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.

 

 

To expand on Mazda's post:

 

The slip ball responds to local lateral acceleration so if it is some distance away from the spin axis then it will be affected by the rotation - been a long while since I did high school physics but I recall something about linear acceleration being equal to the rate of rotation squared multiplied by the radius.

 

William Kershner's excellent book "The Basic Aerobatic Manual" has everything you ever wanted to know about the Cessna Aerobat. He lists other types where the ball behaves in the same way. Sorry, can't help you with the 172 but I guess so.

 

If you fly a tandem aeroplane then you will probably find that the ball behaves OK - at least in a steady spin.

 

If you've got a turn co-ordinator then look at the rate of turn indicator - it works pretty well in upright spins. The old turn & slip is even better - the bat is driven by a yaw rate gyro so works both upright and inverted. i.e. the only thing that matters is direction of yaw.

 

When I teach spinning I ensure that my student has a good look at what the relevant instruments are doing in a spin and what they are showing.

 

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

 

 

Or look at the ball.

Before you get in a situation where you really need to follow that advice I suggest that you take a Cessna Aerobat for a spin and look at how the ball behaves.

The ball will be out to the left no matter which way you are spinning.

 

 

Cloud Dancer

 

 

My favourite, to the tune of "Those Magnificent Men in the Flying Machines" is ..

 

"Those magnificent xxxx in the shiny red Pitts

 

They go up, they go down

 

They go flying around ..."

 

Mazda may remember the subject and the origin of the words.

 

 

Good luck with your venture.

 

I've got a similar view, emhart. I've been in aerospace manufacturing & design for a long time - from small GA to large global companies.

 

 

boy did i get a shock

which is probably why

I would have difficulty believing that a person who accidently gets into a spin, would then be a person who could safely recover from it..On the day...

The Cessna is a great trainer for demonstrating that - on the other hand, it can catch you out if you haven't seen that behaviour before.

Just to get back onto the subject - a recent accident in a 150 was a stall/spin while practicing forced landings. Too many friends lost due to stall/spin.

 

 

I totally agree, Maj Millard. That's why I recommend, as pelorus32 stated, PARE unless there are specific instructions in the POH or AFM.

 

An aeroplane I fly often has a note in the AFM and a cockpit placard which states: "For flat spins use aileron with the spin for recovery." Thats the sort of thing that we need to know.

 

No such guidance in the Cessna Aerobat manual however but you will find that aileron with the spin will make it go flat, not recover. No matter, PARE works fine.

 

 

.... he is out flying while everyone else is trying to work out how to recover from their spins:loopy:

Yep, beaut weather like this is for flying. I'd rather discuss spins over a nice bottle of red (for medicinal purposes only) during the evening or at the hangar when the weather is miserable.Sorry, I'm on hols, so too much free time and I didn't get a "pass out" to go to the airfield today.

 

 

This link is a brief review of an accident to a Cessna 205 with some references to FAA spin requirements and Cessna spin testing. Cessna demonstrated compliance to the certification requirements by applying aileron against (i.e. outspin not inspin).

 

Back in 1978, Cessna published some excellent information about spinning their various single-engine models. If anyone is interested I can upload the two page summary.

 

Many aircraft approved for intentional spins will be aided in recovery by inspin aileron.

 

In a spin there are large, opposing forces and moments and the characteristics of a particular aeroplane depends on the differences between those large parameters. Small changes to any of the forces and moments can have significant effects on the spin modes and effects of controls.

 

Aileron drag is one effect of aileron deflection. Another is aileron lift - even at high angles of attack post-stall the aileron develops lift. Whether the effects of the yawing moment or rolling moment dominates ... depends.

 

I agree with Rich's recommendations at that link above.

 

Lots of good info here as well.

 

 

...... So I'm going to say it again - go to your POH and read the spin recovery section. By all means go and do spin recovery training - it's great fun - but follow the instructions in your POH.In default the NASA PARE approach is the gold standard .....

and applies to many aircraft types, both upright and inverted. There are very good reasons for the actions and their sequencing in PARE. The best reference is http://www.richstowell.com/ - Rich's book on stall/spin awareness.Excellent comments in your posts overall pelorus32.

 

What works in some situations cannot be assumed to apply to a fully developed spin or to other aircraft types. eg inspin aileron will make the Cessna Aerobat go flat; inspin aileron is essential to recover from the CT-4 fully developed spin mode.

 

I'm always happy to discuss spinning so its an interesting thread.

