Spin practice

[farri]

Glad to hear Frank you are responsible and did spin training, makes you a safer pilot.

I did it before I obtained my AUF CFI rating. Instructors don`t come much better than Bob Harris and I had no problems with spins.

 

I instructed in the 95-25 catagory Austflight certified WB Drifter, one of the ones that started legal,twin seat,Ultralight instruction. It is rated as unspinable and ailerons fully effective throught the stall, yet anyone who knows and understands the theory of a spin, could make it spin.

 

I believe that anyone who accidently gets into a spin hasn`t been flying the aircraft correctly, however, that`s not to say that I`m not for spin training. Regardles of how or why a spin has occured, without the correct knowledge on how to recover, the result will be ' Terrain Collision' , as they say and will certainly be fatal.

 

Frank.

 

Ps, In your case! I`m not saying you weren`t flying correctly.

 

 

[kaz3g]

So true, Dafydd. I learned to glide in Blaniks with Peter Johnson and was later checked out as an instructor by Mike Valentine in the early 80's. the Blanik gave you the rising and falling nose as it performed a true spin.

I did love the old Bocian, however. That beautiful drawn out sigh as the dropping wing rotated towards the vertical was quite something. A true lady.

 

Kaz

[kaz3g]

D

 

This is a great discussion! i also wish full spins were taught and aircraft certified under RAAus... I know I'd feel better if the first time I have to do it is under instruction, not under duress! I would agree with DrZoos regarding the safety and legality, so I think what I might do is sign up with one of these aerobatic outfits and get some training in a properly certified aircraft. Then if one day it should happen to me for whatever reason in a Jab, I'll have practiced it properly and can hope that the plane would withstand the attempt to recover - if its an emergency, you do what you must; but no need to create an emergency for yourself or the next guy by practicing a full spin if the plane clearly isn't certified for it.

DJP is an aerobatic instructor, competitor and past champion...you couldn't find better.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

This is something that happened 15 years ago, I was out flying my trike and my mates were flying in a Cherokee they decided to fly slow next to me and did this several times my radio did not work at the time as the plug had fallen off the back and I wanted to tell them to get away, the third time they came around I steered away and they steered to me and I hit the wake, the trike went nose down and spun. In ymy training I asked how to fix a spin and was told how and told you will probably die before you fix it, so here I was in a spin in a Trike at 2000 ft above ground, I did what was instructed and it came out and fixed the dive and then told my self lets land and never fly again.I told my old instructor about it and said I was lucky to survive.

I'm very intrigued Camel as I have always considered the trikes are pretty much un-spinable (although it is possible with high performance HG wings).

 

I appreciate it was a long time ago but can you share some detail of what the trike was actually doing in the spin and what technique you had been taught to recover ?

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[Camel]

I'm very intrigued Camel as I have always considered the trikes are pretty much un-spinable (although it is possible with high performance HG wings).I appreciate it was a long time ago but can you share some detail of what the trike was actually doing in the spin and what technique you had been taught to recover ?

Cheers

 

John

Yes Crezzi, a long time but will never forget, I would have thought a trike was unspinable too but it did. When the trike hit the wake the nose dropped instantly and facing vertical at the ground and rotating to the right, the ground was coming towards me quickly, I was holding the bar neutral and pulling against the rotation that is I was trying to steer left, the rotation stopped and only then I pushed the bar forward to get out of the dive. A mate who witnessed it was a hang glider pilot and said he was amazed how quick the nose dropped and how steep it went down. I was told by my instructor to keep bar neutral and stop rotation first, to move the bar in or out will put it totally out of control.

 

At a guess when it dropped it literally was falling not flying the rotation was caused by the only lift that one side of the wing was offering a little lift and drag, when rotation stopped the control came back very quickly.

 

I would not know if this has happened to anyone else and my instructor indicated it was very unlikely to happen, I can only imagine it would take wake turbulence or wind shear to initiate this situation, I know that if you pull the bar in during a stall the trike could tumble but I have never heard of it happening.

 

I will say the plane came close and the fact I steered away to the right gave him the chance to steer more right to the front of me putting me directly in his wake, I was probably steering right when I hit the wake hence it spun to right. Hope this helps, happy to share.

