A letter I sent to the Wings Channel

Steve House wrote:

So the whole debate is about whether the instructor in question should have
used the words "adequate lift" instead of just "lift." So how many angels
was it you said could dance on that pinhead?

Beyond the stall, the airplane will begin losing altitude; that much
everyone agrees on. If it were truly "falling", as if the wings were
not there, it would accelerate until it reached terminal velocity (I
believe a speed over 10000 ft/min). That doesn't happen. Instead, the
vertical speed (in a bugsmasher) goes to some considerably smaller value
and sits there. Since the airplane is travelling in a straight line at
constant speed, the wing must not only be producing lift, it must be
producing exactly as much lift as it ever did--namely, the weight of the
plane. (I'm neglecting additional lift from the fuselage, prop, etc. I
think as a first approximation this is legal.)

If lift truly went away at the stall, pilots would *beg* to enter spins,
just to slow the plane down.

Tim

"Todd Pattist" wrote in message
...
[...] Going to zero is not the same as beginning to
decrease any more than being charged 5 bucks is the same as
having your bank account wiped out.

Um, not to be pedantic or anything, but...

IMHO, having my bank account zeroed out when the balance is already negative
would be a *desirable* thing. You seem to be implying otherwise.

"Todd Pattist" wrote in message
...
"Steve House"
wrote:

So the whole debate is about whether the instructor in question should
have
used the words "adequate lift" instead of just "lift." So how many
angels
was it you said could dance on that pinhead?

The difference is like the difference between your bank
saying they just charged you 5 bucks for being overdrawn and
the bank telling you they zeroed your account for being
overdrawn.

Actually I'd prefer the latter. But I get your point: if you had said "went
below minimum balance", the analogy would have worked better!

-- David Brooks

"David Brooks" wrote:

if you had said "went
below minimum balance", the analogy would have worked better!

Good thing I'm not a banker :-)

Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

Tim Bengtson wrote:

Beyond the stall, the airplane will begin losing altitude; that much
everyone agrees on. If it were truly "falling", as if the wings were
not there, it would accelerate until it reached terminal velocity (I
believe a speed over 10000 ft/min). That doesn't happen. Instead, the
vertical speed (in a bugsmasher) goes to some considerably smaller value
and sits there. Since the airplane is travelling in a straight line at
constant speed, the wing must not only be producing lift, it must be
producing exactly as much lift as it ever did--namely, the weight of the
plane. (I'm neglecting additional lift from the fuselage, prop, etc. I
think as a first approximation this is legal.)

If lift truly went away at the stall, pilots would *beg* to enter spins,
just to slow the plane down.

When I owned my Pitts Special, one of the exercises that my aerobatic coach had
me do frequently was precision turns to ground reference headings using nothing
but rudder. What made them interesting was the requirement that the airplane had
to be kept in a fully stalled condition while making those turns, which of course
meant that they were all done during a descent. Clearly there is a significant
amount of lift produced by an airfoil which has exceeded the critical angle of
attack. Whether an aircraft can maintain a certain altitude or attitude beyond
the critical angle of attack is a function of the thrust it can create from its
powerplant.

Going back to the remark made by the instructor (which I didn't catch, although
I've seen a few episodes of the show), I'm not inclined to denounce his
technically inaccurate remark. When you take a five hour student pilot up and
introduce stalls, you must make very basic explanations, sometimes filling in the
blanks later down the line (or later in the lesson.) I doubt that 'Kyle' would
have been ready to listen to a dissertation on aerodynamics at that moment in the
flight.

-Ryan
CFII-A/MEI/CFI-H

Good Letter, my complaint on DW channel, and alot of airshows, hobby shops,
etc..etc..is simple...

Why the obsession with Military stuff? To me it is boring.....stuff I
don't relate to, and not about flying, military planes are for
fighting......the official name of the F-15 on the data plate on the
aircraft and in McD drawings is 'Weapons Platform'....not aircraft...

Give me GA and Transport in equal time with the military stuff....


"AJ" wrote in message
om...
This is the text of a letter I sent to the Programming Department at
the Wings Channel. If you have a comment, please be sure to send a
copy to me in case I miss it on the news group. Thanks.

AJ Harris


The letter:

I appreciate what you are trying to do with the Wings Channel.
However, the programming is becoming repetitive and boring. There's
only so much one wants to hear about the Luftwaffe and Alexei Tupolev.

Personally, I would love to see more about the history of the Powder
Puff Derby, Florence "Pancho" Barnes, the use of Soviet women pilots
during their "Great Patriotic War," the Female pilots of the 46th
Taman' Guards Bomber Regiment, etc.

This should provide enough material for several shows. I hope that
you will consider this and allow the Wings channel to live up to its
promise.

Thank you.

Sincerely, AJ Harris


cc: rec.aviation.piloting
rec.aviation.military

Yossarian wrote:
The student pilot on that show annoys the hell out of me. Instructor
seems pretty good though.

wrote in message
.. .

I do like their new injections of "Learning to Fly" though.

JBaker
PP-ASEL, San Diego

You want annoying? How about that female reporter flying with and
interviewing Worf? (Michael Dorn) She tried so hard to be cute she just
came across as dumb.

