Close shave during C150 spin.

[Centaurus]

Experienced instructor. He asked student instructor to patter a spin recovery - they climbed all the way to 7500 ft agl. After two turns he said recover, and despite correct recovery actions (except he relaxed on the backward pressure instead of placing wheel well forward of neutral), the C150 continued spinning. Despite several attempts to recover by the instructor the aircraft did not recover until around 1500 ft when it came out of the spin. The instructor felt that the problem may have been in the initiation of the spin when he forced the aircraft into the spin before it had actually stalled. Has anyone else struck a problem with C150 recovery times and anything unusual about the spin? The significance point of the spin which I described, is that it had only gone through 1-2 turns before recovery action initiated. I can understand that it is asking for trouble if recovery action is delayed until after 4-5 turns because it can flatten.

[Genghis the Engineer]

IMHO the problem was probably a control mishandling altering the spin mode. The correct action in this case is to go back to full PRO-SPIN controls for half a turn, then restore recovery actions. Another possibility is that the throttle wasn't fully closed, which can have remarkable effects.

I've not seen this on a C150, but the Bulldog and Tucano will do this without much trouble - they always recover eventually (I do recall a 15 turn eventually once in a Tincano).

I can see the C150 winding itself up too much, but am surprised you think it'll flatten.

G

[Tinstaafl]

I've seen lots of C150 & C152 'wind-up' after about 2 turns.

CofG made a significant difference to recovery. I'm only light but I've noticed the recovery varying with the size of my student & his/her seat position.

Also if they don't ensure the throttle is closed &/or don't move the column forward reasonably briskly.

I've had one instance of the recovery being delayed when the student moved the column forward before applying rudder input.

Another where a big burly chap froze while holding onto the controls with them in pro-spin. He'd never properly spun before & was taken aback by the whole thing after he mucked up a stall recovery.

As Genghis said, if the input isn't working correctly reset the system to its original state ie controls to match the spinning condition, & then re-try with thorough application of the technique.

[Avgas100]

If everything turns to hell, I was told that letting go of the controls will recover a 150/152 from a spin.

Never tried it before, so I might go up tomorrow and try it to see if it works!

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Centaurus, how does this fit in with your argument re. heights to go to for stall training in light singles?

Just wondering!

[This message has been edited by Charlie Foxtrot India (edited 28 August 2000).]

[John Farley]

I agree with Genghis but don’t like his half turn pro – I would think a couple of turns or more might be needed to do the job in some cases.

Spinning is one of those pastimes that produces occasional odd balls. It always has and anybody who is deliberately doing it without plenty of height (to say nothing of not having a parachute) is taking some degree of risk especially if they (or a student) use a vaguely executed or non standard entry or do not maintain the 100% correct recovery actions for at least two turns in the event of a problem,

[Genghis the Engineer]

I agree in general terms JF, although I can't think of any aircraft I've spun that really needed a full 2 turns of pro-spin again to ensure recovery. If all else fails however, it would certainly be sensible.

And on a whole new subject, whilst I agree with you John that a parachute is a bloody good idea when spinning, how many people actually bother during routine (as opposed to test) spinning work?

There are plenty of aircraft that will recover from the spin if you release the controls - just expect to get kneecapped!

G

[xelophab]

I have known of a few instructors having difficulties recovering from spins in a 150, so much so that the particular a/c was removed from spin training and 172's etc were used instead.

Other methods of recovery used were rocking, adding and reducing power (I know but when you are at a loss you'll try anything!)

[Centaurus]

CFI. I see your point. But deliberately putting in gross control inputs such as full rudder and full back stick (which is required to initiate a spin)- is a bit different to setting up a practice stall with normal recovery action in which the expected height loss by a GFPT student, who had met the CASA Competency standards, would be no more than 200 ft.

[John Farley]

Sorry Genghis – I was not trying to be dramatic re parachutes. I too have done plenty of spins without. I was just wishing to make the point that spinning does (statistically and historically) carry a degree (however small or large) of risk when compared with other manoeuvres.

Several personal experiences make me cautious about spinning in a way that does not apply to my attitude to other things that many people might consider to be of higher risk. (For example turning off the fuel to the critical engine of a twin engined transport at V1 minus 5 kts and continuing with the max AUW take off in ambient conditions of ISA +15 when you have no background on type or even complete documentation for the type).

