CAP Pilot Wings

[NYArcherFG]

 Hello everyone! I have a question about the regs on CAP pilot wings. I'm 16 and have already soloed, and hold a student pilot certificate. This training was done outside of CAP. Am I eligible for Solo Wings?  Thanks

[Hawk200]

From CAPR 60-1, 3-2. Pilot Qualifications:

b. CAP Solo Pilot. The following basic requirements must be met to be qualified as a CAP solo pilot in CAP aircraft:
(1) Be an active CAP member at least 16 years of age (for balloon or glider be age 14 or older).
(2) Possess a valid FAA student pilot certificate.
(3) Possess a valid, current medical certificate (not required for gliders or balloons).
(4) Have received the required instruction from an FAA authorized flight instructor (CFI/CFIG), have a written record documenting instruction, for the appropriate aircraft, in accordance with FAR 61.87, and possess a current solo endorsement IAW FARs from a CAP instructor pilot.

It seems like you might qualify, but it says specifically "CAP solo pilot" and mentions "CAP aircraft", and an endorsement from a CAP instructor pilot. The best I could say is "maybe".

There may be other supplements or ICLs that clarify further. Will look into that.

[Flying Pig]

can cadets "solo" cap aircraft for training purposes???  I dont think they can.  I have always understood it as once you get your solo cert, your good on the wings.

[Hawk200]

can cadets "solo" cap aircraft for training purposes???  I dont think they can.

Neither do I.

I have always understood it as once you get your solo cert, your good on the wings.

I've had the same impression.

Actually, I just looked at something, and what I quoted above was the old reg. Not sure how I missed that. Here's the contents for the new one: dated Feb 2009:

3-7. Classification of CAP Pilots. CAP pilots may operate a CAP aircraft according to the classification of their experience and skills as follows:
a. CAP Solo Pilot.
(1) Possess a current student pilot certificate with solo endorsements in accordance with 14 CFR Part 61 from a CAP Instructor Pilot in the make and model aircraft flown.
(2) For gliders, a minimum of 30 dual glider instruction flights prior to solo. Glider encampment/academy students are restricted from completing solo the first time they attend.
(3) For C182 airplanes, 25 (including cross wind, short, soft and simulated engine failure) dual takeoffs & landings with a CAP instructor in C182 airplane prior to solo.
(4) For G1000 equipped airplanes, complete the CAP Cessna G1000 transition syllabus for VFR operation.

It doesn't mention CAP aircraft, but does mention a CAP Instructor Pilot. So, I'm gona have to stand by my "maybe", and hope that someone comes along with more info.

[RiverAux]

can cadets "solo" cap aircraft for training purposes???  I dont think they can.  I have always understood it as once you get your solo cert, your good on the wings.

Do you mean can they conduct their first solo flight in a CAP aircraft?  Yes, though not common. 

[Pingree1492]

Yes, you can first-time solo in a CAP aircraft- I soloed an ASK-21 glider when I was 16.  Same applies to powered aircraft.

And, yes, you can wear CAP solo wings, even if you soloed outside of CAP.  Just provide the appropriate documentation and fill out the proper forms (I think you can do this in eServices now, but I'm not sure). 

Now, to wear CAP Pilot wings, you do have to have the appropriate FAA certificate plus take and pass a Form 5 to wear the wings.

[Flying Pig]

^Roger.  Thats how I understood. Pilot wings require a Form 5.  Solo Wings only require you to solo, whether in or outside of CAP. 

[flyguy06]

Yes, cadets can solo in CAP airplanes. They do it all the time at NFA's. I am a CAP Instructor pilot. If I am training a cadet in a CAP aircraft and I solo him, he has earned the CAP solo badge.

Dont just look at the reg. Understand the "spirit" of the reg. I believe it was intended for CAP flight training and not outside flight training. SO, if you have soloed already outside of CAP, find a CAP IP and solo in a CAP aircraft and you are golden.

[Hawk200]

Dont just look at the reg. Understand the "spirit" of the reg.

I've tried to comply with the spirit of the reg in the past, and have gotten seriously beat up over it, both in actuality and on this board. Pretty much all we have that's concrete is the letter of it.