--

Darrell R. Schmidt

B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/

Todd Pattist wrote:
"Steve House"
wrote:

So the whole debate is about whether the instructor in question
should have used the words "adequate lift" instead of just "lift."
So how many angels was it you said could dance on that pinhead?

The difference is like the difference between your bank
saying they just charged you 5 bucks for being overdrawn and
the bank telling you they zeroed your account for being
overdrawn. It is a common and fundamental misunderstanding
(that many CFI's share) that lift goes to zero when the wing
stalls. Going to zero is not the same as beginning to
decrease any more than being charged 5 bucks is the same as
having your bank account wiped out.

In the B-58 Huster, due to its swept wing it didn't really stall. Once the
angle of attack became too high it entered high sink rate. You could still
adjust the bank, pitch, etc but if you looked at your vertical speed it was
descending at thousands of feet per minute. In it's "stall" condition the
only was you could get out of it was to lower the nose with full military
power. If altitude didn't permit that you'd have to try lighting all four
afterburners. If one didn't light you were dead (or ejected) but when the
option is crashing anyway it's certainly worth the chance.

At Little Rock I seem to recall we had 4 TB-58s which were early production
test models converted by removing the Navigator station and building an
intructor station behind the pilot. So I actually agree with everybody.
With a straight wing aircraft it is usually taught that lift goes away
during the stall and, while that's an exageration, for practical purposes it
has some value as a teaching tool. But we turn around and teach them stall
recovery technique that acknowledges some lift still coming from the wings
even though in a spin the aircraft is also in a stall. So, in a stall,
there is still some lift although it's somewhat like a group of prostitutes
arguing about their relative virginity.


--

Darrell R. Schmidt

B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 03:13:06 GMT, Ryan Ferguson
wrote:

Tim Bengtson wrote:

Beyond the stall, the airplane will begin losing altitude; that much
everyone agrees on. If it were truly "falling", as if the wings were
not there, it would accelerate until it reached terminal velocity (I
believe a speed over 10000 ft/min). That doesn't happen. Instead, the

With the nose down many would well exceed the 10,000 fpm (120 mph)
which is for the human body in free fall.

You could throw out a sheet of plywood and if you could keep it
positioned perpendicular to the direction of travel it would fall
quite slowly. There might be some lift, but it is mainly drag. The
same thing is true for terminal velocity of a human...bout 120 mph.
Again it's mainly drag that keeps terminal velocity low.

vertical speed (in a bugsmasher) goes to some considerably smaller value
and sits there. Since the airplane is travelling in a straight line at
constant speed, the wing must not only be producing lift, it must be
producing exactly as much lift as it ever did--namely, the weight of the
plane. (I'm neglecting additional lift from the fuselage, prop, etc. I
think as a first approximation this is legal.)

As the plane is not maintaining level flight there would not be quite
that much lift. It may not be accelerating, but it's not holding
altitude. I's hazard a guess and say a good portion of the lift in
the stalled state is actually drag. Maybe not as much as the lift
produced by the wind...but who knows?

I base this on an article on deep stalls . The author stalled either
a Cozy or long eze I believe and actually climbed out on the wing
trying to get it un stalled. He rode it all the way to the water.
He remarked in the article that there was almost no airflow over the
wing and he felt only a slight breeze. The travel was almost vertical
with the plane in a horizontal position. As I recall he wasn't even
hurt.


If lift truly went away at the stall, pilots would *beg* to enter spins,
just to slow the plane down.

At extremely high angles of attack such as 90 degrees as in the above
example the drag is so high the speed never builds up to the point
where the wing is capable of flying. To me the deep stall is much
like an unrecoverable spin, but with a very slow rate of descent. Not
something I'd want to try in anything other than a plane with very
light wing loading.

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


When I owned my Pitts Special, one of the exercises that my aerobatic coach had
me do frequently was precision turns to ground reference headings using nothing
but rudder. What made them interesting was the requirement that the airplane had

I've flown a number of planes where I kept them in a stalled
conditions. The cherokee was one where it was easy to make turns in
the stalled state. The 172 was not bad, but the Deb takes all the
rudder work to just stay upright.

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

to be kept in a fully stalled condition while making those turns, which of course
meant that they were all done during a descent. Clearly there is a significant
amount of lift produced by an airfoil which has exceeded the critical angle of
attack. Whether an aircraft can maintain a certain altitude or attitude beyond
the critical angle of attack is a function of the thrust it can create from its
powerplant.

Going back to the remark made by the instructor (which I didn't catch, although
I've seen a few episodes of the show), I'm not inclined to denounce his
technically inaccurate remark. When you take a five hour student pilot up and
introduce stalls, you must make very basic explanations, sometimes filling in the
blanks later down the line (or later in the lesson.) I doubt that 'Kyle' would
have been ready to listen to a dissertation on aerodynamics at that moment in the
flight.

-Ryan
CFII-A/MEI/CFI-H

"Darrell" wrote in news:E7ZVa.4227$Ye.3686@fed1read02:

You want annoying? How about that female reporter flying with and
interviewing Worf? (Michael Dorn) She tried so hard to be cute she just
came across as dumb.

Oh, yes!!! And Dorn was so wonderfully (and eloquently) in love with
flying, a good reporter would have just shut the heck up and let him talk.
That's the mark of a TRUE professional reporter.

-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------