Brodhead Pietenpol Association

Original Posted By: Graham Hansen
I took flying instruction from an elderly man in the Wentzville MO.area, when I did stalls he made me keep the wings level with rudderand to stay away from aileron saying that if a wing didn't have wash outor was improperly rigged the ailerons could get you hurtHe claimed that if you praticed stalls using nothing but rudderto keep the wings level it was a lot safer in a homebuilt orsome of the older factory planes.-----Original Message-----

Original Posted By: robert hensarling
Subject: Washout, stalls and spins.... To the group, In 1970, when I completed my Pietenpol, I rigged the wings at +2 degrees incidence and reduced this to +1 degree at the tip rib. Flew it that way for two years and then removed the one degree of washout. Since then, the incidence angle is a constant +2 degrees. I cannot notice any difference in the power-off stalling characteristics, which are about the same as those of a 65hp. Aeronca Champion; a definite break with instantaneous recovery upon moving the stick forward. My airplane tends to drop the right wing first, but this is likely an individual characteristic, nottypical of Pietenpols. I have done lots of spinning in ATC'd airplanes, but have never done fully-developed spins in any homebuilt I have flown; only stalls and incipient spins. If I am not sure about the spin characteristics ofan airplane, I'd rather avoid doing them at all, and practice spins and recovery in airplanes with predictable spin behavior. I owned a Lus- combe 8E for many years (until two years ago) and would go out at least once a year and spin the dickens out of it. It loved to spinbut, being a certified standard category airplane, always behavedpredictably. The Wag-A-Bond (Piper PA 17 Vagabond clone) I now have conforms very closely with the PA 17 specification, including the largeamount of washout in the wings. In a power-off, unaccelerated stall itsimply mushes without a break and drop of the nose; one could mush all the way to the ground by simply holding the stick fully back--but thehigh rate of sink and the sudden stop at the bottom would get you. As far as I know, BHP did not use washout, probably because the rectangular wing planform tends to stall first at the center (orroot), progressing outward toward the wing tips which will (should?) stall last. This is why I eliminated the washout from mine after flying itfor a couple of years. I know of Pietenpols that have been spun, and of one case where the pilot was barely able to recover from a spin that had flattened.This only reinforces my desire to avoid spinning any airplane with doubtful orun- known spin behavior. Cheers, Graham________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: kyle ray
Subject: Washout, stalls and spins.... To the group, In 1970, when I completed my Pietenpol, I rigged the wings at +2 degrees incidence and reduced this to +1 degree at the tip rib. Flew it that way for two years and then removed the one degree of washout. Since then, the incidence angle is a constant +2 degrees. I cannot notice any difference in the power-offstalling characteristics, which are about the same as those of a 65hp. Aeronca Champion; a definite break with instantaneous recovery upon moving the stick forward. My airplane tends to drop theright wing first, but this is likely an individual characteristic, nottypical of Pietenpols. I have done lots of spinning in ATC'd airplanes, but have neverdone fully-developed spins in any homebuilt I have flown; only stallsand incipient spins. If I am not sure about the spin characteristicsof an airplane, I'd rather avoid doing them at all, and practice spinsand recovery in airplanes with predictable spin behavior. I owned aLus- combe 8E for many years (until two years ago) and would go outat least once a year and spin the dickens out of it. It loved tospin but, being a certified standard category airplane, always behavedpredictably. The Wag-A-Bond (Piper PA 17 Vagabond clone) I now have conforms very closely with the PA 17 specification, including the largeamount of washout in the wings. In a power-off, unaccelerated stall itsimply mushes without a break and drop of the nose; one could mush allthe way to the ground by simply holding the stick fully back--butthe high rate of sink and the sudden stop at the bottom would get you. As far as I know, BHP did not use washout, probably because the rectangular wing planform tends to stall first at the center (orroot), progressing outward toward the wing tips which will (should?)stall last. This is why I eliminated the washout from mine afterflying it for a couple of years. I know of Pietenpols that have been spun, and of one case wherethe pilot was barely able to recover from a spin that had flattened.This only reinforces my desire to avoid spinning any airplane withdoubtful or un- known spin behavior. Cheers, Graham________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: Ken Beanlands
To the group,In 1970, when I completed my Pietenpol, I rigged the wings at+2 degrees incidence and reduced this to +1 degree at the tiprib.Flew it that way for two years and then removed the one degreeof washout. Since then, the incidence angle is a constant +2degrees. I cannot notice any difference in the power-off stallingcharacteristics, which are about the same as those of a 65hp.Aeronca Champion; a definite break with instantaneous recoveryupon moving the stick forward. My airplane tends to drop the rightwing first, but this is likely an individual characteristic, not typicalof Pietenpols.I have done lots of spinning in ATC'd airplanes, but have never donefully-developed spins in any homebuilt I have flown; only stalls andincipient spins. If I am not sure about the spin characteristics of anairplane, I'd rather avoid doing them at all, and practice spins andrecovery in airplanes with predictable spin behavior. I owned a Lus-combe 8E for many years (until two years ago) and would go out atleast once a year and spin the dickens out of it. It loved to spin but,being a certified standard category airplane, always behavedpredictably.The Wag-A-Bond (Piper PA 17 Vagabond clone) I now have conformsvery closely with the PA 17 specification, including the large amountof washout in the wings. In a power-off, unaccelerated stall it simplymushes without a break and drop of the nose; one could mush all theway to the ground by simply holding the stick fully back--but the highrate of sink and the sudden stop at the bottom would get you.As far as I know, BHP did not use washout, probably because therectangular wing planform tends to stall first at the center (or root),progressing outward toward the wing tips which will (should?) stalllast. This is why I eliminated the washout from mine after flying it fora couple of years.I know of Pietenpols that have been spun, and of one case where thepilot was barely able to recover from a spin that had flattened. Thisonlyreinforces my desire to avoid spinning any airplane with doubtful or un-known spin behavior.Cheers,Graham________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: Graham Hansen
Subject: Re: Washout, stalls and spins.... I don't know Russell, but that method seems like a good way to getinto a spin to me. Robert Hensarling http://www.mesquite-furniture.com rhrocker(at)admin.hilconet.com Uvalde, Texas I took flying instruction from an elderly man in the Wentzville MO. area, when I did stalls he made me keep the wings level with rudder and to stay away from aileron saying that if a wing didn't have washout or was improperly rigged the ailerons could get you hurt He claimed that if you praticed stalls using nothing but rudder to keep the wings level it was a lot safer in a homebuilt or some of the older factory planes. -----Original Message-----

