To Stalls stress the aircraft

SixPapaCharlie

SixPapaCharlie

May the force be with you
Joined
Aug 8, 2013
Messages
16,541
Display Name
Display name:
Sixer
The Cirrus thread got me thinking.

I have not dug deep into what the plane goes through during a stall
I would figure it was somewhere between 0-1 G then maybe a fraction above 1 G on the recovery. I dunno. Just guessing there.

Then Ron mentioned something called a Whip stall which I have yet to google. He stated that that is prohibited. I am guessung that maneuver stresses the airframe or maybe is more likely to put it into a spin? :dunno:

So, two questions I guess:

1. What is with Whip stalls. What are they? Why would they be prohibited?

2. When just out practicing power on / power off stalls are you adding any stress to the airframe beyond normal cruise maneuvers?

Thanks.
 
I like to get some altitude and put the aircraft in a power off stall, then instead of recovering, just ride in and out of the stall maybe 15-20 times. I try to tune my hand so I can just get it into stall and then out with slight pressure. In 20-30 minutes you have done 60-80 stalls, more than most pilots have done in the last 20 years.

I can't do those power on because of the engine temps, but maybe a couple.

Don't forget turning stalls, same deal, easier in bulk.

I don't feel it stresses the aircraft. On the other hand I've seen some landings…
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
The Cirrus thread got me thinking.

I have not dug deep into what the plane goes through during a stall
I would figure it was somewhere between 0-1 G then maybe a fraction above 1 G on the recovery. I dunno. Just guessing there.

Then Ron mentioned something called a Whip stall which I have yet to google. He stated that that is prohibited. I am guessung that maneuver stresses the airframe or maybe is more likely to put it into a spin? :dunno:

So, two questions I guess:

1. What is with Whip stalls. What are they? Why would they be prohibited?

2. When just out practicing power on / power off stalls are you adding any stress to the airframe beyond normal cruise maneuvers?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

1) http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1237 . Basically a high-g pull into a stall, the pull may overstress the plane. Note: whip stalls are not the same as accelerated (turning) stalls or a gentle pull up into a stall. The stall-spin video from the Cirrus thread was an accelerated stall, but not a whip stall.

2) Not if you do them properly. A correctly done stall will have the airplane relieving itself of additional load (by stalling) and regaining flying AOA. The biggest load will be (guesstimate) ~1.2g during the initial pull into the stall.
 
Alexb2000 said:
I like to get some altitude and put the aircraft in a power off stall, then instead of recovering, just ride in and out of the stall maybe 15-20 times. I try to tune my hand so I can just get it into stall and then out with slight pressure. In 20-30 minutes you have done 60-80 stalls, more than most pilots have done in the last 20 years.

I can't do those power on because of the engine temps, but maybe a couple.

Don't forget turning stalls, same deal, easier in bulk.

I don't feel it stresses the aircraft. On the other hand I've seen some landings…
Click to expand...

So if I understand what you are saying on the power off stalls, you don't fully recover, you just get the plane flying at minimums and ease back into the stall and repeat? Yes/No.

I am trying to visualize it because I like the idea!
 
Alexb2000 said:
I like to get some altitude and put the aircraft in a power off stall, then instead of recovering, just ride in and out of the stall maybe 15-20 times. I try to tune my hand so I can just get it into stall and then out with slight pressure. In 20-30 minutes you have done 60-80 stalls, more than most pilots have done in the last 20 years.

I can't do those power on because of the engine temps, but maybe a couple.

Don't forget turning stalls, same deal, easier in bulk.

I don't feel it stresses the aircraft. On the other hand I've seen some landings…
Click to expand...

You are near me.
Take me up and show me this some time.
I am curious to experience this.
 
Basically a Whip Stall is entered from vertical or nearly so when the airplane runs out of momentum it slides backwards until the heavy end (nose) "whips" around. Most airplanes aren't designed to withstand such abuse.
OTOH concerning your question #2, any normal power on/off stalls won't overstress the airplane.
 
The old timers used to put the airplane in a spin if they got stuck on top without radar help. A fully stalled airplane is going as slow as it can go so in a spin they had the safest speed and a fairly safe rate of descent through the clouds.
 
DaytonaLynn said:
So if I understand what you are saying on the power off stalls, you don't fully recover, you just get the plane flying at minimums and ease back into the stall and repeat? Yes/No.

I am trying to visualize it because I like the idea!
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly.

Most CFI's teach a power off stall, full break, big push, hammer the throttle, full recovery. I don't like this for several reasons, one that jumps to mind is that most of us need to learn how to ride just on the edge of stall for a short field landing. That means no hammering the throttle and rough handling of the aircraft (unless its a rental:)). You also don't really ever "feel" the stall in the above.

