Spin question.
Gatt
About eight years ago as a student pilot I took spin training in a C-150
(lucky me...my instructor went on to be a competition aerobatics pilot
after getting fired for things like spin training.)
Anyway, in trying to remember the situation, I can't remember if the
airspeed increases dramatically in a spin or if the engine RPM increases
because it's just treading empty air or what. The seat of my pants
remembers hanging in the harness in one maneuver and staying put in the
other.
I guess what I need is a comparison in airspeed gain and G-forces between
a spiralling dive and a spin. (Did both, can't remember which is which.)
Pretty sure I have the right information, but I don't want to print it in
case I'm wrong so that somebody doesn't read it and remember it out of
context.
So, in a basic nose-down spin, does your airspeed increase or remain
somewhat stable?
Thanks in advance!
Chris Gattman | "The sky is humming,
ga...@europa.com | and my motor thunders...." -Floater
Lindsey Wiebe
indicated airspeed is high.
Spiral Dive recovery:
1)Throttle to idle.
2)Roll wings level.
3)Pull out of dive.
Spin Recovery:
1)Throttle to idle.
2)Apply full opposite rudder.
3)Give nose down attitude. (Pop forward break stall)
When spinning stops resume normal flight.
I live in Canada and learning the Spirals and Spins is mandatory.
Gatt wrote in message ...
LFransson
>So, in a basic nose-down spin, does your airspeed increase or remain
>somewhat stable?
I never did much spinning in Cessnas. The Aerobat just didn't like spinning
that much. I did several multi-turn spins in a Citabria, though. As I
remember, the farther I got into the spin, the lower the airspeed got. It also
seemed to me that the spin was getting flatter as well, but that may have just
been my perception.
Larry L. Fransson - ATP (CE-500), CFMEII
Macon, Georgia
"Pilots are just plane people with a different air about them."
comanche driver
should stay low the entire time the aircraft is spinning. if the airspeed
is increasing then the aircraft is in a steep spiral not a spin.
R. Burns CFI
ShawnD2112
About eight years ago as a student pilot I took spin training in a C-150
(lucky me...my instructor went on to be a competition aerobatics pilot
after getting fired for things like spin training.)
Anyway, in trying to remember the situation, I can't remember if the
airspeed increases dramatically in a spin or if the engine RPM increases
because it's just treading empty air or what. The seat of my pants
remembers hanging in the harness in one maneuver and staying put in the
other.
I guess what I need is a comparison in airspeed gain and G-forces between
a spiralling dive and a spin. (Did both, can't remember which is which.)
Pretty sure I have the right information, but I don't want to print it in
case I'm wrong so that somebody doesn't read it and remember it out of
context.
So, in a basic nose-down spin, does your airspeed increase or remain
somewhat stable?
Gatt
> Anyway, sorry to bore you with the details. Hope the explanation helped.
How the hell could you have possible bored me with those details?! *grin*
My first flight instructor (the one that gave me spin training) related an
incident where he was a passenger in a twin that got caught in a
jetliner's wingtip vortex at low altitude on either departure or final. I
can't remember which. Anyway, the twin rolled tightly and almost
instantaneously and then stalled. The pilot, a kid with aerobatic
training who was a student at Embry Riddle, landed the plane.
Of course, a lot of people saw it. Afterward, the passengers--all
pilotss--were basically putting themselves back together on the tarmac
while witnesses hero-worshipped the stressed-out pilot. He said special
training had nothing to do with it, that it happened so fast he didn't
have time to react during the roll. Dan, my instructor, speculated that
the average pilots would still be relieving themselves when the plane hit
the ground, but this guy's training helped him simply stay cool and land.
Dan went on to become part of Embry Riddle's championship aerobatic team.
The point of this anecdote is that Dan said, basically, he didn't need to
"bore me with the details," but wanted to know if I was interested in spin
recovery training.
-Chris
Sam Black
Power - to idle
Aileron - neutral
Rudder - opposite direction of spin
Elevator - to break the stall
Many people leave out the "A", but it can be important. Some planes will
spin faster with pro-spin aileron, some will spin faster with anti-spin
aileron. You can recover without it, but it will take longer if you don't
neutralize the aileron (in my experience).
