Stall strips vs. Washout

"Dude" wrote


Gotta dispel this myth. As the former owner of a T-tail airplane, I can
assure you that the traumahawk's troubles were not merely the result of a
T-tail. The overall design just was not that good.

What was wrong with the design? Of course, this is all your opinion. g
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Dude" wrote


Gotta dispel this myth. As the former owner of a T-tail airplane, I can
assure you that the traumahawk's troubles were not merely the result of a
T-tail. The overall design just was not that good.

What was wrong with the design? Of course, this is all your opinion. g
--
Jim in NC

I owned a Tomahawk for 5 or 6 years. A great little airplane. Compared to
the Cessna two seaters, it has more interior room, better visibiltiy, and
equal cruise performance. The stall speed is 10 mph faster, and the
airplane can/will drop a wing if you stall it (but I've done that trick in a
C-152 as well). FBO gossip would have you believe that dozens of Tomahawks
have spun in due to unrecoverable spins during training, wheras a review of
the NTSB reports doesn't show this at all. Instead, it shows that quite a
few have gone down due to low altitude stalls and/or spins. Anyone who
stalls an airplane in the pattern is looking for trouble, and the Tomahawk
isn't as forgiving in that regime as a C-152.

Could Piper have done a better job? Certainly. They chose a high performance
airfoil in an application where it offered more disadvantages than
advantages. Beyond that, they didn't design the tail structure properly,
which led to a series of AD's. Last time I checked, no Tomahawks had been
lost due to structural failures, which is the other FBO rumor about the
Tomahawk - "the tail will come off"...

KB

They are also used to generate turbulence (buffet) to wake up the pilot.
In the case of the Tomahawk, they do so with a vengeance and a glance
back at the tail (which is doing quite a dance) will scare you s**tless!

wrote in message
oups.com...
Stall strips are used to fix a design shortcoming. No engineer
wants to design a wing that stalls sooner than absolutely necessary,
but some wings didn't behave as predicted and the stall strip was meant
to induce stall on the inboard wing areas and get the nose to drop
before the ailerons lost authority. The Tomahawk has a reputation for
some nasty stall/spin behavior, and I imagine the stall strips were
meant to alleviate it somewhat. The Bonanza has them, too. With newer
computer-generated airflow modelling it's easier to spot deficiencies
before the wing is built.

Kyle Boatright wrote:

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Dude" wrote


Gotta dispel this myth. As the former owner of a T-tail airplane, I can
assure you that the traumahawk's troubles were not merely the result of a
T-tail. The overall design just was not that good.

What was wrong with the design? Of course, this is all your opinion. g
--
Jim in NC

I owned a Tomahawk for 5 or 6 years. A great little airplane. Compared to
the Cessna two seaters, it has more interior room, better visibiltiy, and
equal cruise performance. The stall speed is 10 mph faster, and the
airplane can/will drop a wing if you stall it (but I've done that trick in a
C-152 as well). FBO gossip would have you believe that dozens of Tomahawks
have spun in due to unrecoverable spins during training, wheras a review of
the NTSB reports doesn't show this at all. Instead, it shows that quite a
few have gone down due to low altitude stalls and/or spins. Anyone who
stalls an airplane in the pattern is looking for trouble, and the Tomahawk
isn't as forgiving in that regime as a C-152.

Could Piper have done a better job? Certainly. They chose a high performance
airfoil in an application where it offered more disadvantages than
advantages. Beyond that, they didn't design the tail structure properly,
which led to a series of AD's. Last time I checked, no Tomahawks had been
lost due to structural failures, which is the other FBO rumor about the
Tomahawk - "the tail will come off"...

KB


So are you saying it is a really great plane,

or a real piece of **** ?


I am glad to read that it on;y stall/spins/kills folks in the pattern
and never during training.

I'll know just when to sell it !
--
Mark Smith
Tri-State Kite Sales
1121 N Locust St
Mt Vernon, IN 47620
1-812-838-6351
http://www.trikite.com

"

I owned a Tomahawk for 5 or 6 years. A great little airplane. Compared to
the Cessna two seaters, it has more interior room, better visibiltiy, and
equal cruise performance. The stall speed is 10 mph faster, and the
airplane can/will drop a wing if you stall it (but I've done that trick
in a
C-152 as well). FBO gossip would have you believe that dozens of
Tomahawks
have spun in due to unrecoverable spins during training, wheras a review
of
the NTSB reports doesn't show this at all. Instead, it shows that quite
a
few have gone down due to low altitude stalls and/or spins. Anyone who
stalls an airplane in the pattern is looking for trouble, and the
Tomahawk
isn't as forgiving in that regime as a C-152.

