Power On stall bad experience

[coppercity]

This was posted on the other CT forum. I have not experienced anything like this in my SW during the hundreds of stalls I have done with my students. Anyone else have anything like the following happen?

 

____________________________---------------------------_________________________________----------------------------------

 

Unfavorable Stall Characteristics with Video Link

We have recently purchased this for our flying club and this is a recent writeup from one of our instructors. I would like some input from those in this group who have an opinion about this.

thanks in advance.

the link to the video is here I have also posted it in the video section.

 

MobileMe Gallery

 

 

Unfavorable stall characteristics- regardless of what you've heard,

> the plane is not as stable in certain stalls as the Cessna 172 and

> 182. No doubt, if a stall is entered as the aircraft dealer would

> demonstrate, it is fairly docile. However, the most dangerous stall is

> the unexpected stall so you need to worry about the stall

> characteristics in configurations other than those that are

> demonstrated while preparing to sell an aircraft. In fact, the private

> pilot flight test requirements that some members will need to prepare

> for include power off, power on, and stalls in a turning

> configuration. Statistically, the most dangerous stalls appear to be

> those on climb after takeoff or go-around (with or without a turn),

> and stalls during the turn from base to final on approach. Because of

> it's short wing, this LSA has dangerous stall characteristics at full

> power, especially in a shallow turn. Because of my experience as an

> instructor in Canada where spins are a mandatory part of training, I

> have been in over 200 spins (mostly in 152s and 172s), and an

> uncountable number of stalls in all configurations. When getting into

> a new aircraft such as the CTSW, I want to know how it will handle

> stalls in all possible configurations that be accidentally encountered

> so I have been exploring these characteristics and I am more concerned

> about stalls in this aircraft than I am in the 172 or 182. I also need

> to point out that it was never told to me that Flight Design strongly

> recommends that stalls only be practiced at less than 60% power. The

> problem with the CT is that sometimes the stall is so docile, it may

> not be recognized. This is very dangerous because if the pilot makes

> an inappropriate control input or stalls it further, then the short

> wing may create a very fast roll rate, possibly to an inverted

> attitude. The first time this happened it took me by surprise and I

> was at more than a 60 degree bank nose low attitude, starting to go

> into a negative G maneuver. The second time it happened, I was able to

> react faster to prevent the excessive roll. I suspect that the problem

> with the short wing was rectified by the designer when the CTLS was

> created with the longer wing, and hence more favorable stall

> characteristics because it is more stable in roll. This is a dangerous

> aircraft when this happens and anyone planning on flying it owes it to

> themselves and their passengers to adequately train for this, because

> your life and the life of your passenger is at stake. Thanks to Lloyd

> Baldridge, he discussed this issue with the representative at Flight

> Design today and was told that stalls should only be practiced with

> only 60 percent power. So, they essentially admit that a full power

> stall is dangerous because they will not endorse practicing at higher

> power settings. Do you want to fly an aircraft that is dangerous if a

> takeoff stall or go-around stall occurs? If you think that flying very

> precisely with coordinated control inputs and keeping good pitch

> control will prevent you from getting into this situation then think

> again because a wind gust could easily stall one wing first and cause

> you to roll.[/b] There will not be enough time to pull the BRS parachute

> and if you're not prepared to regain control of the aircraft by

> getting good training in it, then you may end up hitting the ground in

> a nearly inverted attitude which would not be survivable. For any

> further doubters, thanks to Lloyd Baldridge, we video recorded such an

> event that I will email you after this. It started with a full power

> climb, at a pitch attitude that was not excessively high and at only

> about 10 degrees of bank, simulating a climbing turn after takeoff

> where the pilot pitches up too much. I did not want to roll inverted

> so I stopped the roll by the time we got to 60 degrees of bank. Over

> 150 feet of altitude was lost in less than 2 seconds and after prompt

> control input the descent continued at 1000 FPM. I don't want this

> happening to me or my students or any of you so I question whether we

> should use this plane as a primary trainer. Perhaps, with much better

> instruction than has been given so far, a pilot may feel comfortable flying it on calm days and keeping a large margin from entering an accidental stall.

