ADF & STALL

[Skysurfer7 34]

Poul "what is wrong?"5000 feet, clean config, power of stall, ISA, wings level, stall occurs at 83-80 kts when fully stalled and trying to recover & above the stall speed, at 100kts the elevator is not responsive, the more back stick i apply the more the nose goes down (up to 20 degrees) it becomes responsive around 140-200kts after you yank the elevator forth & back altitude lost 2000-3000' when it should bee max 300' (I mange to recover 1/8 attempts)...How it should behave: over the stall speed 84knts I should have sufficient elevator authority to allow me to bring the nose up.I think there is a bug in the back pressure control when stalled........somehow the elevator is gone....Poul are you saying that you can fully stall the plane in the above example and recover in 300'? because if you can then maybe its a W7 bug?RegardsRodd

[MartinRex007 390]

Yes, I agree the stall characteristics are not even close. Power off stall, flaps and gear up maintain 6,000 until it stalls at around 75, 80 knots, the aircraft breaks nose gently drops, add power and gently pull up at about 95 or 100 knts. However It just keeps diving and there is no control using the vertical stabilizers, it continues until you crash. I have tried it a number of times with the same results. Have been a pilot for over 30 years so I know these stall characteristic are not realistic.Cheers Martin

Okay, spent sometime today flying the Baron and going through what would basically be a CFI check ride. Regarding accellerated and non accellerated stalls. If you lower the nose as soon as the stall warning buzzer goes off and add power the Baron seems to recover in what you would expect in the real aircraft. I would lose only about 300 to 500 hundred feet before recovery. I also checked this out in the C340 and had similar results. However, if you wait to long to recover after the stall warning the Baron goes into a nose dive with no elevator authority and there is a good chance you will not be able to recover. I've had some real time in a Baron, but not in stall recovery, so not sure what to expect here. I have done stall recovery in a Queen Air in the right set and the procedure is to hit power and lower the nose as soon as you feel or hear the stall warning, so up to a point I think the Baron meets these parameters. It's once you go beyond this that things start to break down.CheersMartin

[Geofa 108]

Okay, spent sometime today flying the Baron and going through what would basically be a CFI check ride. Regarding accellerated and non accellerated stalls. If you lower the nose as soon as the stall warning buzzer goes off and add power the Baron seems to recover in what you would expect in the real aircraft. I would lose only about 300 to 500 hundred feet before recovery. I also checked this out in the C340 and had similar results. However, if you wait to long to recover after the stall warning the Baron goes into a nose dive with no elevator authority and there is a good chance you will not be able to recover. I've had some real time in a Baron, but not in stall recovery, so not sure what to expect here. I have done stall recovery in a Queen Air in the right set and the procedure is to hit power and lower the nose as soon as you feel or hear the stall warning, so up to a point I think the Baron meets these parameters. It's once you go beyond this that things start to break down.CheersMartin

Not close in my opinion-real bird is much more forgiving. You should be able to easily yank it off at 90 knts on takeoff and stay in ground effect till blue line (it wants to fly earlier actually) and stall characteristics are quite a bit off. (although no time in a b-58 about 450 hours in a B55-and been told they don't fly that different)...However, there is also lots of good-engine sounds are great-there is even a little of the right prop sounds ( outside of manifold only-been complaining about that for years-this is at least closer).

[Guest bstolle]

However, if you wait to long to recover after the stall warning the Baron goes into a nose dive with no elevator authority and there is a good chance you will not be able to recover. It's once you go beyond this that things start to break down.Martin

Either the wing is stalled or not. Once you are fully stalled the behaviour doesn't change in a Baron and most other GA planes. (partly due to the use of the NACA 23016.5 / NACA 23010.5 airfoils)The problem is simply the too low stall AoA. Once you are stalled the Carenado Baron it needs a extremely low AoA (an a way too big push on the wheel) for the airflow to re-attach to the wing.BTW, that's a very easy 1min fix in the airfile.As Geofa mentioned, the real one can be kept at a 'normal' AoA during take off and landing without any problems.The Carenado version drops out if the sky if you try to flare it to a quite normal nose high landing attitude

[Guest bstolle]

Just sent Carenado a 100% fix for the clean stall speed, stall AoA and recovery behaviour problems....

[Skysurfer7 34]

Just sent Carenado a 100% fix for the clean stall speed, stall AoA and recovery behaviour problems....

Great news! Can you share it with us hare?