The thing about spinning is that you cannot use the iterative process to ensure safety as I could and did with the case in brackets above.

When I was a QFI on JP 3s and 4s in 61/62 time we had one that did not spin as consistently as the rest. We asked for help. A Sqn collected it last thing Friday and on Saturday morning my CO phoned me at home and said they had jumped out of it. Later in ‘63 on my ETPS course visit to A Sqn I asked the CO (Roger Topp) what he thought about spinning. He took me to the Hunter 6 with LE extensions standing on the pan, and said “Look at that thing. It weighs x tons, it has all sorts of inertia and all sorts of aerodynamics. The whole thing is gyrating and doing over 100 kts – yet those silly little extensions transform the way it spins and recovers. How can that be. You just cant rely on simple common sense when it comes to spinning. If the aircraft is not identical it may spin totally differently. That is all you can be sure of”

This is no place to write a book, but spinning needs a very long one to cover it properly. Not a few paragraphs like most other manoeuvres…….


[This message has been edited by John Farley (edited 01 September 2000).]

[Genghis the Engineer]

No offence taken John.

The CAA are very fond of telling us that the only type with a significant spinning fatality rate is the Pitts. Not because it's unrecoverable, but because people keep spinning it close to the ground in competitions and displays.

Hopefully, if the likes of you and I did our job right, there should never be a need for a parachute in an aircraft cleared for deliberate spinning. But, all the same, it does make one feel that bit more secure...

G

[John Farley]

Genghis

I don’t want to flog a dead horse, but a few comments re your last

I’m not sure much civvy spinning is done these days – it no longer being a licence requirement.

Even when a type has been well test flown by the pilots and engineers as you mention, I am quite sure that the team will not have covered every combination of entry control rates and deflections, cg conditions, fuel sloshing, throttle position, idle RPM setting and so on and so on. Therefore there is always the chance of a new mode arising.

Various aeroplanes and various people (Roger Topp and others) have convinced me that spinning is not the same as other manoeuvres and so I will always have reservations about the subject. And I submit that is not a bad thing – after all there is no law of aerodynamics that says controls that can be used to make an aeroplane spin will always be able to make it recover from a situation that is very different from the entry!

J

[ShyTorque]

During a revision trip before my GFT I was asked to spin a C150. The aircraft of the day had very recently arrived at the flying organisation I was with and it had a reputation for markedly dropping a wing at the stall. I hadn't flown it before.

We entered the spin as per normal i.e. S&L, throttle closed and full pro spin controls applied but the aircraft rolled unusually rapidly on entry. As the spin stabilised the instructor asked if I noticed anything unusual.

I answered that a) we were inverted and b) the engine had just stopped!

He asked me to describe my recovery to which I answered "same as normal but control column fully back instead of the usual forwards movement?". He nodded, I did it and the aircraft came out of the spin.

The aircraft was grounded and a rigging check found different rigging angles on the wings.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I think that ST has probably just proved you right JF. I'm not sure I disagreed with you anyway, it's all a matter of percentages.

Testing an aeroplane, our job is to make sure that something unexpected is very unlikely - wearing a parachute takes care of the other small percentage point.

I think more schools and civvie pilots spin regularly than admit to it - probably a good thing too.

G

[ShyTorque]

The Bulldog is unpredictable in the spin and was especially so early on in its history.

As RAF QFI's we were obliged to fly mutual high rotational spin recoveries once a month (or was it every 3 mths?). We used to pre-brief the entry and recovery drills so that the other "safety" pilot did not get left behind the plot, as things used to happen very quickly.

The two usual ways of getting a "high rotation" were either to reverse the rudder without following up with stick forward, or simply to move the stick forward about an inch from fully aft. As elevator loads in the spin were quite high for a light aircraft the latter was easy to get accidentally. For that reason students were taught to use both hands on the stick at entry. This also helped keep the ailerons neutral, which was also required to prevent oscillations / other funny things happening.

The roll acceleration and sustained rates were quite alarming.

Two incidents stick in my mind. One involved a QFI plus student. Student messed up recovery drills, a/c went high rot. QFI could not recover so told student to "Jump, Jump, Jump!" Stude OPENED the canopy rather than JETTISON it as he should have (so it slid back) and he went out. As soon as he departed the aircraft recovered. QFI watched the student's chute open and went home without him.