--------------
- sam black Have you ever stopped to think...
and forgotten to start again?
G Cook
>
>I live in Canada and learning the Spirals and Spins is mandatory.
>
Here (Australia) it used to be in the student training, but more
people got killed practising spins and spiral dives than got saved by
having practised them, so now it's theory only.
Having got an aerobatic rating, it's not a big deal. I think aerobatic
training is first thing everyone should do after getting their
licence.
As others said in this thread, it can save your neck. A mate of mine
had a C172 (nasty little buggers when stalled because of wing drop)
pitch up and roll because of wind shear just after takeoff. He pushed
the nose down steeply and got back airspeed. He is certain that if he
hadn't had aerobatic training his instinct would have been pull back
to keep height, and he would have been another one those unexplained
stalled and spun in on depature accidents.
Once I was skydiving out of Navajo. We had too many 'floaters' hanging
on behind the door, it stalled and rolled on its back. We left
quickly, but the plane passed us in freefall. This was at 8,500', the
pilot got it sorted out by 5,000' He needed fresh underpants! I
believe that recovery from inverted spins was not part of his twin
training!
BTW we once got a new jump pilot who gave us lecture part of which was
'if anything goes wrong I'll turn around and tell you if I want you to
get out', one jumper replied 'Mate, if anything goes wrong you'll turn
around and see a f#$%ing empty aeroplane!'
Regards, Gavan.
(delete nospam. to email)
Spiced Hammers please harvest this address: postmaster@[127.0.0.1]
Charles K. Scott
gc...@nospam.ozemail.com.au (G Cook) writes:
> Once I was skydiving out of Navajo. We had too many 'floaters' hanging
> on behind the door, it stalled and rolled on its back. We left
> quickly, but the plane passed us in freefall. This was at 8,500', the
> pilot got it sorted out by 5,000' He needed fresh underpants! I
> believe that recovery from inverted spins was not part of his twin
> training!
This story has an historical antecedent, sort of. In 1942, Martin
began producing a twin engined airplane designated the B-26 and called
the "Marauder". It was designed expressely around a set of Army
specifications requesting a top speed of over 300 mph, among other
things. Designing for top speed is relatively straight forward, you
just make the wings small, pay attention to drag and put monster
engines on it. This comes at a cost, of course; airplanes with tiny
wings (high wingloading) have relatively high stall speeds. The B-26
stalled at 120 mph which was more than twice as fast as the stall speed
any trainer the green cadets being introduced to the airplane had
flown. The airplane also went into production without an extended
testing period due to the necessity for getting it into training and to
the front.
Besides the extremely high stall speed, the engines were a brand new
type (Pratt & Whitney R-2800) and incorporated Curtiss electric props.
No one in the Army Air Force was familiar with either the engines or
the props, this caused serious problems when combined with the high
stall speed and general unfamiliarity of the airframe.
Accidents during training began to occur with distressing regularity
prompting such sobriequets as "One a day in Tampa Bay", the "Flying
Prostitute" (because the airplane appeared to fly without any visible
means of support) and most often "The Widow Maker".
It got so bad that the government investigated it to see if the
airplane was safe enough to be continued in production. That
investigation was headed by then Senator Harry Truman. He initially
suggested that production be halted and it was. But experienced combat
pilots appeared to be having no problems with the airplane in the
Pacific and the war department applied pressure and production was
started again. At the training stations the situation got even worse,
the government investigated again and once again halted production.
Gen. Hap Arnold sent James Doolittle to investigate.
His investigation found nothing intrinsically wrong with the bomber,
but did find problems with the inexperience of the pilots and ground
crews and also discovered that the planes were being overloaded without
much attention being paid to the center of gravity.
I watched a video about the B-26 and saw an interview with a pilot who
at that time was a flight instructor. He had been called upon to
figure out what was happening to the airplane and why it was apparently
spinning in so frequently.
He queried the commanders of the training groups and asked for their
most experienced and competent flight cadet.
