Spin Training

[ian00798]

Kaz and ian, your differing experiences could well be due to flying at different weights. Two big people could well have the experience kaz had.

I'm not exactly small myself, the tomahawk wasn't much below MTOW.

 

I have flown the tomahawk for a significant amount of hours at many different weights in many different conditions, and while it certainly has some interesting qualities and it's stall qualities can be interesting elevator authority is not an issue I have found.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

:popcorn:Ooooh boy this is going to be fun to watch, it was interesting enough when Ian had a dig at Kaz's piloting skill but now Bruce is having a dig at her weight? A braver man than me is Bruce:peep wall:

I've met Kaz, and she's she doesn't have a weight issue.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I didn't even know Kaz was a woman. Sorry Kaz... but I have known of gliders which flew very differently, even though the c of g was within limits, depending on pilot weight. The H304 was a glider which I thought climbed poorly until it changed hands and was flown by a much lighter guy. Then it suddenly became hard to keep up with.There was more difference than the pilots differing ability levels could account for, and it could only have been the c of g effect.

 

 

[kaz3g]

I've met Kaz, and she's she doesn't have a weight issue.

That's kind of you OK...but I doubt there is any woman without a "weight" problem

 

Fig 9-5 here suggests a factor: http://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/HOOU/AircraftDesign_9_EmpennageGeneralDesign.pdf - effect of wing wake (and also changes in wing downwash).See also fig 9-3 to get back on topic. Worth thinking about if you are selecting an aeroplane to be used as an ab initio trainer doing CASA's new advanced stalling exercises.

Reading this and trying to understand it, I wonder if I raised the nose high enough in the flare to cause an upset in the airflow over the tail?

 

I'm not exactly small myself, the tomahawk wasn't much below MTOW.I have flown the tomahawk for a significant amount of hours at many different weights in many different conditions, and while it certainly has some interesting qualities and it's stall qualities can be interesting elevator authority is not an issue I have found.

I flew a Tomahawk on just one day for the check and hire so my experience is nothing compared to your own. But I wasn't comfortable and I haven't flown one since.

 

Kaz and ian, your differing experiences could well be due to flying at different weights. Two big people could well have the experience kaz had.

Yes Bruce...I note that the usable load is just 230 kilos which doesn't leave much at all for fuel if two big people are on board.

 

This investigation points again at the much higher stall-spin accident rates in the PA38 compared to C150-152.

 

https://mobilit.belgium.be/sites/default/files/downloads/AA-11-9.pdf

 

Kaz

 

Edit: I get very confused, myself

 

 

[SSCBD]

So you had what some would call a bad landing, it must be the aircrafts fault? The elevator authority has been fine on every tomahawk I have ever flown, not that I haven't landed with inelegant bumps, but that was all down to me.

Flying the tomahawk on takeoff and if you get a bit slow it will porpoise.

 

 

[ian00798]

SSCBD, yes the tomahawk doesn't love being slow, and it will punish you if you let it get slow. Probably one of the things a lot of people hate about it, but I think the disciplined speed control required to fly the tomahawk well is a positive rather than a negative.

 

I flew a Tomahawk on just one day for the check and hire so my experience is nothing compared to your own. But I wasn't comfortable and I haven't flown one since.

Then if your not comfortable that is a good call not to fly it on your own, but I really strongly suggest go and fly it with someone until you do get comfortable, it will definitely improve your flying and once you get used to the tommy it can be fun.

 

 

[SSCBD]

SSCBD, yes the tomahawk doesn't love being slow, and it will punish you if you let it get slow. Probably one of the things a lot of people hate about it, but I think the disciplined speed control required to fly the tomahawk well is a positive rather than a negative.

 

Then if your not comfortable that is a good call not to fly it on your own, but I really strongly suggest go and fly it with someone until you do get comfortable, it will definitely improve your flying and once you get used to the tommy it can be fun.

Ian Not being rude to you all - but the tomahawk is very old, underpowered and spongy with the controls, compared to the LSA aircraft around now. T - tails have less authority as no prop wash under power is flowing over it. I flew the tomahawk when they first arrived in Australia at Bankstown and was not impressed at all, and from memory climbing at less than 300ft a minute. Students had to have a spin endorsement to fly it solo - but I had one anyway and was VERY impressed the way it just loved to flick into a spin stalling with slight cross controls. Banned now (spinning) as tails fell off them and killed a few people.

 

 

[ian00798]

Ian Not being rude to you all - but the tomahawk is very old, underpowered and spongy with the controls, compared to the LSA aircraft around now. T - tails have less authority as no prop wash under power is flowing over it. I flew the tomahawk when they first arrived in Australia at Bankstown and was not impressed at all, and from memory climbing at less than 300ft a minute. Students had to have a spin endorsement to fly it solo - but I had one anyway and was VERY impressed the way it just loved to flick into a spin stalling with slight cross controls. Banned now (spinning) as tails fell off them and killed a few people.