 

 

Its interesting that few ask about insurance when hiring an aeroplane, whether its GA or RAA. After I got my RAA certificate I was told that that I'd have to sign a waiver/agreement with the owner as the aircraft was not insured. Stopped my RAA flying. The recent change to RAA's insurance wrt passengers has fixed my main concern. Now to look at the text of that waiver and consider my exposure beyond the "excess" the owner stated.

 

 

It looks neat now, frustrating to have all those minor problems.

 

 

Disconcerting the first time, Matt, but normal behaviour for an aeroplane which doesn't have an inverted fuel system. You have fuel injection so it works for 1/2 minute or so. Carby's die immediately so those guys get used to it pretty quickly and only get disconcerted when the prop stops - can lose quite a bit of height to get going if a starter is not fitted.

 

Yours must be the only one in that series with an inverted oil system.

 

 

I am 190cm ...... The laser Z-200 would fit better with a group project though.

You'll find it difficult to fit your legs in the Laser. I'm a bit shorter and had to wear shin guards - negative g resulted in bruises from the wing spar going thru the cockpit. Position of the back of the seat is determined by the rear spar. Its fixable - just designed a mod to an Akro Model Z to increase legroom for some-one your height.

 

 

Thought that some of you may be interested in this. Seems like a Kangaroo Court to me and not the appropriate way to deal with an issue like this. I've never thought a suspension as a course of action - either a chat, dual check, a more comprehensive "Pilot Proficiency Programme" or "go away".

 

To Gran-Aire renter pilots and student pilots:

At the end of October a Gran-Aire renter pilot violated our rental rules. Initially I suspended his rental privileges for a minimum of 60 days so I could evaluate the situation and decide if the suspension should be lifted or if a complete termination was in order.

 

This pilot has asked to meet with me now that 60 days has passed. Still undecided on his fate, I asked if he would be open to a “peer review†or “jury of his peersâ€. I asked him to write an article describing the events that led to the suspension and use a similar format to AOPA’s “Never Again†www.aopa.org/pilot/never_again publications for your review and comments. He agreed without hesitation and submitted the article within hours. If you are interested in providing comments, please respond by this Friday January 16th. I will keep your comments anonymous. I intend post them at the same link as the article (without names) on Saturday. My goal in this is twofold, to get closure on this pilot’s state of affairs and for you to learn as well. His article is available below:

More at Hazardous Attitudes lead to renter suspension - Windows Live

As a footnote - a PPL in the USA includes night flying and a night VMC rating is not required.

 

 

Which is why the editor MUST be made aware of errors in reporting

and, conversely, you do yourself a disservice if they do report correctly and you complain to them with your own errors.

In Memoriam Martin Robson

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------

 

From: Richard Ogilvie <[email protected]>

 

Date: Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 9:46 PM

 

Subject: [sPAM] FunFlight News - In Memoriam Martin Robson

 

[/url]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was intended that this newsletter would be a recap of 2008 and to belatedly thank you all for your support for FunFlight 2008.

 

Unfortunately, events have overtaken us and last Sunday, 11th of January, FunFlight Director Martin Robson died in an aircraft accident in Melbourne. Martin was flying a Bushby Mustang which, for reasons unknown, crashed into a back garden on the Mornington Peninsula. Martin was the only person on board and there were no other casualties.

 

As a founding member and one of the three FunFlight directors, Martin worked tirelessly in preparing for and running our FunFlight days over the last two years. He was instrumental in organising the 2008 Victorian event, using his knowledge and contacts to bring together the Peninsula Aero Club, the Royal Victorian Aero Club, the Latrobe Valley Aero Club and Lilydale Airport for the day. In addition, he worked behind the scenes organising donations and support as well as dealing with Airservices Australia, CASA and insurances.

 

As well as his FunFlight commitments, Martin was also the Peninsula Aero Club's safety officer, an Angel Flight pilot and general manager of Innovative Construction Products.

 

Martin’s enthusiasm and drive in everything he participated in is well known and he was an inspiration to those who knew him. Martin is survived by his wife, Virma.

 

There will be a memorial service to celebrate Martin’s life on Monday, 19th January at 12 noon. It will be held at the Peninsula Aero Club on Stuart Rd in Tyabb and please feel welcome to attend. Virma has requested that no flowers be sent but instead donations can be made to FunFlight (www.funflight.org).

 

 

 

Once things have settled, we willl send an update with other FunFlight news and future events. Despite this enormous loss, the FunFlight team is determined to continue into the future and we will be seeking your support again to help make this happen.

