Mailing List lml@lancaironline.net Message #53234
From: <troneill@charter.net>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] stalling a plane
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:03:31 -0400
To: <lml@lancaironline.net>
Amen to that for Bill.  After  first learning in Cubs and Porterfields and Aeroncas from some WWII jocks in 1946... with many, many stalls from all sorts of entries, and especially right after takeoff... and a few years later after 4 years flying Navy SNJs and P2Vs, I thought I understood stalls.  Then I bought Waco's last plane and began modifying it, and realized I needed to know what it was doing afterwards, so I made myself a simple AOA vane and put it on the left wing in my field of vision.  After spending a hour playing with it in slow flight I learned I didn't really understand the pilot-stall relationship... and had a ball after stallingit to mark the stall angle on the AOA,a nd then flying around for an hour with the wing just a degree or so below stall, and with the wing first stalled and then quickly unstalled, over and over... and in all sorts of attitudes.  And I realized that at high stalled angles I was also stalling the horizontal tail! ... I tufted it to confirm that.  I noted the slow nose-down pitch when the H-tail stalled.  So then I added slots to the H-tail (to delay it's stall another 10-15 degrees) and found I could then get very fast unstalling pitch-dpwn from steep stalls.  It had never occurred to me before about the H-tail stalling.
Anyway, these are a few of my comments about stalling and AOAs,a nd why I have put AOA vanes on every one of my planes since.
On my 235/320 I read all the CAFE and other pro-test pilot reports and noted the slow unstalling reported, so as I was finishing it up (this kit No. 11 with the small tail)  I designed and added my 'spats', which are 2-position slots, to the H-tail, and they seem to preserve the unstalling ability of the H-tail... perhaps at the cost of a few mph cruise.  Still testing both.
I agree with Bill's comments about eh FAA not 'getting it' about stalls, having talked to their guys in local and regional offices, and even to the main safety guy many years ago (under Najeeb Halaby)...  They want a gage to read out on the panel, where you should NOT be looking during base and final approach... and they're not impressed by the Navy' switch to AOAs in 1956, cutting their landing accident rate in half the very first year.
I'mnow  personally leery when flying without an AOA, but with one on the wing don;t think twice about steep banks on final, watching the AOA.  No sweat.
This is probably not of muich interest to the very experienced pilots who know their planes... but maybe the  new guys flying these 'glass slippers' will be interested, and consider adding an AOA.
Terrence
L235/320 N211AL
---- marv@lancair.net wrote:

Posted for "Bill Maddox" <reddog@smwireless.net>:

  
  I see this as a problem not with the plane but the pilots that fly it . Some
  of the past statements that are listed in several of the write inns are
  correct  and some are total bunk . I see a lack of training come from the
  faa instruction in training new students as well . When I left the
  instruction faze of my life I saw the mandates starting to come down to no
  spin training required for students in training around the late 70's . If
  you have a flight instructor that trained you on spins it probably was in
  the 70's or it was an instructor like myself that believed in the whole
  training package to flight . I also see a lot of very low time pilots flying
  these planes . Also pilots that took anywhere from 3 to 8 or more years to
  build and then fly there plane without touching a stick . This is an issue
  that needs to be trained in high performance single engine planes before
  getting into the lancair planes or best train in another lancair . Not to go
  out and rent a 172 and get some re-fresher  I F R  training . I can't
  understand the no brainer of not having an aoa or a stall device in the
  plane . As pilots we were teethed on this device from the start of our
  training and now we get into a clean minimal drag plane without this stall
  devices . I don't understand the thinking of some of you pilots . I wouldn't
  fly a plane without a stall devise in it .Most of you came from 60 k final
  approach planes that don't have the correct approach  speeds that the
  lancair has .
  
   I have stalled every plane I flew . from the C 150 to the B 757 . When you
  try the stalls in your plane you must have a forward cg in your plane and
  prefer it to be on the forward edge of the envelope . I stalled the lancair
  for the first time around  1990 with Don Getz  over Redmond ,Or after
  climbing to 10 k . I stalled it straight ahead in a clean stall with no
  power several times in a row  and several in a turn as well . In all the
  stalls the nose dropped off and I added power and recovered nicely , no
  tight turns just a smooth recovery  . Rudder control was not inputted for it
  wasn't needed This was done in 409L after the new main gear box was put in
  it I believe before the flight .   Rigging the plane correctly is a must as
  stated in previous statements as well . I really think engine out training
  is a must for the lancair as well . Sink rates and picking out a spot for a
  successful landing is essential . . Faa doesn't have a clue and probably
  care less and for them to make statements is not there business . I feel we
  as builders and pilots need to balance our flying and building skills to
  build a better plane and have a proficient pilot in the plane he or she is
  flying and not wait to have a government agency try to tell us something we
  all ready know  Bill
  

--
For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html

Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster