Correct way to pick up the wing in a stall

dmccormack said:
Yep -- full break straight ahead and in turns. As long as ball was centered -- straight ahead.

Radar pod certainly would cause drag on one side.. did it dip in that direction?
Click to expand...

Yep. Right wing dropped.

Ball's centered.
 
OK I gotta add some aerodynamics to this discussion. Both the flaps and the ailerons increase the lift of a wing by increasing the camber of the wing (when deflected downward). That increase in camber also shows up as an increase in the angle of attack. It is possible that by deflecting the aileron you are increasing the angle of attack of the outer portion of the wing beyond the critical angle of attack, in which case that wing will stall before the other wing.

Fortunately the designers of our aircraft work very hard to make sure that a tip stall is difficult. They may add washout (wing twist) or change the shape of the airfoil to prevent the tip from stalling first. Or they may add stall strips to the inboard part of the wing to ensure the center stalls first. Or they can get frisky and put leading edge devices in like on the Swifts.

As Ron pointed out the F-4 was not designed to provide a lot of spin protection and using the aileron to control roll near the critical angle of attack could cause a rapid departure from straight and level. Anything with swept wings will have a very nasty likelihood of tip stall. My aerodynamics text book had a neat diagram showing how the stall progressed along various different wing shapes. I'll see if I can find it.
 
TMetzinger said:
The key lessons learned by doing this:
  • The rudder is still effective even when the main wing is stalled.
  • You can control roll with rudder even when all the ailerons can produce is drag.
  • If you have a roll upset, rudder is as important as aileron in fixing it.
  • Roll affects yaw and vice versa.
  • If you can stop the spin entry before you go past 90 degrees by getting on opposite rudder when the wing drops then as you relax the back pressure you'll already be well on your way to wings-level.
Click to expand...
Thank you for this, this is really helpful. And I have not done these, so I'll ask my instructor if we can. Thanks for the video, too-- made me feel a wee bit green, but I think it's good for me to feel that now and again and move past it. (She said, hopefully).

I appreciate the time you took to type this all out-- it helps me to visualize the manueuver and see the benefits of it.

Thank you!
 
TMetzinger said:
I didn't want Tracey (or anyone else) to decide that this was something they could try out without instruction first.
Click to expand...
Oh boy, no worries there.... :rolleyes: But I thank you for cautioning me.
 
Tracey: With an instructor, in a 172 practice stall recovery, power on/power off. Then, if possible, move into a C-150 and do the same maneuvers. (Ask me how I know.)
It'll be a quick lesson about how different planes fly.

In a 150 my CFI goaded me into "a little more left aileron, a little more." WHOA!
He recovered. "You just learned that a 150 isn't nearly as resistant to a spin as a 172."
I had solo-practiced stall recovery in my 172 many times; never an indication of spin.
But the 150 experience was an awakening.

HR
 
This is why when you get checked out in a new airplane type, the checkout should include enough elements to explore the full performance envelope of the new plane.
 
wabower said:
When it happens you'll understand why they are sometimes described as slippery.
Click to expand...

I've done all the comm maneuvers plus more than a few approaches in over 300 hours in Bonanzas (A36, -35).

It's easy to build up speed if you don't manage the airplane, but the gear is stout and the flaps effective. So pull up the nose, bleed off some speed, see the white arc, drop the gear and flaps -- presto! -- now you're flying a Cessna.

;)
 
Unfortunately, they don't all behave the same.

dmccormack said:
I've done all the comm maneuvers plus more than a few approaches in over 300 hours in Bonanzas (A36, -35).

It's easy to build up speed if you don't manage the airplane, but the gear is stout and the flaps effective. So pull up the nose, bleed off some speed, see the white arc, drop the gear and flaps -- presto! -- now you're flying a Cessna.

;)
Click to expand...
 
dmccormack said:
Hmmm... how heavy is that pod and at what moment?
Click to expand...

If I had to guess on weight, about 50 lbs, about halfway between the center of the plane and the wingtip.

Keep in mind that means also that it's going to reduce the lift of the wing over that portion (roughly a 14" circle).

