Forced landing without power

[facthunter]

Skid ball.

 

Essentially useless in a spin.

 

Looking thru my first log book I notice that I was (like everybody else then) signed off on"unusual attitudes (not ME, the plane) and incipient spin recovery, and had spent about one and a half hours on spinning and stalling, PRIOR TO SOLO

 

The "key" instruments to refer to are the turn needle, (gives direction of turn) and airspeed indicator, ( a more or less low speed steady, means you are spinning, and a higher and increasing airspeed, means you are in a spiral.. This is why I am a great recommender of a turn needle, on the panel.

 

As far as I am concerned, the ball could anywhere, I'm not interested in it under these conditions. the recovery technique is totally different. The act of spinning will not stress the aeroplane, but the spiral will, due to the build-up of speed and dynamic loads. Nev..

 

 

[Student Pilot]

I've done a lot of flying and spinning in a female aircraft - nil balls.

OK Dave, what Aircraft don't come out of a spin (not inverted) with the standard pole forward, ailerons neutral and opposite rudder? The last couple of years there seems to be mudding of the waters with the "Let it go and do it's own thing" and other ideas.

 

 

[djpacro]

Well SP, I'm sure that I'll be unable to answer your question. Anyway, just to clarify do you mean just aircraft which are approved for intentional spinning? Any upright spin mode? A related question is how long it takes to recover with the method recommended for a particular type vs that one.

 

I'll just mention one for tonight - the Pitts - pole forward, aileron neutral, opposite rudder (in that order) and it will not recover - one of our friends here previously mentioned the blanketing of the rudder by the elevator.

 

Sorry, I can't help myself, another one. I know of one amateur-built aircraft in Australia which is approved for aerobatics and, from memory, the flight manual prohibits spins which is a good thing because after three turns it goes flat with no special input from the pilot and cannot be recovered at all.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Antzx6r I had a look at the STOL King or whatever they call it. Basically a yank Slepcev Storch clone. The wing is almost identical, the tail is basically the same.(no need to change either) They probabily have a small continental or lycoming up front, and they have simplified the gear, which is not a bad idea as the SS4 gear is over complicated, and if you break it, it is very hard to get the strut brace material as it has to come out of Italy, and nothing else will fit. Just not as ugly as the Storch, so less appealing to me. The Storch brings them running at airports !!.

 

 

[Student Pilot]

Well SP, I'm sure that I'll be unable to answer your question. Anyway, just to clarify do you mean just aircraft which are approved for intentional spinning? Any upright spin mode? A related question is how long it takes to recover with the method recommended for a particular type vs that one..

Just normal Aircraft approved for spinning, like Tiger, Chipmunk, 150's, that type of thing

 

I'll just mention one for tonight - the Pitts - pole forward, aileron neutral, opposite rudder (in that order) and it will not recover - one of our friends here previously mentioned the blanketing of the rudder by the elevator.

So it does work but not in that order? Not many get to fly Pitts, it's a specialised Aircraft, you might as well compare a Seafury to the Aircraft mentioned here.

 

Sorry, I can't help myself, another one. I know of one amateur-built aircraft in Australia which is approved for aerobatics and, from memory, the flight manual prohibits spins which is a good thing because after three turns it goes flat with no special input from the pilot and cannot be recovered at all.

What Aircraft is that? I think (could be proved wrong here) during the war they percieved the Tiger was a dangerous spinner that's why they put those flat extension strake things on the fuse forward of the tailplane, most Tigers don't have that now are they considered dangerous spinners?

 

So Dave what general aviation aircraft approved for spinning (apart from a Pitts, a certain amateur built machine and in a normal spin not flat or developed after 32 turns or an inverted spin) won't the standard spin recovery technique work on?

 

 

[facthunter]

Tiger moth.

 

IF you are suggesting that the tiger moth was a dangerous spinner you are rewriting history. Proficient pilots could pull them out on a defined heading. Totally classic spinner. Nev.

 

 

[djpacro]

SP, are we trying to get to where we can say that this works for GA aircraft approved for spinning:

 

P - power off

 

A - aileron neutral

 

R - rudder opposite the yaw; and then

 

E - elevator towards neutral

 

noting that, in upright spins, a few types require full forward stick

 

and a very few require inspin aileron in addition

 

There could be aeroplanes which don't fit the above but I don't know of any.

