Lance vx. 6/300

You need a course in basic aerodynamics. You would learn that pitch angle
and AOA are completely independent. And don't quote Aviation Consumer as an
authority, many of their reviews are full of contradictions.

Mike
MU-2


"Renzoni Papaloni" wrote in message
om...
Read it the Aviation Consumer Guide you ****ing ignorant know-it-all Car
Salesman.

If elevator control is fine, there would be no problem and they would
still
build it like that, wouldn't they. I haven't seen a Saratoga with a
T-tail,
have you?

If I look at an airplane rotating to climb or take off, the tail comes
down
and moves in the axis behind the wings. I never said why. I very well know
that the tail generates downforce to reach equilibrium - but the issue is
the tail moves down relative to the axis to climb. Period. And yes, it
does
it by generating even more downforce than is needed at level flight.

And you don't loose total elevator control, only some authority if you get
near the area, if you want the details. And the area is more than 3
****ing
degrees in bumpy air.

And the plane should pitch down and it does if you approach the stall
slowly. Yes it should (FAA) and does. But if you compensate and hence get
into the area of extreme high attack (of the main wings), the elevator
moves
down even further, into the full airflow BELOW and the plane pitches up
violently. Why? Because you compensate for some loss of elevator control
and
pull real hard. I know you shouldn't do it but people did and didn't like
how it felt, ok?

Your statement about 30 to 40 degrees would lead to a stall is totally
wrong
without connecting it to speed. I pull up a Cessna 152 to 90 degrees
(vertical) if I have the airspeed and if I am crazy enough. (My instructor
did). Before I run out of steam I push and avoid a stall. It's a nice ride
but doesn't last long if you want to live.



"CarSalesman" wrote in message
...
absolute bull****....

"Renzoni Papaloni" wrote in message
om...
It loses elevator control in slow flight with high angles of attack,
not
at
take off.

Obviously, you've never flown one of these things. If your statement
were
true, it would be impossible to stall the plane. Elevator control is
just
fine
in all phases of slow flight, landing configuration stalls, and
accelerated
stalls - exactly as required for FAA certification. Also exactly as any
pilot is trained when checked out on a new type.


Then the tail comes down and gets no air because it is in the
horizontal axis right behind the main wings.

Now, you're really showing your innocence. The stabilator does
*not* hold the back of the airplane up, it holds it *down*. If you
really lost elevator control for the reason described, the airplane
would
pitch down, not up.



That makes the tail less
effective, because the airflow it gets is partly deflected by the high
angle
of attack of the main wing and the airflow does not even reach the
tail
and
is also turbulent. The use of flaps makes this even more pronounced!
A
straight tail in comparison would be way lower in totally undisturbed
airflow and more effective in this kind of flight envelope.

You better go look at one of these things on the ramp. If you were to
get the nose so high, that the T-tail stabilator were totally behind the
main wing, you'd have an angle of attack of about 30 to 40 degrees,
which is about 3 times greater than the stall. The condition you
describe is impossible. You'd be in a spin long before you reached
that angle of attack.



This happens
when you have to ad power to fly slower, it's called getting behind
the
power curve. This does NOT happen when you take off.

I hope you're not an active pilot. Do you really think that getting
behind
the power curve is limited to the tail design of the plane? You can get
behind
the power curve in any airplane, especially any piston airplane. You
need
to get some training on that phase of flight, soon.


Other airplanes don't have the same problem because of their different
geometry. (Longer fuselage and higher or lower t-tail.)
It really has nothing to do with 'well trained pilots'. If you were
well
trained you would know that! Maybe you should find somebody who can
draw
you
a picture. No offense...


Better look at your own picture. With a much longer fuselage, the angle
of
attack required to get the T-tail down behind the main wing, is reduced.

don

I don't need anything.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
You need a course in basic aerodynamics. You would learn that pitch angle
and AOA are completely independent. And don't quote Aviation Consumer as
an
authority, many of their reviews are full of contradictions.

Mike
MU-2


"Renzoni Papaloni" wrote in message
om...
Read it the Aviation Consumer Guide you ****ing ignorant know-it-all Car
Salesman.

If elevator control is fine, there would be no problem and they would
still
build it like that, wouldn't they. I haven't seen a Saratoga with a
T-tail,
have you?

If I look at an airplane rotating to climb or take off, the tail comes
down
and moves in the axis behind the wings. I never said why. I very well
know
that the tail generates downforce to reach equilibrium - but the issue
is
the tail moves down relative to the axis to climb. Period. And yes, it
does
it by generating even more downforce than is needed at level flight.

And you don't loose total elevator control, only some authority if you
get
near the area, if you want the details. And the area is more than 3
****ing
degrees in bumpy air.

And the plane should pitch down and it does if you approach the stall
slowly. Yes it should (FAA) and does. But if you compensate and hence
get
into the area of extreme high attack (of the main wings), the elevator
moves
down even further, into the full airflow BELOW and the plane pitches up
violently. Why? Because you compensate for some loss of elevator control
and
pull real hard. I know you shouldn't do it but people did and didn't
like
how it felt, ok?

