Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Questions About Stalling  
User currently offlineIFACN From Italy, joined Nov 2005, 153 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 11 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2799 times:

A question for test pilots, from a student pilot that did some stalling practice on a C172 and on a CAP 10: how is stalling an airliner and recovering it from a stall? I dont' mean how to stall it, but what does the pilot experience while stalling and recovering...

Thanks,
A.

55 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline113312 From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (6 years 11 months 5 days ago) and read 2725 times:

Airliners have a stall warning system installed. Most are called a "stick shaker" because the stall warning system activates a device to vibrate the control column/stick. Most airline training for stall entry and recovery involves increasing angle of attack to the first indication of a stall which most often is stick shaker. Since this activates several knots prior to an actual aerodynamic stall, the recovery is begun prior to an actual stalled condition.

Since most stalls would be encountered during low speed operation close to the ground, stall practice and demonstration is usually simulated between 5000 and 10,000 feet in clean configuration, takeoff, and landing configurations and in turns. The standard recovery is to add maximum thrust and accelerate out of the stall with minimum or zero loss of altitude.

While it might be valuable to train and practice high altitude stalls or full aerodynamic stalls and recoveries without power, these are rarely done by the airlines.


User currently offlinePilotboi From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 2366 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2688 times:

Quoting 113312 (Reply 1):
Most are called a "stick shaker" because the stall warning system activates a device to vibrate the control column/stick.

A note: the reason airliners use stick shakers is because unlike a C172 or other small aircraft that physically shake while stalling, an airline will not do this. In fact, an airline won't even 'correct itself' like a C172. If you've ever tried it - you can stall a C172, and simply let go...and it will correct itself. But airliners will not, and will stay at the same angle of attack. So the stick shaker lets the pilot know that he must do something to correct the situation. If not corrected, the plane will start to descend and literally 'fall out of the sky', but the nose will still point up. If left uncorrected even further, a spin could be induced, making the situation even worse. So moral of all that...when flying an airliner and the stick is shaking - fix it!


User currently offlineTb727 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1588 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2602 times:

We practice stalls in the plane when we are doing initial training and doing our recurrent and upgrade checkrides in our jets. I am a training Captain on the Falcon 20 and we don't have a stick shaker system but we do have a stall warning system that has a warning beep and in certain configurations the Air Ignitors fire automatically along with the beep. Usually the controls get mushy and you get the horn and recover. Sometimes with a forward CG with not much fuel on board it is nearly impossible to get a good stall out of the plane for training purposes. It's a very easy recovery in a jet, just push the throttles up and fly your profile and recover. What we practice is a clean stall, an approach stall with Gear Down and 25 degrees of flaps in which we recover and stay in that config, and then a landing stall with Gear down, 40 degrees of flaps with recovery to clean configuration. The airplane will fly surprisingly slow for a midsize jet in the 20,000+ pound range, I've seen about 100 KIAS, maybe upper 90's when we hit the stall. On the other hand, the Learjet has a stick shaker system and stick pusher and I hate it!


Too lazy to work, too scared to steal!
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9612 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2595 times:

I have seen videos of 777s and 747s stall which is really interesting. The nose falls, but it does not fall anywhere as much as a Cessna. You can see the tail shaking and vibrating near the stall speed. Full thrust and a level nose attitude gets out of the stal.

A Boeing plane takes somwhere near 70lbs of force on the yoke to stall the plane, so it is a lot of work to stall to begin with. Airbus planes will not allow the pilot to stall them. Airbus planes will increase power and lower the nose on their own if they are near a stall instead of use the stick shacker that Boeing uses. This is the difference in the philosophies of the two different companies.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offline411A From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1826 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2580 times:

Quoting Pilotboi (Reply 2):
the reason airliners use stick shakers is because unlike a C172 or other small aircraft that physically shake while stalling, an airline will not do this. In fact, an airline won't even 'correct itself' like a C172. If you've ever tried it - you can stall a C172, and simply let go...and it will correct itself. But airliners will not, and will stay at the same angle of attack. So the stick shaker lets the pilot know that he must do something to correct the situation. If not corrected, the plane will start to descend and literally 'fall out of the sky', but the nose will still point up.


