You haven't explained why there is no authority for a start, now can you explain to us the phenomenon that allows a 109 to maintain a tight turn in combat despite apparently it's elevator being rendered ineffective as soon as the inboard section of the wing is stalled?

So you are basically disagreeing with GAPAN?

No, you are!!

:-)

The elevator can certainly reduce the angle of attack. That is pushing down, taildraggernut NOT pulling the nose up.

Once the angle of attack is reduced, Pitch + Power = Performance and our speed increases which allows us to use the elevator to RAISE the nose once we have some speed.

What that has to do with your claim of raising the nose with the elevator at the stall, I cannot imagine.

Wow you just don't get it, if the elevator is EFFECTIVE then you can control pitch both ways, what you just don't appear to grasp is the actual reason an aircrafts nose drops once the wing is completely stalled, that is simply because once stalled there is no pivot for elevator forces to act upon, all the time there is even the slightest portion of the wing still flying then the elevator has effect, only once the wing is FULLY stalled does the elevator run out of authority, once a wing is FULLY stalled inboard outboard and slats what is the protection against spinning?

Taildraggernut, if the elevator is so effective in a stall, why do power on stalls sometimes result in a nose up attitude descent??

Take a wild guess!

As highlighted by my example of the K21 glider, which you can easily check, it is possible to have an aircraft that cannot spin but can stall.

There is of course a world of difference between a spin and a stall. The leading edge slats delay the stall and give the pilot greater control resulting in an aircraft that is more difficult to spin.

The leading edge slats DO NOT STOP THE AIRCRAFT FROM SPINNING.

When teaching the stall I used to fully stall the glider then encourage the student to do what they liked with the controls for a few seconds and nothing would happen. Soon gravity would take over the nose would drop and authority is regained.

The period where the controls have no authority is very brief. One of the most dangerous events in a glider is a cable break on a winch launch at a low altitude say 100ft. The forces on the glider tend to 'throw' the nose up and without immediate action, its possible to be almost vertical with no momentum. As a result a serious quite probably fatal accident is basically certain. Students are taught that as soon as the cable breaks to immediately push the stick forward to its max before releasing what is left of the cable from the glider.
I mention this as it shows the controls are effective for all but a few seconds while the wing is fully stalled. However swift action when there is any airflow over the wings normally stops this happening. Even if the wing does fully stall and the conrols lose their effectiveness, then the momentum gained in the immediate actions prior to losing authority ensure a safe recovery.

In normal parlance an Anti Spin device is one that makes the recovery from a spin easier such as an anti spin strake, or a recovery parachute. They don't stop the aircraft spinning, they help with recovery.

Something that helps the aircraft maintain control such as a leading edge slat help delay the stall. again the two are not the same.

Which brings us back to the question which you refuse to reply to in simple terms.

Do you tell your students that the leading edge slats:-

a) That they delay the stall or
b) That they are anti spin devices.

Delaying a stall is not an anti spin device unless it helps the recovery from a spin.

Which brings me to a second question. Why does someone who says that they are a CFI need to be told something as basic as this?

PS don't try to impress by including a copy of a licence. I can understand not wanting your licence no or name to be broadcast, but why delete the expiry date when its only recently been issued?

Well one of the most OBVIOUS reasons is because you have POWER ON you are creating PROPWASH which acts on the ELEVATOR making it even more EFFECTIVE, now can you tell me why even in a POWER OFF stall some aircraft can 'mush' down in a NOSE UP DESCENT?

I'll save you the bother as I don't think you actually could answer it without consulting google.

when you have made a smooth and progressive decceleration down to the aircrafts 'minimum' stall speed in level flight you will find you are using 'maximum' deflection of 'up elevator' to maintain attitude, because your airspeed is so low and you have used up all elevator travel you run out of pitch authority but the aircraft has found equlibrium with the EFFECTIVE elevator at max deflection holding the aircraft at it's maximum angle while the minimum airspeed is still sufficient to maintain the elevators EFFECTIVENESS to hold the attitude, the nett result is you hold the aircraft in a stall with a constant pitch moment about the lateral axis thanks only to an elevator which is still EFFECTIVE, now here is the really salient part, it's thanks to things like washout, slats, slots etc etc that ensure the outboard sections of the wing stalls last that prevent the aircraft from making a complete departure and entering a spin, even a Spitfire should be able to carry out that excercise due to it's washout maintaing that lateral stability.

