PPL- Spin Training

[Nick-viation]

Hi im about to start my ppl in a pa28-161 warrior iii, and i wanted to ask if you actually do spin training as i have read that the -161 is not certified to spinning?

Thanks

[Morrisman1]

if you can get a 161/181 to wing drop stall let alone spin you are doing pretty good!

[Nick-viation]

Cheers, did you train in the pa28-161, if so how many lessons/hours did you spend on praticing stalling?

[Genghis the Engineer]

The syllabus requires 2 hours minimum of stall and spin awareness, expect to do a bit more than that when you include slow flight. The -161 is not cleared for deliberate spinning (nor are most PA28 variants), but in any case spinning hasn't been a part of the PPL syllabus for over 20 years. The reason it was removed, was the belief that more accidents were being caused than prevented by the training, and historical data bears that out, despite the fact that many "old guard" have been arguing for the re-inclusion of spin training ever since. If you want to learn about spinning, there's much to be said for it, but it's outside the syllabus - see if there's an aerobatic instructor and suitable aeroplane in your school, but don't do it until you've done at-least 10 hours flying (preferably 20), it'll just confuse you. The bulk of your training will be about avoiding the stall, rather than actually stalling or spinning. The flying characteristics of any PA28 make them extremely spin resistant anyhow, and you'd have to try incredibly hard to make it. The same to a large extrent is true of the stall, which requires a great deal of pull and to the best of my knowledge nobody has ever killed themselves through an inadvertent stall in a tapered wing PA28 (which includes the -161) in the UK.

Any questions?

G

Aviation Boffin.

[Nick-viation]

Thanks for all the information :D, Could you please tell me a little bit more about the tapered wings?

[Big Pistons Forever]

If you get into an inadvertent spin it will almost certainly be at too low an altitude to recover, therefore virtually all nations have
removed spin training from their PPL syllabus in favor of spin avoidance training.
A spin is an aerobatic maneuver and therefore there is IMO no reason for a non acrobatically trained pilot to ever deliberately spin his/her aircraft. As for inadvertently entering a spin......well I tell my students if you get in an inadvertent spin you were stupid times three.

1) You entered slow flight without recognizing it

2) You let the aircraft stall without preventing it

3) Before unstalling the aircraft you let it yaw

[Morrisman1]

I did my initial training in an Alpha 160a (NZ built robin r2160) so did all my stall training in that but as far as pa28 training, Ive done all my PA28 work in a -181 archer 2 and an archer 3. Stalling in that is the most boring stalling could ever be!! you can just hold it in the stall and when you are sick of that just add power, yes not technically a proper recovery but the plane doesnt give a crap.

The tapered wings are fitted to the -1x1 models and are very stable, some were fitted with flow disruptors on the leading edge of the inner wing section and they are there to further prevent wing drop.

The archer is a very easy plane to fly, it is forgiving (unless you are fast on approach then you will always do a floater). I preferred the alpha for going out to have some fun, its more responsive and you really feel at one with the aircraft but the PA28 is a better cruiser for your cross country training.

[Pilot DAR]

I agree with Big Pistons, that there is no reason for a pilot to blunder into a spin during general aviation flying. That said, I believe that spin training has merit, in that it makes the new pilot aware of what the most demanding unusual attitude recovery would be. If you are comfortable recovering a spin, you can feel confident. I used to be surprised how many pilots I fly with have never spun. Now I realize it's just not trained any more.

The testing I do includes the requirement to spin many aircraft. Though I agree that is well out of the norm, it is still a good exercise, and I'm glad for my early training in spins, and practice all the years along the way.

I do believe that once you start instructing, or even checking out other pilots, spin recovery proficiency is vital. Similarly, commercial flying of a patrolling, photography, or unusual attitude nature should be flown by spin trained pilots.

I think it is a loss, that the desire to streamline flight training, is causing the removal of some subjects - including spinning. I hope instructors take the opportunities available, to familiarize their students with spins anyway.

If you can - spin....

[The Flying Chicken]

I will always demonstrate spins to students at some point in their training, but I make it clear it is a demonstration, rather than a full teaching element. Why? I think you can talk about spinning with her autorotations, inverted possibilities and this and that until the cows come home, and talk about recoveries in that too - Does it make sense to the student? I think not. Show them a spin, show them a recovery and it'll click. However, to become efficient and fully competent at spin recovery requires a lot more practice, which is why I demonstrate, as opposed to teach.
Some may argue that the demonstrations make your average PPL holder think they can cope with spins - From the expressions on their face, I can say no, and most return post PPL and ask for spin training or aerobatic training - And I'm happy to oblige!

[mary meagher]

I'm going to omit names and places in the following account.

With a gliding "Silver C", and the necessary written exams passed (barely) I asked to fly with the Chief of a training establishment to go for the PPL, as it was rumored he was experienced in doing that particular conversion, needing only 8 or 10 hours to accomplish in those days.

I think he was of the opinion I was a pain in the butt, and he didn't really want to fly with me. It was my first flight in a Cessna 152, I was too ignorant to make sure I was strapped in correctly, able to reach the controls comfortably. I also mentioned I was nervous about spinning.....

The day was not completely VFR, we ascended through some broken cu, to the practice area. I did turns, etc etc. He seemed impatient, in a hurry to get it over with. So after 20 minutes, he said "I have control!" and put the Aerobat into a truly nasty spin. 3 turns, and handed it back to me on the downwind leg. I think he really wanted to discourage me from flying with him again, it certainly had that effect. Made a point after that, NOT of spin avoidance, but Chief avoidance! and completed the training with an eager younger instructor.

Not only certain instructors should be avoided, but certain aircraft as well.
We do a lot of spin training in gliders. There are some types with excellent safety records. And there are other types.

[Cows getting bigger]

Ghengis, I wouldn't dispute the need for a significant amount of stall/spin awareness training but can you point me in the direction of a specified 2hr syllabus requirement? The old CAA system required 4hrs SSAT but, as far as I'm aware, there is no specified time requirement under JAA (or whatever authority we are currently operating under :eek: ).

[Final 3 Greens]

I agree with Big Pistons, that there is no reason for a pilot to blunder into a spin during general aviation flying.

The only circumstance I can think of is aggressive avoiding action in a close airprox, but the probability is pretty low.

Much more likely to get into trouble in the circuit, where you would be very lucky to recover, stall/spin avoidance training has always made a lot of sense to me.

One of my US instructors told me, a long time ago, that if you did manage to get a PA28 taper wing into a spin (which, he said, in itself was no mean feat), unless you were in the utility category, it might spin flat and be unrecoverable, this being one of the reasons Piper never sought spinning certification.

Anyone else heard that one? True or urban legend?

[Morrisman1]

One of my US instructors told me, a long time ago, that if you did manage to get a PA28 taper wing into a spin (which, he said, in itself was no mean feat), unless you were in the utility category, it might spin flat and be unrecoverable, this being one of the reasons Piper never sought spinning certification.


Id be surprised, there is a strong pitch forward at the stall int eh PA28-181, I am under the belief that to flat spin you would have to have at least a neutral pitching moment at the stall.

I may be wrong because I've only done stalls in the PA28-181 with the two rear seats empty

[Genghis the Engineer]

Ghengis, I wouldn't dispute the need for a significant amount of stall/spin awareness training but can you point me in the direction of a specified 2hr syllabus requirement? The old CAA system required 4hrs SSAT but, as far as I'm aware, there is no specified time requirement under JAA (or whatever authority we are currently operating under :eek: ).

