Loss of Control - Now and Then.

[Roundsounds]

The various offshoots of the Aeronca Champ aka "Air knocker" are ideal abinitio trainers. They teach pilots what their feet and rudder pedals are meant to do and most are adequate aerobatic trainers. I think the value of tail wheel experience is lost on most future multi engine pilots. Tail wheel pilots have no hesitation in using full rudder during takeoff / landing if so required, in the event of an engine failure in a multi-engine aeroplane they will instinctively use whatever rudder is needed to keep the aeroplane straight.

 

 

[facthunter]

On a underwing mounted twinjet you will use full rudder or very close to it at lift off with engine failure, and any other twin prop if you don't have safety speed (blueline) you are going to turn and roll even with full rudder. I agree a tailwheel will make you more inclined to be aware of the rudder, but you won't do the exercise successfully if you don't get the rudder in fast, regardless of what you learned on. I had an American Champion 7ECA not that long ago and I've flown a Super Decathlon. I also like highwing T/W's but not sure the Highwing is the ultimate aerobatic aircraft. Good fun thing though. Nev

 

 

[djpacro]

I don't think the Tomahawk has an all-moving tail. Worth reading https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-38_Tomahawk esp the safety record.

 

 

[facthunter]

It isn't (as I now see). Most Pipers are, even the Commanche which is a nice thing (otherwise). I had a twin but kept a good eye on the horizontal stabiliser. The early Pipers were well constructed (before the flood at the factory) and didn't corrode like the later ones did. Not cheap to repair so buy carefully. There's a Commanche club in the USA. Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

The outcome was caused by not having spinnible aircraft like the Chipmunks Tigers and Avros. The BIG 3 stopped making them and produced "benign" aircraft that were able to use ailerons just past the stall. I NEVER used that facility. The Victa was strong enough for aeros, but the requirement for spin training wasn't there. Around the world there are MANY airline pilots who have never done a spin. Nev

The Chippie was - by all reports - a bloody handful for spin recovery.. My brother trained on one, and while practising in the training area near Moorabbin in the mid '60s, was wrestling his way out of a well-developed spin ( about seven turns, if I remember correctly) when he saw 'things' around him: a flight of three RAAF transports proceeding quite unannounced through the training area! - through the midst of which he completed the recovery.

 

NOT training for, at the least, incipient spin recognition and remedial action, is in my opinion, a stupid reaction to a difficult but POSSIBLE situation. I hate ABS - because through training and experience, I can use braking modulation reaction better than any ABS system allows. ABS in extreme bush driving ( as in driving RFS vehicles down fire-trails at speed to get to a fire ) is a bloody hazard to control. Yet, ABS saves a lot of people who wouldn't know how to use conventional braking to save their lives (literally). Don't get me started on 'stability control'. Any competent motorcycle rider uses trail braking, power, and front/rear differential braking to get through tight corners arrived at unexpected velocity.

 

We don't have any aerial equivalent of ABS to prevent ham-fisted pilots from turning a badly executed turn into a spin. Until systems that can prevent that are invented, the only OTHER action to improve safety - is training.

 

 

[facthunter]

I did more spinning in a chippie than anything else. I lost a good friend in one, but it had a coin or something jammed in the controls, so that's not the plane's fault, except it probably need s FULL rudder.. I NEVER quite trusted it to pull out predictably and always had a plan "B" technique I would have used. I think the larger rudder is better. but I haven't flown one. The Chippie has a nice control feel and is a real aeroplane. It's not cheap to live with and the Vne is a bit low for such a clean design. Funny brake set-up though. Nev

 

 

[Ada Elle]

the Vne is a bit low for such a clean design

Is there a good way of dealing with this? I've been struggling with it a bit on an aircraft with Va 76, Vb 108, Vno 110, Vne 135.... and it'll cruise at 115 happily solo. Can easily go to 125 in a shallow dive with power (80hp rotax at 5200rpm)

 

 

[facthunter]

Don't point the nose at the ground for too long.Nev

 

 

[nong]

I did more spinning in a chippie than anything else. I lost a good friend in one, but it had a coin or something jammed in the controls, so that's not the plane's fault, except it probably need s FULL rudder.. I NEVER quite trusted it to pull out predictably and always had a plan "B" technique I would have used. I think the larger rudder is better. but I haven't flown one. The Chippie has a nice control feel and is a real aeroplane. It's not cheap to live with and the Vne is a bit low for such a clean design. Funny brake set-up though. Nev

I examined the cockpit at Bankstown. It was a two bob coin that did the trick. Check your pockets, boys and girls!