Spinning is not banned on them, most people just don't do it for that exact reason, although you will inadvertently end up in incipient spins practicing stalls. I'm not saying it's the worlds finest aircraft, it's far from it however I believe it still performs what it was designed to do quite well and I will always have a soft spot for it. The one thing I like is how it actually demands accuracy, if you fly it sloppy then it will punish you. The fact that the Air Force cadets have used, and still use it, as a trainer says quite a bit about how capable it is at doing what it was designed to do. Having said that, yes if I had the choice I would still choose the C172 over it.

 

 

[Oscar]

SSCBD, yes the tomahawk doesn't love being slow, and it will punish you if you let it get slow. Probably one of the things a lot of people hate about it, but I think the disciplined speed control required to fly the tomahawk well is a positive rather than a negative.

 

Then if your not comfortable that is a good call not to fly it on your own, but I really strongly suggest go and fly it with someone until you do get comfortable, it will definitely improve your flying and once you get used to the tommy it can be fun.

Is this the same aircraft that was dubbed the 'Terrorhawk?'

 

Enquiring minds would like to know.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Is this the same aircraft that was dubbed the 'Terrorhawk?'Enquiring minds would like to know.

Aka Traumahawk

 

Kaz

 

 

[kaz3g]

?.....Then if your not comfortable that is a good call not to fly it on your own, but I really strongly suggest go and fly it with someone until you do get comfortable, it will definitely improve your flying and once you get used to the tommy it can be fun.

Thanks, Ian. Even after more than 500 hours in my AUSTER I find it can present enough challenges for me at my age and at least it crashes very slowly.

 

Kaz

 

 

[ian00798]

Is this the same aircraft that was dubbed the 'Terrorhawk?'Enquiring minds would like to know.

Yes. More often than not by people who have never actually flown it and just heard from a friend of a friend.

 

 

[Oscar]

Aka TraumahawkKaz

Aha - no doubt, by the elite band of those that had actually survived one?

 

 

[kaz3g]

From the Belgian report referenced above:

 

"Using lower- and upper-bound estimates of flight hours, the PA-38-112 accident rate ranged from 0.336 to 0.751 fatal stall/spin accidents per 100,000 flight hours, compared to 0.098 to 0.134 for the 150/152"

 

My arithmetic says that the ratio of fatal stall/spin accidents in the P38 is between 3 and 7 times higher than in a C150/152. I question its suitability as an ab initio or even higher trainer on that basis, especially as DJP noted with the introduction of the more advanced syllabus for PPL stall training.

 

Kaz

 

 

[turboplanner]

In the early stages of my training there were quite a few around, and after a couple of years they just sat - they were poison to the people who trained in them.

 

Macarthur Job wrote up the failure rate, and that about finished them for the major training centres.

 

It intrigues me that after someone has posted details about structural tail failures, others just go ahead and post these nostalgic stories about how if you mastered them it was good fun; it was more likely to be good flying or good luck.

 

 

[facthunter]

The "T" tail may have it's adherents and it's needed on rearward located jet engined planes but the aerodynamic loading on the fin and rear fuselage of such designs is quite large, compared to more "conventional" designs. Sheilding of the rudder, by the horizontal stab and elevators is often a factor contributing to poor spin recovery and one could have thought the T tail would be better in this respect, than other configurations. The proof of the pudding is in the eating they say. Nev

 

 

[Roundsounds]

I have just read this great article on AVWEB, pretty sums up my thoughts on spin training. I'm not a fan of the Muller (hands off) recovery technique, certainly no harm in going through the training, but cannot see any practical application for non-aerobatic pilots as most stall/spin accidents happen too low for it to be used.

 

Here's the article:

 

Spin Training? Yes - AVweb Features Article

 

 

[djpacro]

I have just read this great article on AVWEB ....

but risks another discussion about "the myth of the safe shallow turns".

[Roundsounds]

but risks another discussion about "the myth of the safe shallow turns".

Ah and blindly abeying "Rules of Thumb"...

 

 

[MikeWebb]

I have started a new thread on this as I think to further the discussion on the thread that it is currently being discussed on is inappropriate. But this is obviously a topic that does require further discussion.I read in several forums here about the need for spin training.

 

Now within RAA are aircraft are neither approved to spin nor probably in most cases tested for it.

 

In the normal day to day flying that we as RAA Certificate holders do why is there a need for spin training.

 

It is unlikely that I would have completed my training if there was a requirement to spin.

 

I do no go on amusement rides that can turn me upside down and as such would not go on a joyflight that could do the same. In fact I have never been in an aircraft that can do aerobatics and am not likely to do so.

