Stall proofing the Kitfox – Answer found?

[Esser]

You make a plane "stall proof" (which isn't even possible) and you lose aspects of controlled flight. Fly your airplane properly and you never have to worry about a stall spin turning on final. In Canada you have to do spins as party of primary flight training which is something I think they really should do in the states. It teaches you how to recognize before you enter a spin, how to pick up the wing with rudder and not aileron so you don't make it worse, and it teaches you how to recover confidently so well as practice. Now I know I am not going to change the FAAs mind but if you have the ability to go train with some spins it's money well worth and you don't take away from the handling of your plane. Bottom line if people are scared of spins and stalls then they are scared of flying and maybe should stay on the ground.

Modern Airliners are "Stall Proof". Air France 447 mushed down in a nose up attitude at 11,000 fpm because the pilot could not realize he was stalled and on the CVR was heard saying I don't know what is happening. That is a case of a pilot who lost the touch of how to actually fly because of reliance on airline procedures and aircraft safety features instead of the basics of piloting.

Just because your elevator limits your angle doesn't mean you won't stall. In fact regarding the ercoupe in AOPA mag they just wrote an article on how most owns of the ercoupe remove the elevator travel restriction.

[Geowitz]

Closest your gonna get to stall proof is to lighten up your airplane. Go with a lighter engine that can swing a bigger prop and create more static thrust, take off all the modifications except the vortex generators, and fly the plane.

[akflyer]

If you try to make something idiot proof, they just build a better idiot.

[HighWing]

Loved the last three posts. Especially Esser's

...pilot could not realize he was stalled and on the CVR was heard saying I don't know what is happening. That is a case of a pilot who lost the touch of how to actually fly because of reliance on airline procedures and aircraft safety features instead of the basics of piloting.

It reminded me of a conversation I had with a neighbor, a retired United 747 captain who flies a Baron and a Christen Eagle in his spare time. He said there was one scenario that most airline pilots failed in the simulator. Shut off all the instruments and radios - engines still good - point a finger at the airport and tell them to put the airplane down there. Most could not do it.

Regarding the NTSB reports on stall/spins. The airplane didn't initiate the conditions leading to the stall/spin. The pilot's control inputs put the airplane into the stall/spin. I would suggest that the tone of most of the comments would suggest that it is the pilot that needs to be stall/spin proofed, not the airplane. My current project is stall proof. I will do en engine start in the next few days, and it will remain stall proof until it leaves the ground. Maybe that is the real answer you are looking for.
Lowell

[rogerh12]

Closest your gonna get to stall proof is to lighten up your airplane. Go with a lighter engine that can swing a bigger prop and create more static thrust, take off all the modifications except the vortex generators, and fly the plane.

To add to that; one other improvement for exiting a spin more quickly is to increase or make more effective the portion of the rudder below the horizontal stabilizer, as in a spin this area of the rudder is still clean air (as discussed in Kit Planes a few months back). On the kitfox, adding a gap seal to this area would seem to be one solution to increase the effectiveness of the rudder and aid in recovering from a spin more quickly, if needed.

Roger

[szicree]

Roger,

With all due respect, do you think you're the first person in the 100+ years of aviation that thought to "stall-proof" an airplane? It's been tried a hundred different ways by many EXTREMELY knowledgeable engineers and has acheived only marginal success. The fact is that it's just not that big a deal if the pilot has adequate training. Go out and get some acro/spin trainning and you'll see that the inadvertant stall actually requires some pretty gross mishandling of a well designed airplane. The problem with most primary training is that it only teaches how to avoid the edges of the envelope without ever actually discovering where they are. It's sort of like wondering how fast you can take a corner in your car without spinning out. You won't know until you do it. The time/money/mental energy spent on fixing something that ain't broke would be MUCH better spent on training. History has borne this fact out quite well.

