Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The unstallable plane that stalled

fearoflanding.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 183 posts

Re: The unstallable plane that stalled

#71

Post by buildsjets »

t0mas88 wrote: post #65

> It is common for flight operations in the wilderness to have the take-off weight close to the maximum. 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. I…

It is not uncommon for flight operations in the wilderness to be up to 15% heavier than the certified maximum limit, and still be perfectly legal. Relevant regulation: 14 CFR § 91.323 - https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F...

Re: The unstallable plane that stalled

#72

Post by Wistar »

hinkley wrote: post #38
talkingtab wrote: post #25

Non sequitur from non-pilot: I was once in Duluth, MN in the bitter cold and watched a Cessna with skis (for landing on the frozen lakes of the Boundary Waters) land at the airport. It was the utterly bewildering to see how slowly it was going in the air. And how little distance it took to stop. Short Landing Kit I assume. I've seen ducks and geese come into land on lakes at higher speeds!

Some of those Cessnas have a stall speed so low they can fly backward on a windy day.

I have been a passenger in a C-170 with a STOL kit that flew backwards over a beach on the Washington coast. We landed well behind where we took off. The takeoff and landing were both nearly vertical. Had a steady wind from the ocean.

Re: The unstallable plane that stalled

#73

Post by brazzy »

maximilianburke wrote: post #18
sfeng wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canard aircraft, for example, stall the canard first, resulting in the nose dropping, preventing the main wing from ever stalling.

The main wing can still be stalled in a canard; it’s not easy but it is possible and when it happens it’s almost unrecoverable because the canard will be stalled too and no flying surfaces will have sufficient lift to correct the condition. It’s a condition called “deep stall”

IIRC non-canard aircraft can have this happen when the stall causes the plane to fall at an angle where the wake turbulence of the wings covers the elevators.

Re: The unstallable plane that stalled

#74

Post by 20after4 »

hinkley wrote: post #38
talkingtab wrote: post #25

Non sequitur from non-pilot: I was once in Duluth, MN in the bitter cold and watched a Cessna with skis (for landing on the frozen lakes of the Boundary Waters) land at the airport. It was the utterly bewildering to see how slowly it was going in the air. And how little distance it took to stop. Short Landing Kit I assume. I've seen ducks and geese come into land on lakes at higher speeds!

Some of those Cessnas have a stall speed so low they can fly backward on a windy day.

I'm sure it's happened a few times with unsecured planes in a windstorm.

It would be a neat trick to see a pilot pull that off intentionally and under control.

Re: The unstallable plane that stalled

#75

Post by brazzy »

daedalus_f wrote: post #45
andrewaylett wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my vernacular, I distinguish between "life jackets" and "buoyancy aids". Apparently most people don't. A buoyancy aid has a foam core, and always provides buoyancy. It's the sort of thing you'd wear while kayaking, but it's far too bulky to want to wear it unless you expect to go in the water. A life jacket is inflatable, and normally automatic. If you're at risk of falling in, and to do so would be dangerous, you…

I’ve heard that distinction used in the UK. The other down side of buoyancy aids I was told about is that many (most?) will not turn you face up if you are unconscious. Gives useful extra mobility for sports but can be fatal if the wearer is unconscious.

It depends on the design of the specific device. A buoyancy aid with a foam collar will do it, but is less comfortable to wear. With an inflatable life jacket, to collar is not noticeable until it inflates.

Re: The unstallable plane that stalled

#76

Post by andoando »

the__alchemist wrote: post #24

Soapbox: Stall speed is an approximation. It's baffling that GA aircraft don't have one of the most safety-critical measurements: AOA. Stall airspeed varies with a number of factors; this includes the mods described in the article, and weight change from burning fuel, passengers, payload etc. AOA is more invariant to that as a metric for choosing stall speed, speed down final etc.

But we got a nice tea kettle whistle to tell us were about to die.

Re: The unstallable plane that stalled

#77

Post by BalinKing »

Someone wrote: post #6
BalinKing wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, passengers inflating their life jackets too early directly caused many of the deaths on Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 [0]. This is why the modern safety briefing includes the bit about waiting until you've exited the cabin to inflate your life jacket. I have no clue how this applies to floatplanes, though—I'm curious for more details about when the article says "there are approved life jackets which could be…

> I'm curious for more details about when the article says "there are approved life jackets which could be used to deal with these circumstances" In context, that says: “Floating and automatically operating life jackets aren’t practical, specifically because of cases like this where the occupants have to dive out of the capsized aircraft in order to escape the cabin. However, there are approved life jackets which cou…

Yeah, I guess my main confusion is whether that means a normal (uninflated) airliner life jacket that you're just required to put on pre-emptively, or something more specialized.

Re: The unstallable plane that stalled

#78

Post by ordu »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #49
dramm wrote: post #39

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.

I wonder if they're practicing modern journalism strategies that are worried about libel suits? Or it's so obviously satire to them that they don't need to clarify? When they write: > However, the investigation discovered that despite his experience, he had never practised stall recovery on the Cessna 185. The pilot had no knowledge of the aircraft’s stall behaviour at all. His opinion was that the Cessna 185 simply…

I believe this article doesn't need such clarifications. It says in unambiguous terms that Cessna had stalled, with an obvious logical implication that a pilot was dead wrong. The article even discusses differences of how the stall occurs in modified and unmodified versions of a plane. To not get the message a reader must be not a lay person, but an exceptionally dumb one.

Re: The unstallable plane that stalled

#79

Post by Wistar »

maximilianburke wrote: post #18
sfeng wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canard aircraft, for example, stall the canard first, resulting in the nose dropping, preventing the main wing from ever stalling.

The main wing can still be stalled in a canard; it’s not easy but it is possible and when it happens it’s almost unrecoverable because the canard will be stalled too and no flying surfaces will have sufficient lift to correct the condition. It’s a condition called “deep stall”

Usually in a cross-controlled “slip” where the fuselage is held at a fairly dramatic angle relative to the slipstream (relative wind) and the fuselage “blanks out” one side of the main wing.

Re: The unstallable plane that stalled

#80

Post by logical_proof »

peteradio wrote: post #70
WalterBright wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Imagine dogfighting in a Cessna! I imagine the arms to be pilot wielded colt 45s and first officer to be a jug of whiskey.

Love this description lol
Post reply on HN