A flat plat stall looks like this (airflow from left to right):
(airflow will now be from right to left)
Deflection is not a force. Deflection changes the angle of the surface with respect to the airflow, changing the effective angle of attack of the surface and as a result changing the lifting force the surface produces.
If the tail is producing a downforce to balance and the downforce goes away the nose will pitch down. Whether or not that's representative of your Cub I can't say.
If you've got the altitude, raising the flaps and lowering the nose (forward stick/yoke) will both reduce tail AOA.
There are slots on Cessna Cardinal stabilators to treat a stabilator stall issue. F-4's had them too. T-45 just got honkin' big strakes (called "SMURFs" for a while)...all to deal with tailplane stall.
Nauga,
and the 'phantom dive'
The slot on a Cardinal stab will *increase* the authority in the nose-up direction.
I don't know of any conventional plane where the empennage does anything else other than push down. There are consequences to stability otherwise. Whether a tail pushes down, or lifts up, a stall would do the same thing as a wing stall: stop providing 'lift', in whatever direction; the nose would drop on a Caravan or a Musketeer or an Ovation.
General aviation *hates* advancement and any kind of technological improvement.. I swear, outside of Garmin we're stuck in the 1950s (at best) technologies
Given that, even if someone had a nice, water-cooled, long lasting, reliable, and light Jet-A burning engine package that would directly replace a 360 four banger, they'd have to certify the engine, and then certify (by STC) its installation in every single airframe into which it would fit. (Note that even for new airplanes and new engines, the airframe/engine package must still be certified, as well)
What's the primary structural material in your Cirrus? Not all advancements are flashy lights and noisemakers, nor are they expensive 'fixes' for corner cases that most will never encounter.
that's part of it, but I also feel like there's a general mindset among the community that what we have now is good enough.. I mean we still have people who don't like glass and prefer analog.. and the Cirrus gets plenty of hate
LOL, I actually had a blurb in there about Cirrus but I have enough of the Fanboy stigma here so decided to remove it.. even that though, outside of many conveniences, has an overall fit and finish and technological relevance as a mid 90s Saturn sedan.. the last generation of the TTx is superior in several ways, including a superior avionics package and little ergonomic conveniences like having digital climate control..
Experimental aviation operates today in the much same fashion as the Wright brothers. I'm not just talking about amateur-built.
I don't cherry pick for a straw man reason.. but to save space and use certain parts as prompts for discussion.. so no harm intended
here's the whole post, quoted..I have long lauded (here, and in general) carbon fiber and composite for it's use as a superior material to metal (in many, though not all, applications).. and Cirrus / Lancair / Diamond / etc., are using it now (and Grumman before). I omitted Cirrus from my post because I'm trying to write fewer posts that cite the plane as perfect.. and kind of to my point everyone who doesn't fly a Cirrus seems to hate it.. because they're "modern"
..and this proves my point, that the way to advancement is to bypass many portions of the regulatory process
The regulatory process is explicitly set up to allow developers to defer parts of the certification process to mature technology. GA airplanes and improvements don't just spring up out of whole cloth and undergo cert.
...while others have viewpoints that differ significantly from yours and choose to not remain silent.
Maybe I'm seeing the past better than it was.. but you had Mooney, Beechcraft, Cessna, Piper, (and more!) putting out all sorts of variations to their product lines and the GA world (for a few decades) seemed to thrive. I wish I was growing up in an era that wasn't forcing people to choose between spending $1M for something modern or fly rental 172s... or buy something with half missing logbooks that's 30 years old.. or embark on the exciting world of EA.. but it is what it is I suppose.. and should I have more money and time EA is where I'll likely be spending my future so I can tinker with my arduino gadgets, etc.
basically. yes. (bolded the part I'm responding to so I can retain your quote in its entirety)