 

Some types can go flat very quickly when inadvertently entered and aggravated with power and aileron so I wouldn't exclude flat spins. I haven't excluded inverted spins either.

 

Definition of "what works" - how about the standard certification requirement of within 1.5 turns.

 

 

[Student Pilot]

IF you are suggesting that the tiger moth was a dangerous spinner you are rewriting history. Proficient pilots could pull them out on a defined heading. Totally classic spinner. Nev.

I didn't say the Tiger was a dangerous spinner waht I did say was "they percieved the Tiger was a dangerous spinner that's why they put those flat extension strake things on the fuse forward of the tailplane"

 

I also did say I could be proved wrong Nev, just what were those strake things forward of the tailplane on the fuse for then if it wasn't to get better spin recovery? Chippies also used to have them. You don't see them much now but have a look on the war training Tiger photos, especially pommie ones. I had read somwhere a long time ago it was to slow the spin going flat?

 

SP, are we trying to get to where we can say that this works for GA aircraft approved for spinning:P - power off

 

A - aileron neutral

 

R - rudder opposite the yaw; and then

 

E - elevator towards neutral

 

noting that, in upright spins, a few types require full forward stick

 

and a very few require inspin aileron in addition

 

There could be aeroplanes which don't fit the above but I don't know of any.

 

Some types can go flat very quickly when inadvertently entered and aggravated with power and aileron so I wouldn't exclude flat spins. I haven't excluded inverted spins either.

 

Definition of "what works" - how about the standard certification requirement of within 1.5 turns.

So this proceedure "works" with most RAA Aircraft? Yes or No please?

 

What was the amateur built Aircraft in Australia that is approved for aerobatics and is not recoverable after 3 turns of a spin?

 

Most stall/spin incidents are with approach on base or final. If an Aircraft develops a spin in those areas it maybe too late anyway with not that much height left for recovery especially on final. What people who are worried about this type of thing is go and fly with an instructor in their type of Aircraft. Go to the point of stall and recovery till your comfortable with it. It's no good doing training in a Mk1 yoobuet 450HP Biplane if your not going to fly one anyway. Spinning hasn't been a requirement for PPL or CPL for a long time. There is talk of the Poms bringing it back in, anybody heard that?

 

 

[facthunter]

Strakes.

 

These things are added to a lot of designs (See the pilatus flown by RFDS). They energise the air aft of where they are fitted and help the control surfaces to remain effective. They would perform that purpose on the DH-82 where fitted, but stubby tailfeathers tend to work fairly well anyhow in that regard.

 

Personally, I have never been anxious about the tiger and I have introduced quite a few pilots to spins in them. I have NEVER just let the controls GO in any plane so I don't know what they would do, but obviously some of the more CONCERNING ones will not come out of the spin with this method. Obvious, because they sometimes come out with some difficulty, even when you do the correct procedure. I would put the chipmunk (DHC-1), in this category, and highly qualified and talented instructors have "gone in" in these.

 

Flat spinning, I would have thought is more a characteristic of the aircraft, rather than what you do with the controls. If the aircraft is left in the spin for a number of turns it may flatten out (DHC-1 again). It is accepted that recovery from a flat spin is more difficult. I believe that the certification for spinning only requires the aircraft to do one and a half turns, in the test..

 

Inverted spinning can result from a botched recovery from a "normal" spin, as a result of pushing the stick too far forward, and not centring the rudder the INSTANT the plane stops turning. (more likely in cloud) or you might get it during aerobatics, but I don't believe that it is very common. Aircraft are built to come out of an inverted spin better than an upright one. Nev

 

 

[Student Pilot]

To muddy the waters further

 

These things are added to a lot of designs (See the pilatus flown by RFDS). They energise the air aft of where they are fitted and help the control surfaces to remain effective. They would perform that purpose on the DH-82 where fitted, but stubby tailfeathers tend to work fairly well anyhow in that regard.

 

These are the things I'm talking about some Chippies had them also.

 

Personally, I have never been anxious about the tiger and I have introduced quite a few pilots to spins in them.

