On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 23:50:06 +0000 (UTC), Clark <***@uswest.net>
wrote:
<snip>
Post by ClarkPost by Roger (K8RI)I wish they'd teach this in a more general manner. IE, get the wing
flying again using pitch, power, or both. I say that as going full
power in more advanced aircraft can cause them to basically roll over.
Actually they'll come around sideways and roll over. I know mine will
if you abruptly go full power in an approach stall.
Oh, I don't know 'bout teaching it more general. With power on then a pitch
change is required to get flying again. With power off then power is added
along with the immediate pitch change to get out of the stall. The range of
required responses is covered. Now your question seems to be whether or not
the average pilot understands and can apply the range of responses.
My only point is many students and pilots never get beyond the
"mechanical" phase of flying, rather than the old "seat of the pants"
flying. They get conditioned that what they learned in primary
training is the only way to do things and it does work with docile
trainers.
Post by ClarkOn the other hand, when ya move to high performance or are doing an
aircraft check-out then the stall series should be instructive as to the
new ways the aircraft can jump.
Should be is the operative here. In my checkout the first approach
stall ended up with us rolling nearly inverted. I just rolled it back,
but after that the instructor would only do imminent stalls. So after
I was turned loose, I spend an hour and a half doing nothing but full
stalls, (app, dep, and acc). Well, I did get to practice my unusual
attitude recovery a few times early on <:-))
Post by ClarkPost by Roger (K8RI)Post by ClarkOf course a power reduction would be made after the recovery is complete
and the desired altitude had been achieved. Maybe that's the power
reduction you were typing of...
I had a bi-ennual flight review where the instructor insisted that on
a balked landing I immediately go full power. I explained the problem
but as he'd only been flying 150's, 172's and Cherokees he didn't
believe me so I took him up to altitude and it only took once to
convince him. Another pilot told me he had the same problem with an
instructor in a Mooney with the big engine.
Most of us don't do our training in more advanced aircraft, but I know
of some who did their primary training in an A36 Bonanza and one in a
Glasair III. Other than being unforgiving in stalls with gear and
flaps down and the abrupt application of full power at slow speeds the
Bo is very docile with the same wing loading as a Cherokee. It's just
that things happen faster. The Glasair III OTOH is like taking your
training in a P-51. Same wing loading (almost 30# per sq ft) and
pretty much similar speeds. Pull the engine to idle and you'll see
the VSI on the far side of 2000 fpm.
Just as you point out that high performance aircraft can teach us a lot,
the low performance ones teach us other tricks. Learning how to get the
worn-out 172 climbing again after an approach stall at high density
altitude is a pretty good lesson in planning ahead and patients.
So is a Bonanza loaded to gross on a very hot and humid day. <:-))
They aren't nearly as forgiving in those conditions as the old,
clapped out 172 or Cherokee which is very forgiving.
A Bo took off from Gaylord MI some years back, loaded to the gills
with 4 guys (Execs from a major corporation down state),4 sets of golf
clubs and other paraphernalia. They must have been well over gross
and on top of that the temperature was well above normal with gusty
winds. The airport attendant described it as looking too overloaded to
taxi. They barely got it into the air on a strip that comfortably
handles DC-9s. They started a turn in those gusty winds while hanging
on the edge of a stall at roughly 200 feet. No survivors.
Post by ClarkPost by Roger (K8RI)Post by ClarkOf course different instructors teach it different ways and use
different terms.
Often there two problems. Ingrained habits, and instructors who are
not familiar with the finer points of the particular make and model
being flown. Add to that, some of them refuse to do full stalls in
the high performance aircraft. At the ABS/ASF Bo specific training
one year, out of 63 pilots, only three of us had ever done full stalls
in the Bo. Only 2 had done accelerated stalls and only one still
practiced them.
I've let a lot of pilots fly the Deb who were thinking of moving into
high performance. All were impressed and some moved on into high
performance retracts. Most changed their minds after I demonstrated
one approach stall. I couldn't even get them to try it with me
following through or showing that you could (with practice) hold it in
the stall, making corrections with rudder only. Departure stalls are
quite benign as are accelerated stalls from coordinated flight.
The Deb warns you with one hard bump followed by an abrupt nose drop
to near level. Just ease off on the back pressure and it'll continue
flying. Don't ease off and the next bump is followed by a very sharp
break with the nose dropping steeply and the left wing dropping . This
takes immediate and lots of right rudder while keeping the ailerons
neutral or it will spin.
Those who quit were invariable those who still flew mechanically. IOW,
they have to think each procedure through, sep-by-step such as, The
engine stopped, now I need to lower the nose, and so on. They
couldn't get past the steps they had learned doing stalls in trainers
and I think most of them still flew all stabilized patterns. IOW there
was no flexibility in their approach to flying. (no pun intended)