With plenty of altitude, I like about 5-6k AGL, you can just take it in and out of the stall many times as you come down like a leaf. Many pilots are scared of stalls, of course they won't admit it here, but they are because they don't have the feel. You can keep that stall horn blaring, falling, but still be in control.

I just did that to a Cirrus sales rep on a test flight. He was really surprised when I wouldn't really recover, it's fun to mess with those guys.

SixPapaCharlie said:
You are near me.
Take me up and show me this some time.
I am curious to experience this.
Click to expand...

Love to. Just have to get my bird out of the shop… another thread.
 
Stewartb said:
The old timers used to put the airplane in a spin if they got stuck on top without radar help. A fully stalled airplane is going as slow as it can go so in a spin they had the safest speed and a fairly safe rate of descent through the clouds.
Click to expand...
That worked as long as there was enough space between the base of the clouds and the ground below to complete a spin recovery maneuver. Sometimes there wasn't, then the airport where that pilot was based got its name changed to "Joe Smith Memorial Airport". Quite a few airports got named that way, and that's why we don't teach that method any more and instead require some basic instrument skills as part of the PP-Airplane practical test.
 
I don't remember the term "whip" being used, but by the description of it, I think it was discussed in Stick and Rudder.
 
Just google "Whip Stall" and you'll find a couple of good descriptions. Not really a stall in the normal sense, rather more like a -> point it straight up and go 'til you run out of energy, stop and slide backwards. (not recommended in an airplane that's not certificated in the aerobatic category) :hairraise:
 
looked on youtube and found mostly hang gliders doing it.
 
peerlesscowboy said:
Just google "Whip Stall" and you'll find a couple of good descriptions. Not really a stall in the normal sense, rather more like a -> point it straight up and go 'til you run out of energy, stop and slide backwards. (not recommended in an airplane that's not certificated in the aerobatic category) :hairraise:
Click to expand...

Sounds like a hammerhead. What's the difference?
 
Mason said:
Sounds like a hammerhead. What's the difference?
Click to expand...

In the vid above the aircraft stalls and flops violently forward around the lateral axis. That's a whip stall. In a hammerhead the pilot is actually applying power and kicking in rudder and yawning around the vertical.

Sadly the pilot in that video is now dead.
 
Velocity173 said:
In the vid above the aircraft stalls and flops violently forward around the lateral axis. That's a whip stall. In a hammerhead the pilot is actually applying power and kicking in rudder and yawning around the vertical.

Sadly the pilot in that video is now dead.
Click to expand...

Look at that resume, definition of a guy you never thought could be killed in an aircraft. Cautionary tale for sure.
 
Stalls normaly demonstrated by a qualified CFI , in say a cessna or a champ, decathlon, Stearman ,etc.etc. are very safe and do not in any way harm the airplane. The airplane enters the stall at stall speed, normally 40 or around there so stress is not a factor., nor during recovery which happens when the aircraft starts flying again. It's too bad spin recovery is no longer necessary for a PPL. Very worthwhile.For instance, it shows dramatically , that if you don't fly correctly during time in the pattern, you will die. No time to recover.
 
Last edited:
whip stall?....must be a jet fighter term?...I don't recall that anywhere in the PTS.:dunno:
 
Alexb2000 said:
Look at that resume, definition of a guy you never thought could be killed in an aircraft. Cautionary tale for sure.
Click to expand...

Yep, definitely "best of the best" in his military service.
 
Ron Levy said:
..as long as there was enough space between the base of the clouds and the ground below to complete a spin recovery maneuver. Sometimes there wasn't, then the airport where that pilot was based got its name changed to "Joe Smith Memorial Airport". Quite a few airports got named that way, and that's why we don't teach that method any more and instead require some basic instrument skills as part of the PP-Airplane practical test.
Click to expand...

I just keep trying to squash this mis-conceived idea that the "control by reference to instruments" training required for ppc is supposed to be for "emergency instrument flying".
It is not. If you read the AFH in reference to "control by reference to instruments", the purpose is to develop more precise visual control by cross referencing outside reference with inside reference. Meaning; demo a maneuver by outside ref, then hood on and demo the maneuver by ref to instruments. Then perform the maneuver to it's PTS standard visually, but with the aid of instruments for more precision.
It was never intended to be an introduction to strictly instrument flying.
That concept has become popularized by individual instructors who don't grasp the concept.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
The Cirrus thread got me thinking.

I have not dug deep into what the plane goes through during a stall
I would figure it was somewhere between 0-1 G then maybe a fraction above 1 G on the recovery. I dunno. Just guessing there.

