Plane cannot be stalled

[Beefitarian]

Perhaps but they did a good job on the CGI.

I guess I owe Frank an apology.

Sorry. Some conventional gear aircraft can take off from a three point position.

Question. Do you need flaps to change the angle of attack to do that in some?

[straightpilot]

Some conventional gear aircraft can take off from a three point position

I'm no expert, but I don't know of one that can't.

Do you need flaps to change the angle of attack to do that in some?

If you've got them, sure, some flap can help the wing develop more lift at slow speeds. But many taildraggers don't have flaps and they take off three point just fine. It's a standard soft/rough field procedure.

[Beefitarian]

Most?

Now I have an honest question that might seem like it's not.

During takeoff in a three point position.
Could the tail draggers be stalled yet lift off because now we have established that you actually have the same amount of lift during stall?

The excessive drag normally causing decent may be greatly reduced by being in ground effect.

[trampbike]

Most?
we have established that you actually have the same amount of lift during stall?

No, coefficient of lift decreases when you exceed critical AoA, it's not the same as when you were just below the stalling angle. Talking about stuff here does not establish anything about the reality.

[Beefitarian]

Should I toss this or am I just miss interpreting it?

There's been a suggestion that stalled wings generate as much lift as in regular flight.

True

It's just the drag is huge

Also true! Although perhaps better to say (my bad) that the drag rises very quickly as a function of angle of attack. There's no sudden jump in the drag from not-stalled to stalled.

and the lift is not in a direction opposing the center of gravity directly.

Not sure quite what you mean by that. The lift directly opposes and matches the weight, just as in regular non-stalled flight. There's no difference.

There's no difference between the lift in a stall, and the lift in regular flight!

Specifically the last line. I thought I was following along. It would help explain how you're getting the stall indicator on some landings in the C-172 yet usually you don't get that extreemly hard touch down like Frank was talking about if you were fully stalled resulting in a rapid decent.

[straightpilot]

how you're getting the stall indicator on some landings in the C-172

Just to clarify: just because you're getting the stall indicator on, doesn't mean you're stalled! If it's perfectly calibrated, the stall warning should go on 5 to 7 mph above the stall speed - if the aircraft is brand new and perfect. I have seen brand new aircraft with improperly calibrated stall indicators. The thirty year old stall indicator in your worn out trainer might not be as good as that, either.

[Beefitarian]

We had that discussion pages ago. Especially in the C-172 it's a warning that sounds before the stall. That's why you can fly around in slow flight with it going off until you want to stop. Provided you don't stall or have some other condition requiring you stop like low fuel.

Now I think it's evolved to, "Do you lose lift when you stall? Or is it just converted into energy due to excess drag?"

Obviously you absolutly will lose altitude. I don't think there's a problem if I have wrong ideas about exactly why, as long as I recognise what my plane (wing) is doing. If the airspeeds low, attitude or just angle of attack and possibly power setting is high due to a stall, we need to lower the nose and add power to get the plane flying again.

[gaamin]

Edit

[photofly]

No, coefficient of lift decreases when you exceed critical AoA, it's not the same as when you were just below the stalling angle. Talking about stuff here does not establish anything about the reality.

For every value of the coefficient of lift in unstalled flight, there is another angle of attack, in stalled flight, that has the exactly same coefficient of lift.

That's what I mean when I say that lift in a stall is the same as lift in regular flight.

It would help explain how you're getting the stall indicator on some landings in the C-172 yet usually you don't get that extreemly hard touch down like Frank was talking about if you were fully stalled resulting in a rapid decent.

When you stall you begin a descent; it takes a while to accelerate downwards. If you "impact" the ground before the rate of descent has built up you get a soft landing. If you stall at 10 feet up you will have accelerated downards to some significant downward velocity before you touch down. Don't even think about doing at 50 feet.

It's true the stall indicator comes on a somewhere before a stall; but if you get the stall warning and then raise the nose some more, it's fair sign you're into the stall regime.

I don't know about a 172, but the stall warning in a 182 is actuated by a flap-driven microswitch; I don't think there's anything to calibrate so it would be as accurate today as the day it left the factory.

[Beefitarian]

Hey gaamin, I don't need the internet to be wrong.

[gaamin]

Edit

[straightpilot]

That picture wasn't for you specifically

I cringe when I read what is posted here, because it's depressing that so many pilots know so little and have such wrong ideas, and also because low-timers will read this dreck and think it's right. I suppose it's not surprising that GA pilots crash so much.

[photofly]

If you think something specific is wrong, how about saying what's wrong, why it's wrong, and what would be right.

Slagging off a whole thread in such a patronizing manner does come over as the height of arrogance. I'm sure that's not what you wanted.

[Beefitarian]

I know this thread is long and all over the place but I don't understand what's in it that made anyone "depressed" or "cringe"?

[straightpilot]

[Beefitarian]

[Big Pistons Forever]

Another helpfull post from straightpilot.......NOT

[Beefitarian]

When you can't answer a direct question the best distraction is to switch to .gif isn't it?

[straightpilot]

The amount of disinformation in this thread has really improved lately.

[Pratt X 3]

Ok, so what would happen if we put the plane on a giant treadmill...

[straightpilot]

You're not going to believe it, but mythbusters actually did an episode on that:

http://mythbustersresults.com/episode97

[photofly]

I'm actually shocked that anyone could be stupid enough to think that whole idea needed to be tested.

[Beefitarian]

Except a 2000' tarp is not a treadmill. That would be them proving they could take off while someone pulled the table cloth style runway tarp out from under the pilot that didn't understand what was goin on to think he'd have any problems.

[gaamin]

Edit

[trampbike]

Here is another strip from XKCD, I'd like to try that one day : http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/depth_perception.png

I'd much rather try that :