Damn the ball, just keep the wings level

PaulS said:
it's funny how the training kicks in when you need it.
Click to expand...
Good training kicks in when you need it.

Bad training kicks in when you need good training to kick in.

I’ve seen way more of both than I care for.:eek:
 
MauleSkinner said:
I’ve found that when people talk about the wing being “unloaded”, you pretty much have to ignore that part of the conversation because different people use the term differently, and most can’t explain what it means the way they use it.
Click to expand...

If the airplane's flight path is level or descending or climibing at a steady rate, the wing is not unloaded. You have to push over into an increasingly steeper dive to unload the wing. In other words, an accelerating descent. And you can't maintain that, so forget about "unloading" the wing in a turn.

There's a dangerous amount of misunderstanding with that.
 
My instructor showed me spins on the second lesson (OK, he was a little crazy, but then again he did end up being my roommate). Just because a wing drops during a stall doesn't mean you're spinning, it's just something that needs correction.
 
ARFlyer said:
Low wing recovery in a stall using ailerons is almost a sure way of learning about spin recovery.
Click to expand...

You mean spin entry. And even there many airplanes will forgive the use of ailerons in the stall. The washout, and sometimes stall strips or airfoil changes along the span, will do that. Differential aileron travel also figures into it, where the aileron goes down a lot less than it goes up. The outboard section of the wing often never stalls. The inboard stalls enough that the remainder can't support the airplane and the nose drops.

So a guy learns to fly in a 172, which is reluctant to spin. He thinks he's competent. He buys an affordable airplane, an old Champ or something like that, and finds out, maybe on his last flight, that he's not competent at all. It doesn't forgive the nonsense he was allowed to get away with in the 172. That's why we used Citabrias as well as 172s, to increase competency and awareness.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I’ve found that when people talk about the wing being “unloaded”, you pretty much have to ignore that part of the conversation because different people use the term differently, and most can’t explain what it means the way they use it.
Click to expand...
Yep, and in some cases it makes no sense. Presumably unloaded means less than the normal G's for the manouver, but even in the poster's example, just lowering the nose doesn't necessarily unload anything.

But understand just like airspeed, G's are not the cause nor indication of stall. It's purely AOA.
 
flyingron said:
My instructor showed me spins on the second lesson (OK, he was a little crazy, but then again he did end up being my roommate). Just because a wing drops during a stall doesn't mean you're spinning, it's just something that needs correction.
Click to expand...

Yep, so many think wing drops are incipient spin entries and that if you don't immediately correct the wing drop, you'll enter a spin. Folks with no spin experience can be unnecessarily fearful of stalls because they are also fearful of the spin they think is lurking just below the surface waiting to bite them at a moment's inattention. It's not really the case normally. This is why I can't understand those who dismiss the value of spin training. If nothing else it'll show you the reality of these situations and make you a less fearful pilot. You can't fly with much skill if you're flying scared.
 
flyingron said:
The asymmetric condition is what is likely got the spin to start in the first place. You want the AOA on the wings to be the same and reduced while you stop the rotation with the rudder. You also want to remove energy from the system for a couple of reasons, so you close the throttle.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood my comment.
 
Wing drop doesn't mean spin, but improper correction of a wing drop can mean a spin.
 
Dan Thomas said:
But the Ercoupe won't stall, so ailerons are fine, especially if that's all you have.
Click to expand...

One of the oddest maneuvers I ever had to learn was the Ercoupe version of the slip.
Pull the nose up and rock the wings using the ailerons. The plane will drop like a rock.
It took a while before I could do it and breathe at the same time.
 
Last edited:
Dan Thomas said:
If the airplane's flight path is level or descending or climibing at a steady rate, the wing is not unloaded.
Click to expand...
So "unloaded" to you means the wing is generating zero lift. What do you call the process of getting the wing from "loaded" to "unloaded."
 
