I can fly loops in other aircraft like the default 300s and the Christen Eagle - but in one other a/c (propellor driven and shall be nameless at this stage), I am stalling the a/c on the downside of the loop and not being able to recover. The ASI is indicating that I am flying faster than stalling speed - so I suspect that it has something to do with a bad angle of attack. This is a high quality a/c - so I am assuming that it is also a high quality FDE and I am doing it all wrong.Any comments pleaseThanks Barry

Is there a question in there somewhere?It's hard to even make any comments beyond what you have already said without knowing what the airplane is and what your performance was at the time of the stall (speed, AOA, altitude, weather, etc.). How much gas was in your tanks, and which tanks? For instance, I understand having gas in the fuselage tank of a P-51 is a no-no for any kind of hard maneuvering (though I'm not sure how well FS can model this).Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)

You may be experiencing an accelerated stall.

Its an accelerated stall. Remember that a stall doesn't care what speed your airspeed indicator shows. Its all a function of angle of attack. If your nose is pointed straight down, showing 140 knots and increasing rapidly, and you pull back abrubtly on the stick, you'll experience an accelerated stall. When you pull back abruptly, at that very moment, you are making the angle of attack exceed the design limits of the wing. Air flow becomes turbulent and a loss of lift occurs.

I guess I thought he understood that he was in an accelerated stall, and that his main question was why does this particular plane stall in the same configuration that other planes do not stall.As I noted, care to clarify the question?Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)

don't pull so hard on the way down.

He used the term "bad angle of attack", so I assumed he wasn't familiar.

The shape of the wing in the aerobatic aircraft is different than with the 172 and the amount of power available is much greater in aerobatic aircraft than in the 172. The angle of attack at which a wing stalls is a function of the coefficient of lift and power. Very very high powered aircraft such as the MIG 29 and F-18 Hornet can tolerate extremely high angle of attack without stalling, for example.

hmm... perhaps you might argue that in fact the Mig 29 and F18 are stalled at extremely high angles of attack, but their thrust is high enough that they can still push the plane up even though the wings are stalled?Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)

I like Cindy's answer :-)Nice and low tech and right on the button solution!Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)

"The ASI is indicating that I am flying faster than stalling speed"Which stalling speed? The normally quoted stalling speed is for straight and level flight, ie 1g. But, for example, if the aircraft is pulling 4g then its stalling speed will be twice the stalling speed at 1g. The incidence (AoA) will be the same but, in order to develop 4 times the lift force, the speed will need to be doubled - bearing in mind that lift varies with the square of the speed.

Thanks for all these very helpful answers - It looks like the FDE for this aerobatic a/c must be more realistic than those for some other aerobatic a/c that I am having no problem with when doing a loop. Either that or these other a/c (of a different type but still aerobatic) are more forgiving, maybe even in real life.I am learning - and had never heard of an "accelerated stall" - but I had figured out in my tiny little brain that it had something to do with angle of attack. Will keep on practicing.Thanks Barry

No, the airplane is not stalled because the wings are still generating lift

>No, the airplane is not stalled because the wings are still>generating liftI'll say with 99.9% certainty, that airflow has seperated from the wings, and that it's held there by it's thrust ratio.But .1% say's I could be wrong! L.Adamson

>>No, the airplane is not stalled because the wings are still>>generating lift>>I'll say with 99.9% certainty, that airflow has seperated from>the wings, and that it's held there by it's thrust ratio.>>But .1% say's I could be wrong! >>L.Adamson>>Aircraft like the F-18 and MiG-29 have large leading edge root extensions which, at high aoa, create strong vortices that stretch back across the wing to keep energized air flowing across it. These LERXes delay airflow separation, keeping the aircraft flying at high aoa. Thrust is not "holding" the plane up. If it was just the thrust, then the aircraft will be uncontrollable since the thrust is not of the vectoring type. Later models of the MiG-29 do have vectoring thrust though, to give the aircraft an extra edge at high alpha.