Original Posted By: Dean Dayton
Subject: Re: Washout, stalls and spins.... I don't know Russell, but that method seems like a good way toget into a spin to me. Robert Hensarling http://www.mesquite-furniture.com rhrocker(at)admin.hilconet.com Uvalde, Texas I took flying instruction from an elderly man in the WentzvilleMO. area, when I did stalls he made me keep the wings level withrudder and to stay away from aileron saying that if a wing didn't havewash out or was improperly rigged the ailerons could get you hurt He claimed that if you praticed stalls using nothing but rudder to keep the wings level it was a lot safer in a homebuilt or some of the older factory planes. attipdegreestalling65hp.recoveryrightnot typicalnever donestalls andcharacteristics of anspins andowned a Lus-out atto spin but,predictably.conformslarge amountit simplyall theback--but the highyou.the(or root),(should?) stallflying it forwhere theflattened. This onlydoubtful or un-________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: kyle ray
Subject: Re: Washout, stalls and spins....

Original Posted By: kyle ray
-----Original Message-----

Original Posted By: walter evans
Russell,Your instructor was absolutely right in insisting that only rudderbe used to keep the wings level when doing stalls in homebuiltsand older designs. My instructors said the same thing and whenfooling around with stalls, I keep off those ailerons! Most of theolder designs have non-differential ("barn door") ailerons, whichcan cause trouble if misused.Possibly some more modern designs are less critical in this regard.I never did stalls and spins with the few I have flown, and thus don'tknow their stall/spin characteristics. Perhaps others in the groupcould provide some information in this regard.Cheers,GrahamRussell,Your instructor was absolutely rightininsisting that only rudderbe used to keep the wings level whendoingstalls in homebuilts and older designs. My instructorssaid the samething and whenfooling around with stalls, I keepoff thoseailerons! Most of theolder designshavenon-differential (barn door) ailerons,whichcan cause trouble if misused.Possibly some more modern designsare lesscritical in this regard. I never did stalls and spins withthe few I haveflown, and thus don'tknow their stall/spincharacteristics. Perhapsothers in the groupcould provide some information inthisregard.Cheers,Graham________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: robert hensarling
Russell,I aggree with you. You never use aileron to keep wings level in a stall. Of all the planes I flown, and all the instructors, non said to useailerons. Ailerons are ineffective due to the air not flowing overthem. Using rudder increases airspeed at the tip of the outside wingand lifts it like magic.Just get ready to.... dump the nose and "Step on the high wing"walt -----Original Message-----