Now, if there's other information out there that clarifies the "spirit", I'd like to see it.

Personally, I don't see a problem with awarding the solo badge, regardless of where they soloed. But there are jackasses out there that will give people all kinds of grief because what they have, or are doing is not within the specific letter of the reg.

Now, if the intent is to award the badge on any legitimate solo, anywhere, (which I personally get this impression); then the reg needs to change. On the day before yesterday.

[FW]

Yes, cadets can solo in CAP airplanes. They do it all the time at NFA's. I am a CAP Instructor pilot. If I am training a cadet in a CAP aircraft and I solo him, he has earned the CAP solo badge.

Don't just look at the reg. Understand the "spirit" of the reg. I believe it was intended for CAP flight training and not outside flight training. SO, if you have soloed already outside of CAP, find a CAP IP and solo in a CAP aircraft and you are golden.

I agree with this.  Just find a CAP IP and let him authorize you to solo in a CAP aircraft.  This shouldn't be a problem and, it will save you some cash as well.

[DC]

Does it have to be a CAP aircraft? The way the reg reads to me, you must only possess an endorsement from a CAP IP...

[ßτε]

The purpose of the CAP Solo Pilot rating is so student pilots (primarily cadets) can fly CAP aircraft solo under the supervision of a CAP Instructor Pilot in order to qualify for a Private Pilot certificate. If you are not flying a CAP aircraft, there is no need to be a CAP Solo Pilot.

It is similar to a Private Pilot who has not done a form 5. Unless they are checked out to fly a CAP aircraft, they are not a CAP Pilot.

We don't pin on CAP Pilot Wings just because the pilot has a pilot certificate. We shouldn't pin CAP Solo badge just because someone has soloed in a non-CAP aircraft.

[NYArcherFG]

Well I'll just find an IP in my area, the last SM I contacted didn't have the time. Anyway, the wings are not necessary, I know that I can fly a plane either way. Also the thing is I fly a Piper Archer (low wing), and transitioning to a Cessna is a downgrade.

[Gunner C]

yeah, if you're a low-wing kinda guy.  I like hanging from the wing and seeing the sights. 

[bosshawk]

Low wing---high wing, they are all airplanes and they fly very much alike.  I have probably 1000 hrs in high wings and over 2,000 hrs in low wing(I own a Bonanza) and I enjoy flying all of them.  Each have their strong points and weak points, so you might be well-served to get off this misguided trip about high vs low.

[Eclipse]

Low wing---high wing, they are all airplanes and they fly very much alike.  I have probably 1000 hrs in high wings and over 2,000 hrs in low wing(I own a Bonanza) and I enjoy flying all of them.  Each have their strong points and weak points, so you might be well-served to get off this misguided trip about high vs low.

From a flight perspective, sure.  Last I checked the primary reason we have our airplanes is SAR and DR-related activities.  Low-wings aren't much use when your job is looking down.

[bosshawk]

I couldn't agree more, but the young man who started this thread apparently has the idea that if you aren't flying a low wing, you are somehow inferior or that the aircraft is inferior.  I was trying to convince him that such was not a good position to take: especially given his relatively short tenure in the flying game.

I will now go back to my other pursuits.

[flyguy06]

Well I'll just find an IP in my area, the last SM I contacted didn't have the time. Anyway, the wings are not necessary, I know that I can fly a plane either way. Also the thing is I fly a Piper Archer (low wing), and transitioning to a Cessna is a downgrade.

Well, i dont know where you got that from, but thats not true. Like said above a single engine airplaneis a single engine airplane. I will put a C-182 up against a piper warrior anyday.

Its all a matter of personal preference. I like 182's I also like the Piper Arrow.

[Strick]

Tell a C-130 pilot it is a down grade 

[Gunner C]

Tell a C-130 pilot it is a down grade 

[Thrashed]

While the high-wing / low-wing discussion is futile, it is interesting to note that Cessna built more C172's (43,000+) than the entire Piper PA-28 series aircraft (32,000).  That's the entire PA-28 series: 140, 151, 161, 180, R180, R200, 201, 235, 236.  If you use Cessna's other 4-place aircraft (C177, C182) without the C172, it would still outnumber the PA-28 series.  Even the Cessna 150/152 by itself outnumbers the whole PA-28 line.  Only 2,500 PA-38's were built, so that doesn't add much into it. Cessna is a historical aircraft with a great history (like Piper). 