 

So is the "perceived" requirement to learn to spin/recover based on the possibility that I may one day inadvertently enter into a spin in an aircraft not suited to it nor tested to it. If that is the case is there some huge hole in my training that could allow me to do something I am not ready for, or is it only likely to happen if I start pushing the envelope.

 

This may seem obvious to some, but to me it seems totally contradictory.

I have started a new thread on this as I think to further the discussion on the thread that it is currently being discussed on is inappropriate. But this is obviously a topic that does require further discussion.I read in several forums here about the need for spin training.

 

Now within RAA are aircraft are neither approved to spin nor probably in most cases tested for it.

 

In the normal day to day flying that we as RAA Certificate holders do why is there a need for spin training.

 

It is unlikely that I would have completed my training if there was a requirement to spin.

 

I do no go on amusement rides that can turn me upside down and as such would not go on a joyflight that could do the same. In fact I have never been in an aircraft that can do aerobatics and am not likely to do so.

 

So is the "perceived" requirement to learn to spin/recover based on the possibility that I may one day inadvertently enter into a spin in an aircraft not suited to it nor tested to it. If that is the case is there some huge hole in my training that could allow me to do something I am not ready for, or is it only likely to happen if I start pushing the envelope.

 

This may seem obvious to some, but to me it seems totally contradictory.

I'm an advocate of spin training. True I am an aerobatic pilot but I was required to take the training as a student in the UK before solo long before I started aeros. It is true that a high percentage of spins happen in the circuit area and , if fully developed you will probably not recover in time but not all incident are in the circuit area. Many years ago a friend of mine was selling a Zlin and was demonstrating a spin at 3000 ft and did not recover. Besides, it can be argued that spin training increases your awareness of what not to do and your confidence in general handling. The fact is that if you stall an aircraft at any time there is a chance of a spin (in some aircraft it will be very unlikely- in some very likely) particularly if you do not know how to correct it before it fully develops. Because an aircraft is not certified to spin does not mean it will not do so and I can't subscribe to the argument that spin training should not be done because you do not like it.

 

 

[farri]

I'm an advocate of spin training. Many years ago a friend of mine was selling a Zlin and was demonstrating a spin at 3000 ft and did not recover.

I`m reading that to mean, he is no longer with us......Had you friend done spin training, if he had, why didn`t he recover, if he hadn`t why was he demonstrating a spin???

 

Frank.

 

 

[djpacro]

.... Many years ago a friend of mine was selling a Zlin and was demonstrating a spin at 3000 ft and did not recover....

Same with me. My friend was quite familiar with spins in other types. Unfortunately he is not the only person who has failed to recover from a fully developed spin.I agree, an inadvertent spin entry at low altitude is a different issue.

 

 

[MikeWebb]

I`m reading that to mean, he is no longer with us......Had you friend done spin training, if he had, why didn`t he recover, if he hadn`t why was he demonstrating a spin???Frank.

I`m reading that to mean, he is no longer with us......Had you friend done spin training, if he had, why didn`t he recover, if he hadn`t why was he demonstrating a spin???Frank.

Correct, no longer with us and would have done spin training at some stage I expect. Can't be sure why he did not recover, probably never did it before on this type or perhaps the person (prospective buyer) with him tried it without the training.

 

 

[facthunter]

When "everybody" did spin training, and saw THAT as normal, most fatals with spinning were with instructors who did most of the spinning so more exposure to a situation which is not without it's hazards. Some aircraft are not guaranteed to recover from a spin with absolute certainty under all conditions. Clearly if you wait till the plane is in a fully developed spin at low level you won't recover as there's not enough height, but spin knowledge helps you NOT spin in the first place. You are more aware of the conditions that lead to a spin happening, something you can talk about till the cows come home but won't really comprehend until you have spun quite a few times, BOTH directions and done spirals as well. Something you never stop learning about. A botched recovery (to either) is dangerous and more importantly wastes precious height. Aircraft that are allowed to remain in a spin for prolonged time are likely to establish a flatter spin , and be more difficult to recover from as well as you getting more disorientated pulling out of an extended spin. Recovery from unusual attitudes is just as important as spin familiarity. You get confidence in knowing that you CAN (recover) and you learn the basic skills to recognise your "situation" and correct it. 3 axis control works as long as you have enough movement through the air to have some control authority. Nev

 

 

[Garfly]

I'd like to do at least enough aerobatic training to give me a chance - in a panic - of resisting

 

what I think would be almost irresistible insincts: to haul back and/or roll level - at quite the wrong time.

 

Meanwhile - a second best measure - I reckon a regular viewing of this video can help a bit:

 

(posted here again for those who haven't caught it yet):