 

This is not an excessively high pitch attitude as can be verified by the AI and it was a coordinated aileron/rudder input as can be seen by the inclinometer ball (which of course still works despite the TC being inop). It was a simulation of a power on departure turn with a very gentle turn at just a slightly higher pitch attitude than should be used.

 

_______________----------------------_____________________________-----------------------------_________________________

[Roger Lee]

Comments Please.

Pilot or plane issue?

[CT4ME]

Isn't there only 2 inches difference in wingspan between the two? Have others ever reported/experienced same? Is there any history of incidents/accidents regarding same? In reading every accident report regarding CTs, I don't think I've ever heard of an incident like this. Does the author have an agenda? 'Wanted to buy a different airplane for the club? or ???

 

Tim

[Tony & Rose]

Lets NOT compare apples and oranges ie. Cessna vs CT. I believe the 60% power comment has to do with the almost impossible stalling under full power. Once upon a time, practicing getting out of box canyon at high elevation; I had a simiular situation; high AOA, slow speed and steep bank. And yes, it 'broke fast'... Having practiced this several times, my thoughts are -- the CT is very responsive. Once in the high bank situation, low air speed and your nose is lowering (be it intentional or beginning of a stall) I treat it more as the beginning of a wing-over, or the last half of a very sloppy split-S...

Yes, we use the reduced power settings for stall practice, since it is almost impossible to stall in 30 degrees bank. Even with the stick stuck in your chest.

Being gentle, yet positive on the stick and proper rudder discipline, she purrs like a kitten... As I started, this is NOT a Cessna. The pilot/instructor is responsible for learning/teaching the various characteristics and responses of their aircraft.

[Roger Lee]

Here is the link to watch the stall video

 

 

 

http://gallery.me.com/jp.soldo

[sandpiper]

I can't tell much from the video and I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over this.

[Mike]

My thoughts exactly ...over 600 hours and never had a problem

 

Mike

 

 

I can't tell much from the video and I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over this.

[Tom Baker]

I've had the CTSW drop it's wing and nose hard twice. Both times were 40 deg. flaps power off. Once was when a student was flying and the other was when I was flying. The student let the airplane become uncoordinated, and I did the same flying in extremely rough air. Tom

[josjonkers]

I watched the video, and what exactly was I supposed to see???

 

Hmmm, I guess I missed it.

[Ed Cesnalis]

A full power stall in a CTSW means a very high AOA and probably a very high pitch attitude. This is where stalling becomes more exciting.

 

I am constantly faced with climbing over high terrain and dealing with canyons and i find wing overs are extremely pleasant and a great exit maneuver.

 

I pitch up beyond 60 degrees, and roll 90 then switch ends as I stall and go inverted. It takes practice to pull up by my entry altitude but my CTSW behaves predictably.

 

The video is no big deal at all, even if it was a 152.

 

This guy writes as though he knows what he is talking about and as though he has agreement with FD but I can't see it.

 

When near the ground, keep your nose down, keep your ball centered, keep your throttle open. Base to final be especially careful and nose down.

[Runtoeat]

When learning to fly the CTSW, I did some stupid things. One was to pull it off a short grass runway before it was ready to fly with a slight tailwind blowing X-wind. I didn't know enough to use rudder and tried to correct with aileron. Much too high angle of attack, too low of airspeed and using ailerons to attempt to raise the low wing and correct for my drift off the runway. I finally built enough airspeed to recover but I'll never forget that. However, with full power on, the CTSW pulled me thru this. Agree with Tom Baker, my ctsw will drop a wing and fall off abruptly during 40 flaps, low power stalls if the airplane is not kept coordinated.

