Stalls and Thoughts

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in news:6sWdne8-
:

I agree. The history stuff is interesting but highly speculative to say
the least. Sorting it out can try your patience for sure. I remember
Bader telling me about one "historian" who cornered him one evening and
proceeded to TELL him about an air battle he had been in personally.
When Bader tried to correct the man on a certain detail he personally
had experienced, the "historian" argued with him that he (Bader) was
wrong! :-))


Beautiful. It's realy interesting talking to those guys. I haven't met one
in a long time, now, though.. They'll soon be all gone.. I did meet a B-50
pilot at a party not too long ago. He was interesting to talk to alright.
Pretty old!


Bertie
We're losing a lot of our last flying generation each year.

--
Dudley Henriques

Roger wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 09:25:24 -0400, Peter Clark
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:39:13 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

I believe you are repeating wht I have said. I said that "dragging it
in" generally refers to flying the approach in the area of reverse
command or if you will behind the power curve. This is absolutely

Well, time to try again. I had this ready to go and the computer ate
it.

When flying a Debonair, F-33, and A36 Bo by the POH all landings are
done well below the max endurance speed, but not to the point where
they don't have enough reserve power to arrest or even change the
descent into a climb. They are however in the area where power
controls rate of descent and pitch controls speed.

correct. Coffin corner is the area behind the curve where sink rate
can't be stopped with power but requires reduction in angle of attack.
For a perfect example of an aircraft in coffin corner, see the Edwards
AFB accident involving a young AF pilot who got his F100 so deep into
coffin corner behind the curve he couldn't recover the airplane; not

I saw the video and he did one whale of a job balancing on the
thrust/tail until he lost it. He just needed a few thousand pounds
more thrust.

enough air under him to reduce the angle of attack. He applied full
burner but couldn't fly it out on power alone. Reduction of angle of
attack was what he needed and he didn't have the room. THIS is the
definition of coffin corner and it most certainly IS in the area of
reverse command.

I saw a clip of a 104 that was skidding sideways and then flipped over
on its top. I believe the engine seized on that one. any thought?

I thought coffin corner was the point where if you go slower you stall
and if you go faster you hit critical mach number?
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

I think it's in the pilot's code that we're not allowed to say the
airplane flipped over on it's "top" :-))))

--
Dudley Henriques

On Mar 16, 7:31 pm, Roger wrote:
....
I saw the video and he did one whale of a job balancing on the
thrust/tail until he lost it. He just needed a few thousand pounds
more thrust.

I think some tape of that incident was used in this movie,
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048364/

enough air under him to reduce the angle of attack. He applied full
burner but couldn't fly it out on power alone. Reduction of angle of
attack was what he needed and he didn't have the room. THIS is the
definition of coffin corner and it most certainly IS in the area of
reverse command.

I saw a clip of a 104 that was skidding sideways and then flipped over
on its top. I believe the engine seized on that one. any thought?

I have a clip from "Planes of Flame", where the 104
is tangled in an arrestor net, yaws left, then rolls over
right that looked messy. Is that the clip you mean?
Ken

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)www.rogerhalstead.com

Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in news:6sWdne8-
:

I agree. The history stuff is interesting but highly speculative to
say the least. Sorting it out can try your patience for sure. I
remember Bader telling me about one "historian" who cornered him one
evening and proceeded to TELL him about an air battle he had been in
personally. When Bader tried to correct the man on a certain detail
he personally had experienced, the "historian" argued with him that
he (Bader) was wrong! :-))


Beautiful. It's realy interesting talking to those guys. I haven't
met one in a long time, now, though.. They'll soon be all gone.. I
did meet a B-50 pilot at a party not too long ago. He was interesting
to talk to alright. Pretty old!


Bertie
We're losing a lot of our last flying generation each year.


Yep

Bertie

Dudley Henriques wrote in
news
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in news:6sWdne4-
:


Chuck used to feather one engine and do a roll into it. I believe he
did some dead stick as well.


Oh he did. Definitely. At least i think it was him. It definitely
wasn't hoover, anyway. Did he beat the odds?
Last I heard, Chuck was alive and well and still flying.


Very good! Still doing deadstick aerobatics, though?

Bertie

Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Blueskies" wrote in
. net:

LeVier did a lot of the high mach number dive tests in the
38,
and there definitely was a compressibility problem, mach
tuck;
the
whole
works. I know they added speed brakes but not sure at exactly
what stage. The engine rotation switch was early on in the
program according to Ethell; I believe in the YP38 stage
before
the first production run. If I'm not mistaken, the high mach
dives came after the switch but I'm not at all certain of
that.

--
Dudley Henriques
All the -38s sold to England had same rotation direction
engines
on both sides all the way through. Just another odd thing...


Are you sure about that?