Second incident: QFI plus student. Aircraft not recoverable from spin. Both jumped. QFI fell out of harness as his chute opened, presumed to have inadvertantly rotated QRF box to "unlock" as he climbed out (possibly due to a mind-set about the normal a/c egress after landing which involved leaving the 'chute in the seat) and then it probably got knocked to release during the chute opening.

After that I always used to leave the aircraft with my parachute on so that I NEVER unlocked the QRF box whilst sitting in the aircraft. (Effectively every egress was an emergency one as far as parachute wearing was concerned; less chance of me incorrectly repeating history!)

[John Farley]

ST

Thanks for two very interesting posts.

Any crew that can have the CONVERSATION you described during an inadvertent inverted spin deserve a long and fruitful flying career all the way to retirement!

J

[Genghis the Engineer]

I concur.

G

[ShyTorque]

Thankyou - I think at the time that probably fewer words were exchanged and the conversation was in fairly high pitched voices! I was probably too inexperenced to realise the seriousness of the predicament and so I was a bit cooler than I was entitled to be....

John, the Jet Provost spin was also interesting at times and I am sure you can tell a story or two about that aircraft. I lost 10 thousand feet or so in a Mk3 once. Caused by me mishandling during aeros and then also being slow to take off full opposite rudder after the spin stopped....

[This message has been edited by ShyTorque (edited 04 September 2000).]

[Spiffy]

Im confused now.
I've been merrily spinning Terrorhawks for a couple of years now and not had any trouble - though it generally is different for each machine in our fleet.
But- point is, I always thought C150s were safer to spin than PA38s.
In view of the non-necessity for PPL licence I'm wondering if I want to do it now, as I only do it a few times a year so I'm not that current really.
Yours Worriedly....

[John Farley]

Spiffy

If I have any part to play in you being confused or worried my apologies! – although I suspect you have your tongue firmly in your cheek. But in case you did not.....here goes

We all agree currency is important in all things aviation. To get recurrent (safely) with spinning IMHO just requires one to put the odds in ones favour, no big deal: You know what you should do. Just do it with the special care associated with switching off an unexploded bomb.

Have at least 6k above local ground level (or more if you can afford the time)

Have no appreciable cloud below you. Do not spin down into a limited hole. Have a good visual horizon.

Do your hazel checks

Decide which direction you are going to spin and start with the sun in view.

Tell yourself 2 turns only and plan to shout them out loud with respect to the sun

Enter with crisp full control inputs using two hands to hold the stick back with ailerons neutral

Call the first (mainly roll) turn as 1

After two turns shout recovering and be very careful to swop the rudder fully – indeed wedge the blighter as hard as you can, shout pause and start moving the stick progressively forward (all the way if necessary but it probably will not get that far before its out)

Shout three if the sun goes by again

As soon as the thing speeds up its rotation rate and drops its nose and the airspeed lurches up, be ready to quickly and positively centralise the rudder and stick.

Most spins that go weird are because something in that list of control actions was done sloppily or imprecisely.

When that is fine go back up (all the way) again and do it again with 3 turns before recovery.

Stick with one direction until happy to do your personal target of turns before trying the other direction – and build up gradually again.

Oh dear I am an idiot you knew all that.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Aint disagreeing with anybody, but a passing comment.

In the event of an inadvertent spin, it follows (inevitably) a loss of control.

The RAF (rightly imho) teaches a loss of control drill (close throttle, centralise everything). Almost always, this will recover an aircraft from the departure, before a fully developed spin occurs, and with minimal loss of height.

Why then do most civil schools, and civil aircraft manuals, teach ONLY a fully developed spin recovery, which really needs at least a full turn (and probably 500ft height loss) before you can identify the mode after in inadvertent departure.

It strikes me that standard civil teaching, is potentially quite hazardous in the event of a low level loss of control? Opinions anybody?

G

[John Farley]

Good points Genghis.

The business of training people to recover quickly and safely with minimum loss of height following an inadvertent loss of control or “departure from controlled flight” aka “departure” is a difficult one – and yet arguably the most important thing.

Ideally, the departee (how about that) will be with it enough to recognise what is happening as a departure, and simultaneously chop the throttle and put everything in the centre (and hold it there against possibly large control snatching). I agree that if that is done accurately and quickly then motion about any axes will likely stop and you then just have a recovery from an unusual attitude to do – ie roll wings level to the nearest horizon using aileron and then (and not before) ease out of the dive.