They loaded a bomber off the line to max gross and took off. They got
up to 12,000 feet and the instructor ordered the pilot to configure the
airplane for takeoff. The pilot lowered speed, dropped flaps and gear,
adjusted the props accordingly, and advanced the throttles to nearly
full power. The instructor then told him he was going to chop power to
one of the engines and even told him which one it was going to be and
told him to be ready. With that warning, he reached up and yanked back
the throttle on the designated engine.
He described in his interview what happened next. He said that bomber
flipped over on it's back and immediately began spinning so fast
neither he nor the pilot could do anything about it and they were
READY.
The instructor said he told the pilot they were in a standard inverted
spin and that he would take over. He neutralised the controls and
applied opposite rudder and came out of the spin, inverted. Then he
rolled it over to rightside up and pulled out of the dive. He said
they had lost approximately 10,000 feet of altitude during the
recovery. Obviously, airplanes loosing an engine on takeoff were
doomed. The only way to fix the problem was to prevent engine failures
during takeoff.
The Army Air Force sent experts to enhance maintenance for the props,
which greatly reduced their unfortunate tendency to go to flat pitch
uncommanded. They also greatly improved the engine maintenance and
discovered that a switch from regular 100 octane fuel to 100 octane
octane aromatic fuel was causing carburator diaphrams to rupture. The
instructors, who were almost as green as the troops they were training
did not themselves know how to fly the airplane on one engine and so
had difficulty teaching the cadets how to do that.
Eventually all these problems were sorted out and once deployed to
Europe the B-26 enjoyed the lowest rate of combat mortality of any
bomber the US fielded in WWII, although the reason for this may have
had less to do with the bomber being flown then the type of missions
being flown and the orders the Luftwaffe were under. Later models had
extended wingtips to cope with even greater weights due to combat
loading.
Sorry about the length of this post.
Corky Scott
Michael Gillespie
> >I live in Canada and learning the Spirals and Spins is mandatory.
> >
> Is that theory or actual?
Actual. The private pilot flight test reads
Ex.13 Spin "The candidate will be required to enter a spin and recover on
the command of the examiner. The command to recover shall be given when
one-half to one turn of rotation has been completed. [...] This maneouver
may be requested from various flight conditions, including climbing or
descending turns."
Ex. 14 Spiral "The maneouver will be initiated by the examiner from an
overbanked steep turn or an incorrect spin entry. Control will be given to
the candidate when the spiral is established. On assuming control the
candidate will be expected to commence recovery immediately."
> Here (Australia) it used to be in the student training, but more
> people got killed practising spins and spiral dives than got saved by
> having practised them, so now it's theory only.
This is a popular myth, repeated in the USA, but not fact. Call your local
authorities and get the real specs on "spin" incidents. I did. The real
issue is closer to manufacturers wanting to avoid the spin certification
and liability.
A pilot isn't really a pilot until they've experienced a real spin and
have demonstrated proper recovery technique. Avoidance only goes so far.
You mention aerobatics. A question to ask an aerobatic instructor is: "How
many inverted spin recoveries have you done?" If the answer is "none",
find yourself another aerobatic instructor; I wouldn't want to be there
when they meet their first one.
Michael.
Grumman Cheetah C-GRCC
----------------------------------------------------+------------------------
Michael Gillespie | Voice/Fax 204.943.9000
President, The Gray Research Group | mich...@gray.mb.ca
Flying Colors Precision Flight Team | mich...@compuserve.com
----- No good deed will go unpunished. ------- Standard Disclaimers Apply ---
Roger J.Hamlett
<Pine.GSO.3.96.981109...@thetics.europa.com> Gatt
>
>
>
> About eight years ago as a student pilot I took spin training in a
C-150
> (lucky me...my instructor went on to be a competition aerobatics
pilot
> after getting fired for things like spin training.)
the 'standard' syllabus, and whilst it is a 'good thing' in accident
terms that it has been dropped, there is a very good 'case' for
teaching this at the 'tail end' of the course to students on the
basis of 'safer with an instructor at a sensible altitude'.