 

 

[Phil Perry]

I'm not so sure. No RAAus aircraft and many training aircraft today are not certified for spinning. I definitely think all instructors should demonstrate spin recovery. Students should be able to recover from a proper wing drop, the precursor to the spin. It appears to me many instructors are scared of losing control when stalling out of balance and unwilling to demonstrate a wing drop let alone teach it. I base this on students of other instructors who make it to me with blank looks on their faces when I discuss this. The consequence of not flying in balance is not stressed or demonstrated. There should be much more emphasis on flying in balance. Many pilots seem to use their feet only for steering on the ground, even worse, some use their feet for steering when in the air and then use aileron to hold off excessive bank.Unfortunately RAAus aircraft are not allowed to bank over 60 degrees nor have a nose down of over 45 degrees. This limits demonstrating a proper wing drop in these aircraft legally. I think both these values should be increased to 80 degrees but only when with an instructor. If you haven't done it I suggest every on take a trip in an aerobatic aircraft with a qualified instructor and at least explore the wing drop and recovery fully at a safe height. If you can afford it and want to, do an aerobatic endorsement. However remember this will not make you bullet proof. That is proved by the regular deaths of aerobatic pilots.

I wish I could have awarded your post a 10000+ AGREE Happy.

 

Our local CFI admits that he has never, in his life, sat in an aircraft which has enteed a spin, ever. And nor does he particularly want to.

 

I find this attitude, especially coming from a 3000+ hours professional flying instructor rather odd. ( And he is not the only one in this regard. . .) I have only about 18 hours on the Eurostar type, but I'll bet you a thousand bucks I could make it spin using the time honoured steering with yer feet, - hold off the bank principle . . . .in fact I'd be willing to guarantee the thing would flip and put good money on it.

 

It has to.. . it's a normal, run of the mill trike geared low wing "aeroplane" . It's all in the aerophysics . . . . I have not found one yet that doesn't happily comply with this condition when abused, in my entire piloting existence ( which goes back some way )

 

Just as a brief illustraton,. . . an old Aussie instructor of mine, ( Sir Alan Basket ) mentioned sternly to me on a number of occasions,. . ."WATCH THAT MATE. . .! " after I had perhaps cheated with the rudder and tried to wrench the aeroplane around harder after overshooting the runway alignment on the base / final corner. . . . He took me up to altitude, and demonstrated PRECISELY why I shouldnt do what I was doing. This was the first time I ever heard the term "Coffin Corner"

 

And when it happened, I crapped blue lights mate. . . . . it is very quick,. . .and at the average airfield circuit base / final turn height,. . is only going to end one way.

 

If instructors Don't do this, because the aircraft are placarded against it, then I think we are going to develop a serious training / safety problem for ourselves, which won't get better all by itself. Training By Doing. . . . .( an old RAF bloke said this, but he was an armourer ! ! ! )

 

Phil

 

 

[Phil Perry]

The outcome was caused by not having spinnible aircraft like the Chipmunks Tigers and Avros. The BIG 3 stopped making them and produced "benign" aircraft that were able to use ailerons just past the stall. I NEVER used that facility. The Victa was strong enough for aeros, but the requirement for spin training wasn't there. Around the world there are MANY airline pilots who have never done a spin. Nev

I used to fly with Baron Von Erich ( another poster on this thread from now in the states ) In a Victa V115 Airtourer, and found that it's spin was quite delightful, and not hard to recover at all . . .. the other aircraft available at that time was the AeroSubaru Fuji FA200 180, another really nice aircraft in which to practice spins. . . .( But only with "Two Up"

 

I noted that there were several ( Piper and Beech ) types which placarded "No intentional Spinning" and I only spun one once, unintentionally, due to my own mishandling, but it recovered in 3 1/2 turns Ish, with no trauma at all. ( Beech Sundowner )

 

How many LSA aircraft are tested for spin characteristics I wonder,. . .the UK PFA ( Now LAA ) insisted on spin testing on the first Aeroprakt A22 Foxbat which was built at our airfield many years ago,. . . ( G-FBAT ) and the tests were undertaken by a 10,000+ hour senior flying instructor named David Wood, from Tatenhill airfield ( EGBM ) and he reported that it was a "Pussy" exiting a spin with normal recovery technique every time, but full "Into Spin" control had to be held fully to maintain autorotation. A useful attribute. Well done the designers in Ukraine. . ., ex- Antonov Design Bureau. . . . .

