djpacro

I'd forgotten about the Bocian, it was a very long time ago.

The Cessna 150 will readily get into a stable, fully developed spin; a 152 needs a more aggressive entry technique but can also get into a stable, fully developed spin. As for recovery, well, the full story is here: http://www.kopingsfk.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/10.-Spin-Characteristics.pdf about the 150 through to the R172.

Yes, I still see some teaching incipient spins only - it bites some-one down the track when the poor technique is found not to be effective in a fully developed spin. I still see quite a few who do not teach spin recovery iaw the flight manual for the type and too many pilots who have not read the flight manual for the types that they spin. Somewhat similar to the very old rules in Australia. Spin training was not part of the PPL syllabus although I was required to do spins in each subsequent aerobatic type that I got an endorsement on. Separate endorsements for the Fuji 160 and 180 as the latter had a C/S prop - consequently did many spins with Roy Goon who insisted that every one be six turns before initiating recovery. The Beagle Pup required aft ballast for spinning as I recall. My Chipmunk and Tiger flying came after those individual endorsements were abolished. The flat spin, fully developed spin mode in the CT-4. The every which way spins of the Pitts from upright steep accelerated to inverted flat (full throttle, full aileron then move the stick full back). Interesting that PB's Wolf Pitts does not recover using the Beggs-Mueller technique. Quick guesstimate: 8000 spins and still spinning. A plug for an excellent book on the subject: http://www.amazon.com.au/Stalls-Spins-Safety-Revised-Edition-ebook/dp/B008P1HLJ4/ref=pd_sim_351_1/375-1724477-6355605?ie=UTF8&refRID=0SZT71MJNJ0QWSKP0MV1

WARNING - it is addictive.

I remember that.

not bad for a trainee tailwheel pilot.

Its all in the report.

Yep, it is a good but basic summary of stuff. I used to have that Fortran program on my computer.

Yep, so did his predecessor.

Seems to have fallen off the NTRS. Here you are https://www.dropbox.com/s/orfmqo5847nfnh0/NASACR1975.pdf?dl=0

Another email from CASA today: apologising for omitting two endorsements and noting thst two others are subject to technical assessment - it is not really that complex. Thinking that buying an N registered aurplane and flying it on my USA licence is the way to go.

Feel free to use it - my observations indicate around 10-20%.

Link to my hard drive? Try the NASA Technical Report server or Cranfield University library - both free.

More good advice at http://www.taildraggers.com/Documentation.aspx?page=StickBack (see other pages there too) and http://www.dylanaviation.com/

Easy to get rid of me.

From NASA Report CR-1975, Riding and Handling Qualities of Light Aircraft: "The change in rolling moment due to variation in yawing velocity ... wing provides the major contribution ... left wing moves faster than the right wing, producing more lift ... consequently ... rolling moment ..." whereas "the change in rolling moment .. caused by variation in sideslip angle ... is the result of wing dihedral effect and the moment resulting from the vertical tail center of pressure located above the equilibrium x-axis ..." Apply rudder and you get both a yawing velocity and a sideslip (or skid). The report quantifies each effect for a Cessna 182 as an example.

I enjoyed flying a Husky around that part of the world, can't think of a more useful airplane unless you want to do aerobatics.

sorry, comes from sitting too much in the front seat playing student with an instructor trainee in the back directing - by the time we have that brief discussion the trainee has discovered one of the principles of flight: flying with an instructor one's IQ drops whereas the IQ of the instructor increases by the same amount.

the nose always goes forward at the start of the takeoff roll, at an increasing rateI'll let Dazza deal with the last sentence.

or a Decathlon?

I'm not sure either, John Baker was an early one.