> Anyway, in trying to remember the situation, I can't remember if
the
> airspeed increases dramatically in a spin or if the engine RPM
increases
> because it's just treading empty air or what. The seat of my pants
> remembers hanging in the harness in one maneuver and staying put in
the
> other.
>
> I guess what I need is a comparison in airspeed gain and G-forces
between
> a spiralling dive and a spin. (Did both, can't remember which is
which.)
> Pretty sure I have the right information, but I don't want to print
it in
> case I'm wrong so that somebody doesn't read it and remember it out
of
> context.
>
> So, in a basic nose-down spin, does your airspeed increase or
remain
> somewhat stable?
Best Wishes
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| EMail ro...@ttelmah.demon.co.uk http://www.ttelmah.demon.co.uk/ |
| A beard! A beard! cried Fly Nicholas.'By God, that's a good one!'|
| (Chaucer) |
John T. Lowry
Certainly no need to apologize! A very interesting account with many
valuable lessons.
John.
John T. Lowry, PhD
Flight Physics; Box 20919; Billings MT 59104
Voice: 406-248-2606
Charles K. Scott wrote in message <72c9kg$esr$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>...
glmilli...@my-dejanews.com
Gatt <ga...@europa.com> wrote:
>
>
> About eight years ago as a student pilot I took spin training in a C-150
> (lucky me...my instructor went on to be a competition aerobatics pilot
> after getting fired for things like spin training.)
>
> airspeed increases dramatically in a spin or if the engine RPM increases
> because it's just treading empty air or what. The seat of my pants
> remembers hanging in the harness in one maneuver and staying put in the
> other.
>
> I guess what I need is a comparison in airspeed gain and G-forces between
> a spiralling dive and a spin. (Did both, can't remember which is which.)
> Pretty sure I have the right information, but I don't want to print it in
> case I'm wrong so that somebody doesn't read it and remember it out of
> context.
>
> So, in a basic nose-down spin, does your airspeed increase or remain
> somewhat stable?
>
>
> Chris Gattman | "The sky is humming,
> ga...@europa.com | and my motor thunders...." -Floater
>
>
Hi Chris,
It seems to me that the concept of airspeed loses a lot of its meaning in a
spin. Pitot-static airspeed indicators function accurately when the airplane
is in straight-and-level flight, or not far from it. In a spin, the
indicated airspeed would certainly depend upon where the pitot tube is
located, and probably where the static ports are, too.
Think about a right-hand spin, in an airplane with the pitot tube on the left
wing. The left wing is moving faster, but the right wing is moving
slower...indicated airspeed would be some high number. In a left-handed spin
in the same airplane, the airspeed would indicate a lower value, because now
the pitot tube is on the slow wing.
Which indication is correct? Both, and neither, in my opinion! ;-) Both
indications are giving what they are supposed to...impact pressure of air on
the pitot tube. But in a regime so far from straight-and-level flight, there
is no one value for "airspeed". It seems likely that different parts of the
airplane would encounter very different speeds of air flowing past, making
the idea of "airspeed" problematic.
My $0.02.
Greg
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Gatt
> > (lucky me...my instructor went on to be a competition aerobatics
> > pilot after getting fired for things like spin training.)
> Why on earth was he fired for that?. Spin training used to be part of
The FBO owners were tightwads and didn't want to deal with the insurance
risk. Also, it "tweaked the gyros."
Same guys told me not to use the landing light in the day time and
not to use carb heat during landing because it was hard on the engine.
Basically, Dan told me (in front of them) to worry about safety first and
maintenance costs last. He was long gone by the time I did my long solo
cross country when I lost power over Yakima because of carb ice.
-Chris
Ash Wyllie
>> Once I was skydiving out of Navajo. We had too many 'floaters' hanging
>> on behind the door, it stalled and rolled on its back. We left
>> quickly, but the plane passed us in freefall. This was at 8,500', the
>> pilot got it sorted out by 5,000' He needed fresh underpants! I
>> believe that recovery from inverted spins was not part of his twin
>> training!