There certainly was when I completed my first JAR licence in 2000, but I've just tried to look it up and yes - I think you're correct, that minimum hour requirement no longer exists.

G

[Genghis the Engineer]

Id be surprised, there is a strong pitch forward at the stall int eh PA28-181, I am under the belief that to flat spin you would have to have at least a neutral pitching moment at the stall.

I may be wrong because I've only done stalls in the PA28-181 with the two rear seats empty

Any significant tendency towards an unrecoverable spin would have prevented certification at-all. The issue is, I think, simply that Piper didn't feel it necessary to do the significant extra work (and attract the significant extra product liability) if the aeroplane was certified for deliberate spinning.

Answering an earlier question, in the early 1970s, Piper switched from a straight wing to a tapered wing on the PA28. The tapered wing aircraft (-161, -181, -200R...) have a virtually zero incidence of stall related fatal accidents; the older straight wing aeroplanes (-140, -150, -160, -180...) have a good, but not a zero rate of stall related fatal accidents.

There were other changes at the same time (such as a shift from a visual to an audio stall warner) so the wing itself may, or may not, be the reason for this change.

G

[Pilot DAR]

Let's remind ourselves that the design requirements for all single engined aircraft certified under CAR 3 or FAR 23 must comply with 23.221 (1).....:

(iii) [ It must be impossible to obtain unrecoverable spins with any use of the flight or engine power controls either at the entry into or during the spin; and

I have spun many certified types during flight testing, and never had a problem. The differences I have seen, seem to be will it come out on it's own, or do I have to actually work to recover it. The Cessna 206 with an aft C of G did require aggressive recovery, and the 185 floatplane was similar. That said, this is a "don't try this at home folks" situation, the fact that spinning is possible in these aircraft does not mean that you won't be getting close to limits during recoveries. When I test, I have an accelerometer, so as to be precise when recovering from resulting dives.

My spins earlier this month were in a Grand Caravan. It is magnifently designed from a flying point of view, though again, the C of G position greatly changed the spin recovery characteristics. Maximum rate of descent during recovery, 9200 FPM, while seeing 2.8 G at .9 Vne.

Here's a tail video camera snapshot (im still trying to figure out how to edit 15 seconds, out of an hour long video of the second spin flight!)

http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/oo252/PilotDAR/Jims%20DAR%20Testing/Spintestingvideosnapshot.jpg

[BackPacker]

From the expressions on their face, I can say no, and most return post PPL and ask for spin training or aerobatic training - And I'm happy to oblige!

Lots of good things being said about spin training in general. I think it's justified that it's no longer part of the core PPL syllabus, partly because it may well have increased the accident rate instead of reducing it, and partly because the situation where you might get into an inadvertent spin if you're not careful (in the circuit, turning to final) is unrecoverable anyway. So the emphasis on stall recognition/avoidance is something I fully agree with.

But I also think it's a good idea to do some spin training, with a properly certified aircraft, a suitable instructor, in a suitable bit of airspace and with suitable weather. Just to get a feel for what's it like to fly at the edges of the envelope and beyond. However, if you do something like that, I think you should make it into a proper Unusual Attitudes training, covering not just spins and spin recovery, but also:
- Departure stalls: Stalls with full power and a ridiculously high fuselage angle. They do happen if people go from a high-powered airframe to an identical, but lower powered airframe, and misjudge the initial climb angle.
- High-speed stalls, for instance done in full-power, very steep (75 degrees or more) steep turns, to show that, indeed, an aircraft can stall at any speed and any attitude. (You might also want to include ballistic flight, stall turns and wingovers to show that an aircraft can also fly - briefly - below Vs.)
- Recovery from almost-Vne dives (at least well above Vno)
- Recovery from upset situations, for instance from inverted flight
- In-flight engine restarts (plus you'll find how hard it actually is to stop a fixed-pitch engine in-flight)
- Extreme side/forward slipping with or without flaps (very useful technique in case of an engine failure, to make the field when you're too high)
- Steep descending turns (controlled spiral dives) - the fastest controlled method to get down on the ground in case of, e.g., fire on board. And the proper recovery technique of course. Roll, then pitch, but not simultaneously.

And I'm sure there are other things you can throw in here as well.

[Pitts2112]

I think Backpacker is spot on.

The first thing I did after getting my PPL was schedule an hour of spin training. I had never been comfortable in stalls and did manage to initiate a 1/4 turn spin in a C152 while badly dorking up solo stall practice - that scared the hell out of me. I was apprehensive in the spin training as we climbed and prepared for the spin until the wing dropped and it started to autorotate. At that point, it became the most fun I'd ever had!! As soon as the nose dropped to the left, it became an unmitigated blast!

More than that, though, it removed the fear of the unknown - just what is on the back side of a spin that's so dangerous that you can't do them in PPL training? Answer - not much, really. It's a completely controllable maneuver in most airplanes. In fact, in aerobatic types, you can control the recovery to within less than 90 degrees of an intended recovery point. Spins of 1 1/4 and such are routine maneuvers in aerobatic contests.

After just that one spin session, I was no longer afraid of the airplane falling out of the sky, unusual attitudes didn't bother me, and my confidence in the aircraft and in myself skyrocketed.

Definitely do it!

[bern444]

(im still trying to figure out how to edit 15 seconds, out of an hour long video of the second spin flight!)
Depends on the format, but VirtualDub is free and does simple edits. And SUPER, though a pain in various ways, can convert from and to a lot of formats, so if VirtualDub can't read the video you can fix it. GSpot will tell you the format if you need to know. These are free tools - Avid, Final Cut Pro, Adobe Premiere, Sony Vegas, etc will do a more sophisticated job at significant cost.

B

[Cows getting bigger]

- Departure stalls: Yes, a JAA requirement
- High-speed stalls, for instance done in full-power, very steep (75 degrees or more) steep turns, to show that, indeed, an aircraft can stall at any speed and any attitude. (You might also want to include ballistic flight, stall turns and wingovers to show that an aircraft can also fly - briefly - below Vs.) - Sort of covered under JAA. Certainly the increased wing loading bit is a requirement.
- Recovery from almost-Vne dives (at least well above Vno) - Good idea. Probably could be covered as part of the spiral dive scenario.
- Recovery from upset situations, for instance from inverted flight Yes. Normally covered from Ex6 onwards although I don't think the majority would experience inverted flight (aircraft limitations).
- In-flight engine restarts (plus you'll find how hard it actually is to stop a fixed-pitch engine in-flight) Dunno about this one. A bit of risk involved. The first time I did this was on my FI course.
- Extreme side/forward slipping with or without flaps (very useful technique in case of an engine failure, to make the field when you're too high) Slipping is part of the AOPA (UK) 'syllabus' and I would think that it is pointless teach it half heartedly.
- Steep descending turns (controlled spiral dives) - the fastest controlled method to get down on the ground in case of, e.g., fire on board. And the proper recovery technique of course. Roll, then pitch, but not simultaneously. A JAA requirement.

In summary, many good suggestions that should already be taught.

[mad_jock]

Even if it is a good idea to bring back Spin training...

The overwhelming majority of FI's who have qualifed in the last 10 years are going to need to do some training before they demonstrate it never mind teach it.

The skill base has gone now, if you brought it in again without trying to get some experence back it would be carnage.

I have done a reasonable amount of spinning in tommys and Cessna and in no way would I call myself an expert. 2-3 times I have managed to get the aircraft into a mode of spin which doesn't recover with the POH "method" of recovery. Thankfully in my FIC the FII managed to flick over in a steep turn into spin and we had to increase the power to get the rudder working again to get out of it. Well we only had 700 ft agl left when we recovered.

