They say that being “technically correct” is the best kind of correct! And you may be. But the stall is often defined as that region where any further increase in angle of attack causes a decrease in lift.
When landing slowly enough, you get to a point that in spite of pulling the stick back farther, lift dissipates to the point where the plane lands regardless. In a taildragger with the tailwheel rolling on first, the “stall” and the drop of the mains to the runway with the stick all the way back sure feels like a stall.
Enough so that the term “full stall landing” is immediately understood by most pilots, even if not “technically correct”. And I’ll continue to use it. So there!
And to complicate things further, designers also add washout to the wings, and sometimes don't use the same airfoil along the wingspan. In the link below, they varied the thickness-to-chord ratio from the root to the tips. I've seen noted where two airfoils were blended along the span, transitioning from one to another.
Why would you need to provide lift/drag performance simulations? Structural calculations, yea. But if you had to provide performance data up front, then there would not be any aftermarket wing tips or STOL kits on the market. That's what flight test is for. Experimental research and development...
Somewhere back in this thread the (different) Mooney root and tip airfoils are given.
Ah, that's where I read it, thanks!
Correct. Many taildraggers can take off in a three-point attitude. It's the short field procedure in the 170, for example. Why would you think it was stalled?
Isn't the angle of attack based on the relative wind? So a wing in the three point attitude may or may not be stalled depending on differences in the relative wind. Like the differences in landing and taking off.
While it's possible that there are small variances in it, the relative wind of an aircraft on the ground is preponderantly parallel to the runway.