Personally I doubt that a departee who has not had the confidence building benefit of full standard spin entry and recovery training (to say nothing of aeros training) will react by executing this drill. I fear many will just instinctively oppose the aircraft motions – coarse use of aileron to counter the perceived bank angle and sick hard back to get the nose up. In which case, in the circuit, all is likely lost.

JF




[This message has been edited by John Farley (edited 08 September 2000).]

[MaxAOB]

Good thread,
The recent canadian accident report and the accident I witnessed recently have knocjked my confidence in spinning just when I thought that I was comfortable (if anyone ever is!!) with it. A 150 with half tanks should always recover was what I was taught as an instructor, any other comments?

Keep it up chaps.

[foxmoth]

There seems to be little comment on the fact that the cc was not properly used to unstall the ac. I always understood, for standard recovery, full opposite rudder, pause, then STICK PROGRESSIVELY FORWARD UNTIL THE SPIN STOPS. In some ac (ie chippie) this CAN mean forward onto the stop.(no I havn't forgotten about throttle, aileron neutral etc. - just expect people to know those)

[hugh flung_dung]

I'm keen to learn more about pecularities of the Bulldog spin from anyone who has first hand knowledge.

I've been teaching Aeros (in Bulldogs) at Old Sarum for several years. In that time the aircraft has never spun from manoeuvre (despite studes trying to perform various unnatural acts).
Deliberate competition style (1 or 1.5 turns)spinning has always been predictable with no oddities.
Teaching of deliberate academic spins or spins from deliberately botched manoeuvres has sometimes lead to brief excitement:
- Rudder reversed but stick held on back stop leads to agressive transition to high rotation in other direction (not surprising).
- Elevator relaxed during spin leads to high rotation and delayed recovery (also not surprising).

Has anyone seen anything else happen?
Although I haven't tried a deliberate inverted spin in the Bulldog I've been stalled inverted many times without any signs.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm one of many people who at various times got to spin the Bloodnot at Sunny Boscombe when it managed to scare a few more students or QFIs.

We always decided it was basically friendly, but did have a definite potential to frighten. I can't recall any tendency to spin of a manoeuvre either. The particular mode of rudder-induced high rote is new to me, but the elevator relaxation problem (or moving the stick forward too slowly during recovery) was a known characteristic.

The standard way to create a high rotational spin was about ½ in-spin aileron during the spin. The high rotational spin was always recoverable but could take a couple of turns, and never gave warning - you have to hold the recovery controls on until somebody belts you in the side of the head and you know it's recovered (often the lateral g on recovery tended to destroy vision for a couple seconds, which was entertaining).

If you've got the Lycoming inverted oil system mod fitted, the oil pressure drops to zero or thereabouts during the spin as well, which isn't inherently dangerous but bears keeping an eye on and can increase fuel consumption a bit.

We never felt the urge to try inverted spinning, so if you intend to try that you will be turning very quickly into a test pilot. Personally, I'd advise against it.

G

[Centaurus]

Thanks for all the posts. At 220 hours I did my first Mustang trip. The briefing included spinning with min entry height around 12,000. Recovery action had to be taken after not more than two turns. Average height loss in turns and during recovery was about 3500ft.

There was a warning that power-on entries should never be intentionlly performed. If you inadvertently left power on during the spin, the aircraft would not recover. It was nice to have a parachute as standard equipment. The Pilots Notes warned that once you closed the throttle after a power-on entry, you could expect up to five or six turns to occur after initial recovery action. Expected height loss was 10,000 ft.

I spun the Mustang without trepidation in those long gone days because if one had the altitude and did the right things, it would soon recover. The C150 can be a nasty little beast and it does concern me sometimes. Especially the news that a badly rigged wing could cause a serious spin problem. My experience with C150's is that wing rigging is often awry which means a nasty wing drop at stall. Regretfully, few pilots report this in the tech log which means the next pilot can be caught by surprise.

Back in time again, The RAAF lost a Winjeel and both pilots following an intentional spin. With no witnesses and no CVR, it was assumed that they had crashed in a spin simply because that was the exercise in the authorization book.

With the possibility that the crashed Winjeel was a rogue spinner, the RAAF had each Winjeel in the inventory tested by an RAF test pilot who was based at the Aircraft Test and Development Unit at Laverton.