I can see Darwin effect removing an awful lot of talent limited instructors from the instructors pool if they bring it back.

[Pilot DAR]

Yes, all of these (the list) should be taught. It's up to instructors to make their students aware that there are many other valuable things to be learned, which are not in the scope of the main training for a PPL.

It's up to the students (and pilots in general) to recognize the true value of this training, and assure that they receive it! And recurrantly.

Some of the flight tests I fly are in the company of another pilot. I've stopped being surprised by the pilots telling me that either they have never spun, or have not spun since they did their PPL x years ago.... "Well, I'm going to brief you for spins, and we're going to do some..."

[Cows getting bigger]

MJ, yes the lime green hurt my eyes as well!

I suppose the bottom line is whether FICs choose to cover every exercise described in Standards Doc 10.

[mad_jock]

They cover it yes but that will be the first time the person has seen a spin.

They will normally have done it in a "o bollocks" let go of everything "oooo look its recovered" cessna.

They might save there bum if they are really really lucky, but demonstrate it never mind patter it. No chance.

[BackPacker]

In fact, in aerobatic types, you can control the recovery to within less than 90 degrees of an intended recovery point.

Less than five degrees is the norm. And you need to hit exactly 90 degrees nose down after rotation has stopped. Otherwise points will be deducted.

[Pilot DAR]

Otherwise points will be deducted.

In certification flight testing, the point system for spins, for normal category airplanes, is much simpler: After one turn, recovers in no more than one additional turn = 1 point. Does not recover within one additional turn = 0 points, and no approval!

[BackPacker]

Ah, no, that would be too simple. Then the jury wouldn't have anything to do anymore...:ok:

[mad_jock]

And i am normally just happy the farker has stopped turning and don't really care where its pointing

[Pitts2112]

Yeah, OK, the pedants caught me out on the spin recovery accuracy. I was just trying to make a point to the OP that spins are completely controllable and not the dreaded "death spiral" one wayward flight instructor described them as to a prospective student's girlfriend. (mind you, he was a frustrated fast-jet-jock-wannabe who tried to build himself up in hopelessly sad ways).

[Pilot DAR]

Yeah, that's better... If I'm recovered from a spin in the nearest half turn I planned, I'm pretty happy with myself. I no longer prolong spins beyond what I'm required to do. One turn in, one more turn out, if all goes as planned. Indeed, the Caravan, I could not hold in any more, it was recovering itself....

[martinprice]

That must be why we never see Caravans entered in aerobatic competitions.

[mary meagher]

I would just LOVE to see a Caravan in an aerobatic competition!

I bet there are some tricks it could do....slow flying? precision flour bombing?

[Pilot DAR]

How about this trick?

http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/oo252/PilotDAR/Jims%20DAR%20Testing/CopyofIMG_5015001.jpg

[mary meagher]

That's a very good trick.....I presume the Caravan is towing a target? And that the seats in the Caravan have bulletproof bottoms......

[Pilot DAR]

Hmmm, target.... I would have thought you'd be wondering what kind of glider I was towing Mary! It's a magnetic geological survey system.

[FlyingKiwi_73]

At least you could jettison it with out feeling bad, or needing to buy a round of beers :-)

Also somebody said it was hard to wing drop a PA28 try asymetric fuel loading and pick your windward wing :-) works a treat.

Done this in a tommie too, the thing turned on its back!

[Pilot DAR]

With great thanks to Bern4444, I have edited out the pertinent 30 seconds of my Caravan spinning video, and got it to Youtube. I'm still advertizing for the software, but that's just fine, 'cause it worked!

zjB_q7AIvDo

Thanks Shy Torque.... I think I've got it now

[ShyTorque]

Pilot DAR, to insert a Youtube link:

Go to the video in question and copy everything after the "=" sign by highlighting it and pressing CTRL and C on your keyboard.

Go to "edit post" now, seeing as you've already posted it and delete what you've already tried.

Click on the "youtube" symbol to insert that in your post. Then put your cursor in the middle of the insert and press "CTRL" and "V" to insert the link to the video.

Make sure you haven't included the "="; you need everything after that.

That should do it!

[Pace]

Spinning used to be used as a cloud break method pre war (not that i was around then) but it was stable, slow speed and allowed an aircraft to descend through cloud in a fairly set position.

I can remember reading a report of a flight test on a four seater canard. The test pilot got into a flat spin and as the aircraft was the only test machine they had he tried to save it by climbing out and putting his weight on the canard. That failed by which time he was too low to bail out. He stayed with the aircraft which spun harmlessly onto a beach with only minor damage and none to the pilot.

I am cautious of pilots being taught to drive aeroplanes rather than to fly. Flying is about knowing your aircraft and what it will do or can do if misused.
We all know a spiral dive which is a much more violent manouvre than a spin.
Really its about confidence in being trained to appreciate all your aircraft is capable of doing.

Go into multi engine stalling and the possibility of adding unequal power on recovery and you have the danger of a spin. IMC is another area.
I appreciate there may be more spinning accidents while training to do them.
I appreciate a spin will be different 2 up compared to a loaded 4 seater but those are not arguements against spin training. They may be arguements about what you train in? and with who?

But to turn out a well trained and rounded pilot he needs to know all that his aircraft is capable of doing. He needs to be taught to FLY not drive aeroplanes.

Pace

[Pace]

Spinning used to be used as a cloud break method pre war (not that i was around then) but it was stable, slow speed and allowed an aircraft to descend through cloud in a fairly set position.

I can remember reading a report of a flight test on a four seater canard. The test pilot got into a flat spin and as the aircraft was the only test machine they had he tried to save it by climbing out and putting his weight on the canard. That failed by which time he was too low to bail out. He stayed with the aircraft which spun harmlessly onto a beach with only minor damage and none to the pilot.

I am cautious of pilots being taught to drive aeroplanes rather than to fly. Flying is about knowing your aircraft and what it will do or can do if misused.
We all know a spiral dive which is a much more violent manouvre than a spin.
Really its about confidence in being trained to appreciate all your aircraft is capable of doing.

Go into multi engine stalling and the possibility of adding unequal power on recovery and you have the danger of a spin.Hence why we do multi engine stall training several thousand feet up! IMC is another area.

I appreciate there may be more spinning accidents while training to do them.
I appreciate a spin will be different 2 up compared to a loaded 4 seater but those are not arguements against spin training. They may be arguements about what you train in? and with who?

I would recommend any pilot do a couple of aerobatic sessions in an aerobatic aircraft with an instructor as it will improve your abilities as a pilot and your confidence in handling an aircraft.

But to turn out a well trained and rounded pilot he needs to know all that his aircraft is capable of doing. He needs to be taught to FLY not drive aeroplanes.

Pace

[Mark1234]

Amen!

(Apparently that's too short. So yes, couldn't agree more!)

[mad_jock]

I agree with you PACE but the modern thinking seems is to teach people to drive the aircraft to a set of rules which will be punishable if you break them. Ifthey arn't written down rules the double edged sword of "airmanship" is used to try and bludger pilots into doing some right bizarre crap. Usually with the beating stick of "safety" used. Quite alot of cases it not being safety its just the dumbing down of the majority to protect the talent limited minority who shouldn't be PIC of an aircraft.

There are more and more instructors coming on the scene that have been trained with the mind set they will go straight to a multi crew cockpit and have been trained to fly as light aircraft as if its a heavy. The whole concept of being a pilot is alien to them. They are operators not pilots, taking the autopilot out is terrible airmanship. And to be honest it proberly is with there level of handling skills.