Lindberg said:
So "unloaded" to you means the wing is generating zero lift. What do you call the process of getting the wing from "loaded" to "unloaded."
Click to expand...
Dumb? "Load" is what turns the plane. It's the result of deflecting the flight path with lift from the wing. Turning by banking is defeated by then "unloading" the very factor causing the desired turn.
 
Last edited:
I’ve never known “unload” to be limited to only zero G.

It’s obvious the original post about unloading was in error, the nose being below the horizon has nothing to do with load factor in the way he described it. But what he described is easily understandable. He’s pulling less than is required to maintain altitude for a given bank angle (or bunts the nose), the nose falls and preserves energy available at a stable power setting.
 
Salty said:
...but if you're going straight and keep the wings level with the rudder, you can't really be out of coordination.
Click to expand...
Yes, you really can. And are. Every single time you take off.

How a certificated pilot could make this statement is pretty baffling.
 
mryan75 said:
Yes, you really can. And are. Every single time you take off.

How a certificated pilot could make this statement is pretty baffling.
Click to expand...
Context
 
Cooter said:
I’ve never known “unload” to be limited to only zero G.

It’s obvious the original post about unloading was in error, the nose being below the horizon has nothing to do with load factor in the way he described it. But what he described is easily understandable. He’s pulling less than is required to maintain altitude for a given bank angle (or bunts the nose), the nose falls and preserves energy available at a stable power setting.
Click to expand...
The "process" of unloading is what I commented on, not whether or not unloading means zero g. It makes no sense to "unload" your bank by "pulling less than is required" when your objective is trying to line up with final. It'll straighten the turn and you'll overshoot your objective.

Now tell me, please, what's this "preserves energy" you speak of, anyway? Same as "energy management" concept? I prefer "angle of attack management", if it's the same thing, but I see no value in thinking about "preserving energy". Visions of student pilots pointing the nose at the numbers and "driving it on way too fast" come to mind, with smoking tires and runway overshoots to follow if on a short runway, because they "preserved" too much.
 
Last edited:
dtuuri said:
The "process" of unloading is what I commented on, not whether or not unloading means zero g. It makes no sense to "unload" your bank by "pulling less than is required" when your objective is trying to line up with final. It'll straighten the turn and you'll overshoot your objective.
Click to expand...
Pulling less than is required to maintain level flight. Because you're on final and descending. And pulling too hard will cause a stall.
 
Good thread. I agree in the use of rudder only when low and slow is prudent. In my training, when departing in formation flight, wake turbulence from aircraft departing in front of me was a given. When the wing wants to drop @100' AGL it gets your attention. Rudder only corrections as you rudder dance into position through the chop.
 
dtuuri said:
Now tell me, please, what's this "preserves energy" you speak of, anyway? Same as "energy management" concept? I prefer "angle of attack management",
Click to expand...
AOA is one aspect energy management/performance.
 
Cooter said:
I’ve never known “unload” to be limited to only zero G.

It’s obvious the original post about unloading was in error, the nose being below the horizon has nothing to do with load factor in the way he described it. But what he described is easily understandable. He’s pulling less than is required to maintain altitude for a given bank angle (or bunts the nose), the nose falls and preserves energy available at a stable power setting.
Click to expand...

The "unloading" lasts only for a very brief time as the airplane accelerates, and continues to accelerate, toward the ground. As I said, he can only maintain that for so long, whether it's zero G or some fraction of a G. The downside is that he has to apply a positive load, beyond 1G to stop that aceleration, for a period of time to reestablish 1G, and at that point he has accelerated stall to worry about.

Almost every maneuver raises the load factor. The only time load factor falls is in some pushover such as levelling of from a climb, or initiating a descent. As soon as straight-line flight is achieved the load factor is all back to normal. So we need to think ahead to avoid getting into situations where extra load factor is unwelcome.
 
Dan Thomas said:
The only time load factor falls is in some pushover such as levelling of from a climb, or initiating a descent.
Click to expand...
Or in reducing the pull/not pulling in a turn.
 
