Can a really aggressive forward slip on final ever produce a spin?

[RobertE]

I know that the dreaded stall/spin on turning base to final comes from a skidding turn (too much rudder, compounded by opposite aileron to lift the dropping wing).  But, of course, many of us were taught to slip on final to offset the crosswind, which is the opposite of a skid.  Can such a slip ever produce a stall/spin?  I know the wing that would drop would be the elevated one but if, say, I was in an aggressive slip to offset a very strong crosswind that suddenly ceased would there be any chance of a stall/spin?

 

[carusoam]

Done improperly, yes...  your chances of goofing something up start to increase.

If you are stabilized in the descent and gently add in AND remove the crossed control inputs, probably no...

If you fly a long body, there is a known possibility of the main wing shadowing the tail, interrupting the air flow over the tail causing a tail stall...

As a new pilot, I used to aggressively enter and exit slips...  resulting in a tail wag.   not really a good idea.

Doing this with the nose level.  The air speed bleeds off terribly quickly.

If you use slips and skids, keep the nose pointed down.  Don't wag the tail using aggressive control inputs or don't let go of the control inputs.  Letting control pressure go is similar to putting it in aggressively. A subtle similarity I didn't understand at first.  Keep your eyes on the ASI at all times.  

Know that Some people have difficulty keeping one eye on the ASI as it is one more thing to accomplish in the busy final landing sequence. Suddenly scanning instruments and looking out the window becomes a challenge....

This question is handled pretty well by the Long Bodies.  They all got speed brakes to allow for energy dissipation without using cross controlled inputs.

 

Check with a CFI prior to experimenting...  do it safely at altitude when you do.

Ordinary PP advice only, not a CFI...

Best regards,

-a-

[pinerunner]

I read somewhere that while skids were very dangerous and tended to throw you into a spin, slips tended to be safer and throw you into recovery if you should stall.  I use forward slips to lose altitude quick if I'm too high and they work fine but I keep 85-90 mph indicated. I don't want to mess with a stall close to the ground (well a foot off the ground then I do). Side slip correction to landing is pretty much standard operating procedure. I've found that near the end of the flare I don't seem to need the slip anyway, as if the crosswind poops out two feet off the ground. I haven't needed to touch down one wheel first yet, even when I expected to.

[MB65E]

Absolutely!!! The wing will stall at any deck angle. Then it all depends on what Yaw moment you have induced at the instant the wing departs.  I don't know what a snap roll looks like in a Mooney, but I do know the fastest way to enter a spin in a Cessna 150 is a tight turn with opposite rudder. It will cross over the top faster than any other entry. 

On the M20, with power off, the rudder might not be enough to have it cross over the top. With full flaps, and full rudder if slow enough you might blank out the tail. I will report back, but I bet you could get it to spin the other direction. The inputs are the same as a snap roll! I'd be careful. 

-Matt

[Danb]

Absolutely, great way to lose altitude but has its perils, many of us don't utilize the slip method for crosswinds, I generally slip or kick it to align it to the runway just prior to touchdown

 

[PTK]

Prerequisites to a spin are stall and uncoordinated flight or excessive yaw. You are half way there because a slip is by definition uncoordinated flight with yaw input. However spins from slips are not as likely as those from skids. 

In a skid the bottom wing stalls first encouraging the airplane to drop into a spin very quickly. In a slip the top wing stalls first dropping to level.

You have to work hard to enter a spin from a slip but it can be done.

[201er]

3 hours ago, RobertE said:

I know that the dreaded stall/spin on turning base to final comes from a skidding turn (too much rudder, compounded by opposite aileron to lift the dropping wing).  But, of course, many of us were taught to slip on final to offset the crosswind, which is the opposite of a skid.  Can such a slip ever produce a stall/spin?  I know the wing that would drop would be the elevated one but if, say, I was in an aggressive slip to offset a very strong crosswind that suddenly ceased would there be any chance of a stall/spin?

 

I don't think you have enough rudder to "slip it into a stall." Perhaps if you were already hanging on the absolute verge of a stall, adding slip could throw you over the edge. However, if you are flying at normal approach angle of attack, I don't think there is any way you can slip a Mooney and get it cross controlled enough to cause a stall without changing pitch.

The reason a skid can throw you into a spin is because if you stomp the rudder at relatively high aoa, as one wing accelerates, the other one decelerates. During a slip, you are not pivoting so you don't develop that problem. The only way I can see to push a plane into a spin (without pulling back or reducing power) during a slip entry is to stomp the rudder without putting in sufficient cross aileron input and in reality having a skid and a skid induced spin.