Could Piper have done a better job? Certainly. They chose a high
performance
airfoil in an application where it offered more disadvantages than
advantages. Beyond that, they didn't design the tail structure properly,
which led to a series of AD's. Last time I checked, no Tomahawks had
been
lost due to structural failures, which is the other FBO rumor about the
Tomahawk - "the tail will come off"...

KB


So are you saying it is a really great plane,

or a real piece of **** ?


I am glad to read that it on;y stall/spins/kills folks in the pattern
and never during training.

I'll know just when to sell it !
--
Mark Smith
Tri-State Kite Sales
1121 N Locust St
Mt Vernon, IN 47620
1-812-838-6351

The point is that pattern altitude (or less) is a bad place to stall an
airplane. Stall on the base to final turn in all but the most forgiving GA
aircraft and your chances of meeting your maker are pretty good.

KB

On 22 Feb 2005 08:26:41 -0800, wrote:

Stall strips are used to fix a design shortcoming. No engineer
wants to design a wing that stalls sooner than absolutely necessary,
but some wings didn't behave as predicted and the stall strip was meant
to induce stall on the inboard wing areas and get the nose to drop
before the ailerons lost authority. The Tomahawk has a reputation for
some nasty stall/spin behavior, and I imagine the stall strips were
meant to alleviate it somewhat. The Bonanza has them, too. With newer
computer-generated airflow modelling it's easier to spot deficiencies
before the wing is built.

The Bo has both stall strips and wash out, BUT in a stall it is a
"rudder only" airplane.

I see references made to the nose drop. Many aircraft can be held in
a stall without the nose falling. It can be done in the Deb/Bo and it
can be done in a Cherokee with the Hershey bar wing.

HOWEVER there is a marked difference in the way they behave in the
stall. You can hold the Cherokee in a stall and carefully make turns
with the ailerons remaining effective. To say that does not happen in
the Bo would be an understatement.

Holding the Deb/Bo in a stall is like standing on a tight rope that's
not very tight. It's a balancing act done with the rudder and the
ailerons are kept neutral. If there is a general use airplane that
enforces "don't use the ailerons in a stall", it has to be the Bo or
at least the 33s. Forget and use the ailerons and you will get a
chance to put that unusual attitude recovery practice to use.

With practice (and open cowl flaps) you can wobble around in a stall
for quite a while. In a departure stall you can hold a *relatively*
slow rate of descent at full power. Mine does not like partial power
and seems to be a bit more unruly than it is with full, or climb
power.

It is at its nastiest with gear and flaps out. Just stay ahead of the
airplane and it's very predictable even in stalls.

I was doing some checking the other day and found the Deb has a lower
wing loading than a Cherokee 180 and just about half that of a Glasair
III.

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

"Roger" wrote

I was doing some checking the other day and found the Deb has a lower
wing loading than a Cherokee 180 and just about half that of a Glasair
III.

Roger Halstead

I'm not surprised at that, with the Glasair. Fast glass =high loading. I
am surprised at the 180. Less, but close?
--
Jim in NC

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:36:20 -0500, "Morgans"
wrote:


"Roger" wrote

I was doing some checking the other day and found the Deb has a lower
wing loading than a Cherokee 180 and just about half that of a Glasair
III.

Roger Halstead

I'm not surprised at that, with the Glasair. Fast glass =high loading. I
am surprised at the 180. Less, but close?

Very close

The Deb is 16.3, and Arrow is 17 and I'm trying to remember the 180 is
slightly less than the Arrow. The G-III is just under 30. (29
something plus change)

The thing is, you can come in very steep (calculate speed for weight)
with just enough power for energy to flare, plant the mains, lower the
nose, get on the brakes, and haul back on the yoke and that sucker
will surprise you with a very short landing and extremely short roll
out.

Stall with only me, half fuel, gear down and full flaps is only 55
MPH. (That is STEEP!)
Going the other direction with that wing loading and 260HP it'll hit
pattern altitude at, or just past the end of the 3800 foot runway.

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