stalled wings

Michael

Michael

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
1,735
Location
Cape Cod, MA
Display Name
Display name:
CapeCodMichael
I have been thinking again..I know, I know..But..I was reading an article on Flying VFR into IMC for a non instrument rated pilot. They were talking about how the pilot would get himself, or herself...into trouble by entering a spin, then pulling back on the yoke and eventually making the spin tighter. They suggest just as I was taught, to level the wings first, then take care of your airspeed and altitude. If the wings stall, and you are not coordinated, and you enter a spin, I was told to first correct the spin with rudder..opposite the turn. Then pull out of the dive. This article says to level the wings first...I assume they are talking about ailerons, I assume they meant ailerons, because they just said to first level the wings, I think they would've added with rudder if they were not talking bout the ailerons. Heres my question....Are the ailerons effective when the wings are stalled, and are the wings still stalled when in a spin? I would assume the wings are still stalled, and the ailerons aren't effective, thus why we use rudder to correct the spin. But this article has me wondering..
Did any of that make sense?

Michael
 
Michael said:
I have been thinking again..I know, I know..But..I was reading an article on Flying VFR into IMC for a non instrument rated pilot. They were talking about how the pilot would get himself, or herself...into trouble by entering a spin, then pulling back on the yoke and eventually making the spin tighter.
Click to expand...
Much of what is published in "redneck aviator" is poorly written. The usual entry is form a left graveyard spiral, in which the wings are not stalled but the turning moment is increasing. At that condition if one levels the wings first to arrest the turning moment (ailerons), then correct pitch, it'll work.
MIchael said:
Heres my question....Are the ailerons effective when the wings are stalled, and are the wings still stalled when in a spin? I would assume the wings are still stalled, and the ailerons aren't effective, thus why we use rudder to correct the spin. But this article has me wondering..
Did any of that make sense?
Click to expand...
Once you are actually in the spin, with the inboard wing stalled or near stall, adding aileron only raises the angle of attack, sealing the fate of the spin. Rudder is all that is left.

But my bottom line- for that group of pilots, they need to stay out of IMC. Ever spun in IMC? ("Everything prohibited in NATOPS"). Even when its hazy out, it's very easy to get confused, esp. when you go inverted, as to which way the spin started.
 
Ailerons are effective when in a spin, but sort of backwards, since the adverse yaw of aileron against the spin will serve to increase the yaw rate and tighten the spin. In some aircraft, if the spin starts to flatten, ailerons into the spin will actually help by providing adverse yaw against the spin (we teach this as a "last ditch" maneuver in the Grummans -- needed only if you don't start your recovery within 3 seconds/1 turn and it starts to go flat after 3 turns or so with rudder not slowing the yaw rate). However, in most light planes, you will not be able to lift the down wing while in a spin by using aileron in the direction in which you want to roll.

That "roll wings level, then pull" advice is intended for nose-low unusual attitude recoveries, not spin recoveries, and I'd like to know the source of any article which recommends using ailerons to roll level in a spin so I can see where the misconstrusion is.
 
Ron Levy said:
Ailerons are effective when in a spin, but sort of backwards, since the adverse yaw of aileron against the spin will serve to increase the yaw rate and tighten the spin. In some aircraft, if the spin starts to flatten, ailerons into the spin will actually help by providing adverse yaw against the spin (we teach this as a "last ditch" maneuver in the Grummans -- needed only if you don't start your recovery within 3 seconds/1 turn and it starts to go flat after 3 turns or so with rudder not slowing the yaw rate). However, in most light planes, you will not be able to lift the down wing while in a spin by using aileron in the direction in which you want to roll.

That "roll wings level, then pull" advice is intended for nose-low unusual attitude recoveries, not spin recoveries, and I'd like to know the source of any article which recommends using ailerons to roll level in a spin so I can see where the misconstrusion is.
Click to expand...

Ron, I'm curious. Are you saying a spin will evolve into a flat spin or is that a peculiararity of Grummans or neither? (Your parenthetical sentence appears to indicate it is a Grumman characteristic.)
 