[Vance Harral]

You can stall a Mooney in a slip, causing an incipient spin.  Full stop, end of story.  Been there, done that (under carefully controlled circumstances as part of CFI training).  There is plenty enough rudder and pitch authority to do so.

What's being discussed in this thread is how likely you are to enter an inadvertent, cross-controlled stall from an intentional slip on final, and how difficult the recovery would be.  The answers are, "not likely", and "less so than from a skidding stall".

Exactly how "likely" you are to stall while slipping on final is hard to quantify.  But I certainly wouldn't hesitate to use intentional slips on final.  Just a moderate slip in descending flight, at a low angle of attack, is very effective in increasing descent rate without increasing airspeed.  The difference in control displacement and control "feel" between that benign maneuver, vs. actually entering a cross-controlled stall from a slipping turn, is significant.  In my airplane, a slipping stall in a descent requires full rudder to the floor, and an almost unbelievable amount of back pressure (with the airplane trimmed normally for final approach).  To me, it feels so far outside the realm of normal control pressures that it's hard to believe anyone could do so inadvertently.  But I felt the same way about a skidding stall, and the NTSB reports are full of such accidents, so caution is always warranted.

As others have noted, a stall from a slip causes the airplane to roll toward the high wing.  By the time you've applied recovery inputs, the airplane is essentially wings level.  If you don't apply recovery inputs, you'll eventually enter a spin, but it takes a few seconds.  A stall from a skidding turn, in contrast, causes the airplane to roll toward the low wing.  You can recover without exceeding 60 degrees of bank if you're primed for it to happen and immediately apply recovery inputs.  But if you're not expecting it, I'd wager nearly every pilot will wind up inverted before they have time to register what just happened.

[201er]

I do full rudder deflection forward slips lots of times to lose height. I can't slip any "more aggressively" because I am already at full rudder. Forward slips are always done at full rudder because in a slippery Mooney, even at full deflection you don't get much so there's no point in doing it unless you take it all. So, in a cross-wind side slip, there's nothing to worry about as long as you enter with normal approach angle of attack and don't pull back while executing the slip.

I even do turning slips sometimes to lose height. This is where you go full opposite rudder and aileron beyond a forward slip so that you turn with the nose lagging behind the turn. As long as the nose is down, wings unloaded, this is safe as well.

The two main dangers of slipping a Mooney are:

-Fuel porting when at low fuel

-Long bodies supposedly having tail shadowing

 

The only place slips would be outright dangerous would be in a climb at high AOA but there is absolutely not the slightest reason to use them intentionally here! This would be a case of someone doing a climbing turn without sufficient rudder input and being more vulnerable with the nose really high.

Edited December 8, 2016 by 201er

[Cruiser]

You can't spin if you don't stall and you can't stall unless you have a high AoA.

The purpose of a forward slip is to loose altitude not airspeed.

Keep your speed up and your nose down.

[201er]

22 minutes ago, Cruiser said:

You can't spin if you don't stall and you can't stall unless you have a high AoA.

...but I always heard that stall is a speed

[Vance Harral]

19 minutes ago, 201er said:

Forward slips are always done at full rudder because in a slippery Mooney, even at full deflection you don't get much so there's no point in doing it unless you take it all.

This statement suggests a certain lack of finesse.  I can vary descent rate by varying the amount of rudder used in a slip, it's certainly not "full rudder or nothing".  Much easier and quicker to adjust vs. changing flaps or power, too, though I tend to avoid that technique with passengers who aren't pilots just due to the funny look and feel for them.  To be fair, your J has less drag than my F.  But I've seen light slips used in everything from Cubs to TBMs.  I wouldn't teach "full rudder or nothing" in any airframe, whether draggy or slippery.

 

23 minutes ago, 201er said:

there's nothing to worry about as long as you enter with normal approach angle of attack and don't pull back while executing the slip.

Generally agree, though cavalier statements like "nothing to worry about" always give me pause.  Prefer to just say that the amount of backpressure required to induce a stall from a slip while trimmed in the landing configuration is, well, "impressive" in my F model.

 

23 minutes ago, 201er said:

The only place slips would be outright dangerous would be in a climb at high AOA

Let's not muddy the waters - whether the aircraft is climbing, level, or descending is irrelevant.  Only AOA matters (as you've pointed out in many threads).  Again, agree you're very unlikely to have problems without significant pulling on the yoke.

