APenNameAndThatA

Grit is more important than talent. Failure is an inevitable byproduct of success. Flying instructors vary in quality. 

If all else fails, the longest answer is most likely to be the correct one. 

This is me doing an inverted spin and recovery in an Extra 300. I stand by my previous comments and have nothing to add.

On 16/11/2020 at 6:18 PM, APenNameAndThatA said:

So, recovery from stall is: all at once: full power, aileron neutral, opposite rudder, release back pressure.

 

Spin recovery is: one after the other: power to idle, ailerons neutral, opposite rudder, release back pressure.

 

So, when do you decide that you are no longer just stalling and have started spinning? Most of the actions are roughly equivalent, but what you do with the throttle is opposite.

 

On 18/11/2020 at 8:25 AM, turboplanner said:

Your guess could kill someone if he/she decided to make a note and get that into subconscious memory. You told us you were going out on Saturday to do upset training. Only two sleeps to go and you'll know all about ALL the factors involved, not the least of which is learning how to stay calm and detached which the aircaft is doing things you've never experienced before and your body is taking substantially more Gs than you've ever experienced. They are the things I'm interested in hearing about because I'm with Facthunter on this upsets require an instructor qualified to do them and an aircraft rated for them, and that's in GA. My opinion is once you've done that training, you'll know how to fly an aircraft so you're a mile away from inadvertent spinning.

 

Triple fail, Turbo. The first fail was that you missed the comment in my original post that was wrong, and, if followed, actually could have caused a problem if someone followed it. I said to recover from a stall by, all at once, applying full power, aileron neutral and release back pressure. In fact, according to the FAA, you should move the stick forward (if you are not inverted) THEN apply full power. They said that the reason for applying the controls in that order was so that one was not tempted to try and maintain altitude with the elevators and still break the stall. So, the correct order or actions is the opposite the the order that I presented. I also suspect that anther reason to move the stick forward before applying power is that it is important to avoid applying more power before moving the stick forward. If you apply power before moving the stick forward, you might increase the airflow across the elevators, increasing their effectiveness, increase the angle of attack, and worsen the stall. Also, if you apply power before the moving the stick forward, and the thrust line is below the centre of drag and/or the centre of gravity, you might pitch the nose up, increase the angle of attack and worsen the stall. (I think that I will see if this is true, flying with an instructor.) The second fail was that you suggested that I might kill somebody by posting a theory. The third fail was that you could have pointed out that the reasons to cut the power in a spin include that adding power flattens the spin, and that if the spin is actually a spiral dive, you will more quickly exceed the structural capacity of the plane. People are supposed to read up the theory before they have the corresponding lesson. Asking questions here is part of me reading up on the theory before the lesson.

On 19/11/2020 at 9:05 AM, M61A1 said:

I suggest having a read of the POH. Under "EMERGENCIES". You will find a procedure for unintentional spinning there.

You are so right. 👍

2 hours ago, turboplanner said:

No, that's not at all what I was saying, because this thread is, or should be solely about someone who had not done any spinning being well on his way to writing up his all-purpose, any plane anti-spin actions and sharing them publicly with others who might be just starting to learn to fly or might be some of the people I see in the training area doing 80 degree turns at 1,000 feet secure in the knowledge that if they do get into a spin they just apply the APEN method from their notebook.

 

He's said he's going to do some spin training on Saturday; why not let him do it?

The answer is that I'll get more out of it if I think about it before I do it. Also, as far as I know, Foxbat don't have a specified method of spin recovery, so it's going to have to be generic.

3 hours ago, turboplanner said:

These are not lessons; these are extracts of what an Instructor, who is familiar with all the terms is going to impart to a student in a real-life lesson.

As far as I know, nowhere in the world is flying taught by correspondence; too much modulation and multiple-response actions are needed, and many students never really pick up terms.

 

To give you an example, at one stage I was in a group of competing cadets to decide who was going to be the school Guard with the white spats and bayonets.

On the command "By the right, quick march!" where you lead off with the left foot, but align ranks with the Right Hand marcher, one of the guys would always start with his right foot.