 

 

[Camel]

I'm very intrigued Camel as I have always considered the trikes are pretty much un-spinable (although it is possible with high performance HG wings).I appreciate it was a long time ago but can you share some detail of what the trike was actually doing in the spin and what technique you had been taught to recover ?

Cheers

 

John

It was a 94 Airbourne Edge executive 582 with original edge executive wing.

 

 

[djpacro]

The Cessna 150 and 152 spin nicely and will stay in a stable spin. The 152 not so ready to enter, however. Both can go flat with some inspin aileron. (references available, not just my opinion). ....... I agree about the 162 and TP1076 etc. I read somewhere that B... (name edited out) got involved to help fix it. I'm currently in the USA so will give my friends there a call (I expect I may not be able to repeat here what I may be told, but off topic so perhaps a new thread for that).

Caught up with my friends from my previous life at the NASA Spin Research Center and learnt a lot about the 162 spin tests and a bit more about the 152 but, sorry, not public info. Seems to me that the 162 is not intended to be certified for intentional spins.

[David Isaac]

Caught up with my friends from my previous life at the NASA Spin Research Center and learnt a lot about the 162 spin tests and a bit more about the 152 but, sorry, not public info. Seems to me that the 162 is not intended to be certified for intentional spins.

When you get back we will have to have a chat ... safe travels.

 

 

[djpacro]

Sure David. Spinning is best discussed face to face anyway (or face to back of head in an aeroplane) and this particular story will do well over a bottle of red - as it did tonight at Montana Mike's.

 

 

[David Isaac]

I like the face to back of head bit and the red wine (of course the red wine following after the face to back of head bit). Just gotta organise that catch up some how. I travel less to Victoria these days, But I think I would come especially for this one and try and arrange to catch up with me old mate Nev as well.

 

 

[facthunter]

Let me know if you have something planned. Nev

 

 

[David Isaac]

Sure will Nev.

 

 

[djpacro]

Seems to me that the 162 is not intended to be certified for intentional spins.

Seems that the 162 is dead http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/An-Unusual-Performance-By-Cessnas-CEO-220851-1.html

 

[facthunter]

Well the CEO is not much help. (to Cessna's business). He doesn't even fly planes. Sometimes that is seen as a good thing where cold hard cash is all it is about. Nev

 

 

[rdarby]

Is it strong enough for spins?

 

Nev, a big company needs a professional leader, not a pilot. Being a pilot would not make him a good CEO. It may help him with context, but it is a business and needs an experienced CEO, not someone who thinks it would be fun to run an airplane company as an extension of their flying abilities.

 

 

[facthunter]

Yeah I've seen Guys running outfits and suggesting that knowing nothing about the game will bring a fresh view into the business. If you believe that you believe anything. If you are ONLY a pilot, and can't see past that, that wouldn't help to be a CEO. Enthusiasm for small planes is what got Cessna going. Lawyers killed off the three in the USA. If you are designing and building PLANES It wouldn't hurt to be a pilot and know what pilots WANT. After all, PILOTS are the ones who buy small planes. Nev

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Yeah I've seen Guys running outfits and suggesting that knowing nothing about the game will bring a fresh view into the business. If you believe that you believe anything. If you are ONLY a pilot, and can't see past that, that wouldn't help to be a CEO. Enthusiasm for small planes is what got Cessna going. Lawyers killed off the three in the USA. If you are designing and building PLANES It wouldn't hurt to be a pilot and know what pilots WANT. After all, PILOTS are the ones who buy small planes. Nev

"Chevrolet does not exist to build cars. It exists to add value to metal" . . .

 

 

[facthunter]

When GM purchase a Brand they usually trash the quality and concepts. eg Chevrolet, Vauxhall, SAAB, Opel. Most notably the Vauxhall. They forfeited millions with an amalgamation option with FIAT and since then Fiat has done quite well thank you. ( I have no idea why). The saying used to be "What is good for GM is good for America". Detroit is BROKE. Nev

 

 

[David Isaac]

"Chevrolet does not exist to build cars. It exists to add value to metal" . . .