 

 

 

Regards on behalf of the FunFlight team,

 

 

 

Richard Ogilvie & Michel Verheem

 

 

 

FunFlight Directors

 

 

 

"FunFlight Smiles Around The World"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just some general comments, which may or may not apply to the Jabiru. ie. I claim no knowledge of the Jabiru.

 

Seats in old GA aeroplanes were designed for an occupant weight of 77kg (aerobatic aeroplanes had a higher figure to allow for a parachute). The current airworthiness regulations for GA aeroplanes has an occupant weight of 97kg.

 

As I'm closer to 97 than 77 I took a keen interest in seat strength of aerobatic aeroplanes. There have been seat failures, more from fatigue than static overload. I took the view that I should have my own, lower limit based on the product n.W - n being the limit load factor and W being occupant weight.

 

Seat structural design is based largely on the crash load cases rather than flight load cases so there may be a bit of reserve in flying hard aerobatics but, in my opinion, pilots should never assume that there is reserve anywhere in the structure. Leads to one of my rules - if you're going to crash do it gently.

 

Rear load on the seat back is simply how hard the pilot pushes on the rudder pedals - many people have the ability to push much harder than the load required by FAR 23.

 

Of course, few aeroplanes mention a seat load limit in the flight manual so that implies there are more significant issues than the above. I've only flown one aeroplane which had such a statement in the flight manual - it was a pusher with the crew up front - limit was determined by bolt strength of the crew module attachment to the main fuselage. That attracted my attention both from the fatigue and static strength points of view.

 

Things end up in flight manuals for various reasons - again, my opinion is not to assume that any of them are silly reasons but it can happen that an enthusiastic inexperienced engineer writes something without realizing the ramifications. Somewhere there is a regulation that pilots shall comply with the flight manual - a good thing to bear in mind.

 

 

Totally agree with all that you said, SP, go for it.

 

 

Re http://www.recreationalflying.com/forum/incidents-accidents/21395-plane-crash-mornington-south-melbourne.html#post76654, being old & grumpy I’ve learnt that no-one takes any interest in my views on what is fair or not fair nevertheless I continue to put my views on what is right and what is wrong.

 

I don’t think that CASA has left that definition incomplete – that advisory circular seems very comprehensive to me.

 

Anyway, on to: " Police will investigate whether low-flying ultralight planes are a safety issue in the area". I have no views on whether they should do this nor how they should do it – I am a member of at least three organizations which should take an interest in it and maybe provide some evidence to their investigation.

 

 

Two people I know who have built Mustang IIs and still very happy with them many years later. An earlier generation of instrumentation and systems. All those I know with the RVs are also very happy. I've flown both and I won't make any recommendations as to which is better as my choice is also the Laser.

 

As for the laser z-200, its still my dream plane

The Laser is just so nice to fly and easy to land. Goes where you point it. I had several party tricks in it:- multiple rolls, alternating aileron & snaps

- vertical line, at the speed where you'd normally hit the rudder for a stall turn, ease the stick forward and point it horizontal then hold the stick all the way back to hold it there, way below the stall speed , sit and wait until it accelerates, unstalls and continues to fly away S&L

 

I've observed various combinations of groups and partnerships and two people sharing the effort in building two aeroplanes. Rarely seen success - as is often the case when more than one person is involved - differing opinions on how to do stuff, different availability, different levels of motivation, different levels of effort & money put in - over a period of time just results in arguments and friends no more. Worth a try as there are benefits all round, just make allowances for when/if things go wrong.

 

 

[/url]

 

[/url]THE pilot of an ultra light plane ....."

 

My point is simple - this article was correct in calling it an ultralight as it is per CASA's definition which is explained in that advisory circular. 

 

 

 

 

Ultralight = 45knts stall

Nope, read the advisory circular again. A ultralight is simply a MTOW of 544 kg.

 

 

If a plane has a VH rego on it, it cannot be an ultralight

From Advisory Circular 21.1:

 

 

 

 

 

In Australia, an ultralight is currently considered to be a single-engined aircraft with a MTOW not

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are currently a number of different classes of ultralight aircraft in Australia, and they

 

are governed by different standards e.g. CAO 101.55, “Aircraft Certification Requirements -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some ultralight aircraft may operate as normally registered civil aircraft, or under the

 

 

 

umbrella of a relevant sport aviation organisation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ultralight aircraft per se are not reflected as a category in either standard or special CoA.

 

However, depending on their registration status, design standards and modes of construction,

 

 

 

 

 

 

or kit-built (experimental), primary or intermediate categories."