This is the only Bonanza I've flown. It's consistently dropped the right wing in a full stall with me flying it or the two owners.
 
COFlyBoy said:
OK I gotta add some aerodynamics to this discussion. Both the flaps and the ailerons increase the lift of a wing by increasing the camber of the wing (when deflected downward). That increase in camber also shows up as an increase in the angle of attack. It is possible that by deflecting the aileron you are increasing the angle of attack of the outer portion of the wing beyond the critical angle of attack, in which case that wing will stall before the other wing.

Fortunately the designers of our aircraft work very hard to make sure that a tip stall is difficult. They may add washout (wing twist) or change the shape of the airfoil to prevent the tip from stalling first. Or they may add stall strips to the inboard part of the wing to ensure the center stalls first. Or they can get frisky and put leading edge devices in like on the Swifts.

As Ron pointed out the F-4 was not designed to provide a lot of spin protection and using the aileron to control roll near the critical angle of attack could cause a rapid departure from straight and level. Anything with swept wings will have a very nasty likelihood of tip stall. My aerodynamics text book had a neat diagram showing how the stall progressed along various different wing shapes. I'll see if I can find it.
Click to expand...
Stall_Pattern.gif

Good explanation!
 
TMetzinger said:
This is why when you get checked out in a new airplane type, the checkout should include enough elements to explore the full performance envelope of the new plane.
Click to expand...
Such a shocking observation.

Couldn't agree more! Slow flight, steep turns, emergency procedures, and stalls are all things I want to see myself in a new airplane, and to ask others to do. I did that this weekend in a pair of Huskys. :D

Ryan
 
Gil_mor, adverse yaw will initiate the rotation. Fire the current CFI and go back to the first one; top rudder would be a much better reflex to have.
 
Last edited:
The correct way to pick up the wing in a stall is to............. Unstall it..

Add power... lower nose... pick up airspeed and magically the plane will act normal again.:goofy::goofy:;) :idea:
 
N801BH said:
The correct way to pick up the wing in a stall is to............. Unstall it..

Add power... lower nose... pick up airspeed and magically the plane will act normal again.:goofy::goofy:;) :idea:
Click to expand...

Reverse the order by lowering AoA first. Addition of power in some conditions could aggravate.
 
Ron Levy said:
It's a certification requirement in light planes -- see Part 23 (or the equivalent section of CAR 3). LSA's? :dunno:
Click to expand...
If we talk S-LSAs, they are generally very safe in this regard and incorporate sound design. Most of them are certificated airplanes in other countries, and many are made by companies with extensive heritage (e.g. Tecnam).

On LSA in particular, Icon A5, went through extended revisions in an attempt to create an unspinnable airplane. Their latest, announced in February, is cuffed wing that features a drastically different airflow over the aileron span. Here's a video of stall testing their previous (uncuffed) wing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF1mShri3gs
 
Why 'pick up the wing' in the first place ? Get out of the stall !!

This is one of those academic exercises born out out nonsensical test standards with no relation to reality. What real world situation would require one to fly in a stall for any extent of time AND maintain heading at the same time ?
 
Have we purposely chosen to ignore that OP was practicing stalls (and presumably stall recovery) when this subject arose? If I want to see a recovery from a fully-developed stall during a FR, are you going to reduce AoA?

Jaybird180 said:
Reverse the order by lowering AoA first. Addition of power in some conditions could aggravate.
Click to expand...
 
Jaybird180 said:
Reverse the order by lowering AoA first. Addition of power in some conditions could aggravate.
Click to expand...