Your statement about 30 to 40 degrees would lead to a stall is totally
wrong
without connecting it to speed. I pull up a Cessna 152 to 90 degrees
(vertical) if I have the airspeed and if I am crazy enough. (My
instructor
did). Before I run out of steam I push and avoid a stall. It's a nice
ride
but doesn't last long if you want to live.



"CarSalesman" wrote in message
...
absolute bull****....

"Renzoni Papaloni" wrote in message
om...
It loses elevator control in slow flight with high angles of attack,
not
at
take off.

Obviously, you've never flown one of these things. If your statement
were
true, it would be impossible to stall the plane. Elevator control is
just
fine
in all phases of slow flight, landing configuration stalls, and
accelerated
stalls - exactly as required for FAA certification. Also exactly as
any
pilot is trained when checked out on a new type.


Then the tail comes down and gets no air because it is in the
horizontal axis right behind the main wings.

Now, you're really showing your innocence. The stabilator does
*not* hold the back of the airplane up, it holds it *down*. If you
really lost elevator control for the reason described, the airplane
would
pitch down, not up.



That makes the tail less
effective, because the airflow it gets is partly deflected by the
high
angle
of attack of the main wing and the airflow does not even reach the
tail
and
is also turbulent. The use of flaps makes this even more
pronounced!
A
straight tail in comparison would be way lower in totally
undisturbed
airflow and more effective in this kind of flight envelope.

You better go look at one of these things on the ramp. If you were to
get the nose so high, that the T-tail stabilator were totally behind
the
main wing, you'd have an angle of attack of about 30 to 40 degrees,
which is about 3 times greater than the stall. The condition you
describe is impossible. You'd be in a spin long before you reached
that angle of attack.



This happens
when you have to ad power to fly slower, it's called getting behind
the
power curve. This does NOT happen when you take off.

I hope you're not an active pilot. Do you really think that getting
behind
the power curve is limited to the tail design of the plane? You can
get
behind
the power curve in any airplane, especially any piston airplane. You
need
to get some training on that phase of flight, soon.


Other airplanes don't have the same problem because of their
different
geometry. (Longer fuselage and higher or lower t-tail.)
It really has nothing to do with 'well trained pilots'. If you were
well
trained you would know that! Maybe you should find somebody who can
draw
you
a picture. No offense...


Better look at your own picture. With a much longer fuselage, the
angle
of
attack required to get the T-tail down behind the main wing, is
reduced.

don

Ignorance is bliss.

Mike
MU-2


"Satellite" wrote in message
om...
I don't need anything.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
You need a course in basic aerodynamics. You would learn that pitch
angle
and AOA are completely independent. And don't quote Aviation Consumer
as
an
authority, many of their reviews are full of contradictions.

Mike
MU-2


"Renzoni Papaloni" wrote in message
om...
Read it the Aviation Consumer Guide you ****ing ignorant know-it-all
Car
Salesman.

If elevator control is fine, there would be no problem and they would
still
build it like that, wouldn't they. I haven't seen a Saratoga with a
T-tail,
have you?

If I look at an airplane rotating to climb or take off, the tail comes
down
and moves in the axis behind the wings. I never said why. I very well
know
that the tail generates downforce to reach equilibrium - but the issue
is
the tail moves down relative to the axis to climb. Period. And yes, it
does
it by generating even more downforce than is needed at level flight.

And you don't loose total elevator control, only some authority if you
get
near the area, if you want the details. And the area is more than 3
****ing
degrees in bumpy air.

And the plane should pitch down and it does if you approach the stall
slowly. Yes it should (FAA) and does. But if you compensate and hence
get
into the area of extreme high attack (of the main wings), the elevator
moves
down even further, into the full airflow BELOW and the plane pitches
up
violently. Why? Because you compensate for some loss of elevator
control
and
pull real hard. I know you shouldn't do it but people did and didn't
like
how it felt, ok?

Your statement about 30 to 40 degrees would lead to a stall is totally
wrong
without connecting it to speed. I pull up a Cessna 152 to 90 degrees
(vertical) if I have the airspeed and if I am crazy enough. (My
instructor
did). Before I run out of steam I push and avoid a stall. It's a nice
ride
but doesn't last long if you want to live.



"CarSalesman" wrote in message
...
absolute bull****....

"Renzoni Papaloni" wrote in message
om...
It loses elevator control in slow flight with high angles of
attack,
not
at
take off.

Obviously, you've never flown one of these things. If your
statement
were
true, it would be impossible to stall the plane. Elevator control
is
just
fine
in all phases of slow flight, landing configuration stalls, and
accelerated
stalls - exactly as required for FAA certification. Also exactly as
any
pilot is trained when checked out on a new type.


Then the tail comes down and gets no air because it is in the
horizontal axis right behind the main wings.

Now, you're really showing your innocence. The stabilator does
*not* hold the back of the airplane up, it holds it *down*. If you
really lost elevator control for the reason described, the airplane
would
pitch down, not up.