All very interesting, Pilotboi, and from your comments you seem to have actually fully stalled a jet airliner?
Yes?

If, not, what are your references?

Now, I HAVE fully stalled two types of jet transport aircraft during acceptance flights, the B707 and the L1011.
Oddly enough, neither behaved as you described.
Different types behave differently, of course.

Gosh, what an absolute surprise.

[Edited 2007-10-02 03:45:52]

User currently offlinePilotboi From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 2366 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2573 times:

Quoting 411A (Reply 5):
All very interesting, Piloiboi, and from your comments you seem to have actually fully stalled a jet airliner?
Yes?

If, not, what are your references?

Nope, not at all. (Other then FS)

My references are my professors.   ERAU doesn't just give you a license remember.  

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 4):
Airbus planes will increase power and lower the nose on their own if they are near a stall instead of use the stick shacker that Boeing uses. This is the difference in the philosophies of the two different companies.

This is why there is that famous Airbus crash into the forest.

[Edited 2007-10-02 03:46:19]

User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17030 posts, RR: 67
Reply 7, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2551 times:

Quoting Pilotboi (Reply 6):
Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 4):
Airbus planes will increase power and lower the nose on their own if they are near a stall instead of use the stick shacker that Boeing uses. This is the difference in the philosophies of the two different companies.

This is why there is that famous Airbus crash into the forest.

No. The causes of the Mulhouse crash don't have a lot to do with stall characteristics, although the behavior during the final stages of flight is strongly influenced by the stall protection on the aircraft. The stall protection on the aircraft prevented a stall. And so the plane crashed wings level. The crash itself was unavoidable more or less from the time the pilots started the flypast.

A Boeing product flown into the same low energy, low power, low altitude situation would also have crashed. However, it probably would have stalled before hitting the ground. A difference in detail at most.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinePilotboi From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 2366 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2529 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 7):
A Boeing product flown into the same low energy, low power, low altitude situation would also have crashed. However, it probably would have stalled before hitting the ground. A difference in detail at most.

This is correct. I say we blame it on the pilot's thinking that their aircraft was capable of doing anything.  Silly


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2473 times:

Quoting Pilotboi (Reply 8):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 7):
A Boeing product flown into the same low energy, low power, low altitude situation would also have crashed. However, it probably would have stalled before hitting the ground. A difference in detail at most.

This is correct. I say we blame it on the pilot's thinking that their aircraft was capable of doing anything.

Pilotboi, I must agree with 411A. I have done numerous acceptance flights on 757/747/747-400 aircraft and they are no where near what you describe.

In fact, during the acceptance flights the stick shaker c/b is pulled (both systems). Next you go into the performance data with the gross weight and altitude. You then come up with an initial buffett speed. The tolerance is +1/-0 KIAS. A stalled aircraft if you let go of the controls will do exactly as a 172 will do, it's trimmed for that speed and it will seek it. Now in a fully developed aft stick stall, you're correct. But Airliners don't do those kind of stalls because of the damage that would be caused by the violend airframe buffetting!


Now if you're talking about the same type of stall training that occurs in GA, then the characteristics are much the same be it a 150/727/747400. 411A has it correct!

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 7):
No. The causes of the Mulhouse crash don't have a lot to do with stall characteristics, although the behavior during the final stages of flight is strongly influenced by the stall protection on the aircraft. The stall protection on the aircraft prevented a stall. And so the plane crashed wings level. The crash itself was unavoidable more or less from the time the pilots started the flypast.

I disagree. The major cause of the crash was the crew's lack of knowledge of the flight control systems. The aircraft did what exactly it was asked to do. A secondary cause was the lack of spool up by the CFM which was addressed in a later mod.


User currently offlineBellerophon From United Kingdom, joined May 2002, 583 posts, RR: 59
Reply 10, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2448 times:

Pilotboi

...My references are my professors. ERAU doesn't just give you a license remember....