Personally, I've never been anxiuos about spinning Tigers either but the powers that be must thought otherwise to do what they did.

 

Ag Tigers had spinning trouble when they left off the fabric on the rear fuse, didn't last long they went back to full cover. I would imagine ultralights with just a tube fuse would have a similar problem.

 

 

[djpacro]

So this proceedure "works" with most RAA Aircraft?

I don't know enough to attempt to answer that broad question off the cuff - perhaps others do.

 

What was the amateur built Aircraft in Australia that is approved for aerobatics and is not recoverable after 3 turns of a spin?

http://www.pazmany.com/newsletters/PL-1_and_2/44.pdf

 

I believe that the certification for spinning only requires the aircraft to do one and a half turns, in the test..

For intentional spinning it is 6 turns. One and a half turns is the recovery requirement.

 

Flat spinning, I would have thought is more a characteristic of the aircraft, rather than what you do with the controls. If the aircraft is left in the spin for a number of turns it may flatten out (DHC-1 again). It is accepted that recovery from a flat spin is more difficult.

.. and most of the aircraft that I commonly spin will only go flat by application of controls and power - recovery is straightforward if the pilot is not disorientated and knows what to do. I'm very wary of those types that go flat of their own accord - I agree, recovery is likely to be difficult.Good cue for this

 

and it includes a forced landing without power so we're back on topic.

[Student Pilot]

Good post Dave

 

 

[facthunter]

Tiger mod.

 

SP. none of the tigers that I have flown had those. I have no doubt that they work. The Fokker F-27 had one .The prototype P-51 Mustang didn't but all the later ones did..(in front of the FIN). There does not seem to be any real downside to these as in normal flight they do not contribute to drag, to any great extent. They rarely make the plane look better aesthetically, and there is a lingering idea about that if the plane had been designed properly, it wouldn't have needed them to be added. I'm not sure that I completely go along with that, but you get the idea.

 

You might think that it is the extra keel surface that does the job. This is not the way they work. They generate a vortex, that energises the airflow and stops separation, helping the (Fin & rudder, usually) to do it's job. Nev.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Ok did the Tipsy nipper find a good field and put it down ok or what, looked like he was heading somewhere.

 

 

[antzx6r]

Found a field with a rogue fence right where it shouldn't have been. If you click the more info pop out it gives you a good description of a very lucky pilot. I think he passed his Old or Bold pilot test. He gets to be Old...

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Pity he even damaged it at all, he certainly had plenty of options to choose from, and a bit of time to do it. I imagine being a bit disoriented after 26 spins would have been an influence also, who wouldn't be disoriented !!. Indeed a lucky man.

 

Considering that the fence probabily has been there for an undeterminable number of years, can we call it a rogue fence ? after all it was just sitting there minding it's own business...rogue aeroplane ? An interesting case study from an interesting piece of footage.

 

The following questions would come to mind:

 

Did the pilot turn the engine off, or did the unexpected flat spin unport fuel in the tanks.

 

Is this a good example of a non- escapable canopy type design, when the aircraft goes on it's back unexpectably. I can only hope he wasn't made more uncomfortable, by having fuel dripping onto his body somewhere.

 

It appears the pilot did a good clearing turn before spinning, and also commenced at a good altitude, otherwise he wouldn't be here to tell the story.

 

I would assume he kept the spin recovery tecnique up until it finally worked, or did he try plan B, to finally get it out ?.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

mental note:

 

if building a tipsy nipper fit jetisonble 6ft drouge chute in tailpod.

 

 

[Yenn]

All the Tigers I have seen in the UK had strakes fitted and when I asked why I was told it was because of their spinning properties. I havn't seen strakes on an Australian Tiger, so I assume the Poms are a lot less happy with the Tiger.

 

From memory it takes about 5 turns to get a DH C1 into a flat spin, so it is not going to happen by accident and it takes about 3 to recover, I may be wrong as it is a long while since I flew a Chippie.

 

Different wing and fuselage configurations give different spin characteristics, A Breezy will be very different from a round fuselage which will be different from a square edged fuse, it is a case of suck it and see, or follow the manufacturers advice.