[Pilot DAR]

Pace, and Mad Jock,

I could not agree more! I can remember hearing about a spin being a cloud break procedure, and mentioning this in a discussion with my peers, decades back. An expression of shock and horror filled the room. They could not decide to be horrified because I was full of it, or pilots actually did that back in the day!

Through what has been termed here a "heritage of inexperience", combined with a false sense of safety conservatism, and finally, an apparent yielding to a desire for less total training being required to earn a license, things like proper spin training are falling by the wayside.

The other week, for the first time, I met a Canadian trained pilot who told me that he had never experienced a spin. I suppose I'm a victim of this too, as in my helicopter training, and 40 hours of advanced training after PPL, I have never done a "full on" autorotation. No one will allow them now in their helicopters, for training purposes.

I hope that instructors of today devote themselves to their students enough, that they maintain good spinning skills themselves (not as though it is difficult really), and demonstrate spins to their students. Students, and new pilots, you should be requesting this!

[mad_jock]

The majority of instructors in the UK are of the mind set of, please please can I go and fly something that burns Jet A.

And they can't maintain skills that they never had in the first place.

[Pilot DAR]

Yes, things which burn Jet A can be fun, and I enjoy them, particularly when they have a propeller in front, and can happily operate from an 1800 foot grass runway. But, The pilot (any very much more so, if that person is instructing) must be very familiar on the type they are flying. This includes being compotent to fly the plane (perhaps with great concentration) to the limits of its capabilities, if needed.

I used to find myself asking "Really!?", when Transport Canada flight test staff told me that I would be required to demonstrate spins in the modified aircraft I was test flying. Though I have never not spun, throughout my flying years, I used to keep it a secret, as my C 150 is STOL equipped, and that takes it's spin approval away. Somehow, I managed to get into spins fairly regularly anyway - either careless flying, or an effort to remain proficient - the lines are blurred.

After spinning many GA types, the common characteristics of the spin became much more familiar to me, and were not alarming - so what if it is pointed straight down, it's not going very fast anyway! It's an unusual attitude, just recover it. So being told I would have to spin the Caravan was not a big leap for me. That said, I did prepare and research carefully, and doing it without a "G" meter would have not been adequately safe. It was facinating how the C of G position dramtically changed the recovery characteristics.

I dream of flying some military trainer type, which is actually "hard" to recover, just for the experience - but I doubt it's in my future.... Hmmm, maybe Harvard one day....

[Pace]

I could not agree more! I can remember hearing about a spin being a cloud break procedure,

It was used when instrumentation and nav was poor as a way of descending safely through cloud in a controlled manner. Some used to mark a solid cloud top note the drift after they had completed their exercise and then spin back down breaking the spin as they became visual.

Pace

[Genghis the Engineer]

I dream of flying some military trainer type, which is actually "hard" to recover, just for the experience - but I doubt it's in my future.... Hmmm, maybe Harvard one day....

Tucano, erect spin to the left, entered with power on.

Bulldog, erect idle spin, half in-spin aileron applied during the developed spin.

G :uhoh:

[Big Pistons Forever]

I teach lots of spins...as part of a formal aerobatics program (I have a Canadian aerobatic instructor rating). Spins are important in aerobatics both because it is an aerobatic maneuver in its own right and because if you screw up many of the other aerobatic maneuvers you will probably end up in a spin.

However when I am teaching for the PPL the whole point of spin training is to avoid having the aircraft enter a spin in the first place and if it does depart at the stall to stop the aircraft from continuing towards a spin entry spin by controlling the yaw. I want my students to instinctively use the rudder to stop any developing yaw as the lower the nose to unstall the aircraft. If this is done the aircraft can never enter a spin, therefore I see no purpose in teaching a student how to recover from a spin. I will however demonstrate one two turn spin only to show them what happens if you don't get on the rudder early. I will also not teach spin entries, instead I teach the full variety stall entries including those which are likely to depart into a spin (eg power on climbing turn stalls). Personally I do not think anyone should be playing with spins unless they have had aerobatic training.

[Pilot DAR]

Personally I do not think anyone should be playing with spins unless they have had aerobatic training.

How about "....they have had spin training."

"Aerobatic training" is a very broad brush. It is also likely limited by the aircraft type available for the training. I have had aerobatic training, but do not consider myself compotent in areobatics in the bigger sense. My training was in Cessna 150 Aerobat, and Citabria (airbatic backward, for those who have not heard yet). I am adequately compotent in the maneuvers for which those types are appropriate, but I know that there are many aerobatic maneuvers I have not experienced, nor would attempt on my own, were I in a capable type.

I agree that intentional spins are an aerobatic maneuver, but I would say that they can be trained, and perfected in the absence of more indepth aerobatic training. I was certainly adequately compotent in spin entry and recovery, long before I was trained in aerobatics.

But, yes, aerobatic training is vitally important to overall compotence of any fixed wing pilot. I spin, loop and roll regularly, just to keep fresh.

[tggzzz]

Personally I do not think anyone should be playing with spins unless they have had aerobatic training. Spin entry and recovery is, of course, a normal part of pre-solo training in gliders.

On one of my flights immediately before first solo, I did three multi-turn spins. So does everybody else at the club.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Spin entry and recovery is, of course, a normal part of pre-solo training in gliders.

On one of my flights immediately before first solo, I did three multi-turn spins. So does everybody else at the club.

You can recover at any point in the spin entry and obviously if you enter an inadvertent spin you would want to recover as soon as possible, ideally while still in the spin entry phase, so it would appear to me that if you are doing multi-turn spins you are spinning for the sake of spinning. To me the only type of flying where you want to deliberately spin an aircraft is as part of an aerobatic flying sequence. Spins are part of the Canadian CPL sylabus and from what I see is a lot of students are spinning the aircraft because it is "cool" and a "rush". I overheard one young hero boast about his 10 turn spin in a C 152 and how it had really "wrapped up" towards the end. Spins should not IMO be looked as aerobatics for non aerobatic pilots. If pilots want good spin training they should get an aerobatic airplane and and an aerobatic instructor and learn how to do them properly. At the school I worked for 2 C 152's had bent horizontal tail spars as a result of botched spin recoveries.
Bottom line "spinning" at the flying school level should be all about avoiding the spin in the first place and if one is careless enough to let the aircraft start into a spin; to then recover immediately. Therefore IMO there should never be more than a 1/2 turn during any flight school spin training

I am not a glider pilot so I have a question. Is there any part of any glider flight where you would want to deliberately enter and then recover from a spin ?

[mary meagher]

Big Pistons asks "Is there any part of any glider flight where you would want to deliberately enter and then recover from a spin?"

Yes, darling. EVERY FLIGHT, ACTUALLY. We have to do it before qualifying for solo flight. I used to hate and fear it, but after 1,800 hours of instructing, cross country and competition flying, I LOVE IT! So lots of us who fly gliders do indeed want to spin. When I was instructing (had to retire last April) I would demonstrate how to enter a spin and how to recover. And then ask the student to enter the spin himself, and do the recovery. From safe height and in a safe glider, of course. You cannot really appreciate the difference between a spiral dive and a spin without doing it yourself, I feel that if the instructor puts it in the spin and then asks the student to recover, the lesson has not been learned. There is a certain "whump" when the autoroation begins that is quite delightful.

So now, because a slight impairment to my vision led to me stepping down from solo as well as from instructing, I have to fly with a safety pilot - yee haw! Would you like to be my safety pilot? Only instructors need apply.
And be sure you are strapped in tightly, and gone through your HASSL checks!