I should check your notes, and then, if you have correctly reported what they said, I would recommend changing classes or school, because what you've reported them as saying is inaccurate.

Like others, I speak from experience, having stalled 3 and 4 engined jets on air tests.

Regards

Bellerophon


User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17030 posts, RR: 67
Reply 11, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2445 times:

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 9):

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 7):
No. The causes of the Mulhouse crash don't have a lot to do with stall characteristics, although the behavior during the final stages of flight is strongly influenced by the stall protection on the aircraft. The stall protection on the aircraft prevented a stall. And so the plane crashed wings level. The crash itself was unavoidable more or less from the time the pilots started the flypast.

I disagree. The major cause of the crash was the crew's lack of knowledge of the flight control systems. The aircraft did what exactly it was asked to do. A secondary cause was the lack of spool up by the CFM which was addressed in a later mod.

I don't think we disagree in substance. I think you are saying that the major cause was the crew not being sufficiently well trained/aware of the stall protection characteristics. Putting it that way, of course stalling characteristics (or lack of them) have a lot to do with it. I expressed myself imprecisely.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2546 posts, RR: 24
Reply 12, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2438 times:

Quoting Pilotboi (Reply 6):
My references are my professors. ERAU doesn't just give you a license remember.

I think your professors need educating. Most airliners stall like any other conventional aircraft, complete with accompanying buffet.

The stick shaker ("STALL STALL" audio warning for FBW Airbus) is there to give the pilot advance warning of an impending stall. Stick shake speed is a few knots higher than stall speed itself. Buffet will inevitably also occur, it's an aerodynamic certainty.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 9):
Now in a fully developed aft stick stall, you're correct. But Airliners don't do those kind of stalls because of the damage that would be caused by the violend airframe buffetting!

I'm not sure why you qualified your post with that comment. Have you experienced a full stall in such an aircraft? I have seen many flight test traces from airliner full stall tests and most Boeings, certainly the 747-200 and 747-400, exhibit strong nose down pitch at stall with full aft stick, from over 10 deg nose up (AOA over 20) thru zero to beyond 10 deg nose down. Not something you would do on an acceptance flight or in normal operation I entirely agree. However the test aircraft survived the buffet to fly another day. Most training, even in the simulator, is to initial buffet only, sometimes only to stick shaker activation.

However, Airbus aircraft such as the A300 and A320 do tend to "mush" more at full stall from the data I have seen. Very much harder to identify the stall speed (a simulator qualification requirement) without a significant g break or nose drop to mark it. Any g break there is is masked by the stall buffet normal acceleration. Maybe they don't have the elevator authority to fully stall the aircraft in the condition flown?

There is no point in putting a revenue earning aircraft through the punishment of a full stall even on acceptance, but flight test aircraft must be for certification.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2422 times:

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 12):
I'm not sure why you qualified your post with that comment. Have you experienced a full stall in such an aircraft? I have seen many flight test traces from airliner full stall tests and most Boeings, certainly the 747-200 and 747-400, exhibit strong nose down pitch at stall with full aft stick, from over 10 deg nose up (AOA over 20) thru zero to beyond 10 deg nose down. Not something you would do on an acceptance flight or in normal operation I entirely agree. However the test aircraft survived the buffet to fly another day. Most training, even in the simulator, is to initial buffet only, sometimes only to stick shaker activation.

First of all, you have your training slightly wrong. Training is to stick shaker, not to initial buffet. Initial buffet, is, in straight and level unaccelerated flight, many knots lower than the stick shaker activation (in reality it's AOA).

As to your comment about my qualied remarks, it's because it's true. During an aircraft's certification it's brought to a complete stall. I am sure aware any swept wing aircraft will when in a fully developed stall have very similar characteristics. I remember teaching pilots to be instructors in the T-38 and doing a full aft stick stall, the VSI was begged at 6000' fpm descending and the ailerons were totally useless, but you could still do a rudder roll. The demo was to show controlability even in that flight regeim. In a swept wing aircraft with pylon mounted engines, there is considerable side loading on the pylons during an aft stick stall and there is a maintenance check required. Again, my point was to point out it's not something airliners do on a routine basis. I have taken a 727/747/747400 to a full stall and it's not something very pleasant to ride through.