[Paul_Smith 92]

Well, your post is a real eye-opener. 1. ??? AoA is the ONLY thing that is stall related. It's not the speed, just plain and simple a too high AoA makes an airplane stall.2. Don't know how to measure it because I've never heard or read about a 'critical wing angle' what should that be? I hope that it isn't a serious question that you don't know how to measure the AoA. It doesn't matter what I 'think', just check what airfoil(s) the B58 uses and at which AoA the stall occurs with that airfoil (with the correct RE number)3. Once you've found out which airfoil the B58 uses you will see that it's not a laminar one ;)But considering your questions and statements I severly doubt that you will agree on any point I mentioned.

Either the wing is stalled or not. Once you are fully stalled the behaviour doesn't change in a Baron and most other GA planes. (partly due to the use of the NACA 23016.5 / NACA 23010.5 airfoils)The problem is simply the too low stall AoA. Once you are stalled the Carenado Baron it needs a extremely low AoA (an a way too big push on the wheel) for the airflow to re-attach to the wing.BTW, that's a very easy 1min fix in the airfile.As Geofa mentioned, the real one can be kept at a 'normal' AoA during take off and landing without any problems.The Carenado version drops out if the sky if you try to flare it to a quite normal nose high landing attitude

What is it you mean by AoA? What I mean is the angle between the airflow and the flight vector. This is the normal meaning of AoA in aviation, and I know of no easy way to measure flight vectors in GA aircraft. The terms "critical wing angle", "critical angle of attack" and "stall angle of attack" all refer to the angle between the chord line of wing and the airflow at which the wing generates maximum lift. I think this is what you are refering to as the wing starts to stall when this angle is exceeded. The angle of maximum lift is dependent on the cross section of the wing facing the airflow, and the wing has different cross sections along its length. Those cross sections are further changed by flaps and ailerons and if you change the direction of the airflow with banks or turns then you change the cross section of the wing meeting the airflow and hence its angle of maximum lift. The published figure (if published) is an average over the wing and only applies to straight line flight. Given that Rodd has reported that the incipient stall was detectable at 80~83 knots, which sounds about right to me, that pretty much proves that the "Stall angle of attack" as modeled by the Carenado is pretty close to the mark already. But given your statement "Either the wing is stalled or not" is not only wrong, but shows a complete lack of understanding about what a stall actually is, combined with your missuse of other terms, I have to be really dubious about any changes you suggest making to the behaviour. I am still not saying Carenado have it right, but I am certain that you do not.

[Guest bstolle]

shows a complete lack of understanding about what a stall actually is, combined with your missuse of other terms, I have to be really dubious about any changes you suggest making to the behaviour. I am still not saying Carenado have it right, but I am certain that you do not

LOL, a response as expected. >What is it you mean by AoA? What I mean is....AoA is a fixed definition and what you 'mean' is totally irrelevant. >Given that Rodd has reported that the incipient stall was detectable at 80~83 knots, which sounds about right to me, that pretty much proves that the "Stall angle of attack" as modeled by the Carenado is pretty close to the mark alreadyDo you seriously think that the correct stall speed has anything to do with the correct stall AoA ?Well, I'm not going to discuss your weird creations and opinions like e.g. 'flight vectors' with you. Furthermore I don't see any reason for you to get personal and insulting.... Have a nice day

[Paul_Smith 92]

LOL, a response as expected. ...AoA is a fixed definition and what you 'mean' is totally irrelevant.

This is how Boeing defines AoAThis is how Wiki defines AoA:

In Aerodynamics, angle of attack is used to describe the angle between the chord line of the wing of a fixed-wing aircraft and the vector representing the relative motion between the aircraft and the atmosphere. Since a wing can have twist, a chord line of the whole wing may not be definable, so an alternate reference line is simply defined. Often, the chord line of the root of the wing is chosen as the reference line. Another alternative is to use a horizontal line on the fuselage as the reference line (and also as the longitudinal axis).[1] Some books[2][3] adopt the so called absolute angle of attack: zero angle of attack corresponds to zero coefficient of lift.

Neither has any problem talking about vectors, neither mention stalling, neither is exactly a fixed definition though both are consistent with the way I defined AoA, and neither are as you described. The Wiki article gives a definition for Critical angle which includes Stall angle of attack that would seem to be close to what you are talking about:

The critical angle of attack is the angle of attack which produces maximum lift coefficient. This is also called the "stall angle of attack". Below the critical angle of attack, as the angle of attack increases, the coefficient of lift (Cl) increases. At the same time, below the critical angle of attack, as angle of attack increases, the air begins to flow less smoothly over the upper surface of the airfoil and begins to separate from the upper surface. On most airfoil shapes, as the angle of attack increases, the upper surface separation point of the flow moves from the trailing edge towards the leading edge. At the critical angle of attack, upper surface flow is more separated and the airfoil or wing is producing its maximum coefficient of lift. As angle of attack increases further, the upper surface flow becomes more and more fully separated and the airfoil/wing produces less coefficient of lift.