I don't really have a preference.  I've flown every model listed above.  I have more Cessna time because there is more Cessna time to be had.  I did most of my training in Cessnas from my private in a C152 to the multi in the C310.  I like flying Pipers too; mostly because it's different than a Cessna.  I like variety.

[flyguy06]

How do these threads get off topic do easily?


As was said befoe, find an IP and get signed off to solo. Too easy and its cheap too.

[Hawk200]

How do these threads get off topic do easily?


As was said befoe, find an IP and get signed off to solo. Too easy and its cheap too.

Usually, the topic gets covered, then it meanders from there.

[raivo]

How do these threads get off topic do easily?

Welcome to the Internet!

[Thrashed]

The question of the thread was answered in the first reply to the thread.  Should it be closed now?  Who really cares?  The author of the thread brought up the issue of high vs. low wing.  Let the thread go where it wants. 

[DG]

Well I'll just find an IP in my area, the last SM I contacted didn't have the time. Anyway, the wings are not necessary, I know that I can fly a plane either way. Also the thing is I fly a Piper Archer (low wing), and transitioning to a Cessna is a downgrade.

More proof.

Flying an airplane must be easy.

So many idiots are doing it.

[MSgt Van]

"and transitioning to a Cessna is a downgrade."

***original reply deleted. Almost lost my non-military bearing for a minute!***

[NYArcherFG]

Excuse me I think that this should be a professional discussion. If you are a senior member and would like to insult me, a cadet , you should probably consider you are supposed to act more maturely. I NEVER started this post to discuss whether a Skyhawk is better or worse of an aircraft than an Archer. I've been in hangars for hours discussing this topic, and its is age old, their is no right or wrong answer.

And DG YOU are the real idiot, you're obviously not a pilot, (or Chaplain staff)

Its not even an argument that a Cessna is a downgrade.

1.My airplane has dihedral wings which are more stable than a Cessna's wings, this is a fact which can be proven by physics.
2.My airplane has a higher useable payload.
3.My airplane has a faster cruise speed.
4.My airplane has a 180HP engine, unlike a C172 which is 160HP, unless their is a conversion kit. 
5.My airplane is larger, and much more comfortable.
6.My airplane has a stabilator, not an elevator which equates to better control respone. (That's why the military uses a stabilator on fighter aircraft)
7. My airplane can legally fly in higher crosswind components, and performes MUCH better in high winds.



Have a Nice Day!

[NYArcherFG]

I couldn't agree more, but the young man who started this thread apparently has the idea that if you aren't flying a low wing, you are somehow inferior or that the aircraft is inferior.  I was trying to convince him that such was not a good position to take: especially given his relatively short tenure in the flying game.

I will now go back to my other pursuits.

Sir, thats not true. You don't know what I'm thinking, and I assure you I do not believe that a high wing is inferior to a low wing, I'm just stating the facts. I didn't get into a cockpit yesterday, I've been flying in GA since before I knew how to walk.

[SarDragon]

Dude, an airplane's an airplane. Some are good for one purpose, and some are good for a different purpose. CAP flies Cessnas because of their superior downward visibility. If you want to fly for CAP, get used to it; I think our fleet is >95% high wing. If it offends you so much to fly high wing a/c, go find another place to fly, and quit whining.

Here's your cheese:

[flyguy06]

Excuse me I think that this should be a professional discussion. If you are a senior member and would like to insult me, a cadet , you should probably consider you are supposed to act more maturely. I NEVER started this post to discuss whether a Skyhawk is better or worse of an aircraft than an Archer. I've been in hangars for hours discussing this topic, and its is age old, their is no right or wrong answer.

And DG YOU are the real idiot, you're obviously not a pilot, (or Chaplain staff)

Its not even an argument that a Cessna is a downgrade.