That is correct. It was early when I posted... Also I am clouded in my thinking because I have excess HP in my toy..
 
zaitcev said:
If we talk S-LSAs, they are generally very safe in this regard and incorporate sound design.
Click to expand...
They are not certified aircraft under FAA rules.
Most of them are certificated airplanes in other countries,
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but not to Part 23 standards, so you don't know what that certification means.

and many are made by companies with extensive heritage (e.g. Tecnam).
Click to expand...
Again, without standards, there are no expectations. I know what to expect from a CAR 3/Part 23-certified aircraft based on the certification standards. I don't know what to expect from a S-LSA without further research.
 
wabower said:
Have we purposely chosen to ignore that OP was practicing stalls (and presumably stall recovery) when this subject arose? If I want to see a recovery from a fully-developed stall during a FR, are you going to reduce AoA?
Click to expand...
If a wing drops in a stall, it's because you either made an aileron input with your hands or let the nose yaw by not using your feet. Fix whatever's wrong, and the problem will fix itself. If the wing drops because you made an aileron input and all you do is step on the opposite rudder, you are only going to make things worse.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
If a wing drops in a stall, it's because you either made an aileron input with your hands or let the nose yaw by not using your feet. Fix whatever's wrong, and the problem will fix itself. If the wing drops because you made an aileron input and all you do is step on the opposite rudder, you are only going to make things worse.
Click to expand...

Or an out of rig condition. I "knew" one Skyhawk once that always dropped to the same side...
 
weilke said:
What real world situation would require one to fly in a stall for any extent of time AND maintain heading at the same time ?
Click to expand...
There used to be parts of ACM that required that, so many air arms trained to a tailspin exit to a heading as late as 1980s. They may still do it for all I know. The advent of hypermaneuverable missiles reduced the emphasis on that though.
 
zaitcev said:
There used to be parts of ACM that required that, so many air arms trained to a tailspin exit to a heading as late as 1980s.
Click to expand...
I was in tactical jet aircraft from 1973 to 1988, and I never even heard of intentionally stalling, no less spinning, such an aircraft as part of BFM/ACM. Departure from controlled flight in combat was generally considered suicidal (Martin Caidin's silliness about that idea in "Marooned" notwithstaning). What version of TCM 3-1 are you reading?
 
Ron Levy said:
What version of TCM 3-1 are you reading?
Click to expand...
I seem to recall it from reading memoirs, in particular Boris Orlov's (he was most known for being a chief test pilot at MiG in 1980s). I may be misremembering though. I wanted to refer to a teatrise by Mr. Gurevsky, which compared training in particular, but I re-checked just now and he only mentions a maximum allowable altitude loss.
 
zaitcev said:
I seem to recall it from reading memoirs, in particular Boris Orlov's (he was most known for being a chief test pilot at MiG in 1980s). I may be misremembering though. I wanted to refer to a teatrise by Mr. Gurevsky, which compared training in particular, but I re-checked just now and he only mentions a maximum allowable altitude loss.
Click to expand...
Garbled in translation? :dunno: Certainly not anything the USAF or USN/USMC was teaching in the 1970's or 1980's.
 
zaitcev said:
There used to be parts of ACM that required that, so many air arms trained to a tailspin exit to a heading as late as 1980s. They may still do it for all I know. The advent of hypermaneuverable missiles reduced the emphasis on that though.
Click to expand...

And how would that maneuver be relevant to a private, commercial or air traffic pilot operating a normal category aircraft in peacetime ?

If I come out of a stall 30 or 60 degrees off course, it has no relevance to the safety of flight whatsoever. The key is to get out of the stall with minimal loss of altitude, anything else is made up for testing purposes.
 
weilke said:
If I come out of a stall 30 or 60 degrees off course, it has no relevance to the safety of flight whatsoever. The key is to get out of the stall with minimal loss of altitude, anything else is made up for testing purposes.
Click to expand...
I can imagine situations where being 60 degrees off the original heading on recovery could compromise separation from obstructions or other aircraft. Extreme cases, perhaps, but if nothing else, controlling roll and yaw in a stall demonstrates mastery of the aircraft as well as preventing it from degenerating into a spin, and I think both of those are valid safety of flight issues not just "made up for testing purposes."
 
Ron Levy said:
I can imagine situations where being 60 degrees off the original heading on recovery could compromise separation from obstructions or other aircraft. Extreme cases, perhaps, but if nothing else, controlling roll and yaw in a stall demonstrates mastery of the aircraft as well as preventing it from degenerating into a spin, and I think both of those are valid safety of flight issues not just "made up for testing purposes."
Click to expand...