By one on one splitting up the command (because at times we drilled by the centre) and showing him we always moved the trouser leg with the pin in it first, we won the competition.

 

Some aircraft will spin so fast and hard that there's no time to recite by rote.

 

 

 

Anytime someone reads a book, they are learning to fly by correspondence. And suggesting that I could kill someone by writing down a guess is just ludicrous, Facthunter's +1 notwithstanding.

Forums might be a bad way to teach managing emergencies, but I think that helping people think through emergencies and what they would do in them can only help. Athletes prepare by visualising themselves doing what they are supposed to do. I imagine that us sitting her and imagining what we would do can only help. Also, I think I will add "airspeed" to the start of the sequence "power, aileron, rudder, elevator" because if you are all over the place, and you are going fast, you cut the throttle and level the wings simultaneously. That is easy to remember.

Roundsounds said to not use the rudder to pick up the wing, and Nev said that using too much rudder to pick up a wing can cause problems. Both comments are basically saying the same thing, and I don't doubt that they are right. My question is "Why?"

I am going to attempt to answer the original question, when do you open the throttle and when do you close it. My guess is that you open the throttle if you can definitely unstall the descending wing if you increase your forward speed of the aircraft. Looking at the same thing differently, it depends if you need more kinetic energy in the system or less kinetic energy, where rotational energy trumps the energy of linear movement. If the airplane is rotating too much, you need less energy, so close the throttle. The above is a guess.

3 hours ago, facthunter said:

A bad subject to teach technique on a forum. Planes spin differently and recovery is specific to an individual type often. Too much rudder to Lift the wing can cause problems. In a spin you are stalled, the world is going round  but the speed stays near the stall.   The first thing is Spin or spiral?  Identify which.. The clue is airspeed.

 IF you are low you are in big strife,  compounded by the usual tendency to pull the stick right back when the nose is down, which probably put you in the spin in the first place . Most planes will come out by themselves.  Some require very specific sequence of inputs and even then may be somewhat uncertain in respect of a predictable positive recovery. Proper training is what's required here otherwise prevention. . Learn how to deal with stalling, thoroughly.  I've forever recommended doing recovery from unusual attitudes training..You never know when you will get into one. Nev

Good point to add spiral the the list of things that can make a wing drop.

I had always thought that adding as much rudder as you wanted was fine to keep a wing up. It is important to know if that can cause problems. What problems can it cause?

6 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

When your world just turned upside down; I doubt that you would remember the theory when that happens, so I would recommend an hour with an Instructor in a suitable GA aircraft doing just recovery from upsets. Money very well spent, and entertaining too.

I'll answer by own question, Turbo. If you are upside down, you are entering a spin, so throttle to idle. 🙄

1 minute ago, turboplanner said:

When your world just turned upside down; I doubt that you would remember the theory when that happens, so I would recommend an hour with an Instructor in a suitable GA aircraft doing just recovery from upsets. Money very well spent, and entertaining too.

Saturday.

So, recovery from stall is: all at once: full power, aileron neutral, opposite rudder, release back pressure.

Spin recovery is: one after the other: power to idle, ailerons neutral, opposite rudder, release back pressure.

So, when do you decide that you are no longer just stalling and have started spinning? Most of the actions are roughly equivalent, but what you do with the throttle is opposite.

There is a shortage of hanger space everywhere it seems. 

8 hours ago, RFguy said:

OneTrack ansd M61A . yes, sure there are caveats to engines being left around to rot.

 

But that is a generalization and a assumption.. 

 

IMO you shouldn't generalize without caveats.

 

Depends on the audience I guess to who you are providing advice to. I would expect RAAs advice to be for the LCD....

 

Anyway....... 🙂

 

 

Five hour flying time per year IS leaving something around to rot.

No point getting the owner to get the condition report. Don't bother. You need to get someone to get and airplane mechanic to spend a few hours going over it. Otherwise, don't bother. And, they need to know Jabarus.

Rag and tube LSA's have been replaced by weight shift. So, many of the new LSA's are plastic fantastics. Shouldn't you be trying to talk things up?