[201er]

1 minute ago, Vance Harral said:

This statement suggests a certain lack of finesse.  I can vary descent rate by varying the amount of rudder used in a slip, it's certainly not "full rudder or nothing".  Much easier and quicker to adjust vs. changing flaps or power, too, though I tend to avoid that technique with passengers who aren't pilots just due to the funny look and feel for them. 

I don't really see it that way. I don't see a slip as a place I intentionally want to stay in any longer than I need to. I'm not flying a taildragger that you can only see ahead if you're flying sideways to land. I'm not going to make "fine" height adjustments through a slip. It is all or nothing. The impact of the slip is controlled with time. How long do I need to hold this full slip to join the desired glidepath. 3 seconds or 7 seconds? I'm already high when I revert to a slip so the sooner I can get on glidepath the better. By going full, I will get there sooner. And when I get there, I will let off the slip. Simple as that.

[Jerry 5TJ]

 I've done slips on landing approaches in C, E, and now my R model.  I might do a slip if I'm both high and fast.  All three types seem to do the maneuver about alike. 

So, how do I demo this supposed "long body" slip behavior you guys warn of?   

[Cruiser]

here is a copy and paste of what you are looking for.......

I also attached the link here.... http://www.donkaye.com/donkaye.com/Bob_Krommer_on_Mooney_Slips-Part_2.html

 

From the Mooney List December 3, 2005 by Bob Kromer

 

SLIPPING A MOONEY

 

Went up to the attic last night and dug through my old flight test data sheets from my Engineering Flight Test days at the factory.  I did find the observed data for the slip tests I did.  Looked over the data.  From those test results, here is some additional information that might help answer some of the questions that have been raised:

 

1.  The data shows that it's the airplanes that require lots of nose up trim for landing that are the most prone to experiencing the tail buffeting condition we talked about earlier when aggressively slipping at or below 85 KIAS.  We simply could not get the M20J prototype to buffet in a full rudder sideslip at any CG and flap condition tested, down to 1.1 Vstall.  From those test results, I think it is safe to say that the Pre-J models and the J model itself will not experience any tail buffeting/partial airflow separation over the horizontal tail in an aggressive sideslip maneuver.  So the J and Pre-J models should be okay for slipping on approach.  Not comfortable, and in my humble opinion not the way to fly a high performance airplane like a Mooney, but safe.

 

2.  It's the K models (and variations ther3of) and the "long body" models that showed the possibility of inducing a partial horizontal tail airflow separation in an aggressive sideslip condition.  I got it in both the Mooney/Porsche and the M20K model prototypes in the landing approach configuration.  These are the airplanes that require almost full (if not full) nose up trim for a hands off, trimmed condition on final approach. (Sometime, run your pitch trim to the full nose up position on the ground and look at the negative angle of attack of the horizontal tail.  Quite impressive). It's this high negative angle of attack with full nose up trim that puts the airflow over the horizontal tail at a fairly extreme condition.

 

3.  Extending the flaps adds to the downwash angle over the horizontal tail, making the negative angle of attack over the horizontal tail even greater. Mooneys spend a lot of their time at or near forward CG.  As the CG moves forward the need for more nose up trim on the approach is required for trimmed flight.  So does lower airspeed.  So the worse condition for aggressive slipping in the K and up models is slow, forward CG, full flaps - just like we are when configured for landing.  Remember, it's anything that requires the need for more nose up trim that adds to the possibility of experiencing horizontal tail buffeting when aggressively slipping on the

approach.      

 

4.  Aggressive slipping does strange things to the local airflow over the horizontal tail.  The bottom line is this - the horizontal tail will see a greater negative angle of attack in the slip maneuver.  So add an aggressive slip to the conditions noted in #3 above and you can experience the partial airflow separation over the horizontal tail and the resulting buffeting that we found in the flight tests. The Mooney is such a good design that there is no danger here - just a buffet in the control wheel from the elevator, a slight nose down pitching moment and a little loss of elevator effectiveness.  But I want to emphasize - THIS IS NO PLACE TO BE FLYING. Add a little ice to that horizontal tail leading edge or a gusty crosswind requiring heavy elevator input and look out.  That minor buffeting and airflow separation can get worse.

 

5.  Someone asked what would happen to an airplane if the horizontal tail completely stalled.  The answer - bad news.  A sharp nose down pitching moment and a loss of elevator control would result.  With increased airspeed as a result of the nose down pitch, the tail might start flying again and elevator effectiveness might be restored.  But we're talking a loss of aircraft control here - a pilot's worse nightmare.  How much altitude might be lost in this loss of control experience?  A guess - 2000 feet.