If I am so low that hitting a cell-tower off my course is a concern in a stall, it is imnho more important to get out of the stall asap before I hit the ground. Yes, I think that the cases where tight directional control is critically important are somewhat extreme examples.
 
Having had an "extreme example" happen to me during the dynamic disassembly of an Arrow, I'm glad that I am trained to keep control of the plane. I never stalled it but the behavior of the plane in a stall would have been a mystery due to the obstruction of the left wing.
 
denverpilot said:
Or an out of rig condition. I "knew" one Skyhawk once that always dropped to the same side...
Click to expand...
yep. The 150 I used to own a share in would agressively break to the right unless you held in quite a bit of left rudder.
 
gil_mor said:
Hi all,
One of the things I like the most when working with a different CFI is the different opinions about things.

Today, we did stalls.
As a student I was thought - pick the low wing with the rudder.

CFI: "Use aileron, otherwise you could enter a spin"
Me: "Adding that rudder is will cause the lowered wing to move fwd, get more lift and raise to normal".
CFI: "On 172's the stall starts on the root of the wing, use ailerons.
Me: "You are the CFI, I do as you say.

What do you guys say?
Click to expand...

Current CFI is an idiot, eliminate him from your life before you learn stupid things that'll get you killed that you don't realize are wrong.
 
There's a touch of truth to the CFIs comment - most Cessnas do have some aileron authority down into stall speeds and lower -- but that's a god-awful habit to get into.

Law of Primacy and all that jazz. If you build the habit now it will eventually bite you square in the ass.

No aileron until the nose is down and speed is up. Sheesh.

If the nose was already down and speed building, I might understand the CFI saying its okay to raise the wing with aileron at that point.

Usually all it takes even with full up trim in a power off stall in Cessnas is to release the back pressure you have to hold to remain stalled.

You're now in slow flight with the stall horn blaring. Ailerons are effective in slow flight in most Cessna singles. But gingerly. Gingerly.

I don't like the idea of teaching aileron as a fix for bank when still holding back pressure at all. Bad habit.
 
Since the wing won't drop with the ailerons centered if you don't already have a yaw, don't let the plane yaw near the stall (which you manage with rudder), the wing won't drop, and the issue will be moot.
 
Ron Levy said:
Since the wing won't drop with the ailerons centered if you don't already have a yaw, don't let the plane yaw near the stall (which you manage with rudder), the wing won't drop, and the issue will be moot.
Click to expand...
That's the easiest solution to the problem:D
 
denverpilot said:
There's a touch of truth to the CFIs comment - most Cessnas do have some aileron authority down into stall speeds and lower -- but that's a god-awful habit to get into.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the root stall is only lower with ailerons neutral or aileron forcing wing down. As soon as you add aileron to pick the wing up you increase it's AOA in that area, if it's at the verge of stall application of the aileron causes an unbalanced stall condition across the sides and suddenly that right yoke input drops the left wing directly into a spin.
 
Ron Levy said:
Since the wing won't drop with the ailerons centered if you don't already have a yaw, don't let the plane yaw near the stall (which you manage with rudder), the wing won't drop, and the issue will be moot.
Click to expand...

Sure this is wing-drop prevention, but in this case the CFI was advocating to use aileron as corrective. Face it, some planes drop a wing, and unless you're Sammy Davis, Jr on the rudder pedals it's going to drop. I'd rather not have that habit.

The C-172 is a t-r-a-i-n-e-r; meaning it's designed to instill muscle memory in the pilot. Get it wrong here and it will be a strong link of the chain in the accident later.
 
Question for the CFIs, but it's really just a technicality:

In some trainers, intentional spins are prohibited. One of several good lessons I got was when my CFI did exactly what has been described - slow flight, juuuust above the stall, then apply aileron inputs and cause the unexpected wing to drop. That would set up an incipient spin that would require inputs to correct, but simple enough for a low-time student to handle. The lesson was to show what can happen, and why, at high angles of attack.

At what point does "no intentional spins" become an intentional spin?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top