61–70 of 183 posts
What a horrible click-bait title. There is nothing about a C185 or one modified with a STOL kit that is unstallable. A better title would be something like "Clueless pilot stalls aircraft. Which unfortunately is not an uncommon thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like the two surviving passengers would have died if they had life jackets on. I can’t imagine getting out of an inverted, flooded 185 cabin with a life jacket on. I think there was some sense to not requiring life jackets on seaplanes. They’re much more confined spaces than most pleasure boats, not to mention that you’re usually on a boat rather than in it. The flooding is also usually just about instant a…
My reflex is to never mandate safety procedures. To put it simply, why should the state use force to mandate something like safety. The implication being if someone refuses the force of the state is used on them… which is definitely not good or improving safety. Mandating the seatbelts exist, sure. Mandating people wear them? Idk about that. In the case of tractors for instance, wearing a seatbelt is downright danger…
The "proper" solution would be to have a rollcage so that even a flipped tractor does not crush its occupants. Not having a roll cage (presumably to save $) is a result of weaker/less mandated safety procedures already. Cars have a roof crush test. The solution isn't "jump out when big machine starts tipping", it's "protect the humans in the machine".
[0] - https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/02/rollover-101/ind...
> His opinion was that the Cessna 185 simply didn’t stall. There's your problem. Don't opine on operating characteristics of a production aircraft. Read the handbook. This incident was caused by poor airmanship.
The report of the investigation: https://turvallisuustutkinta.fi/material/attachments/otkes/t...
It is common for the majority of flights in general to have take-off weight close to the maximum, not just bush flying.
The same goes for the remark that "center or gravity was close to the forward limit", that sounds like a risk but it is not. If it's exactly at the limit, that's fine and perfectly safe to fly. If it's over the limit, it's illegal to fly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Over 18k An-2 were produced during the time of 1947-2001. It’s an unusual plane due how old it is and that many are still in operation so general stats should take that into account. It’s well known for being nearly impossible to stall with a stall speed of 30 knots - if it does stall it’ll sink at the rate of a parachute which is still faster than you’d want to hit the ground for a landing. It’s also easy to pick up…
Wasn't AN-2 the plane where the manual advises that if you need to land and cannot see your landing site, you should fly low and slow and intentionally stall the plane?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Decreases the stall speed? How does that work?
The published speed is at maximum takeoff weight, with the most unfavourable center of gravity (usually most forward) and idle power If the conditions are better (not at max weight, rear center of gravity, engine power adding more airflow over the wings) you can fly below the published stall speed number.
It is not necessary to empirically determine a specific airplane's stall speed in order to operate it safely. It's not required in the US, we just use the number the manufacturer publishes. It's normal for airplanes of the same model to fly differently: I fly a little fleet of six Citabrias, and their stall characteristics are radically different. You'd expect more uniformity from a modern aluminum airplane, but stil…
An experienced pilot can feel the stall coming on with a bit of a "burble" in the stick.
My dad (fighter pilot) told me that knowing exactly where the stall point is is life and death. When you're in a dogfight, the winner often is the one that can turn inside the other. Turning as tight as you can requires getting exactly on that edge of the burble.
It's the same thing as in automobile and motorcycle racing. How close you can get to a slide without sliding is the difference between victory and ignominy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll admit to complete and total ignorance, but: > ...we just use the number the manufacturer publishes. From the article it sounds like this plane was radically modified, to the point where the manufacturer's stall speed would be irrelevant. Why wouldn't you want to confirm for yourself where the speed is after so many changes?
Stall speed depends on so many factors that it can change significantly in a single flight. Weight, altitude, density altitude, angle of attack etc. are all going to have an effect. In other words, sure, you might want to confirm it, but you should also give yourself some margin since you don’t ever really know what the stall speed is until you stall.
It is not necessary to empirically determine a specific airplane's stall speed in order to operate it safely. It's not required in the US, we just use the number the manufacturer publishes. It's normal for airplanes of the same model to fly differently: I fly a little fleet of six Citabrias, and their stall characteristics are radically different. You'd expect more uniformity from a modern aluminum airplane, but stil…
> nobody should be flying an airplane like this so close to the edge the exact stall speed needs to be known numerically within one knot. An experienced pilot can feel the stall coming on with a bit of a "burble" in the stick. My dad (fighter pilot) told me that knowing exactly where the stall point is is life and death. When you're in a dogfight, the winner often is the one that can turn inside the other. Turning as…