Each aircraft was given 8 turns (left and right) before recovery action was initiated. Entry was from 8000 ft. I think about 30 Winjeels were tested and all were given a clean bill of health. It will never happen of course, but it would be interesting to see the results of similar spin test flights in the C150.

[stiknruda]

As a neo-natal Pitts pilot, I will read anything that is I feel may either contribute to my safety or longevity, hence following this thread...

I have just finished Fred DeLacerda's book Surviving Spins (ISBN 0-8138-0142-7).

His C150 research is based on 105 one-turn spins and 42 multi-turn spins totalling 281 turns using two different airframes.

In it he discusses the Muller-Beggs recovery technique but his research shows that the no-hands recovery will not work after 3 turns for A C150. He does go on to say that that it may work again after 5 but that piece of work was still outstanding, this was because of rotation rates stabilising.

He concludes the chapter by stating that the C150 is very predictable and will recover as advertised "PROVIDED the airplane is maintained and flown within manufacturer recommendations."

Nothing new there then.

Apparently Cessna in 1980 published a booklet
Spin Characteristics of Cessna Models 150,, A150, A152, 172, A172, & 177.

sNr

[Genghis the Engineer]

If you are interested in developing a deep understanding of spinning, I recommend the spinning chapter of Darrol Stinton's book "Flying Qualities and Flight Testing of the Aeroplane".

G

[212man]

It's nice to see this topic being aired, as I feel that the concept of spinning in simple a/c is not always given the respect it deserves. I am particularly pleased to see the Bulldog being cited as I have some experience of its behaviour.

Although I only flew it as a student, I have about 150 hours on type and before leaving UAS was fortunate enough to fly low level aero's in competition in it. So, most of my time was GH with a lot of spinning practice.

The fatal accident referred to happened the year before I joined and resulted in a change of SOP; the parachute was not removed until the pilot was out of the a/c and standing on the ground. It was then placed back in the a/c. Previously it had been removed in-situi, hence the possible cognitive failure by the QFI leading to him falling from the harness.

The student who bailed out leaving his QFI in a cabriolet T MK1 was on the UAS that shared our airfield, and his caterpillar club tie was a good talking point in the bar!

I was once shown the high rotational mode by my QFI shortly before his standards trip, and it was very rapid indeed; I recall 2 turns per second vs 1 per 2 seconds (13 year memory though). Shortly afterwards we were both together and I managed to get into one by accident; I'd never seen him move so fast, and it took several turns to recover. Nothing should be taken for granted.

I also understand that the Bulldog has a flat mode as one went down on the beach near our field a few years previously. the crew got out but the QFI broke his nose as he landed flat on the wing and then had to crawl off the end, his late chute opening resulted in an injured back. To add to the fun, a nearby a/c trying to help, landed on the beach and ended up inverted, requiring the student from the first a/c to assist!

I would refute the comment that no Bulldog has inadvertently departed into a spin. My then best friend, and a keen rival on the sqn, managed to kill himself in one. He had a fit of pique and flew a very low level down the local high street (the reasons are not within the scope of pprune, thankyou) and during the subsequent wing over went into a spin and landed on the beach. He survived the impact but perished in the post crash fire. The BOI considered that he had not allowed for the strong wind and so tried to correct a perceived skid/slip during the turn (external references) and combined with some pre stall buffet the a/c departed. It landed flat and relatively intact, classic spin impact.

Anyway, enough of all that. the only advice i would offer to would be PPl spinnees is make sure you climb to a SENSIBLE height. We used transition level plus ground height as bale out height, plus 2000 ft plus 350 ft per turn anticipated= quite alot thankyou very much. Don't let some tosser spin you at 2000' 'cos he's done it loads of times and it's a C152. Make sure you have a good surface too, part of the hasell cx should be 'no homogenous surface' which just means not over water or cloud etc. the point being that if the sun is obscured you may find it very hard to judge the number of turns.

Finally, it's great to see such professional and esteemed debate, rather than the rantings and abuse so frquently present on these forums.

------------------
Another day in paradise

[fifthcolumns]

Having spun 150's numerous times
over the years, I personally have never
had a problem provided the recommended
procedure was carried out. It is likely
that a misrigged aircraft may lead to
an abnormal recovery sequence.