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 12):
I think your professors need educating. Most airliners stall like any other conventional aircraft, complete with accompanying buffet.

The stick shaker ("STALL STALL" audio warning for FBW Airbus) is there to give the pilot advance warning of an impending stall. Stick shake speed is a few knots higher than stall speed itself. Buffet will inevitably also occur, it's an aerodynamic certainty.

Again, I disagree. In straight and level flight you will reach stick shaker long before you reach initial buffet. While in an accelerated stall you will probably get buffet first. Your comments about airlines stall like other conventional aircraft is true but their stall characteristiics are entirely different.


User currently offline9VSIO From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 716 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2420 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Do they still put stick-pushers on a/c?

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 13):
I have taken a 727/747/747400 to a full stall and it's not something very pleasant to ride through.

Can you take me up for it?  tongue  I remember once speaking to a flight test engineer who told me he always brought along an extra set of pants for the deep stall test on a C-130.  vomit 

[Edited 2007-10-02 15:25:23]


Me: (Lining up on final) I shall now select an aiming point. || Instructor: Well, I hope it's the runway...
User currently offlineBhill From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 966 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days ago) and read 2386 times:

Curious, "Most airline training for stall entry and recovery involves increasing angle of attack to the first indication of a stall ", I am not a pilot, but why would increasing the AOA help in a stall? I thought the the idea was to return to a laminar flow of air over the wing, not to increase the turbulent flow...no?

Thanks



Carpe Pices
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 42
Reply 16, posted (6 years 11 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2363 times:

Quoting Bhill (Reply 15):
but why would increasing the AOA help in a stall?

Just a wild guess from an armchair fan: perhaps it's not supposed to help but to cause...

Quoting Bhill (Reply 15):
stall entry

... so that stall recovery training can begin.  Smile


User currently offlineFlexo From St. Helena, joined Mar 2007, 406 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 11 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2357 times:

What about deep stalls? I heard that T-tailed aircraft are almost impossible to recover once they enter a deep stall.
Has anyone experience there?


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 42
Reply 18, posted (6 years 11 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2345 times:

Quoting Flexo (Reply 17):
What about deep stalls? I heard that T-tailed aircraft are almost impossible to recover once they enter a deep stall.
Has anyone experience there?

Wasn't it precisely the deep stalls of T-tails that brought about the stick-shaker? Prototypes of the HS Trident and BAC 1-11 crashed due to to deep stalls.


User currently offlineFlightShadow From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 966 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (6 years 11 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2297 times:

Quoting Bhill (Reply 15):
I am not a pilot, but why would increasing the AOA help in a stall?

I'm no pilot either, but I'd like to submit a guess.

Is it because increasing the AOA will help maintain altitude for a short time, allowing for the engines to spool up? As the engines start to produce increased thrust, the laminar flow over the wing increases and the AOA can be decreased again. That way, you've avoided the stall with minimal altitude loss.

Again, that's just my guess - and I'm still kinda rusty on the terminology.



"When the tide goes out, you can tell who was skinnydipping."
User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 20, posted (6 years 11 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2292 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 4):
Airbus planes will increase power and lower the nose on their own if they are near a stall instead of use the stick shacker that Boeing uses. This is the difference in the philosophies of the two different companies.

What about non-FBW Airbus aircraft (the A300/A310). Do those have a stickshaker as well?


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 21, posted (6 years 11 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2276 times:

Quoting Flexo (Reply 17):
What about deep stalls? I heard that T-tailed aircraft are almost impossible to recover once they enter a deep stall.
Has anyone experience there?

I've never done it myself. If you stall deep enough (your AoA increases too far) the wing blankets the tail and you loose most of your pitch control authority. It should, theoretically, be recoverable but it would be harder than a recovery when you still have clean flow over the tail.