Do you seriously think that the correct stall speed has anything to do with the correct stall AoA ?

Yes. If the critical angle was incorrect, it would change the stall speed.I didn't mean to sound personal, and I apologise for any insult, but you are still completely wrong. Instead of arguing with me (fun but pointless) can I suggest you go back to your books and refresh your basics of flight. A very good (free) source of basic and advanced flight can be found here but any reputable flight training book would help.

[Guest bstolle]

Yes. If the critical angle was incorrect, it would change the stall speed.

Aaaah, I see. So CL doesn't have any influence at all....that's new to me.Looks like getting all the aerodynamic knowledge exclusively from your frequently mentioned Wikipedia isn't enough :(

[Paul_Smith 92]

Aaaah, I see. So CL doesn't have any influence at all....that's new to me.Looks like getting all the aerodynamic knowledge exclusively from your frequently mentioned Wikipedia isn't enough :(

And where did you get yours? Is it too late to get your money back? Do you accept that what you have been calling angle of attack is not what other people call angle of attack? You can deride wiki to your hearts content, but when Boeing say the same thing, you have to give it some credit. I would be just as happy to quote from physics or aerodynamic texts but you would have a harder time going online to verify them, so I settle for wiki. Would you accept that if the critical angle of the wing is (for arguments sake) 16 degrees and you encounter that angle for a given set of conditions at an IAS of 80knots, you will start to experiance the onset of stall at 80knots? What would happen if Carenado have incorrectly set the angle to 32 degrees? At 80 knots, the same aircraft in the same conditions is still only experianceing 16 degrees, so it won't stall, will it? Will you now accept that if no other conditions change, then changing the critical angle will have a directly proportional effect on the IAS at which maximum lift is encountered, and hence change the stall speed?

[Romeo_Tango 143]

Hate to butt in here. Just wondering if there is any chance that the problem re stalls will ever be addressed. I for one will be not be giving any more business to Carenado. Love their eye candy but tired of the unfinished products, accompanied by a high handed attitude that seems to say "s...w" you we got enough customers and don't need you.'As long as we keep buying these half finished products, they will keep producing them.Truth is I have no one to blame but myself. After the Senecaca fiasco I should have learned my lesson.

[Guest bstolle]

I've sent Carenado the fix for testing but until now it hasn't been released....

[mfchris 0]

I've sent Carenado the fix for testing but until now it hasn't been released....

I've just purchased this plane and when taking off yesterday for the second time got a stall warning on a small runway (Fife, Scotland) but was able to nose down a little and was barely above the trees and had no problem at all recovering. I only lost about 10ft as I was just off the ground and at full throttle already. I had no other stall issues the rest of the flight. I'm looking forward to going home today and testing some stalls to see just what is up. I'm liking the Baron so far. The VC cockpit controls are a little clunky but usable.What is the fix you came up with bstolle? Is it a fairly simple config edit?

[mfchris 0]

OK.. I've done a few tests.. I didn't have problems recovering from stalls in either full landing config or regular flying.. I had no problems recovering from a turning or a regular stall within a few hundred feet if I reacted immediately to the stall warning and yea.. if I tried to hold my altitude until the nose went down and I went plumetting like a lawn dart towards the Firth of Forth? Once I throttled up completely, I did need to be at about 140kts before the plane would respond and allow me to pull out of the stall and I'd lost about 1500ft. (I'm not a real world pilot but the way I see it.. it's my own dumb arse fault for not responding sooner to the airplane's warnings). It is a challenging plane to fly and a friend of mine who is a pilot, when I mentioned to him years ago that I've always loved the baron, told me "If I was gonna buy one I'd get a Bonanza.. more stable, easier to fly and safer" and he also mentioned he'd had a friend who'd died because his baron had an engine go out on take off and well.. crash!! I've gotta say.. I love Carenado's planes. I've owned quite a few for FS2K4 and now the 2 that I've bought for FSX I really like (The Baron and the Cessna 182 with retractable gear.. thought I was buying the fixed gear one but oh well.. it was on sale). I want it to be hard.. so yea.. the risk of stalling while flaring for landing and not paying enough attention to your altitude is perfect for me (in my humble opinion). So real pilots, seriously, with all due respect.. cool.. sorry it's not 'as real as it gets'.. but to me.. it's a game.. and the more interesting/challenging the better. Haha! I say thanks Carenado for a beautiful, stable, frame rate friendly plane that yea.. is a little stall prone but you know what? It keeps me on my toes.. kudos.