Not Ron, but it is type specific. Some VERY large aircraft suggest this if a spin is entered. NOT for use in your average Wichita Spam Can.
 
1) CFI & DPE Drilled and Drilled it into me power out, opposite rudder and alerions neutral. Almost as it were an undeniable rule of physics. The physics are still the same today.

2) Richard, I will defer to Ron on your question but will relate that Col. John Lowery wrote in his book "Anatomy of a Spin" that the grumans are prone to have spins go flat. When I spoke to Col. Lowery he clarifed that by saying that Grumans are not "likely" to go into a flat spin ie it is not something they do by habit or as a rule, but in the event they enter a spin would be more likely to go flat than other aircraft.
 
Richard said:
Ron, I'm curious. Are you saying a spin will evolve into a flat spin or is that a peculiararity of Grummans or neither? (Your parenthetical sentence appears to indicate it is a Grumman characteristic.)
Click to expand...
As noted by others, this is completely type-specific, but Grummans have a propensity for going flat after about three turns. Since intentional spins are prohibited in all the Grummans, and the airplane recovers very nicely from an incipient (less than one turn/three seconds) spin with book recovery techniques, this shouldn't be an issue unless you're NASA doing spin recovery improvement tests in a Yankee, as they did some years back, or the knucklehead US Navy test pilot who (entirely on his own, not a Navy program) deliberately spun one (not equipped with the NASA spin chute) over the Chesapeake Bay for three turns before starting recovery about 35 years ago and (thanks to the technique mentioned, which he learned flying F-4's and tried after about a dozen turns, the spin having flattened and the book technique being ineffective at that point) was able to live to tell the tale after using 11,000 feet from entry to recovery -- having fortunately entered at 12,500.

http://www.grumman.net/gangster/NASAYankeeSpin.mpeg
http://www.grumman.net/gangster/grega/aa1-001.htm

This plane is now, as pictured in the second link, on display at the Hampton Roads air museum. Look closely and you'll see a number of aerodynamic modifications to the aircraft as well as the tail chute.

Finally, note that while the basic technique AdamZ mentions works on almost every light plane, it is still not a completely universal technique, read the book, learn the book, fly the book -- everything else is for TPS grads.
 
Ron, does that spin chute settle the plane to the ground or break the spin so the plane can recover and then jettison the chute?
 
Adam, c'mon in, close the door and have a seat. We need to talk. It seems your posting has fell of a bit. First, you do this,

AdamZ said:
]There by the grace of G-d go you.
Click to expand...

Some may find it offensive and an act of derision.

Then, you ask two questions in one sentence. I need not remind you how unprofessional this may appear. You have enjoyed a good level of success in your past posts so I am rather surprised by these new developments. Anyway I can help, please let me know. Thank you for stopping by.

AdamZ said:
Ron, does that spin chute settle the plane to the ground or break the spin so the plane can recover and then jettison the chute?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ouch! I will have to pull out the old grammar for idiots book. The quality of the post is directly proportional to the amount of time I have to surf the board between clients and phone calls. Sigh! I wish I had the time to be a bard. :rolleyes:

My comment "there by the grace..." was certainly not meant to mock. I am not sure how one could think it was. I did not escape, a possible accident, Curjuillo did. Frankly, I was just happy he was not involved.
 
Last edited:
AdamZ said:
Ouch! I will have to pull out the old grammar for idiots book. The quality of the post is directly proportional to the amount of time I have to surf the board between clients and phone calls. Sigh! I wish I had the time to be a bard. :rolleyes:

My comment "there by the grace..." was certainly not meant to mock. I am not sure how one could think it was. I did not escape, a possible accident, Curjuillo did. Frankly, I was just happy he was not involved.
Click to expand...

Adam, I was just having some fun. I don't like the emoticons too much and it is difficult to devine my dry wit...don't worry 'bout me, I'll make it through.

Still, I do wonder why you hyphenated a proper name.

However, unlike you I do have time. I have scads of time. I have time coming out my ears. I'm jumpin outta my skin, I have so much time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top