I don't remember the "slow flight" maneuver in the T-34 (paging @Gatordev ??) but the one in the T-6 for the last ten years involved really goosing the throttle to demonstrate what your hands and feet needed to do and in an exaggerated way. We'd do it a couple ways, one with maintaining ball, heading, and pitch attitude and the other with letting the airplane do what it wanted to do naturally- which would be quickly pitch up into the stick shaker and buffet, ball out to the side, rolling to the side from the combination of the skidding ball and propeller torque. Occasionally guys would depart controlled flight (which the IP was supposed to prevent... dumbass).
The slow flight maneuver in the T-34 was more about learning where the edge was with a little aerodynamics thrown in (poorly, in my opinion, as I didn't understand one of the points made in the FTI even as an IUT, initially). But a big part of that was because the T-34 was so forgiving. The basics of the maneuver were:
- straight and level at 25-26 units
- seeing the plane "stall" in a level turn (it didn't stall, but you'd go up into the shakers
- seeing adverse yaw by turning with no pedals (this was what I thought was educational but not taught well, at least to me initially)
- applying power and accelerating in level flight, noting how fast the AOA comes back with the increase in power
While there was tons of thrust and a lot of down trim was needed to maintain level flight I don't remember pitching up to a point of stalling being an issue, but I think the procedures were designed that way.
The power-off stall didn't require a power recovery, just a return to the 100 knot glide, which was more about recovering while in the ELP. There was blurbage about recovering too quickly, causing a secondary departure.
And yes, I did just pull out my FTI to reference a few things, but the numbers were still attached to some penguins still clinging to the iceberg, so I guess I still have some brain cells left.
And that's a shame they got rid of the skidded-turn stall; I remember getting that demoed and being like "holy shit, I'm inverted; what just happened?"
I've mentioned this before, but the STS that you saw as a stud was a manufactured event and the procedures were a little different in NATOPS than in the FTI. The upset and recovery was created by your IP to make it seem more dramatic to get the point across, but the actual maneuver (and subsequent recovery) in NATOPS wouldn't cause the aggressive snap and roll-over onto the planes' back. Recovery was supposed to be very quick, as well, unlike the FTI procedure. I can't remember the number, but ~<200' lost.
I'm not saying it wasn't a good demo, but something that wasn't fully explained to studs. Keep in mind, the basics of aerodynamics apply to the slip that also apply to the skid, with the potential for the same catastrophic results, and everyone was taught to slip all day long. But the main point was to make sure studs weren't trying to make the straight away in the pattern with a lot of rudder and instead just wave off, since you were getting close to the critical AOA of the plane at those speeds.