PS. That's 1,800 hours in gliders, 1,200 in power, iR and seaplane rating...

[Pace]

152's had bent horizontal tail spars as a result of botched spin recoveries.

BigPistons

I think thats a bit of wishful thinking recovering the dreaded 152 from a spin :) just take your hands and feet off everything and the little bird cannot wait to recover herself.
Normally a spin will stabilise at a constant speed and is not a high speed high G episode like a spiral dive.
Apart from that I agree with you that once developed unless you are into aeobatics the idea is to recover but 152 the spin challenge of the century break 152s ? :ugh: I think not!
Probably bent horizontal spars because they thought they were in a spin when infact they were in a spiral dive :E and thats why spinning should be taught.

Pace

[Big Pistons Forever]

Pace

Breaking a C152 in a botched spin recovery is dead easy. Start with the desire to do a multi-turn spin. As the aircraft starts to transition into a stabilized spin (about the 2 turn mark) the aircraft rate of rotation starts to increase, startled by this the student unconsciously relaxes a bit of back pressure, the aircraft transitions to a spiral dive and because of the steep nose down attitude starts to rapidly accelerate, student doesn't notice this untill increasing wind noise and building Gee finally gets their attention. They start the recovery with the airspeed going through 120 kts and the nose still way down and the student panics and heaves back on the yoke. Pulling back on the yoke will be easy since the aircraft was probably trimmed for slow flight which will exacerbate the nose pitching up abruptly and will result in positive Gee overload damage occuring in the tail, the weakest part of the aircraft. Total elapsed time from when the spin goes bad to wrinkled metal will be measured in a handfull of seconds. This type of damage will never happen if the spin is taught by an aerobatic instructor because the spin will be be deconstructed into stages and the student will learn what to look for in each of the 4 parts of the spin. There is more to teaching spins than watching the world go around and around in the windshield.

Mary you have not answered my question, so I will ask it in a more specific way. When during any glider flight would entering a spin be of practical use to the conduct of the flight ?

[Pace]

BigPistons

So we are agreed the damage is done in a spiral dive and the students havent a clue whether they are in a spin or spiral dive?
Thought so! but that just echos my point that both spins and spiral dives should be thoroughly taught and highlights my point that we teach aeroplane driving not flying nowadays?

Pace

[Big Pistons Forever]

BigPistons

So we are agreed the damage is done in a spiral dive and the students havent a clue whether they are in a spin or spiral dive?
Thought so! but that just echos my point that both spins and spiral dives should be thoroughly taught and highlights my point that we teach aeroplane driving not flying nowadays?

Pace

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. The aircraft would not have been damaged if the student had not started out trying to do a multi-turn spin so the fact that technically it was in a spiral dive when it was bent is immaterial. It would also not have happened if the spin was taught as part of an aerobatic training program.

You won't make aircraft aircraft drivers into aircraft pilots by teaching them spins IMO. Aircraft pilots don't need to learn how to enter and recover from a fully developed spin because this maneuver is of no practical value during non aerobatic flight. Instead of spending valuable training time practicing the entry and exit parts of spins I think it is far more valuable to emphasize the airmanship and stick and rudder skills required for spin recognition and avoidance and rapid recovery from an incipient spin.

Since I teach aerobatics I give all my students the hard sell on going on to formal aerobatic training as a way to further build flying skills and aircraft handling confidence...and where they will be taught spinning by an instructor competent and confident regardless of what the aircraft attitude/orientation is, and in a proper aircraft.

[Pace]

Since I teach aerobatics I give all my students the hard sell on going on to formal aerobatic training as a way to further build flying skills and aircraft handling confidence...and where they will be taught spinning by a professional and in a proper aircraft.

BigPistons

You are one of my forum celebs and one whos writing I admire and I dont disagree with what you say above one bit.

My point is that we have to teach pilots to fly aeroplanes which means teaching them to deal with all that the aircraft can throw at them. Not because they will need those skills because hopefully they wont.

But incipient this and incipient that means that the poor student hasnt a clue what incipient this or that can lead to or if ever the poor sod goes beyond incipient this or that for whatever reason what does he do????

I would shave off a couple of hours in the PPL syllabus and add a couple of hours pure aerobatic teaching in the right aircraft with the right instructor.

Pace

Addendum ;)

(5000+ hours, single and multi-engine prop, multi-engine turboprop,multi-engine jet Captain (not heavy) ATP and thinks you should train pilots not drivers ;)
Was Swiss Cottage near Abbey Road in a lot of ways :ok:

[Abbey Road]

You won't make aircraft aircraft drivers into aircraft pilots by teaching them spins IMO. Aircraft pilots don't need to learn how to enter and recover from a fully developed spin because this maneuver is of no practical value during non aerobatic flight.Not true. I have had students unintentionally end up in spins by pulling too hard into avoidance turns - too much a G and 'flick', she departs controlled flight! No aerobatics involved. Full spin recovery required, though, due to the startled reaction of said studes.

Thorough and regular spin training makes for a much better all-round pilot. IMAO. :cool:

(10000+ hours, a good chunk of it military; single and multi-engine prop, multi-engine turboprop, single and multi-engine jet, QFI , Staff QFI..... and now flying heavy scheduled airliners.)

[BackPacker]

Spin entry and recovery is, of course, a normal part of pre-solo training in gliders.

I was (still am) a power aerobatics pilot before I went first solo in a glider. Of course I had to do the spin routine too. And I just don't get it.

There's really only one reason why you would spin in a glider and that's the same as with a power aircraft: Mishandling the aircraft so that you get into an asymmetric stall. I think the glider world should go the same way as the power world, and simply teach stall recognition and avoidance, rather than deliberately stalling and spinning.

Having said that, the pressure on the gliding world to abolish the whole spinning thing in their training syllabus is much less. I was shown a spin in the AS K-21 and first of all I was surprised how much effort it took to get it to spin at all, second on how incredibly sedate the spin actually was, and how incredibly easy it was to recover - we lost less than 300' with a full-turn spin.

Spinning in a glider is nowhere near the exciting/dangerous affair it can be in a powered aircraft. Must be because of all the weights (instructor and student really) are all neatly concentrated near the CofG, and the long wings which provide a lot of anti-spin drag. It's not like you've got a massive block of metal sitting at the extremity of the fuselage, or any gyro effects from the fan up front.

Nevertheless, spin a glider on short final, or in the turn to final, and you're just as dead as a power pilot doing the same thing.

So I think the gliding world should follow the power world and focus on stall/spin awareness, recognition and avoidance, rather than requiring students to be proficient in spinning. Leave the spinning for proper aerobatics training, in proper aerobatics aircraft.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Not true. I have had students unintentionally end up in spins by pulling too hard into avoidance turns - too much a G and 'flick', she departs controlled flight! No aerobatics involved. Full spin recovery required, though, due to the startled reaction of said studes.



What you described is what happens when the student doesn't have an instinctive reaction to use full rudder opposite the initial yaw as soon as the aircraft starts to flick followed by forward stick. Developing that instinctive reaction is what incipient spins training is all about. I found an effective way to do that is doing lots of practice stalls while banked, cross controlled and with power on. The student quickly sees that no matter how fast the aircraft lurches one way or the other, controlled flight can be very quickly regained.

I would also note that, at least for small civil types, inadvertant spins don't happen in avoidance maneuvers, they happen when the aircraft is mis-handled in the circuit. If the aircraft is allowed to enter a spin at circuit height it doesn't matter now well the pilot can recover from a spin the aircraft is going to hit the ground before a recovery can be effected.