 

6.  Incidentally, ground effect helps the condition - the downwash angle over the horizontal tail is slightly reduced with the wing/flaps in ground effect.  This reduces the local negative angle of attack of the air flowing over the horizontal tail - a good thing when it comes to stalling the

horizontal tail.

 

Again - the bottom line.  Aggressive slips in your Pre-J or J should be okay from a safety of flight viewpoint.  K models and up - margins here are thinner.  Chances are you might experience some tail buffeting in the K models and up when aggressively slipping - not a place to be.  From my flight test experience, I would avoid aggressive slips on approach in the K's and up.  The Mooney is a wonderful design, but all designs have their limits.  

 

I certainly don't have all the answers and would never claim to be an "expert" or tell anyone how they need to fly their airplanes, but maybe some of my engineering flight test experiences at Mooney will help you better understand your airplanes.  I've got lots of good data in my attic.  Hope to share more of it with you in the future.

 

Best Regards;

 

Bob Kromer

[carusoam]

Jerry,

Use high altitude and bring along a person like a MAPA CFII... mount the go-pro and hang some tell-tales on the horizontal tail surfaces.

how do we experience tail stalls?

It is possible to look up the explanation since the one known accident occurred with a Mooney test pilot on board.

Expect that it was a combination of full flaps and the right AOA the dirty air on the tail should become noticeable under the right slip conditions.

 

This sounds like getting ice on the tail, enough ice to generate a tail stall, the nose will point to the ground very quickly.

 

this is stuff I have only heard of, I have never experienced a tail stall.

 

I liked the full slips with the M20C, but I had the short rudder and full throw of the 65 model... it would run out of strength on windy days.  

Whenever the rudder is held out into the wind, it works really well as a brake.  Whether you want it to or not...

Having your foot slip off the rudder as you let out of the slip is snappy.  It is good to have a nice pair of shoes to have a good feel for the rudder pedals.  Simple error...

More thinking out loud by a PP.  Not a CFI...

Best regards,

-a-

[Marauder]

here is a copy and paste of what you are looking for.......
I also attached the link here.... http://www.donkaye.com/donkaye.com/Bob_Krommer_on_Mooney_Slips-Part_2.html
 

From the Mooney List December 3, 2005 by Bob Kromer

 

SLIPPING A MOONEY

 

Went up to the attic last night and dug through my old flight test data sheets from my Engineering Flight Test days at the factory.  I did find the observed data for the slip tests I did.  Looked over the data.  From those test results, here is some additional information that might help answer some of the questions that have been raised:

 

1.  The data shows that it's the airplanes that require lots of nose up trim for landing that are the most prone to experiencing the tail buffeting condition we talked about earlier when aggressively slipping at or below 85 KIAS.  We simply could not get the M20J prototype to buffet in a full rudder sideslip at any CG and flap condition tested, down to 1.1 Vstall.  From those test results, I think it is safe to say that the Pre-J models and the J model itself will not experience any tail buffeting/partial airflow separation over the horizontal tail in an aggressive sideslip maneuver.  So the J and Pre-J models should be okay for slipping on approach.  Not comfortable, and in my humble opinion not the way to fly a high performance airplane like a Mooney, but safe.

 

2.  It's the K models (and variations ther3of) and the "long body" models that showed the possibility of inducing a partial horizontal tail airflow separation in an aggressive sideslip condition.  I got it in both the Mooney/Porsche and the M20K model prototypes in the landing approach configuration.  These are the airplanes that require almost full (if not full) nose up trim for a hands off, trimmed condition on final approach. (Sometime, run your pitch trim to the full nose up position on the ground and look at the negative angle of attack of the horizontal tail.  Quite impressive). It's this high negative angle of attack with full nose up trim that puts the airflow over the horizontal tail at a fairly extreme condition.

 

3.  Extending the flaps adds to the downwash angle over the horizontal tail, making the negative angle of attack over the horizontal tail even greater. Mooneys spend a lot of their time at or near forward CG.  As the CG moves forward the need for more nose up trim on the approach is required for trimmed flight.  So does lower airspeed.  So the worse condition for aggressive slipping in the K and up models is slow, forward CG, full flaps - just like we are when configured for landing.  Remember, it's anything that requires the need for more nose up trim that adds to the possibility of experiencing horizontal tail buffeting when aggressively slipping on the

approach.      