I've never noticed a tendency to flatten in
a 150. I was a passenger when
a friend of mine spun a 150 from
12000',
We were exploring the absolute ceiling.
After a botched recovery we continued
inverted recovering at about 4000'.
Having learned nothing, (young and foolish)
we did it twice more, this time without
inverting. Recovering around 3000'
this time. The one thing I noticed was
that once stabilised there was little
change in the rate of rotation and
normal recovery actions brought
us out immediately. At no point did
it flatten in any way.
Eventually I got nervous and feigned
airsickness to convince my friend
to stop. Hardly to be recommended
but interesting for all that. It did,
however give me some confidence
in the relative docility of the 150 in a
spin. Perhaps misplaced.
As a suggestion prior to entering a spin,
perhaps a couple of stalls designed to provoke
a wing drop,should there be any
might convince you to do your
spins in another aircraft.

Having said all that I cannot recall
any incident where a Cessna 150
failed to recover from a deliberately
induced spin.

I've spun 172's too but always slightly
guilty at this abuse of a docile aircraft.
Some are very very reluctant to spin
and require firm handling.

The story of the Provost which
recovered after the departure of the
student was interesting. A very similar
thing happened to an Irish Air Corps
Vampire T55 (RAF T10). After failing
to recover from the spin. The QFI
ordered the student to eject, when he
did so the jerk of the seat caused the
Vampire to recover from the spin. The
QFI flew home with the wind in his
hair leaving the hapless student to
make his own way back.
In an odd follow up the student in his
helmet and flight gear walked to an
isolated farmhouse for help causing
the occupants to flee in terror fearing
they had been invaded by aliens!

[John Farley]

Fifthcolumns

Interesting tale. IMHO the consistency that you (and others) have observed in your experiences may say more about the way the controls were handled during entry and recovery than that the type concerned will never bite.

In the RAF the two seat Vampire was the T11. I was trained on those and one of our instructors was up with one of my course doing spinning when they had a delayed recovery. The QFI took control and after several more turns said standby to eject. That was enough for the lad who went there and then. As in your case the T11 then recovered so the QFI flew it home. We watched it taxy in without a lid and no stude. In came the QFI “I’ve lost me lad” he exclaimed. Made quite an impression on us at the time.

We often wondered whether the change in airflow from jettisoning the large canopy (presumably a loss of some lift at the front) or the seat firing, or both, could have been what triggered the recovery. My mate landed in a farmers field, very ploughed, very muddy and in the pouring rain. He got up and as the farmer approached tried to speak. All that came out was a high pitched squeaky voice that said “Isn’t it a lovely day?”

JF

[fifthcolumns]

T11 I knew that, really I did.
That'll teach me to check my facts
before commiting pixels to CRT
In fact having done so it turns out
that the spin was inverted, the student
ejected at 10,000', the Instructor
rode it down to 5000' and was
about to eject when he regained
control. It was concluded that
the absence of the canopy was
the major factor in it's recovery.
It seems that the Vampire had
a tendency to go inverted from an
entry to a spin.
And the terrified inhabitant was
a farmer on a donkey cart!
Later,apparently, this piece of
accidental test flying was written
into the manuals by DH.

Maybe they should have modded
the pilots notes for the type.
'In the event of a failure to recover
from a spin - EJECT STUDENT'

That would have been sobering reading
for tyros.

This particular student holds the
distinction of being the only member
of the Irish Air Corps to eject from
an aircraft. The Vampire was replaced
by the Fouga Magister which didn't have
ejection seats. Not much progress there.

Similarly, during the war years the
pilot of a Miles Magister in a spin
stood up to bail out, only to
find the aeroplane recovered possibly
due to the disruption of the airflow.


I agree with your point about the
correct and positive recovery actions
for spins. My friend flew a lot
of aerobatics so he had plenty of
experience of inadvertant spins.

He drove like that too, he could spin
a car as easily as a aeroplane.

I wonder though. would the two
lucky individuals concerned, qualify
as members of the Caterpillar club.
Considering the aircraft were not lost?

[This message has been edited by fifthcolumns (edited 22 September 2000).]

[212man]

As I say, the Bulldaog student qualified, so I don't see why not. They'd also qualify for the Martin baker club too I guess.

------------------
Another day in paradise

[Genghis the Engineer]

The bulldog flat mode is an interesting subject. I recall the reports on the beach incident to which 212Man refers, and several trials to try and find this alleged mode - but I don't think at BDN we ever did. It was also asserted to me over a beer recently by a well respected author of aviation textbooks that it has this mode.

