FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Recovery from a spin is power off, opposite rudder, nose down right?
and neutral ailerons
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Recovery from a spin is power off, opposite rudder, nose down right?
Recovery from a spin is power off, opposite rudder, nose down right?
Agree 100%. Personally I think spin recovery should still be taught.
Recovery from a spin is power off, opposite rudder, nose down right?
That's a good acronym...P - Power to Idle
A - Ailerons Neutral
R - Rudder Opposite of the Spin
E - Elevator Forward
I agree -- it's a disservice to anybody who wants to fly safe.Personally I think spin recovery should still be taught.
Well, as I understand it, in a jet you'd want to push the power up since there's no torque or p-factor right?In straight wing plane yes. In the Eagle not.
Splitting the throttles? Like push one up and the other back to counter the yaw from the spin?We eventually got a spin display which included splitting throttles against the spin in addition to flight control inputs.
A discussion as old as the Gosport system.Agree 100%
But still very relevant...A discussion as old as the Gosport system.
Absolutely, like driving a car on ice, you can practice to become confident on snow and ice or you can resolve never to drive on snow and ice, except I have left my house in reasonably good but cold weather and half a mile up the road been in a blizzard.But still very relevant...
I was too dumb and too cocky to be scared of stalls and spins; the very sort of student I later came to hate. The Navy Flying Club where I learned was really hard core on spin prevention, and had a heavy emphasis on control coordination and yaw awareness right from lesson one. Incidentally, I learned in 1970, and spins had been gone from the curriculum for some time at that point. Most of my instructors had never had to do them.When first learning to fly I had issues with stalls, was always worried about spinning.
NO! Published power on stall speeds are predicated on 1 G, straight and level flight. Corner velocity is based on a high G turning situation; a highly accelerated stall, typically multiples and then some, of the published power-on stall speed.For determining corner velocity, you'd compute power on stall correct?
That's a good acronym...
I agree -- it's a disservice to anybody who wants to fly safe.
Well, as I understand it, in a jet you'd want to push the power up since there's no torque or p-factor right?
Splitting the throttles? Like push one up and the other back to counter the yaw from the spin?
Would a better approximation be to simply use the power-off stall x sqrt*g-load? It probably wouldn't be perfect, but...NO! Published power on stall speeds are predicated on 1 G, straight and level flight. Corner velocity is based on a high G turning situation; a highly accelerated stall, typically multiples and then some, of the published power-on stall speed.
Regarding spins etc. in the Mig-23 series I have read the vertical white line down the inst panel is there to center the stick in event of a spin and wait. I have seen this in a Mig-17 also. The Mig-23 has an automatic throttle retarding system to prevent too rapid throttle back at high speed. If speed is reduced too rapidly near max speed, uncontrollable pitch up occurs. This is what killed a Colonel about to retire and wanted to fly a Mig-23. He went to TTR but wouldn't listen to preflight advise and when he attempted to throttle back from highspeed, thought a malfunction occurred and was killed during ejection at high speed. This was before USAF admitted having Migs but the newspaper article confirmed rumors for me. The later book "Red Eagles" filled in details.
Putting a twist in the wings to cause them to stall progressively from root to tip is a great way to maintain aileron control as long as possible, but leaves the plane supported by its wingtips at the end, and susceptible to the slightest asymmetry inducing a violent departure. The antidote to this is SUPPOSED to be to design a layout that will cause the disturbed airflow from the stalled wing roots to gradually blank the elevator until it can no longer maintain the angle of attack and the aircraft pitches "down". This SHOULD alleviate that precarious "suspended by the wingtips" situation before it turns disastrous.the distribution of lift across the wing narrowed until it is just a small section of the wing was supporting the A/C, when that is insufficient to support the aircraft one wing would stall quickly resulting in a violent summersault
Aerodynamics isn't my "bag" lol I would have to find the article. As I understand it, the aircraft is supported by a smaller and smaller section of the wings. Eventually a point is reached where it doesn't and one wing stalls with no warning sending the plane tumbling out of the turn. here it is but took ages to load http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/Lednicer_Fighter_Aerodynamics.pdfPutting a twist in the wings to cause them to stall progressively from root to tip is a great way to maintain aileron control as long as possible, but leaves the plane supported by its wingtips at the end, and susceptible to the slightest asymmetry inducing a violent departure. The antidote to this is SUPPOSED to be to design a layout that will cause the disturbed airflow from the stalled wing roots to gradually blank the elevator until it can no longer maintain the angle of attack and the aircraft pitches "down". This SHOULD alleviate that precarious "suspended by the wingtips" situation before it turns disastrous.
Sounds like ol' Kurt might have missed something here in his quest for ultimate ACM performance.
Cheers,
Wes