[Ed Cesnalis]

Unfavorable Stall Characteristics - are in the eye of the beholder.

1st an abrupt drop of nose or wing when stalling at 40 degrees power off is another subject. you can't compare this to a Cessna because there is not a comparable configuration. this abrupt drop is a good reason to use or be ready to use your throttle on a 40 degree landing.

the critical review that we are discussing implies that favorable characteristics are quite benign, with that thinking high performance aircraft, including aerobatic designs have unfavorable characteristics.

i've never been a fan of this type of thinking. the stall characteristics of the CTSW is the result of a design that is quick and maneuverable coupled with a big speed range and short field capability. the implications that these characteristics are unsafe or even unfavorable are a stretch even from the perspective that favorable = benign trainer with built in stall prevention.

[sandpiper]

Many planes will stall abrubtly and drop a wing when uncoordinated. And you don't need a high angle of attack or lots of power. For example, the turn from base to final where the pilot has overshot the turn and is trying to get back on centerline and not wanting to get too steep a bank because they are close to the ground. The resulting stall from a skidding turn results in the inboard wing dropping, sometime abrubtly. This has killed more than one pilot.

 

In Alaska, my former stomping grounds, this happens all too frequently, often in cubs or super cubs, when low and slow looking for game, etc. It is called the moose hunters stall for obvious reasons. Does this make the super cub a bad airplane? I don't think so. Perhaps bad piloting/judgement??

 

When I used to transition pilots into the T-34 I could set up students to do the same thing with gear and flaps down, 15" MP, 15 degree bank and the ball only half out in a skidding turn. The results, from a rather benign entry, could be spectacular. I had one poor complacent sap loose 3000 feet before he managed to recover. Most were a little more on the ball. Does that make the T-34 a bad airplane? Julie Clark doesn't think so and she currently performs in one of the planes I was using.

 

Part of the problem is that many of our pilots don't know what a rudder is for other than taxi. They will go through maneuvers, including stall recovery, using only aileron. The rudder hardly moves if at all. And I'm not talking about new pilots!! You might be able to get away with this in a C-150, 172 but a stick and rudder airplane will eat your lunch. I used to joke with them, before Cessna restarted their single engine piston production, that I was going to write Cessna and tell them how to get back into production and save money - just leave off the rudder because they never used it anyway.

 

Enjoy your CT's. There is nothing unsafe about them.

[Ed Cesnalis]

Good post John, I especially like the base to final part. I once took my skyhawk to 3,000' agl and flew a pattern where i overshot base to final, I limited my bank to 30 degrees and countered with rudder to tighten the overshot turn. Wow, spin entry with very little warning.

 

One correction on your post:

Many planes will stall abrubtly and drop a wing when uncoordinated. And you don't need a high angle of attack or lots of power...

 

You probably meant to say "you don't need a high pitch attitude" a stall by definintion is exceeding the critical angle of attack, which is a high angle of attack plus some.

 

[chanik]

It's also worth noting that the CT stalls about 10kts SLOWER than a 172 which to my mind makes it a much safer airplane. I did some full power stalls during my bienniel last time, not knowing any better, and it does want to roll sharply but also was easy to correct sharply so I doubt I lost more than 100ft. I didn't try it uncoordinated but that is begging for a spin in any plane.

[Mac Bowden]

I've just wasted 5 minutes downloading Quicktime 7 to watch a non event. I'm still waiting to see something bad going on.

 

CHARLIE TANGO said......

I pitch up beyond 60 degrees, and roll 90 then switch ends as I stall and go inverted. It takes practice to pull up by my entry altitude but my CTSW behaves predictably.

 

Charlie Tango, any chance of a video clip doing that manoeuvre? now that would be worth watching cos I've got some 'big hills' around here.

Mac

[Ed Cesnalis]

I've just wasted 5 minutes downloading Quicktime 7 to watch a non event. I'm still waiting to see something bad going on.