It seems to me that the Beggs-Mueller hands-off technique is sometimes promoted without due regard for its limitations. Beggs has provided a fairly short list of types on which he states that it works and a shorter list of types where he states that it does not work in some spin modes. Beggs conducted substantial spin tests on a variety of types with different spin modes and published the information. If anyone promotes the technique for other types I always ask to see the evidence. The AFM for my Decathlon clearly states that the hands off technique is inadequate, Beggs also explains that yet one instructor maintains that it works despite not having flown the type nor otherwise obtaining evidence. One instructor used to teach Begg-Mueller in a Decathlon until one student encountered one of the spin modes where it does not work. The technique originated with Mueller who stated that it "worked with all aircraft whose tail configurations were of a certain type: the low mounted tailplane set forward of the rudder ...". There were many types that Mueller did not test and Beggs filled in some (only some) of the blanks. Interesting that the Chipmunk and Zlin 242 do not fit into Mueller's category for which it works. In particular any type where a push is required to move the stick forward is perhaps an indicator that the hands off technique may not work - so the Chipmunk and Zlin 242 etc as examples - both have full forward as a requirement if necessary. It is fairly easy to get a Decathlon and Cessna Aerobat in a situation where a push is required to move the stick/yoke forward. Extract from one of Beggs'articles: Decathlon and Pitts S-1/S-2 will happily transition to inverted with brisk simultaneous rudder and full forward stick. (note that I am only referring to fully developed spins here)

The ATSB report on a Chipmunk aerobatic/spin accident has just been released. The pilot and passenger were very lucky to have survived. I can't think of words critical enough of the flying school and the relevant instructors without being libellous. "At the top of the loop, the aircraft stalled while inverted, most likely as the result of excessive elevator input. The aircraft rolled and entered an upright spin, which became flatter as it developed. Later, the pilot reported that attempts to recover were unsuccessful. The spin continued until the aircraft impacted terrain. The pilot and passenger sustained serious injuries and the aircraft was seriously damaged. There was no fire. The pilot reported undertaking training to conduct loops, but there was no record of an endorsement and the instructor did not recall approving the pilot to conduct loops. As a result, at the time of the accident, the pilot likely did not possess the necessary skills and judgement to conduct the manoeuvre safely and consistently. The pilot probably did not apply and maintain the spin recovery control inputs appropriate for a fully-developed spin in a Chipmunk aircraft. Furthermore, the pilot was taught a spin recovery method that was not effective for recovering from such spins in the aircraft. In addition, the accident aircraft’s flight manual had not been approved by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and did not include advice on spin recovery. The mandatory, Civil Aviation Safety Authority-approved flight manual contained spin recovery advice. The flying school that provided the pilot’s aerobatic training reported that a briefing process was undertaken with all current aerobatic instructors to ensure that consistent terminology is used to describe and teach aerobatic manoeuvres. It also reported that a programme of standardisation flights for all current aerobatic instructors will include the training of spin and unusual attitude recovery for aerobatic students. Safety message, Pilots and instructors, particularly those intending to conduct or teach aerobatic manoeuvres, should be familiar with any special handling requirements for a particular aircraft type as well as recovery from both incipient and developed spins. Furthermore, they should ensure that they hold the appropriate aerobatic endorsement before attempting a manoeuvre." Nope, that should be "must" not "should". CASA only requires spin instructors to know the spin recovery method for the type they are trained in, plus know Beggs-Mueller - and teach the spin recovery method applicable to the type they train in - per the AFM. The instructors did not know the required spin recovery method for the Chipmunk per the AFM. "Contributing factors • The pilot attempted to conduct a loop without the required qualification. • The aircraft entered an upright spin after a stall or flick-roll at the top of an attempted loop. • The pilot probably did not apply and maintain the spin recovery control inputs appropriate for a fully-developed spin in a Chipmunk, and the spin continued until impact with terrain. Other factors that increased risk • The flight instructor who taught the pilot spin recovery did not teach the method to recover from a developed spin that was appropriate for the aircraft type. • The spin recovery methods taught by the flying school were inconsistent across instructors and training material, and were not always appropriate for the Chipmunk aircraft type used by the school. [safety Issue] • The approval for the accident aircraft’s flight manual had been revoked, and the flight manual in use lacked the spin recovery instructions that would have been present in a flight manual issued by the aircraft type design organisation. • The flying school’s Chipmunk aircraft was used for aerobatic instruction and endorsement without having a current, approved flight manual that contained spin recovery instructions." See the full report at: http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2014/aair/ao-2014-114.aspx