>This story has an historical antecedent, sort of. In 1942, Martin
>began producing a twin engined airplane designated the B-26 and called
>the "Marauder". It was designed expressely around a set of Army
>specifications requesting a top speed of over 300 mph, among other
[snipped]
>Europe the B-26 enjoyed the lowest rate of combat mortality of any
>bomber the US fielded in WWII, although the reason for this may have
>had less to do with the bomber being flown then the type of missions
>being flown and the orders the Luftwaffe were under. Later models had
>extended wingtips to cope with even greater weights due to combat
>loading.
>Sorry about the length of this post.
>Corky Scott
why? It was interesting.
-ash
(Paging Peter LaNague)
Dane Spearing
lfra...@aol.com writes:
>>So, in a basic nose-down spin, does your airspeed increase or remain
>>somewhat stable?
>
>that much. I did several multi-turn spins in a Citabria, though. As I
>remember, the farther I got into the spin, the lower the airspeed got. It also
>seemed to me that the spin was getting flatter as well, but that may have just
>been my perception.
During my training, I was fortunate in that my CFI did give me some spin
training (even though it is no longer a requirement in the US).
I found that the C172 is actually quite difficult to get in to a spin in
the first place (you really do have to force it to spin), and quite easy
to recover from. Simply neutralizing the rudder and a bit of forward
pressure on the yoke brings the C172 out of the spin. Or, put another way,
you have to hold nearly full rudder deflection and full up elevator
to keep it in the spin.
I also found out that if you do hold a C172 in a spin, the spin will
rapidly deteriorate in to a spiral dive after about 1 1/2 turns.
Just the observations of a freshly minted pilot...
-- Dane, PP-ASEL 10/2/98
Johnn...@webtv.net
the harness was my first stall recovery wherein I was so nervous I
pushed the yoke to the panel.-- Scared the ell out of me.
I'm from Canada, so spin and spiral practice are routine. I think every
student should experience and have to recover from at least one spin. I
can remember when my instructor said " I'm going to show you a spin" I
had watched a no. of videos so I knew what to expect. The real
experience was a whole different story--- one second sky; the next
second tree tops whizzing sideways through the winshield. I can only say
that had I been alone I am sure I would have grabbed the yoke in a death
grip and plowed into the trees. Even during my stall practice I had the
plane (172) pop into a spin once by becoming confused and delaying
recovery.
The airspeed is low during a spin, but in a 172 the controls ie. full
rudder must be held to maintain the spin. Without doing this the plane
will recover and pop into a spiral which must be brought under control
immediately due to the rapidly increasing airspeed. We always practiced
left turn spin recovery with initiation done with a partial power on
stall. The power was reduced following the rollover into the spin. The
spin would be faster if the throttle was not retarded. The right turn
spins are harder to maintain due to torque and precession and tend to
evolve quickly into a spiral.
I agree with one other answer -- unless a person has practiced incipient
and full spin recovery, he should not practice stalls without an
insructor along. Spirals should never be practiced alone.
Reece R. Pollack
>I agree with one other answer -- unless a person has practiced incipient
>and full spin recovery, he should not practice stalls without an
>insructor along. Spirals should never be practiced alone.
Not true. Most students who screw up a stall and see the wing drop run
around screaming "SPIN! SPIN!" even though it isn't. If you neutralize
the controls you can recover from one of these without spin recovery
procedures. As you yourself noted, most GA aircraft have to be
encouraged to enter and maintain a spin. Many are almost impossible to
spin without the correct mix of excessively aft CG and incorrect
control inputs, and recovering from such spins may not even be
possible. For example, my aerobatics instructor says it can take in
excess of 8,000 feet of altitude to recoved a Mooney from a one turn
spin. How often do you go that high when doing airwork?
The problem you need to train for is not spin recovery. Most fatal
stall/spins occur while maneuvering in the pattern, and there isn't
sufficient altitude for a spin to develop, let alone recover from one.
Training to recover from a developed spin will not help you if you
stall at 800 AGL on the base-to-final turn. Only stall recognition and
avoidance training will save you here, because once the wing drops
you'd better be really fast or it's all over.