1.My airplane has dihedral wings which are more stable than a Cessna's wings, this is a fact which can be proven by physics.
2.My airplane has a higher useable payload.
3.My airplane has a faster cruise speed.
4.My airplane has a 180HP engine, unlike a C172 which is 160HP, unless their is a conversion kit. 
5.My airplane is larger, and much more comfortable.
6.My airplane has a stabilator, not an elevator which equates to better control respone. (That's why the military uses a stabilator on fighter aircraft)
7. My airplane can legally fly in higher crosswind components, and performes MUCH better in high winds.



Have a Nice Day!

1. Cessnas have dihedral as well
2. A Cessna 182 and a Cessna 206 have  ahigher payload than an Archer
3. A Cessna 182 has a higher cruise speed than an Archer
4. All 172's built after 1979 come with 180hp engines. Only older 172's do not
5. A Cessna 182 is extrememly roomier
6. Has no bearing on anything
7. what is the legal crosswind component? POH's give demonstrated crosswind components. In other words, the test pilot took it up and tested in the specified crosswind. Doesnt mean it wont take more, It just means that is what was demonstrated during testing. they put that there for liability purposes.

[DG]

Excuse me I think that this should be a professional discussion. If you are a senior member and would like to insult me, a cadet , you should probably consider you are supposed to act more maturely. I NEVER started this post to discuss whether a Skyhawk is better or worse of an aircraft than an Archer. I've been in hangars for hours discussing this topic, and its is age old, their is no right or wrong answer.

And DG YOU are the real idiot, you're obviously not a pilot, (or Chaplain staff)

Its not even an argument that a Cessna is a downgrade.

1.My airplane has dihedral wings which are more stable than a Cessna's wings, this is a fact which can be proven by physics.
2.My airplane has a higher useable payload.
3.My airplane has a faster cruise speed.
4.My airplane has a 180HP engine, unlike a C172 which is 160HP, unless their is a conversion kit. 
5.My airplane is larger, and much more comfortable.
6.My airplane has a stabilator, not an elevator which equates to better control respone. (That's why the military uses a stabilator on fighter aircraft)
7. My airplane can legally fly in higher crosswind components, and performes MUCH better in high winds.



Have a Nice Day!

It is so true, that it bears repeating.

Learning to fly an airplane is easy today.

It must be easy; so many idiots can do it.

Such as this young, inexperienced cadet.

In spite of all our efforts to communicate with him, he just doesn't get it.

Maybe he will come to begin to get it, over time, with experience.  All we can do is hope.

[davidsinn]

Excuse me I think that this should be a professional discussion. If you are a senior member and would like to insult me, a cadet , you should probably consider you are supposed to act more maturely. I NEVER started this post to discuss whether a Skyhawk is better or worse of an aircraft than an Archer. I've been in hangars for hours discussing this topic, and its is age old, their is no right or wrong answer.

And DG YOU are the real idiot, you're obviously not a pilot, (or Chaplain staff)

Its not even an argument that a Cessna is a downgrade.

1.My airplane has dihedral wings which are more stable than a Cessna's wings, this is a fact which can be proven by physics.
2.My airplane has a higher useable payload.
3.My airplane has a faster cruise speed.
4.My airplane has a 180HP engine, unlike a C172 which is 160HP, unless their is a conversion kit. 
5.My airplane is larger, and much more comfortable.
6.My airplane has a stabilator, not an elevator which equates to better control respone. (That's why the military uses a stabilator on fighter aircraft)
7. My airplane can legally fly in higher crosswind components, and performes MUCH better in high winds.



Have a Nice Day!

1. Cessnas have dihedral as well
2. A Cessna 182 and a Cessna 206 have  ahigher payload than an Archer
3. A Cessna 182 has a higher cruise speed than an Archer
4. All 172's built after 1979 come with 180hp engines. Only older 172's do not
5. A Cessna 182 is extrememly roomier
6. Has no bearing on anything
7. what is the legal crosswind component? POH's give demonstrated crosswind components. In other words, the test pilot took it up and tested in the specified crosswind. Doesnt mean it wont take more, It just means that is what was demonstrated during testing. they put that there for liability purposes.

Cessnas have less dihedral because the CG is below the CL which also leads to a more efficient use of lift because the lift vector on each wing is closer to being parallel with the gravity vector.