Then Ron mentioned something called a Whip stall which I have yet to google. He stated that that is prohibited. I am guessung that maneuver stresses the airframe or maybe is more likely to put it into a spin? :dunno:

So, two questions I guess:

1. What is with Whip stalls. What are they? Why would they be prohibited?

2. When just out practicing power on / power off stalls are you adding any stress to the airframe beyond normal cruise maneuvers?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

A 'whip stall' as I have heard it denoted was a sloppy snap roll, and they stress the heck out of the tail.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
You are near me.
Take me up and show me this some time.
I am curious to experience this.
Click to expand...

You can do better, do a falling leaf stall. Pull the yoke back into a full stall, and holds it there while you keep the wings level with the rudder. It's some of the best stall practice you get.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
whip stall?....must be a jet fighter term?...I don't recall that anywhere in the PTS.:dunno:
Click to expand...
There are a lot of things you can do with certain types of planes which aren't part of any FAA PTS. You won't find "snap roll" there, either, and you definitely don't do either in a jet fighter unless you want to join the Caterpillar Club. Ditto lomcevak. Nevertheless, all are well-defined maneuvers in the world of acro.
 
nosehair said:
I just keep trying to squash this mis-conceived idea that the "control by reference to instruments" training required for ppc is supposed to be for "emergency instrument flying".
It is not. If you read the AFH in reference to "control by reference to instruments", the purpose is to develop more precise visual control by cross referencing outside reference with inside reference. Meaning; demo a maneuver by outside ref, then hood on and demo the maneuver by ref to instruments. Then perform the maneuver to it's PTS standard visually, but with the aid of instruments for more precision.
It was never intended to be an introduction to strictly instrument flying.
That concept has become popularized by individual instructors who don't grasp the concept.
Click to expand...
You are entitled to that opinion, but the reason the FAA added it to the PP-Airplane requirements was because of the number of non-IR PP's killed by "inadvertent VFR into IMC" accidents.
 
Ron Levy said:
There are a lot of things you can do with certain types of planes which aren't part of any FAA PTS. You won't find "snap roll" there, either, and you definitely don't do either in a jet fighter unless you want to join the Caterpillar Club. Ditto lomcevak. Nevertheless, all are well-defined maneuvers in the world of acro.
Click to expand...
well....there you have it. :yes:
 
nosehair said:
I just keep trying to squash this mis-conceived idea that the "control by reference to instruments" training required for ppc is supposed to be for "emergency instrument flying".
It is not. If you read the AFH in reference to "control by reference to instruments", the purpose is to develop more precise visual control by cross referencing outside reference with inside reference. Meaning; demo a maneuver by outside ref, then hood on and demo the maneuver by ref to instruments. Then perform the maneuver to it's PTS standard visually, but with the aid of instruments for more precision.
It was never intended to be an introduction to strictly instrument flying.
That concept has become popularized by individual instructors who don't grasp the concept.
Click to expand...

There is one major point against your opinion, the FAA upped the hours of hood training required since I got my PP, that wasn't written into the FARs by CFIs.
 
Velocity173 said:
Not a problem. He died in March ferrying that aircraft down to Florida for an air show. Engine failure over the mountains in TN. Nowhere to land.
Click to expand...

Yep. He was scheduled to be at Wings over Waukesha this past August. We dedicated the airshow to him.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Did not know that :(
Click to expand...

Final NTSB report isn't published yet, but my personal supposition is Jim M died or was incapacitated for some reason, THEN crashed. He flew into the side of a mountain in good (or decent enough anyway) weather sitting on a parachute. He was a consummate professional and great guy to be around. Very sad day, that!

Jim
 
Last edited:
Mason said:
Sounds like a hammerhead. What's the difference?
Click to expand...

For a Hammerhead you use the rudder to turn the aircraft around it's vertical axis just before running out of enough airspeed to have the rudder be effective. This (whipstall) is a tailslide and flip around the wings either up or down. (Usually up).

John
 
Henning said:
You can do better, do a falling leaf stall. Pull the yoke back into a full stall, and holds it there while you keep the wings level with the rudder. It's some of the best stall practice you get.
Click to expand...
Totally agree with this. Tons of fun too, especially if you have something with a rudder that stays effective at low speeds.
 
dlsmith said:
Totally agree with this. Tons of fun too, especially if you have something with a rudder that stays effective at low speeds.
Click to expand...

I haven't been in a plane yet that wouldn't do them well. Heck, look at AF447, they did a 3 minute falling leaf stall perfect all the way down, even with a recovery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top