In any case if you want to rant about airplane drivers vs pilots the number one failing in todays new pilots is not a lack of spin profficency, it is the ball is never in the centre :ugh:

I think I have monopolized this thread long enough so I will step aside and allow others to comment

[Pilot DAR]

I must say the both Pace and Pistons present compelling arguments, and I can easily agree with many aspects of both! Well done! I suppose that my aged flying heritage is just different enough from the present world of training, that I should probably take a step back, and let the pros do their job. That said, I do not automatically think "pro" and flying instructor in the same thought. With some exceptions, I have found myself alarmed with what some instructors do not know about flying - worse, they don't know they don't!

2 C 152's had bent horizontal tail spars as a result of botched spin recoveries.


However, can we go back to the bent spar on the 152 please? Being a 150 owner, this is of particular interest to me.... Something actually bent back there? There's not really much "spar" in the H stab, it's really mostly skins carrying the loads. Could it actually have been sloppy ground handling? That will bugger a Cessna H stab a lot faster than flying it poorly! To bend an H stab spar in flight, you'd have to pull considerably more than 4.4 G. That's a lot, and would have most PPL's shreaking, and fouling themselves. A few times we pulled 5+ in the Aerobat, just because we could, but soon sickened, and greyed ourselves out, so we quit it!

Honestly, are pilots acutally damaging 152 H stabs by poor flying? The Aerobat H stab has an extra spar, to carry the extra loads, and a beefed up fuselage mounting hardpoint. My 150M, and all 152's also have this beefed up fuselage, but I still inspect it thoroughly! I also have a G meter, and have never pulled as much as 3.5 G, nor passed red line in it. I have only once heard of a Cessna being bent in flight, and it was a 185 jump plane carelessly spiral dived through clouds by a scared pilot. It was the wings which bent, not the tail (though I know it is quite different from that of a 150).

Pistons, would you describe the 152 H stab damage in more detail, so I have some insight?

[Big Pistons Forever]

Both had diagonal span wise wrinkling of the skin and a straight edge placed along the after hat section showed both stabs had a permanent (albeit small) bend. Both stabs were deemed not worth repairing and were replaced. I should note that this occurred when spins were still required for the Canadian PPL. In one of the cases the pilot had told a friend that the airspeed was at least 10 knots over the redline and he pulled hard enough to grey out. The second is more ambiguous and the link between the damage and a botched spin recovery is not as clear. Contrary to their reputation, C 15O/152 will accelerate quite quickly at very steep nose down attitudes. A good example of this is the split S maneuver. Entered from 85 kts and level flight a 4.5 to 5 Gee pull is required to keep the airspeed in check. Any less and you will be right up against or over the redline

As you had pointed out the "aerobat" models of the C150/152 have most of their beefing up in the tail. I can see why....

[Pace]

Biig Pistons
To clarify to recover from a spin in the context of breaking an aeroplane is the point at which you stop the aircraft spinning. A dive or spiral dive are separate manoeuvres in their own right in which you can experience high speed high G in the recovery and where an aircraft can easily be broken. For the purpose off this discussion the two portions have to be separated.
You are unlikely to recover from a spiral dive or for that matter a dive at low level in the circuit but that is not an argument against students experiencing and learning how to deal with either?
How come spinning is different?
When you state that students don't realise that an aircraft is no longer spinning but has transitioned into a spiral dive that is very worrying concerning the quality of modern training methods ?
I am sure this argument between pro and anti spin training will go on for ever.
My advice to a late student or early PPL is take yourself off for a couple of sessions not so much as an aerobatic course but as an extreme handling course.

Pace

[mary meagher]

A spin being of PRACTICAL USE in the conduct of a flight in a glider? Ah, that is a different question, all right.

Firstly, let me make it plain that I agree, a spin is an aerobatic maneuver, and if you spin on your final turn, it is all too likely to be your final turn.

The point of glider flying altogether is to have fun. Not to get from A to B for a £50 cup of coffee, or to fly some rich owner to his stately hunting box.

And the reason for teaching glider pilots the difference between the spin and the spiral dive, which is useful as the recoveries are rather different, is that gliders soar in thermals, sometimes in numbers and very close together, as many as 20 in one thermal, 2 or 3 at one level, and hopefully all turning in the same direction. At speeds not very far from the stall, when a gust may suddenly tip you into that stall/incipient spin/ full spin.

I remember reading about a Lasham thermal, well populated, where the top glider actually did spin down through the gaggle, which scattered in all directions! no collision, nobody hurt, owing probably to the fact that we all have eyes on stalks while engaging in this bizarre behaviour.

Now let me ask one of our favorite trick questions.

Which is more likely to damage your aircraft? Flying faster than VNE? or
pulling excess G?

[Pace]

Mary
Are we going to delve into the realms of beyond VNE ? Beyond VNE will not normally break your plane it's what you do to slow your ship up that will brake it.
Intact in a retractable if you don't have the airspace for the most gentle of recoveries you are better off dropping the undercarriage way beyond it's operating speed than pulling back harder.

Pace

[djpil]

Which is more likely to damage your aircraft? Flying faster than VNE? or
pulling excess G?Not enough information.
pulling excess G?In excess of the limit load factor?

Flying faster than VNE?How much faster? 9%? 11%? Vne determined by fixed pitch propeller rpm or otherwise?

Its not just the likelihood of damage but the scope of damage if it does occur that is of interest when it comes to decide - pull harder or let airspeed go higher.

[Pace]

Its not just the likelihood of damage but the scope of damage if it does occur that is of interest when it comes to decide - pull harder or let airspeed go higher.

djpil

I would say the main concern is damage to oneself by doing anything which makes the aircraft unflyable. Anything else which doesnt make the aircraft unflyable is expendable.

It all depends on how much airspace you have to play with as well as the quality of the air you are diving through ;)

Beyond VNE may be ok in smooth air but if you are beyonding VNE with a solid deck of cumulus fast approaching NOT GOOD :E Infact that might not be good sub VNE!!!
Undercarriage, airbrakes,overspeeding props is better than NO wings or tail.
Flying jets and it is quite common to descend high level near VNE and easy to exceed.
Low level its very easy to overspeed in level flight never mind descending.

Pace

[Mark1234]

I'm inclined to put the case for spinning gliders very, very simply. Gliders spend a lot of time turning close to the stall (aka thermalling), therefore, whilst they are spin resistant, there is far more likelyhood of entering a spin when gliding. If you carry extra speed as a margin, you simply don't climb as well.

BackPacker - the '21 is the most spin resistant thing I've ever flown - we don't spin them as they're reckoned to be unspinnable without tail-weights (for a more rearward CG), and yes, that's a factory thing, not simply someone's neat idea(!) There are other gliders that spin a whole lot more convincingly! Spinning gliders is also a wholly different ball game to powered, both in height loss, and violence.

To Mary's question, UK glider teaching is (or was, when I trained), firstly, think before you do it, and don't put yourself in a corner, BUT if in trouble/doubt PULL. The reasoning being that during certification VNE is set at 90% of the max demonstrated speed, whereas the structure has to demonstrate 150% of the max G load (usually 6G) and remain flyable. Doubly important as gliders tend to be very slippery and gain speed rapidly, and I suspect more flutter prone with long wings. Also, heaving a lot of 'G' tends to slow things up pretty quickly, leaving you unable to pull lots of G very soon.