But, can anybody genuinely report having seen it who can inform me further? I'm not personally convinved about this flat mode, and suspect that the high rotational mode is what caused these accidents (which is rather flatter than the normal erect spin in the Bulldog).

Re: the Vampire incident. I was told (whether this was genuine fact or local urban legend I'm not sure) of a Canberra spin trial, with a crash dummy as ballast in the nose couch. The aircraft was unrecoverable, until the pilot ejected after which it self-recovered. It then crashed near to another airfield and a couple of RAF fireman got medals for their heroic rescue of this crash dummy!

G

[This message has been edited by Genghis the Engineer (edited 24 September 2000).]

[212man]

GTE,
I am intrigued by your suggestion that the 'high rot' mode is flat, I perceived it as steeper than the normal spin. I guess this only goes to show how disorientating a spin can be, even when anticipated. I distinctly remember on my demo, the nose tucking down and the rotation 'winding' up dramatically to give a real blurring of the ground.


------------------
Another day in paradise

[Reheat On]

With soem 400hrs on Bulldogs,and living under the Old Sarum circuit - in fact I am just penning off a fax to get them to do an intial trip for my daughter to include a spin (!)- on London UAS all those years ago - gawd nearly 25 - we found each aircraft was sensitive to fuel load, single crew of dual,and of course which way you span it - it was hard work to spin R but IIRC semed to posesses some very strange characteristics. We were on a summer camp IIRC when the Southport beach fiasco occurred. As a dumb stude,so long as you remained positive in entry and positive in exit, on the whole there was never a problem. The problems arose because the stude was afraid to make the aircraft work for him, and so it went off on an aerodynamic jaunt of its own!

The hairiest I ever had was doing the aero's competition (practice) at height (usual recovery by TA + height of ground). this involved a quarter rolling circle, which if you really wanted to cock up in the early days you could use as an inverted entry to a spin. Usually you were running out of energy as you went round anyway and if you kept the nose too high in the rolling entry, you could wash a load of kts off v quickly.

Ah, sunny days with oil under the aircraft.

[New Bloke]

Just a thought but in reading all of this really useful information I have come to the conclusion that if I am ever in a spin and cannot recover, as a last resort I will try opening the door/canopy and even standing up, putting out an arm, and if that fails, I will throw out my passenger.

[212man]

Reheat,
your remark about oil under the a/c reminds me of an incident I had. the friend I mentioned above, and I were always trying to outdo each other, one day he came back and told me he had recovered from a stall turn inverted, rather than pulling through. So, off I went to try the same; discovered how slippery the 'dog is going down vertical and how inefective the elevator is when applying negative g. Also, we had a restriction of -2g i think it was. Eventually recovered inverted at some horrendous speed and slightly over the 8second -ve g limit, and RTBd a bit sheepish. Thought i'd got away with it until I saw the engineers mouths drop as they approched the a/c after shutdown. It's amazing how spectacular a pint of oil can look when spread over a fuselage!

Happy days, indeed.

------------------
Another day in paradise

[This message has been edited by 212man (edited 27 September 2000).]

[jtr]

Interesting stuff! The guy who checked me on a low-level endorsement showed me what he termed as a `mustering stall` (Aust), where for example, you roll 30+ degrees to the left, boot in more left rudder than required, then simultaneously roll out, and apply more (max) left rudder, giving crossed controls. When it lets go, (at a speed markedly above stall speed) in this instance, it will flip you over in a nasty fashion, and if you leave the ailerons in the same position as at entry, it will enter a spin very rapidly as well. If the power was left on throughout, and assuming the engine hadn`t cut, the ensuing spin had the sweat from your forehead flying the cockpit pretty swiftly. The quickest recovery seemed to be cut the power, push foward, opposite direction rudder, and a modicum of aileron in the same sense as the rudder. The outcome of the initial exercise could never be predicted, but the recovery always worked. Can`t remember alt loss.

[Vmike]

When I worked inthe USA, although it wasn't required for the FAA PPL, I always insisted that all students did some spin training. I must have done a zillion spins and I found that, in a C-150/152, you will lose 700' every time in a 360 degree one-turn spin, 900-1,000 feet in a 720 degree two turn spin and watch it wind up from there. This works EVERY time. Try it and tell me if I'm wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!