[rogerh12]

Steve;

Funny enough, when the new Cessna 162 came out (we have one for rent here locally), I was all crazy about flying it and as reading all I could on it, I even downloaded the flight manual. It was Plane and Pilot magazine I think that had the most interesting flight test in the 162. They could not get it to stall. The test pilot tried to stall it power on, power off, crossed controls, you name, they tried it but it would just dip the noise and start flying again. So I guess that’s where I got the idea that a plane could be made stall-proof, in practical flying terms. But that is not what I am after with the kitfox, just improving the stall characteristics so a spin is less likely to result.

From the responses I have seen on this posting, many pilots believe that good training and proper control of the aircraft will keep themselves from planting the aircraft into the ground, and I quite agree that these items are key. Furthermore, I for one am interested in making my Kitfox as safe as reasonably possible and am encouraged by the improvements to its stall characteristics that Vortex Generators seem to make. Additionally, I think I will continue to looks for ways to the improve safety of my Kitfox (including more training for the pilot) and I invite other to do the same and to share their imporvenents with all others.

Roger

[Geowitz]

Your title says "Stall Proof", not spin proof. If you don't enter the stall in the first place you can't spin the plane.

Closest your gonna get to stall proof is to lighten up your airplane. Go with a lighter engine that can swing a bigger prop and create more static thrust, take off all the modifications except the vortex generators, and fly the plane.

To add to that; one other improvement for exiting a spin more quickly is to increase or make more effective the portion of the rudder below the horizontal stabilizer, as in a spin this area of the rudder is still clean air (as discussed in Kit Planes a few months back). On the kitfox, adding a gap seal to this area would seem to be one solution to increase the effectiveness of the rudder and aid in recovering from a spin more quickly, if needed.

Roger

[Geowitz]

That dip of the nose IS a stall and if it's sitting at the airport right now it's stalled right now.

Steve;

Funny enough, when the new Cessna 162 came out (we have one for rent here locally), I was all crazy about flying it and as reading all I could on it, I even downloaded the flight manual. It was Plane and Pilot magazine I think that had the most interesting flight test in the 162. They could not get it to stall. The test pilot tried to stall it power on, power off, crossed controls, you name, they tried it but it would just dip the noise and start flying again. So I guess that’s where I got the idea that a plane could be made stall-proof, in practical flying terms. But that is not what I am after with the kitfox, just improving the stall characteristics so a spin is less likely to result.

From the responses I have seen on this posting, many pilots believe that good training and proper control of the aircraft will keep themselves from planting the aircraft into the ground, and I quite agree that these items are key. Furthermore, I for one am interested in making my Kitfox as safe as reasonably possible and am encouraged by the improvements to its stall characteristics that Vortex Generators seem to make. Additionally, I think I will continue to looks for ways to the improve safety of my Kitfox (including more training for the pilot) and I invite other to do the same and to share their imporvenents with all others.

Roger

[Esser]

If that "test pilot" couldnt stall it he isn't earning his pay. I guarentee you that with the stick full aft and the throttle chopped the wing is not producing enough lift to hold the airplane in the air. The nose does not have to drop to be a stall. That is jsut a design consideration with forward c of g. You can mush all the way down with your nose up and you are still stalled. The nose drop is part of the stall recovery. I remember reading in your other spin proofing post that you were considering moving the C of G aft. This is probably the worst thing that you can do because it can actually make a stall or spin unrecoverable. I can understand you want to make your plane more safe but honestly to me it sounds like you are making your plane more dangerous with very little resale value. And I don't jsut mean with the stall proofing. Maybe I am going out of line here but in other threads you have talked about a lot of mods that are unproven and increase weight where weight doesnt need to be added including a heavy engine. I'm not trying to put you down or defeat your dream but you bought a kitfox cause I am sure you heard it's a great plane and a lot of fun. You can't guarentee your plane will be fun and great to fly with unproven mods. I just don't want to see you get hurt. And I honestly mean that. I'm not trying to take the wind out of your sales. You are obviously an accomplished builder. You have built something like 7 planes? But reading sommething in a magazine and applying it to a different airframe doesnt always apply. Like I said, if I offended you I am sorry but I have been thinking this for a bit and like I said. I don't want to see you get hurt as the outcome.