1 hour ago, 408059 said:

 

If he is prepared to fly it down to Victoria, and makes it, at least it is airworthy.

That is completely incorrect.

Single seat four stroke. I'd go with this. Late model for this particular aircraft. You would need to get an independent inspection, and factor in shipping.

Well, that was next level.

15 hours ago, M61A1 said:

How about an actual problem?

 

I had this issue a couple of weeks ago.

The aircraft has a Rotax 912 with standard Bings with vent hoses as per Rotax instruction. The installation is pretty normal. A single throttle cable from the dual throttle linkage to a splitter which goes to each carb. 

The installation has an Air/Fuel Ratio gauge fitted. A let over from some previous testing.

The exhaust is not standard Rotax but appears similar in design.

Engine mounts are standard for the aircraft  design, which has a bed mount.

 

The whole installation has been functioning normally for around 400 hours.

 

One afternoon on a normal sort of day with a normal takeoff, about mile from the strip, I reduce the throttle to cruise at 5200 RPM. Moments later power drops to 4800 RPM. After turning back immediately I cycle the throttle a little and find that 4800 RPM is all I'm going to get and the mixture is extremely rich at high power settings. If I reduce power the mixture returns to normal levels.

After landing the engine idles and throttles up normally, but will not produce power above 4800RPM. After shutdown ( having a check under the cowl at various bits) and restarting everything appears to run normally, including ground run, but does the same again after taking off.

 

I fixed it after four hours of troubleshooting and multiple ground runs and test flights.

 

Any takers?

No one here is capable of realising that it is the magneto. 😡

47 minutes ago, old man emu said:

OK. Let's call quits. I set a scenario without ensuring that it was completely debugged. I'm sorry that no one had the ability to look for the main point, but focused on wind, fuel and trim.

 

I was going to pose another question on something else, but I can't be bothered to minutely inspect every syllable to ensure that what I write is blatantly obvious.  Maybe I should work backwards. Provide the answer, then ask people what the question is.

You still don't get it. When you wrote the scenario, what was in your mind was engine power. But once you posted the question, the answers depended on the question not what your intention. The correct answer was wind. If then engine lost power, the aircraft would have lost height (and you did not give enough detail to suggest that a different less likely outcome would have arisen). You were wrong and lacked the grace to admit it. That is the fault of you and your question, not the fault of the people who responded to the question.

Re: "I'm sorry no one had the ability to look at the main point." If you had said "I am setting a question and I want you to guess the answer, but you need to remember that the objective is for you to work out what I am thinking, not what the best answer is based on the question," then that would have been more honest and more insightful.

Stated differently, it doesn't matter if the question is not debugged when you post it. The question would have given you a different answer to the one you expected. You lacked the humility and mental flexibility to say, *very* early on, "Oh, s-, wind is the obvious answer". That's on you.

Re "I was going to pose another question on something else, but I can't be bothered to minutely inspect every syllable to ensure that what I write is blatantly obvious.  Maybe I should work backwards. Provide the answer, then ask people what the question is", the obvious solution is to pose the question and see if you were right. Why on earth do you suppose that the answer has to be certain before you post the question? You. Still. Don't. Get. It.

3 hours ago, old man emu said:

This is a good, first principle question. However, the discussion could be prevented from wandering, as it already has, if an exemplar aircraft was used. Basically, things depend on the position of the fuel tanks relative to the CofG. If the question was put with that addition, then the simple situation could be explained, leaving the hangar doors open for a second question relating to things Flying Binghi has mentioned.

Which is why your "Diagnose This" question was wrong.

By having the aircraft maintain height, you actually eliminated a magneto failure from consideration. 😂

3 hours ago, old man emu said:

Because when I posed the question, I didn't want that to be an answer. I wanted it eliminated immediately from the diagnostic process.

You wanted to eliminate it from the question. Which is why you, and your question, are wrong. If the engine lost power, you would have lost height. Instead you said that the aircraft was slow. The way the question was written, wind is the correct answer. Thanks for coming.