 

The importer was only a 15,000 hour microlight instructor, but since UK microlight aircraft are forbidden to partake in aerobatics of any sort, he had to hand the aircraft over to someone who could legally do the job !

 

Phil

 

 

[Phil Perry]

1500' circuit??? I don't think that's really... legal's not the word, but advisable, given the potential conflict with overflyers.I don't think you ever needed a student license to take dual lessons, only to go solo. but for rural schools especially, you might not be able to get a couple of hours in a decathlon easily. I don't know what the legalities of an instructor bringing a plane out to a satellite field (with permission of the CFI, of course) to take a club through unusual attitude recovery training would be, but it'd be a great idea.

Hi Ada,. . .google up WELSHPOOL airfield, UK,. . .I t h i n k. . . it's EGCW,. . . but I'm probably wrong as it's been ten years since I flew in there,. . .the landing fee was a bit silly @ £15.00 and NO cafe, so us microlight fans gave it up as a bad job years ago. . . ! It's circuit is 1,500 feet for the single, very narrow tarmac runway, 22 / 04. . . it sits in a valley floor in Wales, and is a bit close to a bit of a mountain on the West side of the site,. so if you are downwind for 04 left,. . .at less than 1500 feet, you are scraping through the washing lines of the houses on the hill ! Descending on both base and final requires "an amount" of sideslip to get anywhere near the ground without leaving the area for a while !. Phil

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Why did the PA38 "traumahawk" fall out of fashion?

Ada,. . .I'll probably get shot down for this, as I have no evidential link,. . .although it might be on WIKI. . . .

 

Two Piper test pilots spun a tomahawk for it's certification tests, and nearly did not survive. Why it would not respond to standard antispin control, I can't remember, I read about this whilst I was living in OZ, pre-1982 . . .after trying everything that they had in their arsenal of knowledge, they both unbuckled their seat belts and leaned their combined weight forward, over the panel coaming, and this worked. Now I can't remember if the thing had developed into a "Flat" spin or not, but the recovery was to do with weight shifting. I do not know where the term "TraumaHawk" came form. . . . but it's been a term of disendearment for as long as I've known the type. . .very few training organizations use them in the UK, but there are a couple of local privately owned examples.

 

Anyway, apparently, the PA38 was placarded against any kind of spinning. And I'm with Nev on this one, I cannot see any technical reason for a light, propeller driven single engined aircraft to have it's horizontal stabilator up at the top of the fin. . .looks pretty does it. . .? Hmmm. .. this includes the Piper Arrow 4, PA28 R200 retractable dunlops 4 seat tourer.. . .. there was absolutely NOTHING wrong with the Arrow 3,. . .with the stabilator in the conventional location,. .. probably more of a sexy marketing idea that anything else. . .

 

But if you allow an Arrow 4 model airspeed to decay inadvertantly below 80 Kts, . .you rapidly realise that you have lost most of your pitch control. . . whereas the model 3 will work normally at much lower airspeeds than this,. . .I've got a lot of hours in that model BTW. . . why stick the stabilator above the propwash ? ? ? Why was this deemed an "Improvement" ? L.O.B.

 

Phil

 

 

[Ada Elle]

Anyway, apparently, the PA38 was placarded against any kind of spinning. And I'm with Nev on this one, I cannot see any technical reason for a light, propeller driven single engined aircraft to have it's horizontal stabilator up at the top of the fin. . .looks pretty does it. . .? Hmmm. .. this includes the Piper Arrow 4, PA28 R200 retractable dunlops 4 seat tourer.. . .. there was absolutely NOTHING wrong with the Arrow 3,. . .with the stabilator in the conventional location,. .. probably more of a sexy marketing idea that anything else. . .

Stabilator, or stabilisor?

 

I fly a plane with a T-tail. It's derived from a motor glider. The other common motor-glider derived plane, the Diamond DA20/40, is also T-tailed.