 

4.  Aggressive slipping does strange things to the local airflow over the horizontal tail.  The bottom line is this - the horizontal tail will see a greater negative angle of attack in the slip maneuver.  So add an aggressive slip to the conditions noted in #3 above and you can experience the partial airflow separation over the horizontal tail and the resulting buffeting that we found in the flight tests. The Mooney is such a good design that there is no danger here - just a buffet in the control wheel from the elevator, a slight nose down pitching moment and a little loss of elevator effectiveness.  But I want to emphasize - THIS IS NO PLACE TO BE FLYING. Add a little ice to that horizontal tail leading edge or a gusty crosswind requiring heavy elevator input and look out.  That minor buffeting and airflow separation can get worse.

 

5.  Someone asked what would happen to an airplane if the horizontal tail completely stalled.  The answer - bad news.  A sharp nose down pitching moment and a loss of elevator control would result.  With increased airspeed as a result of the nose down pitch, the tail might start flying again and elevator effectiveness might be restored.  But we're talking a loss of aircraft control here - a pilot's worse nightmare.  How much altitude might be lost in this loss of control experience?  A guess - 2000 feet.

 

6.  Incidentally, ground effect helps the condition - the downwash angle over the horizontal tail is slightly reduced with the wing/flaps in ground effect.  This reduces the local negative angle of attack of the air flowing over the horizontal tail - a good thing when it comes to stalling the

horizontal tail.

 

Again - the bottom line.  Aggressive slips in your Pre-J or J should be okay from a safety of flight viewpoint.  K models and up - margins here are thinner.  Chances are you might experience some tail buffeting in the K models and up when aggressively slipping - not a place to be.  From my flight test experience, I would avoid aggressive slips on approach in the K's and up.  The Mooney is a wonderful design, but all designs have their limits.  

 

I certainly don't have all the answers and would never claim to be an "expert" or tell anyone how they need to fly their airplanes, but maybe some of my engineering flight test experiences at Mooney will help you better understand your airplanes.  I've got lots of good data in my attic.  Hope to share more of it with you in the future.

 

Best Regards;

 

Bob Kromer

There you go, someone always needs to bring an expert's opinion in and ruin all of this speculation we do.

I have slipped my F many times over the years and never felt any concern doing so. Most of the time I am doing a slip is when some wise arse instructor is pulling the power over an airport and saying, "You just lost your engine!". I find keeping the plane high and slipping if needed is better than guessing when to turn final and hoping that I read the winds correctly.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Mooneymite]

1 hour ago, Marauder said:

There you go, someone always needs to bring an expert's opinion in and ruin all of this speculation we do.

 

This excerpt is a great piece, but Bob Krommer is primarily addressing horizontal stabilizer stall, not wing stall in a slip.  Not directly addressing the OP's question.

Wing stall, as has been previously stated is a necessary component of a spin.

[bonal]

One of my favorite subjects since I do a lot of forward slips on final. Three control imputes done together role rudder and pitch down. My short rudder does not have much authority so is the limiting factor but the resultant effect has always given me the desired amount of decent and airspeed control. I don't think of it as all or nothing but the amount of altitude loss needed usually means rudder is to the floor. And yes if I have the distance from the field to establish a nice stable approach it's what I do but many places we fly are close to hills and mountains and as someone who likes lots of AGL the forward slip is a very useful tool to get down while maintaining airspeed . I also prefer it to crabbing in strong cross wind landings because it just gives me a more stable feel to the airplane 

[pinerunner]

20 hours ago, pinerunner said:

I read somewhere that while skids were very dangerous and tended to throw you into a spin, slips tended to be safer and throw you into recovery if you should stall.  I use forward slips to lose altitude quick if I'm too high and they work fine but I keep 85-90 mph indicated. I don't want to mess with a stall close to the ground (well a foot off the ground then I do). Side slip correction to landing is pretty much standard operating procedure. I've found that near the end of the flare I don't seem to need the slip anyway, as if the crosswind poops out two feet off the ground. I haven't needed to touch down one wheel first yet, even when I expected to.

I'm quoting myself here because I wanted to add a bit of correction. Go to 

www.bruceair.com/site_map/site_map.htm  

and they have a bunch of vids of stall to spin scenarios from either skid or slip. They go in opposite directions depending on which wing is in the wind shadow but a slip CAN lead to flipping over into spin. I've been cautious  I think (hope) when using forward  slips to create drag but I'm completely disabused of the idea that you can't get into a spin from a slip. Of course the classic deadly accident is to apply extra rudder when turning to final when you see you're overshooting the runway, generating a skid at low speed and near the ground. I still feel pretty good about slipping crosswind correction because the higher angle of attack happens very close to the ground.