Bertie
I heard the same thing. The Brits raised hell about what they
considered
a high degree of possibility for unnecessary maintainence due to
the handed engines. On the practical side, the Brits had ordered
a
ton of P40's which used the V1710 Allison with a right handed
prop. The word
we
got was that the brits wanted the Allison's on the 38's to be
interchangeable with the P40 to cut down on cost.


Well, that's reasonable. Never heard that before. Could be an
urban
legend based on one photo of an airplane field kitted with two RH
engines. A bit like the Fokker DR1 that got an odd aileron and
started a legend that they all had one smaller than the other to
compensate for torque.


Bertie
Possible?? Torque correction IS in roll and not yaw as is the
common
belief :-)

Oh the things had torque issues alright, but some nerd of an
historian has proven that there was only one DR1 with mismatched
ailerons. The eraly ones had one size and the later ones had
another
and a field repair resulted in the one with two odd ailerons. Since
it was a good pictiure showing them clearly and someone did a
detailed drawing basd on it, it got lodged in folklore. There were
airplanes that had larger wings n the left for this purpose
however.
Ansaldo, for one.


Bertie
I guess the WW1 practical test for German AI's missed "aileron
mismatch"
:-))


Wouldn't be the first or last time! I had two very different wings on
a
Luscombe with two completely different aileron hinge arrangements. It
was a very early 1939 airplane and it must have damaged a wing and
one
was put on from a later machine.
There's a famous pic of a DC-3 that was dmamged and flown for a time
with a DC 2 wing, which was considerably smaller.. Early days of WW2
in
China, I beleive.

Bertie
I think I remember that DC3 shot. Lots of spare parts birds out there.
Many civvy Mustangs were retrofitted with P63 brakes if that counts
:-))


Yeah, it's a pretty common shot. IIRC it had some Chinese wrting on the
top of the wings. I think I have it in a book about the flying tigers,
in fact.

Bertie

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in news:8065ea8a-893a-41da-
:

On Mar 16, 2:08 pm, Dan wrote:
On Mar 16, 5:51 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
...
My 3.1416 cents.
Ferrying A/C across the Pacific, I read, the fella's
would experiment with lean ratio's and speed.
The idea was to max the fuel burn efficiency and
minimize the induced wing drag.
Of course that needs to consider the parasitic
drag of the fuselage, tail and so on.
From the standpoint of aerodynamic engineering,
experience is the answer.
Ken

I'm a bit confused by what the point is...
But a JPI + GAMInjectors makes leaning lean of peak feasible and
productive.

Well the discussion is about maxing endurance
which is a similiar problem to maxing range.
Two a/c of nearly equal weight, say a Flying wing
and B-52, have different numbers, of course.

A bit like your IQ


Bertie

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in news:e7b02c3d-eb33-4b04-
:

On Mar 16, 7:31 pm, Roger wrote:
...
I saw the video and he did one whale of a job balancing on the
thrust/tail until he lost it. He just needed a few thousand pounds
more thrust.

I think some tape of that incident was used in this movie,
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048364/

enough air under him to reduce the angle of attack. He applied full
burner but couldn't fly it out on power alone. Reduction of angle of
attack was what he needed and he didn't have the room. THIS is the
definition of coffin corner and it most certainly IS in the area of
reverse command.

I saw a clip of a 104 that was skidding sideways and then flipped over
on its top. I believe the engine seized on that one. any thought?

I have a clip from "Planes of Flame", where the 104
is tangled in an arrestor net, yaws left, then rolls over
right that looked messy. Is that the clip you mean?
Ken

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)www.rogerhalstead.com

A whole post where you didn't say anything idiotic. this must be a first,
kennie!


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
news
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in news:6sWdne4-
:


Chuck used to feather one engine and do a roll into it. I believe he
did some dead stick as well.

Oh he did. Definitely. At least i think it was him. It definitely
wasn't hoover, anyway. Did he beat the odds?
Last I heard, Chuck was alive and well and still flying.


Very good! Still doing deadstick aerobatics, though?

Bertie
Not sure. Haven't seen him for a while now.

--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in news:e7b02c3d-eb33-4b04-
:

On Mar 16, 7:31 pm, Roger wrote:
...
I saw the video and he did one whale of a job balancing on the
thrust/tail until he lost it. He just needed a few thousand pounds
more thrust.
I think some tape of that incident was used in this movie,
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048364/

enough air under him to reduce the angle of attack. He applied full
burner but couldn't fly it out on power alone. Reduction of angle of
attack was what he needed and he didn't have the room. THIS is the
definition of coffin corner and it most certainly IS in the area of
reverse command.
I saw a clip of a 104 that was skidding sideways and then flipped over
on its top. I believe the engine seized on that one. any thought?
I have a clip from "Planes of Flame", where the 104
is tangled in an arrestor net, yaws left, then rolls over
right that looked messy. Is that the clip you mean?
Ken

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)www.rogerhalstead.com

A whole post where you didn't say anything idiotic. this must be a first,
kennie!


Bertie
There does seem to be some improvement here. :-)

--
Dudley Henriques