[NYArcherFG]

Excuse me I think that this should be a professional discussion. If you are a senior member and would like to insult me, a cadet , you should probably consider you are supposed to act more maturely. I NEVER started this post to discuss whether a Skyhawk is better or worse of an aircraft than an Archer. I've been in hangars for hours discussing this topic, and its is age old, their is no right or wrong answer.

And DG YOU are the real idiot, you're obviously not a pilot, (or Chaplain staff)

Its not even an argument that a Cessna is a downgrade.





1.My airplane has dihedral wings which are more stable than a Cessna's wings, this is a fact which can be proven by physics.
2.My airplane has a higher useable payload.
3.My airplane has a faster cruise speed.
4.My airplane has a 180HP engine, unlike a C172 which is 160HP, unless their is a conversion kit. 
5.My airplane is larger, and much more comfortable.
6.My airplane has a stabilator, not an elevator which equates to better control respone. (That's why the military uses a stabilator on fighter aircraft)
7. My airplane can legally fly in higher crosswind components, and performes MUCH better in high winds.



Have a Nice Day!

It is so true, that it bears repeating.

Learning to fly an airplane is easy today.

It must be easy; so many idiots can do it.

Such as this young, inexperienced cadet.

In spite of all our efforts to communicate with him, he just doesn't get it.

Maybe he will come to begin to get it, over time, with experience.  All we can do is hope.

My father laughed when he saw this. You should talk to him one day, he has logged over 19,000 hours. We own a 1982 Piper Archer and a 1999 Seneca V. Views pretty good from FL200 

[Gunner C]

Good for you and "Daddy."

BTW, stabilators on fighters?  Ever seen an A-10?

There's several of us here who have been flying in GA probably since before your daddy could walk.  You sound like a spoiled rich kid. 

(The rest is deleted due to being an officer and a gentleman)

[NYArcherFG]

Excuse me I think that this should be a professional discussion. If you are a senior member and would like to insult me, a cadet , you should probably consider you are supposed to act more maturely. I NEVER started this post to discuss whether a Skyhawk is better or worse of an aircraft than an Archer. I've been in hangars for hours discussing this topic, and its is age old, their is no right or wrong answer.

And DG YOU are the real idiot, you're obviously not a pilot, (or Chaplain staff)

Its not even an argument that a Cessna is a downgrade.

1.My airplane has dihedral wings which are more stable than a Cessna's wings, this is a fact which can be proven by physics.
2.My airplane has a higher useable payload.
3.My airplane has a faster cruise speed.
4.My airplane has a 180HP engine, unlike a C172 which is 160HP, unless their is a conversion kit. 
5.My airplane is larger, and much more comfortable.
6.My airplane has a stabilator, not an elevator which equates to better control respone. (That's why the military uses a stabilator on fighter aircraft)
7. My airplane can legally fly in higher crosswind components, and performes MUCH better in high winds.



Have a Nice Day!

1. Cessnas have dihedral as well
2. A Cessna 182 and a Cessna 206 have  ahigher payload than an Archer
3. A Cessna 182 has a higher cruise speed than an Archer
4. All 172's built after 1979 come with 180hp engines. Only older 172's do not
5. A Cessna 182 is extrememly roomier
6. Has no bearing on anything
7. what is the legal crosswind component? POH's give demonstrated crosswind components. In other words, the test pilot took it up and tested in the specified crosswind. Doesnt mean it wont take more, It just means that is what was demonstrated during testing. they put that there for liability purposes.

1.Much less of an angular difference.
2.A Cessna 182 has 50 more Horsepower, and a Cessna 206 is more than 100HP more powerful. Neither of these 2 aircraft are comparable to a Piper Archer.
3.A Cessna is not comparable to a piper Archer, as stated above.
4.I don't care, and many CAP Cessna's are pre 1979.
5.Its extremely not "extrememly"
6.Maybe not to you, but it does make a difference to pilots. (maybe a reason exists why the Thunderbirds and Blue Angels have stabilators)
7.Obviously aircraft can take more wind then is written on the POH, but for some reason the FAA is more comfortable with saying a Piper Archer can handle more wind than a C172. hmmm.....

[davidsinn]

Good for you and "Daddy."

BTW, stabilators on fighters?  Ever seen an A-10?