 

 

 

 

[pinerunner]

One more thing I 'd like to add to this discussion. I was reading through my operating manual not long ago and came across the table of stall speeds as a function of bank and flap setting. I found it very sobering to note the stall speeds quoted for no flaps in various banks because those speeds started to get close to my approach speeds of 90 mph and 80 mph on final. I've hadn't considered a no flap landing to be a big no-no but now I feel differently. I suppose if you keep speeds up and make very shallow turns its possible to be safe but I can't think of a reason for doing that. 2 notches of flap after reaching 90 mph and BEFORE the first turn.

I'm not flying a cub anymore.

I get the flaps up pretty quick after takeoff to avoid exceeding the max flap extension speed. Then I can drop the nose for better cooling. Shallow turns until over 100 mph are the order of the day there.

[Bennett]

My old K (261 conversion) felt far less stable in a forward slip, and after a few possible tail "burbles", I stoped doing them. My J slips more comfortably, but I seldom do them. I guess in the intervening years I have learned how to drop altitude quickly without slipping until near the runway in strong crosswinds. I am growing ever more confident in my CYA -100 AOA unit, but to a great extent, 40 years of landings (well over 20 in Mooneys) has a "feels about right" aspect that supersedes just watching instrumentation. A lot of clues here-yoke pressure, sight picture of nose relative to runway, general noise level (even with ANR headsets), perceived speed relative to runway markers, occasional scans of AOA and ASI instruments, listening for aural warnings just before touchdown. As I grow older I find experience trumps rigid adherence to "rules" and "always fly her by the numbers" thinking. I want to be at the right altitude, attitude, speed, and trim 50' from the runway threshold. How I get there comes from years of experience. Many will disagree, but It works for me. My old flight instructor taught me how to do this - "pull the hood off, and now what are you going to do?" That training is invaluable, and I still fly with him for my periodic checkouts, and he keeps setting up "almost impossible" scenarios. Almost, but not impossible.

Fly lots - fly safe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pinerunner]

14 minutes ago, Bennett said:

My old K (261 conversion) felt far less stable in a forward slip, and after a few possible tail "burbles", I stoped doing them. My J slips more comfortably, but I seldom do them. I guess in the intervening years I have learned how to drop altitude quickly without slipping until near the runway in strong crosswinds. I am growing ever more confident in my CYA -100 AOA unit, but to a great extent, 40 years of landings (over 20 in Mooneys) has a "feels about right" aspect that supersedes just watching instrumentation. A lot of clues here-yoke pressure, sight picture of nose relative to runway, general noise level (even with ANR headsets), perceived speed relative to runway markers, occasional scans of AOA and ASI instruments, listening for aural warnings just before touchdown.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There's a lot to be said for "looking out the window".

[Vance Harral]

44 minutes ago, pinerunner said:

I found it very sobering to note the stall speeds quoted for no flaps in various banks because those speeds started to get close to my approach speeds of 90 mph and 80 mph on final.

Bear in mind those speeds are based on a level turn which necessarily requires greater than 1G of load.  That's a little different from the descending, approximately 1G turn typically flown in the pattern.  Not saying your caution in unwarranted, of course, just that descending turns in the pattern aren't exactly the same scenario used to produce that table in the POH.

[RobertE]

58 minutes ago, pinerunner said:

One more thing I 'd like to add to this discussion. I was reading through my operating manual not long ago and came across the table of stall speeds as a function of bank and flap setting. I found it very sobering to note the stall speeds quoted for no flaps in various banks because those speeds started to get close to my approach speeds of 90 mph and 80 mph on final. I've hadn't considered a no flap landing to be a big no-no but now I feel differently. I suppose if you keep speeds up and make very shallow turns its possible to be safe but I can't think of a reason for doing that. 2 notches of flap after reaching 90 mph and BEFORE the first turn.

I'm not flying a cub anymore.

I get the flaps up pretty quick after takeoff to avoid exceeding the max flap extension speed. Then I can drop the nose for better cooling. Shallow turns until over 100 mph are the order of the day there.

I think those stall speeds at varying level of bank angle presume level flight.  So the predicted stall speed at, say, a 20% bank angle while descending on final would be higher than shown in the POH.  How much higher??  Hmm.  No idea.