That makes the tail less
effective, because the airflow it gets is partly deflected by the
high
angle
of attack of the main wing and the airflow does not even reach the
tail
and
is also turbulent. The use of flaps makes this even more
pronounced!
A
straight tail in comparison would be way lower in totally
undisturbed
airflow and more effective in this kind of flight envelope.

You better go look at one of these things on the ramp. If you were
to
get the nose so high, that the T-tail stabilator were totally behind
the
main wing, you'd have an angle of attack of about 30 to 40 degrees,
which is about 3 times greater than the stall. The condition you
describe is impossible. You'd be in a spin long before you reached
that angle of attack.



This happens
when you have to ad power to fly slower, it's called getting
behind
the
power curve. This does NOT happen when you take off.

I hope you're not an active pilot. Do you really think that getting
behind
the power curve is limited to the tail design of the plane? You can
get
behind
the power curve in any airplane, especially any piston airplane.
You
need
to get some training on that phase of flight, soon.


Other airplanes don't have the same problem because of their
different
geometry. (Longer fuselage and higher or lower t-tail.)
It really has nothing to do with 'well trained pilots'. If you
were
well
trained you would know that! Maybe you should find somebody who
can
draw
you
a picture. No offense...


Better look at your own picture. With a much longer fuselage, the
angle
of
attack required to get the T-tail down behind the main wing, is
reduced.

don

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
Ignorance is bliss.

But in this game it's often deadly.

Or sometimes just downright funny. Had a Pacer land tonight and his
right main fell off on touchdown. Instant groundloop. Now that's funny.

Tom S. wrote:
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

Ignorance is bliss.


But in this game it's often deadly.

You're got a sick sense of humor :~)

"Newps" wrote in message
news:iJR7b.311307$cF.95177@rwcrnsc53...
Or sometimes just downright funny. Had a Pacer land tonight and his
right main fell off on touchdown. Instant groundloop. Now that's funny.

Tom S. wrote:
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

Ignorance is bliss.


But in this game it's often deadly.

Aaron Coolidge wrote:
Nobody wrote:
: I haven't flown one but read in the "Aviation Consumer guide" that at slow
: speeds with high angle of attacks, the tail does not get enough air because
: it is in the area behind the main wings.
snip
This is called a "deep stall", and only can happen on T-tail aircraft. You
might do a Google on "Trident Staines" to find out what happens when it is
taken to an extreme. A deep stall is generally considered to be unrecoverable.
This phenomenon has been experienced on B-727 airplanes as well.
snip

My father flew the RF-101C http://www.aerofiles.com/mcdon-rf101c.jpg
in the early 1960s. He refers to this phenomenon as "pitch-up". With
the long chord at the wing root, and the small stabilator set up high,
it was easy to reach an AOA that blanked the stabilator. If you did
this, the plane pitched up and began tumbling end over end.

The approved recovery procedure was to deploy the drag chute when the
nose went through the highest point in the tumble or oscillation. In
theory, this would stabilize the plane in a nose down attitude and you
would fly out of it, sans the drag chute. If this didn't work, the
backup procedure was to pull the ejection handles.

One of my favorite stories dad tells is about one of the other pilots in
the squadron who had to land at a French airbase because of weather at
Laon AFB. When he left he was going to show those French pilots what a
max performance takeoff in the Voodoo looked like.

He lit both burners, rotated, got the nose gear up before increasing
airspeed prevented retraction, and pulled back on the stick, apparently
just a little bit too much. He found himself right at the edge of
pitchup -- he wasn't tumbling, but he could not keep the pitch angle
from increasing. So it kept pitching up, and up, and over, until he was
inverted, at which point he regained pitch control and rolled out.

The French pilots *were* impressed with his Immelman on takeoff.

If you've ever wondered why the F-4 Phantom
http://www.aerofiles.com/mcdon-f4bomb.jpg (the successor to the 101)
had the inverted V stabilator, it was to address the pitchup problem.
McDonnell offered to modify the 101s to this configuration for half a
mil each, but the Air Force chose to put the money toward F-4's instead.

--
David Hill
david at hillREMOVETHISfamily.org
Sautee-Nacoochee, GA, USA

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 03:04:03 GMT, David Hill
wrote:

Aaron Coolidge wrote:
Nobody wrote:
: I haven't flown one but read in the "Aviation Consumer guide" that at slow
: speeds with high angle of attacks, the tail does not get enough air because
: it is in the area behind the main wings.
snip
This is called a "deep stall", and only can happen on T-tail aircraft. You

The only aircraft to which I've seen the term "deep stall" applied
with the canard, such as the Long-EZ, cozy, and others of the type.

There was an article in one of the aviation mags about a year or two
back on the phenomena. The pilot had removed the bottom portion of
the "winglets" to test their effect. He ended up in a deep stall
where the aircraft was in nearly level attitude, but he could not get
the nose down. He actually got out and stood on either the canard or
leading edge of the wind (I forget which now) trying to get the nose
down.

He said there was very little wind and he rode the thing all the way
to the water.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

snip