There's several of us here who have been flying in GA probably since before your daddy could walk.  You sound like a spoiled rich kid. 

(The rest is deleted due to being an officer and a gentleman)

Stabilators were developed for control in trans and supersonic regimes. I doubt an Archer can go that fast.

[NYArcherFG]

Good for you and "Daddy."

BTW, stabilators on fighters?  Ever seen an A-10?

There's several of us here who have been flying in GA probably since before your daddy could walk.  You sound like a spoiled rich kid. 

(The rest is deleted due to being an officer and a gentleman)

Yes I have seen an A-10. The aircraft you speak of is a ground support aircraft, not a fighter. Hence, A-10, not F-10, which is very slow and obtrusive. I really dont care how old you are, and I didn't call anyone an "idiot", until I had to defend myself.

[DG]

My father laughed when he saw this. You should talk to him one day, he has logged over 19,000 hours. We own a 1982 Piper Archer and a 1999 Seneca V. Views pretty good from FL200 

YOU should talk to him one day.  And listen.

You will find he is saying the same things we have been trying to get through to you.

[davidsinn]

Good for you and "Daddy."

BTW, stabilators on fighters?  Ever seen an A-10?

There's several of us here who have been flying in GA probably since before your daddy could walk.  You sound like a spoiled rich kid. 

(The rest is deleted due to being an officer and a gentleman)

Yes I have seen an A-10. The aircraft you speak of is a ground support aircraft, not a fighter. Hence, A-10, not F-10, which is very slow and obtrusive. I really dont care how old you are, and I didn't call anyone an "idiot", until I had to defend myself.

An A-10 is a very maneuverable aircraft. It will turn circles around an F-15 at slow speeds. An A-10 will still do double what your Archer will for speed.

[NYArcherFG]

My father laughed when he saw this. You should talk to him one day, he has logged over 19,000 hours. We own a 1982 Piper Archer and a 1999 Seneca V. Views pretty good from FL200 

YOU should talk to him one day.  And listen.

You will find he is saying the same things we have been trying to get through to you.

I have, I would never debate on assumptions or preconceived notions. What exactly are you trying to get through to me, an aircraft with a 310HP engine can go faster than one with a 180HP engine?

[NYArcherFG]

Good for you and "Daddy."

BTW, stabilators on fighters?  Ever seen an A-10?

There's several of us here who have been flying in GA probably since before your daddy could walk.  You sound like a spoiled rich kid. 

(The rest is deleted due to being an officer and a gentleman)

Stabilators were developed for control in trans and supersonic regimes. I doubt an Archer can go that fast.

Please cite your sources.

[NYArcherFG]

Good for you and "Daddy."

BTW, stabilators on fighters?  Ever seen an A-10?

There's several of us here who have been flying in GA probably since before your daddy could walk.  You sound like a spoiled rich kid. 

(The rest is deleted due to being an officer and a gentleman)

Yes I have seen an A-10. The aircraft you speak of is a ground support aircraft, not a fighter. Hence, A-10, not F-10, which is very slow and obtrusive. I really dont care how old you are, and I didn't call anyone an "idiot", until I had to defend myself.

An A-10 is a very maneuverable aircraft. It will turn circles around an F-15 at slow speeds. An A-10 will still do double what your Archer will for speed.

Please show me where I said an A-10 is slower than a Piper Archer. Its not like I think a Single Engine prop goes faster than a multi turbofan.

[DG]

What exactly are you trying to get through to me?

What exactly are we trying to get through to you?

That these are different airplanes for different missions.

Foolish to say one is "better" than the other or that one is a "downgrade" from the other.

Aviation is replete with different makes and models.

I have flown an estimated 25 make / models.

Which is my favorite?

It depends on the mission.  They are all great, each for its own mission.

That's what we have been trying to communicate.

With 19,000 hours, your father surely would make that point with us.

Good luck, and advise you tone down what comes across as a know-it-all attitude while making statements that are foolish.

[NYArcherFG]

Did you, or did you not, call me an idiot?                           Talk about attitude

[davidsinn]

Good for you and "Daddy."

BTW, stabilators on fighters?  Ever seen an A-10?

There's several of us here who have been flying in GA probably since before your daddy could walk.  You sound like a spoiled rich kid. 