We are also taught to recognise the difference between a spiral and a spin. One of the key ones being that a spiral shows rapidly increasing airspeed, whereas a spin is usually either unreliable (too much flow across the pitot), or steady.

And finally, to Abbey Road's point, pulling too hard (stalling) in a turn *should* not result in a flick, if the aircraft is in balance - being flown correctly - which is back to Pace's point about driving :) (ok, I'm being a bit flippant there..)

[Pace]

I dont think pulling hard would go down very well in GA aircraft beyond VNE.
Well it would go down very well :E but not in the way we are talking about.
Always thought you Glider pilots were an odd lot anyway ;)

Pace

[Genghis the Engineer]

The logic is reasonable, except that it ignores that the combined high speed / g-loadings could potentially fail the aeroplane well within what would appear to be an OK speed, and an OK g-loading - but not together!

G

[Pace]

Which is more likely to damage your aircraft? Flying faster than VNE? or
pulling excess G?

Mark

Marys question was above! I stress her " Excess G" and flying " Faster than VNE".
Obviously in both Glider and powered aircraft the answer has to be its more dangerous to pull excess G because excess means higher G than the Gliders design limits.
Faster than VNE is wishy washy as that could be anything from 1 kt above to whatever?

Pace

[Mark1234]

Genghis: My immediate reaction is to say you're wrong, but I think I know something of your background, which suggests you know a lot more than me. Therefore, I'm going to ask why.

Just to make sure we're on the same page, I'm not talking about abrupt, full scale deflections, nor deflecting multiple controls - I entirely understand how they may cause bits to fall off. However, according to my understanding the Vn/Vg/whatever you call it diagram gives an envelope within which you can fly, in terms of G loading, and speed (confined to the pitch plane, but rolling gliders is kinda tedious anyway :p). Anywhere in there you should be fairly sure bits will not drop off?

<sidenote>I have however seen Vg diagrams that 'taper' towards the right, defining lower load limits at higher speed. That seems reasonably intuitive, and is generally placarded / noted.


Pace: I'm not sure as to your point - exceeding either limit could be by the tiniest percentage, or a large amount. Neither is recommended, the point that was made to me in training was that I have more 'room for error' in the loading sense than the velocity sense. To recap, the relevant certification requirements are:
1) That the aircraft is tested to Vd (max design speed), and VNE is set to 90% of that (so the prototype at least has been proved not to flutter/otherwise self destruct at 110% of VNE.
2) That the aircraft must sustain a loading of 1.5x the design limit (i.e. if it's placarded +6/-4, it must sustain +9/-6) without being compromised structurally for 3 seconds. Stuff may break, and you may need to throw it away afterwards, but it must remain flyable.

The sole point being, that you have more headroom in the loading dept than in the velocity dept. And frankly, at +9, you're going to really know you're pulling some.

Kinda sorry I chipped in now, but nevermind, I can always learn things. For the record, I've never gone over G or overspeed in a glider, or a powered a/c, and don't plan to!

[Pilot DAR]

BUT if in trouble/doubt PULL. The reasoning being that during certification VNE is set at 90% of the max demonstrated speed, whereas the structure has to demonstrate 150% of the max G load (usually 6G) and remain flyable.

Several reasons I disagree with this, and would rather slip past Vne, than a G limit if I've buggered up (and I have), assuming that I have the space (altitude).

The Vne/Vd relationship is indeed 100%/110% - with no damage at 110%. The 100% G limit load/150% G untimate load allows for permanent damage above 100% G, so in theory you could have bent the plane at 110% G (ask Pistons). You will not have bent the plane at 110% Vne, unless you're mixing a whole bunch of G in there too.

All aircraft are equipped with an airspeed indicator, few with a G meter. I'd very much know I'm 110% Vne, than guess at my G, while recovering from a buggered up maneuver, avoiding a secondary stall, and not greying out!

If you're pulling a whole bunch of G, you are much closer to a high speed stall or spin, which if you're just busy getting out of trouble, is the last thing you want.

If you're pulling a whole bunch of G, you are closer to greying out, if you're not the super G resistant pilot, you want to remain "all there" for your recovery.

All this being said, as Pace correctly points out, if, in a spin approved aircraft, you're getting into the high G and high speed corner of the envelope, you've not recovered the spin well. My recent spins in the Caravan at forward C of G showed that a one turn in spin required just less than one additional turn out, but the best I could do was to touch Vne, while pulling 2.8 G to get out of the resulting dive. The Cessna 185 and 206 are similar in this regard.

[BackPacker]

I have however seen Vg diagrams that 'taper' towards the right, defining lower load limits at higher speed.

I'm just speculating here, but if the Vg diagram "tapers" to the right, couldn't that be caused by the potential for flutter under high AoAs?

From what little I understand from wing design, is that the center of pressure/lift of a wing (in normal flight) deliberately coincides with the placement of the spar, to reduce/eliminate torque effects. Hence the reason that the spar is not in the middle of the wing, but placed at approximately 1/3rd from the leading edge.

At high AoA (caused, in this case, by high G loading at high speed) the center of pressure/lift moves forward and no longer coincides with the placement of the spar. This leads to a torque effect across the wing, and a slight warping of the wing across its length, which in turn increases the AoA of the outer portion of the wing. Until that portion of the wing stalls, and moves back to its original shape, after which the cycle starts again. AKA flutter.

Obviously this effect would be most pronounced when you have long slender wings.

So I can well imagine that gliders have (or rather - should theoretically have) lower G limits at high speeds than at lower speeds. (Of course other aspects of the construction may lead to a lower G limit overall than what the wings would be capable of, so this effect may not be relevant for the final Vg diagram.)

[Big Pistons Forever]

And the reason for teaching glider pilots the difference between the spin and the spiral dive, which is useful as the recoveries are rather different, is that gliders soar in thermals, sometimes in numbers and very close together, as many as 20 in one thermal, 2 or 3 at one level, and hopefully all turning in the same direction. At speeds not very far from the stall, when a gust may suddenly tip you into that stall/incipient spin/ full spin.



You make an excellent point which on reflection seems pretty obvious:oh: Powered aircraft flown by recreational pilots don't spend most of their flights in slow flight and banked attitudes at altitude, gliders do, therefore I can see why spin training would be a good idea for glider pilots.....and why glider instructors are more likely to have the necessary experience to teach it properly and safely

I think spin training is a good idea for post PPL powered aircraft pilots. I just think it should not be treated as just another PPL air exercise...it is an aerobatic maneuver which should IMO be taught by an instructor qualified to teach aerobatics

[Mark1234]

Hmm. Very good point from PilotDAR there - rather a personal bias in my viewpoint; almost all the aircraft I fly are G-meter equipped, I mostly fly aeros, consequently have a decent G tolerance, and was thinking of things like a roll and pull through, etc. There's no earthly reason to be pushing VNE on a spin recovery I agree.

I'm still interested to know if I'm missing something on Genghis's point however. For the tapering of the Vg plot, I'd always assumed it was simply that you're putting a whole load of stress on the spar in the rearward sense, leaving it less capacity in the vertical sense - the loading upon it being vector sum, rather than neatly resolved parallel and perpendicular. Quite probably more complicated than that.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Genghis: My immediate reaction is to say you're wrong, but I think I know something of your background, which suggests you know a lot more than me. Therefore, I'm going to ask why.

Just to make sure we're on the same page, I'm not talking about abrupt, full scale deflections, nor deflecting multiple controls - I entirely understand how they may cause bits to fall off. However, according to my understanding the Vn/Vg/whatever you call it diagram gives an envelope within which you can fly, in terms of G loading, and speed (confined to the pitch plane, but rolling gliders is kinda tedious anyway :p). Anywhere in there you should be fairly sure bits will not drop off?