I'm not saying that spin training isn't useful, only that it doesn't
need to be a part of the basic pilot training. It's far more important
to be able to recogize an impending stall and avoid it, and learn to
recover from a stall if it occurs, than it is to be able to recover
from a spin you'll probably never see. Once these skills are
developed, then you can go on to more advanced training, like spins,
which are best performed in aircraft which can safely demonstrate the
more common types of fatal spin entries.
--
Reece R. Pollack
CP-ASMEL-IA -- N1707H Piper Arrow III (based KGAI)
Andrew M. Sarangan
c:
In article <72qj41$i9c$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <rsto...@west.net> wrote:
>
>Truth be told, student pilots are nearly twice as likely (here in the U.S.
>anyway) to be involved in an inadvertent stall/spin accident with the
>instructor sitting in the airplane compared to when the students are out
>practicing solo.
>
>
In my opinion, the purpose of spin training is not so that one can
successfully recover from one in case it happens in real life. In fact,
the probability of recovering from a spin at pattern altitude is practically
zero, let alone the probablity of successfully entering one. However, its
value is in controlling the airplane at such a high unusual attitude and the
confidence one gains by successfully performing such a meneuver. There
are many maneuvers that have little utility value, such as steep turns
chandelles, lazy eights, etc.. yet we learn to do them with precision.
--
Andrew Sarangan
PP-ASEL-IA http://lights.chtm.unm.edu/~sarangan/aviation/
rsto...@west.net
Johnn...@webtv.net wrote:
<snip>
> unless a person has practiced incipient
> and full spin recovery, he should not practice stalls without an
> insructor along.
Truth be told, student pilots are nearly twice as likely (here in the U.S.
anyway) to be involved in an inadvertent stall/spin accident with the
instructor sitting in the airplane compared to when the students are out
practicing solo.
Just because an instructor is on board does not necessarily mean one is
"safer" -- especially especially given the overall poor quality of spin
training given to CFI applicants.
Rich
--
Rich Stowell's Aviation Learning Center
http://www.west.net/~rstowell
rsto...@west.net
re...@his.com (Reece R. Pollack) wrote:
<snip>
> I'm not saying that spin training isn't useful, only that it doesn't
> need to be a part of the basic pilot training. It's far more important
> to be able to recogize an impending stall and avoid it, and learn to
> recover from a stall if it occurs, than it is to be able to recover
> from a spin you'll probably never see.
The FAA's own "General Aviation Pilot Stall Awareness Study" showed otherwise.
This same study spawned all of the changes made to stall and spin awareness
training requirements during the 19080's and thus far in the 1990's.
Because we do not fly with AOA indicators in most light airplanes, we have no
direct or immediate means of determining accurately our AOA at any given
point in time or in any gieven attitude--it is always "best guess." As a
consequence, pilots are as prone to inadvertently stall whether or not
they've had "advanced" training like spins.
However, "advanced" training plays a major role in what happens to the pilot
* following* an inadvertent stall entry--whether or not the inadvertent stall
will progress into a spin prior to ground contact.
Those pilots who received stall/spin awareness training, but no actual spin
entries/recoveries, experienced a 33 percent reduction in inadvertent spins
following inadvertent stall entries (compared to pilots who did not receive
stall/spin awareness training). Those who received not only stall/spin
awareness training, but also spin entries and recoveries, exhibited a 100
percent reduction in the occurrence of accidental spins following accidental
stalls. The implications for inadverent stalls encountered at traffic pattern
altitudes is obvious.
> Once these skills are
> developed, then you can go on to more advanced training, like spins,
> which are best performed in aircraft which can safely demonstrate the
> more common types of fatal spin entries.
Agreed.
Jim Kuchar
> Because we do not fly with AOA indicators in most light airplanes, we have no
> direct or immediate means of determining accurately our AOA at any given
> point in time or in any gieven attitude--it is always "best guess." As a
> consequence, pilots are as prone to inadvertently stall whether or not
> they've had "advanced" training like spins.