Quoting FlightShadow (Reply 19):
Quoting Bhill (Reply 15):
I am not a pilot, but why would increasing the AOA help in a stall?

I'm no pilot either, but I'd like to submit a guess.

Is it because increasing the AOA will help maintain altitude for a short time, allowing for the engines to spool up?

If you've stalled, increasing AOA will not help maintain altitude. A stalled wing looses a lot of lift...you are now much more like an anchor than a bird. Priority numero uno in a stall is to restore flow over the wings...that means get the nose down and the speed up.

Quoting FlightShadow (Reply 19):
As the engines start to produce increased thrust, the laminar flow over the wing increases and the AOA can be decreased again.

Thrust level doesn't have any direct connection to flow over the wing. Flow also doesn't have to be laminar...a turbulent flow over the wing produces lift just fine. Turbulent and separated are very different things.

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 20):
What about non-FBW Airbus aircraft (the A300/A310). Do those have a stickshaker as well?

Yes. In aircraft with direct cable connection between the tail and the yoke, turbulence from the wing as it approaches stall will hit the elevators, which you'll feel as shaking in the stick. The electronic stick shaker mimics this phenomenon in aircraft that don't have feedback to the yoke, or where it's inadequate to provide sufficient warning to the pilot.

Tom.


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 42
Reply 22, posted (6 years 11 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2273 times:

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 20):
Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 4):
Airbus planes will increase power and lower the nose on their own if they are near a stall instead of use the stick shacker that Boeing uses. This is the difference in the philosophies of the two different companies.

What about non-FBW Airbus aircraft (the A300/A310). Do those have a stickshaker as well?

As far as I'm aware, stick "shakers" and stick "pushers" are different things - a "shaker" is a warning while a "pusher" takes pre-emptive, corrective action. You can have one without the other... again, as far as I'm aware. I was also under the impression that stick pushers pre-date FBW in airliners by several years. I'm thinking early T-tail jets again - i.e. I didn't think it was a FBW v. non-FBW issue. Obviously, an expert will need to clarify.


User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17030 posts, RR: 67
Reply 23, posted (6 years 11 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2254 times:

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 20):
What about non-FBW Airbus aircraft (the A300/A310). Do those have a stickshaker as well?

Yes.

Quoting David L (Reply 22):
I was also under the impression that stick pushers pre-date FBW in airliners by several years.

Yes.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineBAe146QT From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2006, 996 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (6 years 11 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2216 times:

Quoting David L (Reply 22):
As far as I'm aware, stick "shakers" and stick "pushers" are different things - a "shaker" is a warning while a "pusher" takes pre-emptive, corrective action.



Quoting David L (Reply 18):
Wasn't it precisely the deep stalls of T-tails that brought about the stick-shaker? Prototypes of the HS Trident and BAC 1-11 crashed due to to deep stalls.

Unless I am very much mistaken - and let's face it, it wouldn't be the first time - I was under the impression that the stick pusher was brought in for the reason you state (for the stick skaker) in post 18.

Assuming you have chosen to ignore the stick shaker, (or it's broken...) the aircraft noses over to avoid getting into an attitude where airflow over the high elevator is blocked by the "shadow" of the wing which, as was inadvertantly yet neatly demonstrated by Stanley Key, may well be totally unrecoverable.