Ha ha Daffyd .. but if there was no "Chevrolet Passion" on behalf of the customers, the metal would not sell well. Chevrolet has a cult following and if that is not brand passion, I don't know what is. I don't share that passion, I was raised by a Ford mechanic, but even I have lost my Ford passion these days and drive 'Rice Crackers' that have hair driers fitted to them and have CI (Diesel) engines. LOL

 

 

[turboplanner]

Detroit is broke because cars are manufactured elsewhere. GM certainly was slow to withdraw and paid a substantial

 

penalty, but survived to have at least two carlines quietly supplying the nouveau riche of China with their cars.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Is it strong enough for spins?Nev, a big company needs a professional leader, not a pilot. Being a pilot would not make him a good CEO. It may help him with context, but it is a business and needs an experienced CEO, not someone who thinks it would be fun to run an airplane company as an extension of their flying abilities.

Someone should have explained that to Henry Ford and Roger Penske

 

 

[David Isaac]

Is it strong enough for spins? ....

I don't think strength was the issue in the C162. Cessna wrote off the two test platforms that would not come out of spins in the Cessna spin testing regime. They supposedly fixed the problem, but still prohibit deliberate spins. This is a significant departure for Cessna and IMHO a major error for a training platform that was designed for GA as well and was to replace the ubiquitous C152.

[facthunter]

The enthusiasm and output of FPV Ford and HSV Holden are the most creditable aspect of those two companies in Australia.. For years Holden produced cars in Australia that had dreadful QA. Nader was very condemnatory suggesting that only a protected market would permit such low standard products. I helped build some special engines based on the 202 and you would be amazed at the variability of sizes and random "coreshift ' in the engines. You would have to handpick from many engines to build one good one.( higher output , but not by much. Mainly blueprinting for reliability) out of them all.. ( Rally Cars) GM was too Detroit centred and they didn't listen to much . Nev

 

 

[sfGnome]

Yeah I've seen Guys running outfits and suggesting that knowing nothing about the game will bring a fresh view into the business. If you believe that you believe anything. If you are ONLY a pilot, and can't see past that, that wouldn't help to be a CEO. Enthusiasm for small planes is what got Cessna going. Lawyers killed off the three in the USA. If you are designing and building PLANES It wouldn't hurt to be a pilot and know what pilots WANT. After all, PILOTS are the ones who buy small planes. Nev

There's two sides to this type of story, and I've seen (and suffered through) both in my working life. I've worked for companies where the leadership was technology-centred, and when they left and the MBA's took over, the companies foundered. On the other hand, I've also worked for companies where the leadership was so technology-centred that the companies were on the verge of failing when the MBA's came in and rescued them from oblivion.

As in everything else in life, you need a bit of everything and not too much of anything!

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Ha ha Daffyd .. but if there was no "Chevrolet Passion" on behalf of the customers, the metal would not sell well. Chevrolet has a cult following and if that is not brand passion, I don't know what is. I don't share that passion, I was raised by a Ford mechanic, but even I have lost my Ford passion these days and drive 'Rice Crackers' that have hair driers fitted to them and have CI (Diesel) engines. LOL

Seems a bit off topic, tho I agree - I've moved to an oldish Subaru, after a turbodiesel Pug 405. The Subie is simply better put together, passion or no. Surprised me, actually. Wish it had a diesel in it, but the EJ22 is fine if you use the right oil.

 

Getting back to spinnable aeroplanes, there is no excuse nowadays for designers getting the empennage as totally wrong as, for example, the Lancair Legacy (tho in fairness, they made the vertical tail pretty large). If you want to see how an empennage should be designed for a spinnable aeroplane, look at the Pilatus PC 9. Or even the Blanik. These aircraft put the fin leading edge well ahead of the tailplane leading edge, and they do NOT use a swept-back vertical tail - both of which have the result that the vertical tail is largely unshielded by the stalled horizontal tail. T-tails achieve that too, of course, but they are nasty from a flutter point of view, and expensive to certificate for that reason. Yes, putting the vertical tail largely ahead of the horizontal tail means it has a shorter lever arm about the CG, so it has to be bigger. No, I said BIGGER. Pretty? Well, to me, form follows function - and I shudder every time I see an empennage having a smallish sharply-swept fin whose leading edge is at the same fuselage station as the tailplane. If it has ejection seats, or stick-pushers, OK it may be necessary for high Mach drag - but for aircraft that operate below about 0.6 Mach, it's a sign of excessive concern over "style" on the part of the designer, in my books.

 

The Lancair was designed by a hair stylist - and it shows. In the case of the 162, I can only surmise that the sales dept. dictated the style, and engineering had no say in it. Damn fool way to go about it, in my view.