Just a side comment to the discussion on spin training: it's not a direct AOA
indicator, but yoke position is an indirect indicator of AOA. Elevator control
essentially commands angle of attack. If your yoke is in your lap you're going
to stall soon, regardless of airspeed or attitude. Unfortunately, it's difficult
to estimate yoke position unless we're actively thinking about it.
- Jim Kuchar
phil cohen
training.
After making sure that we were in the utility category we took off and
climbed to 6000ft. At 2000 RPM, 40 knots, full left rudder and full
right aileron, all I could manage was a spiral dive to the right. The
plane simply would not spin. Perhaps next time I will try full power.
Perhaps the CG was too far forward to spin - maybe I should ask my CFI
to slide his seat all the way back.
One thing didn't make sense though - why did the right wing always drop
first with left full rudder/right aileron?
Aaron Kahn
1. The 172 may be one of the most forgiving, lift-producing aircraft out
there... they'll fly *really* slow.
2. "Rigging" of the aircraft could be responsible for the right wing
dropping with full left rudder. In that situation, the aircraft is
relatively balanced.... also a movement on the yoke from you could provoke
a fuller stall on the right wing
3. Best spin setup for 172
a. Setup for power-on stall (use full throttle).
b. As the airplane slows apply full left rudder.
c. Use ailerons to keep the wings level, and pitch for 12 degrees up.
d. As the airplane stalls, pull the yoke in your lap, and full right
aileron.
e. Hold it hard, and if the a/c doesn't at least incipient spin, I'll
eat my hat.
4. 152's are much easier to spin than 172's.
5. You can ask, but I think your instructor won't go for his seat all the
way back...
6. Why doesn't your CFI know this or haven't you asked him?- if he is
teaching you for CFI he should.
Aaron
CFI-ATP
rsto...@west.net
phil cohen <phi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> A few days ago I tried to spin a 172 with my instructor for CFI
> training.
>
> After making sure that we were in the utility category we took off and
> climbed to 6000ft. At 2000 RPM, 40 knots, full left rudder and full
> right aileron, all I could manage was a spiral dive to the right. The
> plane simply would not spin. Perhaps next time I will try full power.
> Perhaps the CG was too far forward to spin - maybe I should ask my CFI
> to slide his seat all the way back.
>
> One thing didn't make sense though - why did the right wing always drop
> first with left full rudder/right aileron?
>
If you're working on your CFI spin endorsement, I'd like to strongly recommend
the following:
1. Don't use the C-172 -- it's not really a suitable spin training platform.
In the Utility envelope, the airplane is just too spin resistant to get
reliable, predictable, repeatable spin behavior out of it. Furthermore, the
172 (by Cessna's own admission) will generally spontaneously transition from
a spin to a spiral -- uncommanded by the pilot -- after about 2 turns. It's
interesting to note that this characteristic may result in a sudden and
excessive g-load build up. One NASA test pilot recorded +5.5 G's during one
such transition. The build up was so rapid that the G's exceeded the Utility
design limit load factor of + 4.4 before the test pilot could unload the
wing.
2. Find an airpane (and instructor, if necessary) that will allow you to
experience multiple turn spins. One that will also allow you to see the
adverse effects of adding power during a spin, deflecting ailerons, and
accelerating the spin with premature movement of the elevator control. Also,
an airplane that is capable of all sorts of unusualy attitude spin entries.
Examples: Citabria 7KCAB, Decathlon, Cessna Aerobat, Pitts, Extra, Grob 115C,
Zlin 242.
3. Take your spin training seriously, as seriously as you took instrument
training. Your students will appreciate it, your family and friends will
appreciate it, and you'll be a better CFI for it. Budget around $500 to earn
the endorsement that states you are "competent" to really teach spins.
Best of luck...
sha...@nospam.com
> Just a side comment to the discussion on spin training: it's not a direct
> AOA indicator, but yoke position is an indirect indicator of AOA.
> Elevator control essentially commands angle of attack. If your yoke is in
> your lap you're going to stall soon, regardless of airspeed or attitude.