Cooter said:
AOA is one aspect energy management/performance.
Click to expand...
AOA is the only aspect I need. Manage that and you don't worry about "energy". Could it be that "energy management" is a concept rooted less in aerodynamics than cost analysis? A large body of student pilots trying to learn to land at minimum controllable airspeed in very expensive aircraft, for example, might not as a group be reliably able to master the technique? Cheaper to buy more concrete and invest in arresting apparatus and aircraft braking systems than order replacement aircraft, so "conserving energy" as a mental objective will tend to err on the side of excess speed rather than the potential loss of aircraft due to inartfully flying too slow. Just a guess, since I never ever thought in "energy" terms, but have seen pilots burning in too hot out of fear of not having enough of it.
 
dtuuri said:
AOA is the only aspect I need. Manage that and you don't worry about "energy". Could it be that "energy management" is a concept rooted less in aerodynamics than cost analysis? A large body of student pilots trying to learn to land at minimum controllable airspeed in very expensive aircraft, for example, might not as a group be reliably able to master the technique? Cheaper to buy more concrete and invest in arresting apparatus and aircraft braking systems than order replacement aircraft, so "conserving energy" as a mental objective will tend to err on the side of excess speed rather than the potential loss of aircraft due to inartfully flying too slow. Just a guess, since I never ever thought in "energy" terms, but have seen pilots burning in too hot out of fear of not having enough of it.
Click to expand...

I honestly don’t know what you’re getting at. I’m also not in the mood to argue, I simply clarified what I thought @aftCG was getting at, which made sense to me.
If you’re referring to FCLP, or carrier landings then you’re way off. And also seemingly contradictory. How can those tasked with landing at minimum controllable speed also err on the side of excess speed?

Ignoring the concept of energy, and focusing only on AOA makes no sense. AOA is a single factor. Also relevant and necessary for understanding approach turn and landing is power settings, AOB and how it affects lift, and vertical speed. You can fly into the ground, or the back of the boat at the proper AOA.
 
Last edited:
Cooter said:
I honestly don’t know what you’re getting at. I’m also not in the mood to argue, I simply clarified what I thought @aftCG was getting at, which made sense to me.
If you’re referring to FCLP, or carrier landings then you’re way off. And also seemingly contradictory. How can those tasked with landing at minimum controllable speed also err on the side of excess speed?

Ignoring the concept of energy, and focusing only on AOA makes no sense. AOA is a single factor. Also relevant and necessary for understanding approach turn and landing is power settings, AOB and how it affects lift, and vertical speed. You can fly into the ground, or the back of the boat at the proper AOA.
Click to expand...
Like I said, I never thought in those terms. In my experience it doesn't apply to light general aviation aircraft whose pilots often go into short runways where the major worry should be to avoid coming in too fast, i.e., with lots of energy, the very thing energy management, apparently, seeks to conserve.
 
dtuuri said:
Like I said, I never thought in those terms. In my experience it doesn't apply to light general aviation aircraft whose pilots often go into short runways where the major worry should be to avoid coming in too fast, i.e., with lots of energy, the very thing energy management, apparently, seeks to conserve.
Click to expand...
It applies, but less so because the tendency is to be overpowered in GA aircraft. The cause for concern in jets is getting underpowered, so the need for focusing on the total energy state is more apparent.
 
Dan Thomas said:
That gets you a spiral. A lower laod factor for a few seconds that turns into a high load factor.
Click to expand...
Modulating the pull gets you a spiral? That seems like quite an exaggeration.
 
dtuuri said:
Like I said, I never thought in those terms. In my experience it doesn't apply to light general aviation aircraft whose pilots often go into short runways where the major worry should be to avoid coming in too fast, i.e., with lots of energy, the very thing energy management, apparently, seeks to conserve.
Click to expand...

Technically I would say most here talking about PROPER energy management would be suggesting the same as you. Proper speeds.

Arriving with TOO MUCH energy is silly, just as you state.

I have no dog in the fight. But I disagree with the assertion that PROPER energy management means “landing too fast”. We teach conserving OR burning off energy if we use those terms. Many people, that concept doesn’t “click” and is a poor way to describe it. Others “get it”.