 

(reduces drag, and lets you take the tail apart for trailering.)

 

 

[kaz3g]

I tried my usual glide approach during a first check flight in a Tomahawk about 10 years ago and discovered why the instructor suggested coming in with a trickle of power instead.

 

It lost all elevator authority at around 55 knots and I was still about 3 feet off the ground. It just stopped flying...

 

Very embarrassing!

 

Kaz

 

 

[Roundsounds]

Very embarrassing!

Kaz

Yes, I'd be embarrassed if caught flying a Tomahawk too!

 

 

[jetjr]

Re RAA aircraft and spin testing

 

At the start then after ~ 05:00

 

Thats BNP which now has long wings and is Rods personal one.......survived a while and turns up at most shows

 

 

[johnm]

I learnt in the tomahawk and my instructors and I did many spins - they actively taught them in 1983 ? ............... They even told me to go up solo and do spins which was done

 

after I got my ppl I used to take thrillseekers up to do spins (in hindsight probably not a good idea)

 

I think then the NZ authority directed no more spins in the tomohawk so that stopped - a pilot thereafter died when his tomohawk went into the sea from circuit height - cause not known

 

I'd gladly do some spins again - with an instructor though first off

 

 

[Soleair]

The outcome was caused by not having spinnible aircraft like the Chipmunks Tigers and Avros.

Weren't those ubiquitous trainers of the 70's, 80's & 90's, the Cessna 152, cleared for spinning? I believe they were US 'utility' class, which permitted developed spins.

 

If not, then my instructor was a very naughty boy, because he used to love putting me into a developed spin. Including when flying by instruments with a long peaked cap to prevent vision outside the cockpit. The exercise was 'recovering from unusual attitude' & he put me in a spin. Had to use the instruments to work out which direction the spin was & recover appropriately.

 

And as has been said, gliding instruction includes lots of developed spin recovery. I got to enjoy it in the end!

 

Bruce

 

 

[facthunter]

Like many sequences it can be taught in a very predictable way which enables you to say you have "done" them. How many actually understood exactly what was happening and why some designs are deficient with their rudders blanketted by the tailplane. and a few other design failings Talking of the Cesna 150's, there was one at Port Macquarie where the fin bent over during a ham fisted recovery.. from a spin which turned into a spiral. Once the speed builds up it's a totally different recovery required and most utility aircraft aren't built strong enough for that sort of thing. Nev

 

 

[Ada Elle]

You could, of course, find a school with a 152 Aerobat.

 

I wonder why the Tomahawk's tail stops flying at 55 knots. Not a problem with any other T-tailed aircraft I've flown (all two only!)

 

 

[Soleair]

most utility aircraft aren't built strong enough for that sort of thing. Nev

Nev, the term 'utility' is an FAR category under part 23.3, as in 'normal', 'utility', 'aerobatic'. Utility aircraft are (usually) cleared for intentional spins and some other mild aerobatic maneuvers such as lazy eights, chandelles, & steep turns.

 

So by definition 'utility' aeroplanes must be built strong enough for that sort of thing. Of course, nothing is idiot proof, as your example of the 150 fin shows.

 

Bruce

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-38_Tomahawk

 

Interesting especially the bit on 'SAFETY' that mentions changes to the main wing spar AFTER certification and not retested that allowed the wing to flex and may have caused unpredictable handling characteristics.

 

And does the "tail" stop flying @ 55knts or does the elevator just runs out of authority?

 

 

[facthunter]

Soleair, usually with reduced weight and restricted CofG range and the "MILD" aeros are just that. Any plane could perform them, done carefully. A spin doesn't involve much stress entering and while in it, unless you muck it up, by falling out into a spiral as the 150 did, but in the dive pullout the "G" meter usually hits 2.5 even if you are careful. Turbulence can push that if it's around to much higher.

 

The DH82 A had the fuselage strengthened for twist to do flick rolls and the Citabria had an entry speed limit so the fuel slosh in the tank didn't crack the seams of the tank for the same manoeuver. Nev

 

 

[facthunter]

Ozzie it might have twisted under the effect of applied aileron, like the Quad City Challenger?. The elevator might no be "blown" by the propeller slipstream and run out of effect as you say with flaps extended fully, with the Piper Tomahawk Nev