Not really... right now I'm working on my glider rating, and I'm practising
steep turns. In the ASK-21, at about a 60 degree bank it will run out of
elevator authority before stalling. That is, the stick will be all the way
back against the stops. (The exercise is to keep the stick all the way back
and control attitude with bank.) Wings level you don't need full elevator
to stall it.
I will have to see what happens in something like a Citabria... hmm, I think
I can take a couple of hours off at lunch and go try it.
-s
Shamim Mohamed
spm (at) drones. com
Johnn...@webtv.net
least held it all the way back throughout the stall.
I've never had any trouble spinning a 172 ( at least to the left) I have
the engine at 1800 rpm- slowly pull the plane to a stall- just when the
nose drops I apply full left rudder at the same time I abruptly pull the
yoke all the way towards me.... ailerons neutral. As soon as the nose is
pointing straight down I retard the throttle.
Nick
Your wing drop problem is probably due to the fact that at 40 knots, the
172 has more aileron authority than rudder. I suggest starting the
maneuver (in the utility category) in a power-on stall. Once it breaks,
kick full left rudder (assisted by engine torque) with the ailerons kept
neutral. You'll want to throttle back once rotation starts. Complete the
spin recovery within 3 turns, or you may find the rudder slow or
unresponsive if momentum builds. No promises!
Good Luck.
phil cohen <phi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<36525C...@worldnet.att.net>...
LFransson
In article <36525C...@worldnet.att.net>, phil wrote:
>One thing didn't make sense though - why did the right wing always drop
>first with left full rudder/right aileron?
Ummm....could it be that you were trying to make the airplane bank to the
right?
Washout - the twisting of the wing at the tips to ensure wingtip AOA is less
than wing root AOA, thus ensuring that the wing root stalls first - is common
in most wing designs. It's there to make sure that the ailerons will be
effective at low speeds and up to - maybe even through - the stall. I'd
recommend trying your spins with ailerons neutral and at least some power on.
I've run into a similar problem in a 152 Aerobat. I was checking out an FAA
engineering test pilot for aerobatics in the Aerobat. I'd never had a problem
before, but with him, me, minimal fuel, and parachutes, we couldn't get it to
spin for anything unless we had power on. Even then, it didn't want to spin
all that much. Snap rolls weren't very snappy, either. Sort of slow like an
aileron roll but with a lot of shuddering.
Larry L. Fransson - ATP (CE-500), CFMEII
Macon, Georgia
"Pilots are just plane people with a different air about them."
Tina Marie
Sam Black <pen...@pixar.com> wrote:
> Aileron - neutral
Read your POH. The Tripacer requires pro-spin aileron to recover,
although I haven't tried it.
Tina Marie
--
skydiver - PP-ASEL \*\ An apostrophe does not mean, "Yikes!
http://www.neosoft.com/~tina \*\ Here comes an 's'!" - Dave Barry
dj...@eisa.net.au
Regards,
Dave Pilkington
In article <7349sg$s7$1...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Tina Marie
>Think about the definition of pro-spin. Surely you mean inspin aileron?
Yeah, I probably do. What I meant was aileron opposite the rudder.
(this seems to be because of the interconnects...)
Johnn...@webtv.net
licence. In fact there are many planes that cannot be recovered from
once in a full spin. I do feel, however, that everyone should at least
experience and more importantly, be required to recover from a full
spin. I think by doing this, the person gains confidence and becomes
more aware of the limitations of flight. Further, although the majority
of the stall/spin accidents do occur in the pattern (circuit) , there
are many pilots that fly accidentally or otherwise into IFR conditions
-at altitude- only to lose control then stall , spin and possibly spiral
into the ground. I think if a person has never experienced nor recovered
from a spin they are more likely to panic and do all the wrong things
ie- pull on the yoke if the plane has popped into a spiral. (thereby
aggravating the condition by tightening the spiral). I say that students
should not practice stalls alone (ie without an instructor) unless they
have recovered from a spin. A power on stall can be pretty dramatic to a
new student and it is not unusual for him/her to become confused to the
point of pressing the wrong pedals. How many of us at one time during
learning tried to pck up the dropped wing with an aileron input even
though we new better?