(The rest is deleted due to being an officer and a gentleman)

Stabilators were developed for control in trans and supersonic regimes. I doubt an Archer can go that fast.

Please cite your sources.

Wiki for starters and the book "Feet Wet" by Adm. Paul Gilcrist has a good explanation as well. "X-Planes and Prototypes" by Jim Winchester in the Bell X-1 section discusses how it allows trimming as the shock-wave moves aft. Also from Wiki:

The system of a fixed tail surface and moveable elevators is standard in subsonic aircraft. Craft capable of supersonic flight often have a stabilator, an all-moving tail surface. Pitch is changed in this case by moving the entire horizontal surface of the tail. This seemingly simple innovation was one of the key technologies that made supersonic flight possible. In early attempts, as pilots exceeded the critical Mach number, a strange phenomenon made their control surfaces useless, and their aircraft uncontrollable. It was determined that as an aircraft approaches the speed of sound, the air approaching the aircraft is compressed and shock waves begin to form at all the leading edges and around the hinge lines of the elevator. These shock waves caused movements of the elevator to cause no pressure change on the stabilizer upstream of the elevator. The problem was solved by changing the stabilizer and hinged elevator to an all-moving stabilizer - the entire horizontal surface of the tail became a one-piece control surface. Also, in supersonic flight the change in camber has less effect on lift and a stabilator produces less drag

Do I need to go on?

[NYArcherFG]

Yes, if you would like to. Lt.Sinn, tell me, are you a pilot?

[davidsinn]

Yes, if you would like to. Lt.Sinn, tell me, are you a pilot?

Does it matter? Aerodynamics is aerodynamics.

[Gunner C]

Good for you and "Daddy."

BTW, stabilators on fighters?  Ever seen an A-10?

There's several of us here who have been flying in GA probably since before your daddy could walk.  You sound like a spoiled rich kid. 

(The rest is deleted due to being an officer and a gentleman)

Stabilators were developed for control in trans and supersonic regimes. I doubt an Archer can go that fast.

Please cite your sources.

Wiki for starters and the book "Feet Wet" by Adm. Paul Gilcrist has a good explanation as well. "X-Planes and Prototypes" by Jim Winchester in the Bell X-1 section discusses how it allows trimming as the shock-wave moves aft. Also from Wiki:

The system of a fixed tail surface and moveable elevators is standard in subsonic aircraft. Craft capable of supersonic flight often have a stabilator, an all-moving tail surface. Pitch is changed in this case by moving the entire horizontal surface of the tail. This seemingly simple innovation was one of the key technologies that made supersonic flight possible. In early attempts, as pilots exceeded the critical Mach number, a strange phenomenon made their control surfaces useless, and their aircraft uncontrollable. It was determined that as an aircraft approaches the speed of sound, the air approaching the aircraft is compressed and shock waves begin to form at all the leading edges and around the hinge lines of the elevator. These shock waves caused movements of the elevator to cause no pressure change on the stabilizer upstream of the elevator. The problem was solved by changing the stabilizer and hinged elevator to an all-moving stabilizer - the entire horizontal surface of the tail became a one-piece control surface. Also, in supersonic flight the change in camber has less effect on lift and a stabilator produces less drag

Do I need to go on?

Heck, I learned that when I was a cadet:  Wright Brothers Achievement (Aircraft in Flight).  But heck, that was 42 years ago.  What do I know?

[NYArcherFG]

.

[davidsinn]

Of course you did, especially when that Award was created on 1April 2003. Well, that just tells me a lot about your Integrity

Yes it was created in 2003 however the Wright Brothers ACHIEVEMENT is much older and was replaced by the milestone award. Before insulting someone you best get your facts straight.

[Gunner C]

Wow!  You can't swing a dead cat without insulting someone!

[Spike]

Wow!  You can't swing a dead cat without insulting someone!

ummm.....shall I call animal protection or do you want to turn yourself in?   

[Gunner C]

 

[NYArcherFG]

Well other than a small part CAP being a congregation of men with too much time on their hands, they seem to teach Cadets "Moral Leadership", while they cannot stop argueing themselves. It still seems nobody can reply to comment #44.

[MIKE]

The one is well past done.