 

CHARLIE TANGO said......

I pitch up beyond 60 degrees, and roll 90 then switch ends as I stall and go inverted. It takes practice to pull up by my entry altitude but my CTSW behaves predictably.

 

Charlie Tango, any chance of a video clip doing that manoeuvre? now that would be worth watching cos I've got some 'big hills' around here.

Mac

 

i'm too poor to buy a video camera (our move towards socialism is killing me) maybe we should take up a collection?

[coppercity]

Charlie Tango,

I will bring mine when I stop by to see you on my next trip to Corning, just don't make me puke if I take a flight with you!

[Runtoeat]

Recommended reading. "Stick and Rudder" by Wolfgang Langewiesche. (everything you always wanted to know about a rudder but were afraid to ask!).

[Tony & Rose]

I'm with Charlie Tango -- I don't know of any better way to get out of narrow canyon that I can't up and out of.

Eric, after you have Charlie demo, I'll see what you learned...

[207WF]

I too, would like to see Ed's manuever! When I first got my CT the instructor who checked me out did a "run away trim" (full nose up trim, nose held level with pressure then released) stall at full power and flaps -6, hands off. It got my attention -- seemed like we were pointed straight up, but recovery was no big deal. - WF

[FlyRatz]

I like the CTSW because it behaves bravely even in stall conditions. As you can see at the video, the CT does not invert aileron inputs and roll even further when you try to recover the stall. The recovery is very easy if one wing drops down in a stall. I doubt you may call a plane dangerous because it drops a wing if you stall it while doing a turn.

 

There is one maneuvre I know, which makes the CTSW jump like a goat. I practice this with students to show them how dangerous it is to push the throttle too fast if they decide to go around at missed approaches. Try this only in good altitude: Stall the plane with flaps 40 and power off. Stick all the way back and hold it there. Hold direction with rudder. Wait until the plane begins to bump. At the highest point of the bumping curve push the throttle apruptly to full power and hold the stick where it is. Be prepared to do a very fast roll to the left. Recovery is easy even if you do this cruelty to the CT. Ease the stick and as airspead increases, roll back to normal attitude with ailerons. Be prepared to pay about 1000 feet of altitude for this fun.

 

Markus

[Scott Johnson]

As an instructor with several years and 600+ hours in the CTsw... I can honestly say I have never had a student mess up a Departure Stall demonstration like this. Look at the direction... 268 degrees to 217 degrees. Ever hear of using some 'right rudder' to keep the nose pointed in the correct direction?

 

The instructor in this case needs more Light Sport transition training. I strongly suggest getting 10~20+ hours before attempting to teach students. He obviously is not proficient in stick-n-rudder skills to get 50 degrees off course and to drop a wing like that. Unless... he meant to do that and is trying to prove a negative. Did he want the CT for their flying club or some other airplane?

 

What is up with all the INOP instruments? This airplane needs an annual before anymore flying.

 

Scott Johnson

[Roger Lee]

He just isn't working the rudder enough or it wouldn't have done this. I have seen several instructors make wild claims about a CT and they all had no time. Just because you took a test and got a CFI behind your name doesn't mean your any good.

[Ed Cesnalis]

scott is correct about the lack of right rudder to maintain heading and to keep the wings level during the stall

 

but

 

the point of a departure stall is to recognize the imminent stall and recover prior to a break close to the ground.

 

on the other forum john hurst said that the pitch and power were to high, the instructor in the video says flight design dictates that power on stalls be done with limited power and pitch. i say nothing like a whip stall (at altitude) to get the students attention and learn that the departure stall is to be prevented as opposed to recovered from.

 

i recently took my bfr from a cessna cfi. on the first departure he immediately commented that my ctsw was climbing with its nose down. the ctsw is a pitch attitude airplane. IMHO it is not prone to departure stalls unless you loose the engine and first instinct should be to lower the nose.

 

my 2cents again