Todos mis dominós son totalmente pegajosos
25 Flexo : I am sorry but I am not familiar with the example you stated, what exactly did he demonstrate and with what outcome?
26 Post contains images David L : Ditto... ... and diitto. There just seemed to be some confusion between stick-shakers and stick-pushers.
27 Post contains images Dufo : Stick shaker feels pleasant but don't get in front of the yoke (how could that happen?) when the pusher kicks in Speaking from EMB120 experience..
28 Jetlagged : Depends on aircraft type. For example on the A300B4 they go to buffet at one flap angle (I forget which), only to shaker at others. On a 747/744 at f
29 Post contains images IFACN : Did it with my instructor. He called it "pilotless stalling" Stall it, don't touch the commands, don't apply any power and it recovers (loosing about
30 Ex52tech : When I went to Airbus school we discussed that crash at length. The pilot wasted precious seconds waiting for the auto throttles to bring the power b
31 Starlionblue : Indeed. As you say, he was too low in any case. I guess my point is that any protection systems became academic once the aircraft had been flown into
32 Post contains links Viscount724 : Some deep stall and stick-shaker/pusher history here. http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Concept2Reality/deep_stall.html The complete NASA document has go
33 PhilSquares : Sorry not true, since my background it in flight test both in the military and commercial side. I was involved in the 744 certification and have done
34 Ex52tech : Yeah, that is what I meant. The "old / bold pilot" saying plays in here. I would have been impressive if he had pulled it off.[Edited 2007-10-07 01:4
35 Post contains images David L : It's amazing how differently that story is related by those who know what they're talking about compared to those who've only seen the video on YouTu
36 Starlionblue : Indeed (again). But the accident was a blessing in disguise in many ways. It made it perfectly clear to any pilot transitioning to a FBW Airbus produ
37 Jetlagged : Apologies, I had no idea you were involved in test flying. But I still have the objective evidence in front of me......
38 BAe146QT : He demonstrated that if you ignore repeated warnings from the stick pusher and allow a Trident to get into a deep stall, you'll likely auger in. The
39 Starlionblue : IIRC he was also well known as being a hard-ass who didn't take kindly to juniors disputing his authority in any way.
40 BAe146QT : Yessir, I believe that has been said of him. In fairness though, (obviously I never met him), it would probably be kinder to say that he was a produc
41 Post contains images David L : That would be interesting. I'm guessing, among other things, a feeling that the bottom has fallen out of your world... and vice versa.
42 BAe146QT : "So imagine you've had a murgh phall from the worst curry house you can think of. Now imagine you've drunk a pint of saltwater afterwards..." Mate -
43 Post contains images Starlionblue : Many accounts of combat show this phenomenon, especially before the 20th century. Imagine marching slowly forward in a packed formation towards an ar
44 IFACN : No apologies needed, all of the above discussion is really interesting to me, expecially the human factor considerations. A.
45 IFACN : Speaking of T-tail: I've recently seen some ultralight aircraft (don't ask me make or models) equipped with T-tails and wondered how they'll behave in
46 BAe146QT : It's funny, because those are the aspects of flying that tend to least interest hobbyists or people with a casual interest in aviation. Ironic when y
47 RedFlyer : Fascinating post, PhilSquares. I gotta ask: what was the minimum altitude for performing stalls on a beast like the 744? Also, was anyone else on boa
48 BAe146QT : Many thanks, Red. Nice of you to say so. The trouble is that taking an action without assessing a situation can make it worse, though how much worse
49 IFACN : I'm always interested in understanding the man-machine interaction and how the 4M (mission, meteo, man, machine) are the key points to a safe flight.
50 9VSIO : I'm suprised they gave the elevator enough authority for a deep stall to develop!
51 PhilSquares : Our SOP was not below FL 200. The most exciting ride was an accelerated clean stall. It's not quite a dramatic as you would think. The development in
52 RedFlyer : Good analysis and you're probably right. Their minds were stuck either in #1 or passing through #2; obviously they were not yet to #4. I seem to reca
53 Post contains links BAe146QT : Passing through #2 would require them to realise/notice that Key was unresponsive. His condition may not have been obvious, since not all heart attac
54 9VSIO : quick question - what actually causes the buffet? Why does it sometimes happen and sometimes doesn't (on a 172). Is it just due to the way the airflow
55 Tdscanuck : The wing doesn't stall at once...it starts in some places first. This causes turbulence as various parts of the wing flow separate and reattach. That
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Questions About Stalling
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Stalling Speed posted Mon Jan 7 2002 22:15:26 by Turbotrent
Stalling An Engine? posted Tue May 15 2001 04:32:46 by Bio15

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format