Clearly we teach “energy management” with the power off 180 all the time, and don’t want students arriving over the numbers out of one of those at some screaming speed. We want them to use every tool they have to make the turn and arrive at a reasonable approach speed, power off.

Bob Hoover himself called his engine out routine in the Shrike a “tribute to energy management” and added “and the Space Shuttle” later in the shows when the Shuttle became a thing.

Not directly related to the stall discussion, but the assertion just struck me as wrong because we don’t always conserve energy, sometimes we have to shed it.

Conserve ENOUGH energy to make the aircraft do what you need it to do, in any real world discussion of “energy management”.

Call it “AOA management” if you like, or any other nickname, it’s all about knowing the drag profile of the thing you’re flying and how it will react at different AOAs, including banked or level... power or no power... etc. If the only power source you’ve got is gravity, use it.

A bunch of building blocks go underneath that larger recognition though. Can’t really start there for brand new pilots.

They have to put things together from what they learn first. Nose up, nose down, power, no power, banked... now we have less vertical component of lift... you know. I know you know.

I’m just saying it for the thread. Not sure I like the energy management analogy for new pilots either, not without basic aerodynamics to associate it to in their heads. But it’s not an awful way to describe things to more advanced pilots who can make the knowledge association.

And we definitely don’t teach to always conserve. Destroy it if you need to... slip that thing... step on the sky... :)
 
denverpilot said:
I’m just saying it for the thread.
Click to expand...
Same here, not trying to start a fight with anyone. Mental pictures are important when learning to fly, according to Wolfgang Langewiesche, so thinking of the airplane as a sort of bobsled doesn't work for me. Understanding how a wing is flown, also according to Langewiesche, and picturing that in the mind's eye does.
 
Last edited:
dtuuri said:
Like I said, I never thought in those terms. In my experience it doesn't apply to light general aviation aircraft whose pilots often go into short runways where the major worry should be to avoid coming in too fast, i.e., with lots of energy, the very thing energy management, apparently, seeks to conserve.
Click to expand...
Energy management does not have increasing energy as a set goal. It has management as it’s goal.
 
For what it’s worth... when I do stalls with even brand new students, the only controls I cover are the rudder pedals.

I can take a delay in getting to the other controls if something goes sideways
 
PaulS said:
When I transitioned to the 22 we did a stall and the left wing dropped on me. Up until then they had all been boring. This one caught me by surprise, I'm sure I was coordinated. Anyway, as soon as that wing dropped I automatically kicked the right rudder, then remembered to add a little aileron. It was really nothing, it's funny how the training kicks in when you need it.
Click to expand...

Did you have a little power in? Does not take much to get uncoordinated.
 
dell30rb said:
Did you have a little power in? Does not take much to get uncoordinated.
Click to expand...

Power was pulled. I blamed it on the airplane, but I'm sure I screwed something up OR maybe my instructor messed with me because it was about the 5th stall and they were all cake.
 
PaulS said:
When I transitioned to the 22 we did a stall and the left wing dropped on me. Up until then they had all been boring. This one caught me by surprise, I'm sure I was coordinated. Anyway, as soon as that wing dropped I automatically kicked the right rudder, then remembered to add a little aileron. It was really nothing, it's funny how the training kicks in when you need it.
Click to expand...
PaulS said:
Power was pulled. I blamed it on the airplane, but I'm sure I screwed something up OR maybe my instructor messed with me because it was about the 5th stall and they were all cake.
Click to expand...
Yep, "automatically" is the operative word when it comes to rudder use. An ME pilot doesn't need to think which pedal to push when one quits on takeoff. The thinking doesn't begin until identifying which engine to feather.

At idle and approaching a stall I'm going to guess that your Cirrus had more windmilling drag on the pilot's side of the prop disc, effectively acting as left rudder input, i.e., a sideslip toward the right. A perfect setup for a cross-controlled stall. Whee! :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top