When I took delivery of a new Cessna 182T last year, I did a test flight for certification purposes. During the test flight we had to perform a power off stall but that didn't go as planned as it was simply impossible to stall. What happened is this: when the airspeed dropped well below the power off stall speed we simply started to sink slowly with a nose-high attitude at about 35 KIAS. This "mushing" went on for what seemed ages before I eventually applied power and pushed the nose down to gain airspeed again. We tried it again after that and the same thing happened. I had an instructor with me who has thousands of hours in a C172 and he had never experienced something like this before.
The odd thing is that this only happened during that flight. During later flights this didn't occur anymore.
There was a passenger in the back seat, fuel tanks only half full so the CG was more aft than usual, but well within limits
Ever since that flight I've wondered:
And most importantly:
I think this is more common than you might think in a C182. The 182 is much more nose-heavy than a 172 (which is particularly noticeable in the flare) and this seems to limit the amount of upward pitch authority the elevator has at low speeds. The only stalls I've done in a 182 are much as you described - you can hold full back-elevator and you just sort of sit there sinking.
Spinning could be an issue if it becomes uncoordinated, but a 182 is a very stable airplane and unlikely to enter a flat spin unless the CG is beyond the aft limit or severely uncoordinated. Perhaps someone else can weigh in further on that possibility, though.
A stall occurs based on angle of attack, not speed. If the plane tends to nose over near stall speed, the angle of attack may not increase enough for a full stall, even though the plane is losing altitude. If you want to perform a low speed stall in the plane, keep pulling the stick back to maintain altitude or climb slightly as the power is eased off. Use the rudder to keep the wings level to reduce the likelihood of a spin.
When I took delivery of a new Cessna 182T last year, I did a test flight for certification purposes. During the test flight we had to perform a power off stall but that didn't go as planned as it was simply impossible to stall. What happened is this: when the airspeed dropped well below the power off stall speed we simply started to sink slowly with a nose-high attitude at about 35 KIAS. This "mushing" went on for what seemed ages before I eventually applied power and pushed the nose down to gain airspeed again. We tried it again after that and the same thing happened. I had an instructor
In As the Pro Flies, John R. Hoyt writes (pages 41-42): Suppose we have to land in high, gusty winds. That's what happened to Pilot Z, who once landed his plane during such conditions with his flaps down. After the wheels were on the runway he relaxed, never realizing that a plane is not landed until the switches are cut. Because he still had airspeed and because full flaps lowered..., a condition aptly described as dis-gusted. He would have dropped back on the runway, had not an alert co-pilot opened the throttles and saved both the day and the landing gear. He goes
I recently had the opportunity to fly a PAR approach into Büchel Airbase in Germany. It was a ton of fun and I'll definitely try it again when I get the chance. However, as we were getting set up... on board (which I incorrectly assumed at that point was what QNE meant), again, using "request". Anyway, I've never heard a controller say "request" before, is it just army version of "say"? I'm pretty... heading. He didn't complain, but I'm still not sure if that's what he wanted. A bit later I got a similar call (callsign) request QNE However, I was unfamiliar with that Q-code (as a private pilot
dynamics of an engine cooling and then reheating, and partially because full takeoff power is used. The "usual" time that you log a cycle is when an engine is started and the aircraft then takes off (using full rated takeoff power), but what about unusual situations like: Engine shutdown and restarted in flight Engine started, aircraft takes off, and then returns for a low pass or a touch and go: Would this be two cycles (does it depend on the amount of power used during the touch and go?)? Engine started and then shut down without a flight
Here are a few thoughts: 'Real' accidents happen much too seldom to be of any real measure, and they would have to be compensated for the number of passenger kilometers as well to be objective. Large airlines may have be involved in more accidents, but they have more aircraft. Many airlines low down on the reports had accidents many years ago. Avherald and the like may be good sources but emphasize that they don't report on all accidents. Different jurisdictions have different reporting requirements. What is a fair and unbiased method of measuring airline safety?
WWII. They didn't have flight control computers back then, and the only control complaints I recall them having is that early versions had a tendency to flip over backwards when approaching stall speeds, well, that and the ground effects were pretty strong. But, no mentions of going into flat spins when going into hard maneuvers (that I recall). So how do they control that Y axis on flying wings...How do flying wings, like the B-2 Stealth bomber, actually keep themselves from yawing out of control without a vertical stabilizer? For the record, I assume this has to be a simple mechanics
crossed the runway", at which point I started thinking about it. Considering the situation, I would probably rather wait since there's an inherent delay when switching frequencies anyway, I might as well...I've never had the opportunity to fly into a controlled airport with parallel runways, so I've never actually faced the situation. But, in the interest of being ahead of it, when would it be prudent... the tower) before or after crossing 27 R? My by-the-book assumption would be immediately, as there's no "then" or "after crossing" or similar, but somehow that feels wrong. I suppose normally it doesn't
an aircraft to return to the airport perimeter or the runway? How much of it is simply pilot error in executing a possible manoeuvre, as opposed to pilots thinking that they can pull something off that is just impossible, no matter what? For the purposes of this question, we shall assume the following: there is only one runway, so a reciprocal turn is required (we shall assume 210 degrees...Note before reading further that I'm asking this question purely on theoretical grounds, though you are more than welcome to talk about practical aspects as well. Now, my question. It's common
Without getting into the mess of redesigning existing Flight Data Recorders, I have a simple proposal that I think would help in deep water crashes. I propose that several floating cushion sets... 370 and Air France Flight 447 would have both been greatly aided if these floaties were in those planes. What do you think? ... quite a bit of information including the final GPS coordinates before the crash. These devices would be light and cheap. I'd think current planes could be retrofitted very cheaply. The only challenge
know if a bigger plan than the F/A-18 would have a higher energy sonic boom? And could that cause glass to break? Bonus point: A mathematical formula showing why, I love those things. For those curious about what a sonic boom is to begin with, here's a wikipedia article. **Just to clarify, for those who have seen the episode. A window is broken during the 200ft pass but they say that it only... the boom straight at the house, still no windows were shattered. ** But I've wondered, ever since, if they were unsuccessful because the plane was simply too small. What if the sonic boom had been