Original Posted By:> robert hensarling
Even in Cessna's I was taught to use the rudder to keep the wings levelin a stall.Dean Dayton - N7167Swalter evans wrote:> Russell,I aggree with you. You never use aileron to keep wings level> in a stall. Of all the planes I flown, and all the instructors, non> said to use ailerons. Ailerons are ineffective due to the air not> flowing over them. Using rudder increases airspeed at the tip of the> outside wing and lifts it like magic.Just get ready to.... dump the> nose and "Step on the high wing"walt>> -----Original Message-----

Original Posted By: Ken Beanlands
No, no, no. You got it all wrong. If your right wing starts to drop, putin full right rudder and full left aileron. You'll never get a good spinby avoiding ailerons and stepping on the high wing. Better still, if youuse full power, it will spin real nice to the left. ;-)Ken "it's not a spin unless there's at least 3 rotations" beanlandsOn Sat, 8 May 1999, walter evans wrote:> Russell, I aggree with you. You never use aileron to keep wings level in> a stall. Of all the planes I flown, and all the instructors, non said> to use ailerons. Ailerons are ineffective due to the air not flowing> over them. Using rudder increases airspeed at the tip of the outside> wing and lifts it like magic. Just get ready to.... dump the nose and> "Step on the high wing" walt> ________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: kyle ray rrobert(at)centuryinter.net>
> Subject: Re: Washout, stalls and spins....>>Even in Cessna's I was taught to use the rudder to keep thewings level in a stall.Dean Dayton - N7167Swalter evans wrote:Russell,Iaggree with you. You never use aileron to keep wings level in a stall.Of all the planes I flown, and all the instructors, non said to use ailerons.Ailerons are ineffective due to the air not flowing over them. Usingrudder increases airspeed at the tip of the outside wing and lifts it likemagic.Just get ready to.... dump the nose and "Stepon the high wing"waltTo: Pietenpol Discussion piet(at)byu.edu>Date: Saturday, May 08, 19994:39 PMSubject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Washout, stalls and spins....

Original Posted By: Graham Hansen grhans@cable-lynx.net>
3:30 PMSubject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Washout, stallsand spins....I don'tknow Russell, but that method seems like a good way to get into a spinto me.RobertHensarlinghttp://www.mesquite-furniture.comrhrocker(at)admin.hilconet.comUvalde, TexasItook flying instruction from an elderly man in the Wentzville MO.area,when I did stalls he made me keep the wings level with rudderandto stay away from aileron saying that if a wing didn't have wash outorwas improperly rigged the ailerons could get you hurtHeclaimed that if you praticed stalls using nothing but ruddertokeep the wings level it was a lot safer in a homebuilt orsomeof the older factory planes.russell ray

Original Posted By: wayne
3:59 PMSubject: Pietenpol-List: Washout, stalls andspins....To the group,In1970, when I completed my Pietenpol, I rigged the wings at+2degrees incidence and reduced this to +1 degree at the tiprib.Flewit that way for two years and then removed the one degreeofwashout. Since then, the incidence angle is a constant +2degrees.I cannot notice any difference in the power-off stallingcharacteristics,which are about the same as those of a 65hp.AeroncaChampion; a definite break with instantaneous recoveryuponmoving the stick forward. My airplane tends to drop the rightwingfirst, but this is likely an individual characteristic, not typicalofPietenpols.I havedone lots of spinning in ATC'd airplanes, but have never donefully-developedspins in any homebuilt I have flown; only stalls andincipientspins. If I am not sure about the spin characteristics of anairplane,I'd rather avoid doing them at all, and practice spins andrecoveryin airplanes with predictable spin behavior. I owned a Lus-combe8E for many years (until two years ago) and would go out atleastonce a year and spin the dickens out of it. It loved to spin but,beinga certified standard category airplane, always behaved predictably.TheWag-A-Bond (Piper PA 17 Vagabond clone) I now have conformsveryclosely with the PA 17 specification, including the large amountofwashout in the wings. In a power-off, unaccelerated stall it simplymusheswithout a break and drop of the nose; one could mush all thewayto the ground by simply holding the stick fully back--but the highrateof sink and the sudden stop at the bottom would get you.Asfar as I know, BHP did not use washout, probably because therectangularwing planform tends to stall first at the center (or root),progressingoutward toward the wing tips which will (should?) stalllast.This is why I eliminated the washout from mine after flying it foracouple of years.Iknow of Pietenpols that have been spun, and of one case where thepilotwas barely able to recover from a spin that had flattened. This onlyreinforcesmy desire to avoid spinning any airplane with doubtful or un-knownspin behavior.Cheers,Graham________________________________________________________________________________