Is every touchdown a stall?

It's comments like this that make mxsmanic a troll. He admits to never
having flown anything other than an armchair, and asks questions about
flying techniques, but then makes idiotic pronouncements like his previous
post.

Why bother answering him and offer advice when all you'll get is an idiotic,
illogical, and argumentative response?

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:33:26 +0200, Greg Farris
wrote:

Toy plane - Baron 58? 11,000ft runway?

I think some real flying, in a real plane (try a C-152 for starters) would
be helpful in correcting your attitude problem.

No, a real plane is a J-3 Piper Cub. The runway should be 2,000 feet
or shorter. 1,000 feet is better. 500 feet -- now that's a challenge!

Cubdriver wrote:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:33:26 +0200, Greg Farris
wrote:

Toy plane - Baron 58? 11,000ft runway?

I think some real flying, in a real plane (try a C-152 for starters) would
be helpful in correcting your attitude problem.

No, a real plane is a J-3 Piper Cub. The runway should be 2,000 feet
or shorter. 1,000 feet is better. 500 feet -- now that's a challenge!

Or, heck, just turn off at the first taxiway -- the one that is at the
end of the runway where you land.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Among other things, he advocates a "stall-proof" airplane,
which may not be possible and which certainly is not desirable.

Years ago I read of NASA having developed a stall-proof wing, but I
don't know what became of that, or if it ever was incorporated into an
aircraft.

There is a light aircraft called the Ercoupe. It's pretty much
unstallable. As a matter of fact, it's design fits Langewiesche's
musings on the "ideal" airplane.

You should be able to order the book from Amazon's european outlets.
I again would recommend Kerschner's book as also pratical. He goes
through a lot of flight trainning concepts with enough aerodynamics
to satisfy the how and why questions.

"Ron Natalie"
There is a light aircraft called the Ercoupe. It's pretty much
unstallable. As a matter of fact, it's design fits Langewiesche's
musings on the "ideal" airplane.


Unspinnable?


Montblack

In article ,
says...



"Ron Natalie"
There is a light aircraft called the Ercoupe. It's pretty much
unstallable. As a matter of fact, it's design fits Langewiesche's
musings on the "ideal" airplane.


Unspinnable?

If you can't stall it, you can't spin it.
It also had the rudder connected to the aileron controls, so you "steer"
it like a car. If I recall correctly, it had no rudder pedals.

There are plenty of them still flying - or more like restored and flying
again, and they can often be had at reasonable prices too. It was a flop
in its day - perhaps pilots felt it was belittling to have a machine
that purported to correct their mistakes - sort of like an Airbus,
except that the latter makes mistakes of its own.

GF

Montblack wrote:
"Ron Natalie"
There is a light aircraft called the Ercoupe. It's pretty much
unstallable. As a matter of fact, it's design fits Langewiesche's
musings on the "ideal" airplane.


Unspinnable?

It might be possible to force the Ercoupe to spin by really yanking on
the controls in turbulent air and doing everything you could to force
it beyond its stall limitations, but I suspect that you have to be
deliberately trying to crash it.

The NTSB database attributes some Ecroupe accidents to "stall," but the
Ercoupe definitely has different stall characteristics than other
aircraft. Ercoupe fans deny that they are stalls at all. The way pilots
kill themselves on final in Ercoupes is they get real slow and a little
high, so they try to slow some more. The Ercoupe does not stall,
exactly, but it doesn't like that sort of treatment, either. It begins
to descend very rapidly and it takes some time to recover to a normal
rate of descent.

IIRC there have even been a couple of fatalities from spins in
Ercoupes, but control failures were a factor in these. Overall, the
Ercoupe has a *worse* than average fatality rate, which is something
that I doubt Langewische expected. It does show that Langewische was
wrong when he thought that the accident rate would be lowered
significantly if you made it impossible to stall an airplane. All it
really showed was that pilots who were likely to kill themselves in
stalls had to find some other method of committing suicide and murder.

Montblack wrote:

"Ron Natalie"
There is a light aircraft called the Ercoupe. It's pretty much
unstallable. As a matter of fact, it's design fits Langewiesche's
musings on the "ideal" airplane.


Unspinnable?


You gotta stall to spin.

On 30 Sep 2006 01:27:18 -0700, "cjcampbell"
wrote:

My opinion, that of most manufacturers, and of many commercial pilots,
is that the stall warning horn is a very poor indicator of proper
landing speed

In a Cub, which of course has no horn, the stall indicator is when the
door (the lower half of the door, which folds down) begins to float
upward.

Cubdriver wrote:



In a Cub, which of course has no horn,


The new Dakota Cub does have a stall horn. In certification testing now.