Heres our dear old friends the NACA to explain it all to you.

Spitfire MkV handling trials........I wonder if these have been shown before? :rolleyes:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...hUeuiqgiZzKi2g

please forgive typos in my quote as I am cutting and pasting text from a PDF image.

Again..

I should really come back to some qualities of the 109 here from this quote from the RAE report..

The part in bold is describing a stall with the incipient stages of a spin, so in this case the evidence shows that slats have absolutely failed in prevention of the condition, the BIG factor here is that the slats DO make facility for an almost instantaneous recovery almost of an automatic nature.

Yes the propwash gives just enough elevator force to balance the AC keeping the nose up, however as an airplane control, it is NOT effective.

It is one of the cautions pilots should be aware of in a power on stall and accidents have occurred as pilots did not realize they were stalled, experiencing a loss of control until impact with the ground.

http://www.langleyflyingschool.com/Pages/Stall.html

Why would a designer allow a pilot to take an aircraft someplace it cannot fly anyway??

The information is blanketed so my personal details do not become privy to the internet.

There is no such as thing as "not recently issued" CFI license, Glider. The certification is only good for two years in the US and is re-issued at that time.

Notice it has a separate certificate number and is only good when accompanied by my Commercial certificate. You have to carry both and cannot fly with the CFI certificate alone.

The rest of your stuff is just a repeat of the same question I have answered so I have to conclude you are only trolling at this point. Obviously, you cannot accept the answer I have given you twice already. That is your problem and not mine.

As they say, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make them drink.

http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/1...esistance4.jpg

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/1...esistance3.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img856/5310/s...istance.th.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img846/4238/s...stance2.th.jpg

LOL, you very conveniently emphasize only the facts that fit your world without considering the final conclusion of the RAE.


Yes it does describe the conditions a spin should result in!!

Thank you for recognizing that!!
However your conclusion is not correct.

As evidenced by the RAE report:

Which is the normal effect of Handley Page automatic slats....

No the propwash allows you to make excessive pitch input due to increased effectiveness of the elevator and preventing the natural tendency of the aircraft to drop it's nose and recovering, this is why power on stalls give a greater chance of wing drop because you are able to hold the aircraft attitude beyond critical angle of attack.....it also answers this question of yours...

because in this case if a designer didn't wan't to give you the ability to go beyond the flight regime he wouldn't have put an engine in and for that matter he might not have given you facility for 'any' control of the aircraft as it also gives you the chance to screw up, so why did the designer even bother with wings?

it's amazing you can say this yet clearly understand none of why it is so.

http://www.langleyflyingschool.com/Pages/Stall.html

From your own source......whoever Langley flying schools are.

Describing a POWER OFF stall.

Now if as you suggest that during a power off stall the elevator has become completely ineffective how exactly is the pilot expected to use such purposeful and smooth recovery inputs? shouldn't it be the case the elevator input is now redundant according to your theory? you can only purposefully operate an effective control, if it is not effective then you may as well be moving a toilet plunger attached to the floor.

No I simply emphasised a FACT (thanks for recognising that) any convenience is coincidental.

How can it be?

it describes clearly:

1. there is still elevator authority enough to take the aircraft beyond stall of the slatted portion of the wing.
2. the aircraft stalled despite having slats.......amazing.
3. a wing dropped......clearly the beginnings of the incipient stages of a spin.
4. slats failed completely to prevent entering into that.
5. the quote makes no suggestion of a continued pitch input to delay recovery, this leaves it open to speculation as to what would happen should the pilot not ease off on the stick.
6. given that the evidence has now proved there is enough elevator authority to take even the slated portion of the wing beyond critical angle of attack and maintain that condition...(or have you forgotten theres an engine giving you thrust which affects the elevator?) what is the phenomenon that prevent the 109's magic wings from behaving like any other plain wing once all of its slats usefullness has run out? are you really saying that a slatted wing can pitch infinitely without penalty? so a 109 can actually do a Pugachev's cobra?