Ps and energy state. The rougher you are in display
acro, the deeper you pull the airplane into drag rise, and drag equates
out to energy loss rate and decay.
I had two Blue Angels in the air once on the same day in the S2; one
solo and one flew the slot position. The solo was rougher than hell, and
the slot flew me through a solid hour without a twitch.
Interesting about things like this.

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

You're right. Those crosswind landings in fast jets are pretty much
crab um right into the concrete...a lot like the old Ercoupe really.
You touch down in the crab, and the impetus straightens you out
(hopefully) in the right direction :-))


Yep, that's what they do. A lot of screeching and lurching. It's not
the way to do it, but....
Another thing I've noticed about them is they tend to be quite coarse
in the way they handle the airplane. A smooth roll inot a 25 deg bank
doesn't seem to be an option with a lot of them. The roll has to be
made as crisply as possible. likewise with pitch changes. I imagine
this comes form a lot of formation flying and refueling and what not,
but I don't know. I'm not knocking them, but it's interesting to see
there's more than one way to skin a cat. Mine;s better, though.
I used to get a lot of ex military guys coming to fly cubs and
Stearmans and gliders. Most of them had forgotten what their feet
were for and I would have to point at the ball regularly. I noticed
that ex-navy guys never stepped on the ball, they moved the stick in
the direction the ball needed to go. I asked one about this and he
told me that's what you do to co-ordinate! Interesting. It works just
as well and unless you're making a gross correction you'd never
notice the difference. I guess it comes from a naval notion of the
rudder being the primary control or something..


Bertie






It's strange about fighter guys. I've noticed the same thing when
teaching them. They can be very rough. I used to get a lot of them
wanting to join the display community that wanted to go pro on the
circuit with a Pitts or something more exotic. I found the best way to
deal with their roughness was to explain it back to them in terms they
understood....with Ps and energy state. The rougher you are in display
acro, the deeper you pull the airplane into drag rise, and drag
equates out to energy loss rate and decay.

Yes, of course they have more thrust than they need for most cases so
that usually isn't an issue with them.

I had two Blue Angels in the air once on the same day in the S2; one
solo and one flew the slot position. The solo was rougher than hell,
and the slot flew me through a solid hour without a twitch.
Interesting about things like this.

Well, i'm generalising , of course. There are guys who just got it and
that's it. They can adapt to anything. Most people are creatures of
habit..

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

You're right. Those crosswind landings in fast jets are pretty much
crab um right into the concrete...a lot like the old Ercoupe really.
You touch down in the crab, and the impetus straightens you out
(hopefully) in the right direction :-))

Yep, that's what they do. A lot of screeching and lurching. It's not
the way to do it, but....
Another thing I've noticed about them is they tend to be quite coarse
in the way they handle the airplane. A smooth roll inot a 25 deg bank
doesn't seem to be an option with a lot of them. The roll has to be
made as crisply as possible. likewise with pitch changes. I imagine
this comes form a lot of formation flying and refueling and what not,
but I don't know. I'm not knocking them, but it's interesting to see
there's more than one way to skin a cat. Mine;s better, though.
I used to get a lot of ex military guys coming to fly cubs and
Stearmans and gliders. Most of them had forgotten what their feet
were for and I would have to point at the ball regularly. I noticed
that ex-navy guys never stepped on the ball, they moved the stick in
the direction the ball needed to go. I asked one about this and he
told me that's what you do to co-ordinate! Interesting. It works just
as well and unless you're making a gross correction you'd never
notice the difference. I guess it comes from a naval notion of the
rudder being the primary control or something..


Bertie





It's strange about fighter guys. I've noticed the same thing when
teaching them. They can be very rough. I used to get a lot of them
wanting to join the display community that wanted to go pro on the
circuit with a Pitts or something more exotic. I found the best way to
deal with their roughness was to explain it back to them in terms they
understood....with Ps and energy state. The rougher you are in display
acro, the deeper you pull the airplane into drag rise, and drag
equates out to energy loss rate and decay.

Yes, of course they have more thrust than they need for most cases so
that usually isn't an issue with them.

I had two Blue Angels in the air once on the same day in the S2; one
solo and one flew the slot position. The solo was rougher than hell,
and the slot flew me through a solid hour without a twitch.
Interesting about things like this.

Well, i'm generalising , of course. There are guys who just got it and
that's it. They can adapt to anything. Most people are creatures of
habit..

Bertie

Yeah...like Mrs H with yard work!!!
:-)

--
Dudley Henriques

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 03:30:49 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

I noticed that ex-navy guys
never stepped on the ball, they moved the stick in the direction the ball
needed to go. I asked one about this and he told me that's what you do to
co-ordinate! Interesting. It works just as well and unless you're making a
gross correction you'd never notice the difference. I guess it comes from a
naval notion of the rudder being the primary control or something..

Holy ****, I thought it was me and my newbieness. I am working NAS JAX and
spending time with the NAS and I get the same conversations.

I think.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Feb 17, 8:19 pm, WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 03:30:49 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
I noticed that ex-navy guys
never stepped on the ball, they moved the stick in the direction the ball
needed to go. I asked one about this and he told me that's what you do to
co-ordinate! Interesting. It works just as well and unless you're making a
gross correction you'd never notice the difference. I guess it comes from a
naval notion of the rudder being the primary control or something..

Holy ****, I thought it was me and my newbieness. I am working NAS JAX and
spending time with the NAS and I get the same conversations.
I think.

My Instructor Pilot "balled" me out on that too (pun
intended), he pointed out my turns were not properly
coordinated because the ball went off center.
Well the SOB aka IP (good fella all the way) explains
that passengers have drinks on their little tables and
a coordinated turn keeps them level, and won't spill!

So he takes his plastic water bottle and sets it on his
clip board that is even on his lap, then orders up some
coordinated turns...10 , 20 , 30 degree banks, I thought
that was a good lesson.
Ken

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
:

On Feb 17, 8:19 pm, WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 03:30:49 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
I noticed that ex-navy guys
never stepped on the ball, they moved the stick in the direction
the ball needed to go. I asked one about this and he told me that's
what you do to co-ordinate! Interesting. It works just as well and
unless you're making a gross correction you'd never notice the
difference. I guess it comes from a naval notion of the rudder
being the primary control or something..

Holy ****, I thought it was me and my newbieness. I am working NAS
JAX and spending time with the NAS and I get the same conversations.
I think.

My Instructor Pilot "balled" me out on that too (pun
intended), he pointed out my turns were not properly
coordinated because the ball went off center.
Well the SOB aka IP (good fella all the way) explains
that passengers have drinks on their little tables and
a coordinated turn keeps them level, and won't spill!

So he takes his plastic water bottle and sets it on his
clip board that is even on his lap, then orders up some
coordinated turns...10 , 20 , 30 degree banks, I thought
that was a good lesson.


What about the water on your brain, Ken? Did that stay level?


Bertie