It's known as the V-N diagram, and looks like this...

http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/structures/images/image2.gif

This diagram's quite a good one, because it shows two different diagrams - the manoeuvre envelope (what you can do in still air), and the gust envelope (what turbulence can potentially do to the aeroplane).

The tapering in the top right, and bottom right, corners, when you combine these two flight envelopes, covers the risks of gust induced overload at high speeds. It's not to do with combined high speed / high g manoeuvring.


In flight, the main loads in the wing are in most designs taken in what's called the "D-box", comprising the leading edge and the mainspar. Manoeuvering loads (g force if you like) mostly bends this, so everthing's trying to bed tip-upwards. Flight loads - those related to airspeed - tend primarily to twist the whole wing, normally in the sense nose-up at the tip (one of the design parameters not often talked about in flying circles is the torsional divergence speed - where the whole wing twists off at high speed), although include bending and also drag loads.

So, at high speed and high g, there will be bits of the wing - most likely somewhere on the leading edge, which is taking simultaneously loads due to g, loads due to speed related drag, and loads due to torsion. These may all add up in the same bit of structure, and cause it to fail.

Now, if the design and certification team did their jobs right, at Vne and N1, it shouldn't, because that combination should have been accounted for, as the loads have at Vdf and 1g. But, I doubt that at Vdf and N1 + safety factors, the same will be true and I'd reckon on a significant risk of structural failure.

Safety factors incidentally do vary a bit, but they should never be less than 40% on structural limits, and 10% on speed limits - they may often be rather more, particularly with composite aeroplanes.

Many years ago, I won a sweatshirt in the Flyer's "that worst day" competition with pretty much this explanation!

G

[Mark1234]

Fascinating, thanks. Never seen the separate envelopes before, makes more sense that way. I was thinking of Vne & N1, not Vdf & N1+safety factors, can entirely understand why that might break! (I'm assuming N1 is shorthand for normal 'placarded' load limit).

[tinpilot]

The shape of the pitch plane flight envelope is due to the different design gust loads at Vb & Vne. The airframe should be capable of withstanding the limit load at any speed but the fact that it will be able to withstand higher loads at slower speeds is rarely placarded. The K21 is one exception.

Modern gliders are very slippery; one certification standard is that the glider should not exceed Vne in a 30 degree dive with the airbrakes extended. In a steep nose down attitude with the airbrakes in, the only way to stop the glider whistling past Vne in a few seconds is to load the wings - high AoA=lots of induced drag & helpfully pulls the glider out of the dive.

Pulling 130% of the limit load will damage the wings, but at least the wings should stay attached. Fly at 130% of Vne & there's no guarantee that the elevator will stay on. In a steep nose down attitude a slick glider will shoot way past 130% Vne unless you pull some g.

The utility category minimum limit load for sailplanes is 5.3g, add in the inherent slipperyness of modern gliders & you can see how glider pilots are more concerned with Vne than pulling too much g. In practice, nobody pulls anywhere near 5g in spin recoveries but hesitant students sometimes get uncomfortably close to the redline. The de-brief may include the "excess g is safer than excess speed" line just to encourage them to pull more than 1.1 g in the recovery.

[Pace]

This is all very interesting and a very different approach to powered flying.
One question I have is concerning air brakes!

Are those speed limited or are they good to VNE and beyond. In the Citation I fly the speed brakes are good throughout the speed range.

Is that the same in a glider and would use of speedbrakes be more comfortable for the pilot rather than using high G pulls to slow down.
That of course also depends on how effective the speed brakes are?

On the Citation they are effective and brakes out huge descent rates can be achieved while remaining within the speed constraints.
Even a Citation with fairly straight wings is slippery and takes a long time to slow down. Flying STARS with speed requests means they are a useful tool for bleeding speed off quickly.

Pace

[ProfChrisReed]

Pace asked:

One question I have is concerning air brakes!

Are those speed limited or are they good to VNE and beyond. In the Citation I fly the speed brakes are good throughout the speed range.

Is that the same in a glider and would use of speedbrakes be more comfortable for the pilot rather than using high G pulls to slow down.
That of course also depends on how effective the speed brakes are?

The answer depends on the glider model, but in general airbrakes are problematic near VNE. They change the lift distribution, killing lift at the root (the strong part) and transferring the load to the tips (weaker). This is more marked the longer the wings.

A few years ago a 25m (or so) glider broke up (flying in the US or the French Apls, or maybe there were two similar cases) when the pilot oversped ona recovery and deployed the brakes.

If deployed earlier they can be speed limiting, or at least help slow the acceleration.

[Pace]

ProfChrisReed

We discussed a while back the use of mode C on Gliders and possible power sources.

One was a fusealage mounted fan generator which although tiny was discounted for the huge drag it would create on a glider.

Due to the Gliders long wings and the problems you mention are there any with fusealage mounted brakes?

Pace

[Mark1234]

Whilst they do function as brakes, their main purpose is to destroy lift - perhaps more analogous to spoilers (in the big jet sense). fuselage mounting would probably make them a lot less useful.

[englishal]

I think Vne is very badly understood by most pilots, and is based on numerous things, including engine power as it is based upon True airspeed (i.e. the speed of the air molecules over the surfaces, not the volume) - So if you decide to replace your Vans O320 engine with a TO540 engine, you could well achieve above Vne at altitude despite being below Vne on the ASI - because when the aeroplane was first certified the numbers on the dial were calculated so that Vne could never be reached in normal operations. In other words engine power self limited Vne..

Vne scares me more because it was determined in a nice new aeroplane. A bit of slop in the hinges and if the flutter starts your aeroplane could destroy itself in seconds. One can manage G to some extent.

Personally I'd never spin a C152 which is 40 years old. I'd rather be in a CAP10 with a aero's FI sat beside me.

[Pilot DAR]

Vne scares me more because it was determined in a nice new aeroplane. A bit of slop in the hinges and if the flutter starts your aeroplane could destroy itself in seconds. One can manage G to some extent.

Personally I'd never spin a C152 which is 40 years old. I'd rather be in a CAP10 with a aero's FI sat beside me.

Hmmm, both these comments have a their core, a reference to a concern about airworthiness based upon age, or by inference, time in service.

For general aiviation airframes, with few execptions, airworthiness is based upon condition, evaluated against a standard established by the original manufacturer, relative to a "new" aircraft.

It's sorta like: "dimension x for intstallation of a new part, must be between a and b, in service, that dimension may be as much as c, and the aircraft is still airworthy" If it is tighter than "a", it is not airworthy (though some installation rework might be possible), if it is more loose than "b", don't install it. If, during inspection, you find it between "b" and "c", it's okay to leave it in service - IT IS AIRWORTHY, if it is beyond "c", replacement is required.

If, at the time of development of the original instructions for continued airworthiness, something important was missed, and problems in service began to pop up, there are many tools (Serivce Bulletins through to AD's) to catch this. That is a reason I like 40 year old planes (mines only 36), they have the in service experience to figure out where the problems are!

If it is your preference to not spin a 40 year old plane, I suggest that you not fly it at all, because to think that a spin (presuming it is spin approved) causes stress on the structure, or risk of flutter, which otherwise would not be encountered, is head in the sand thinking.

If you are willing to pay the price, and/or make other operational compromises, to assure that you are always flying "new" planes, that's perfectly fine. Other pilots choose either by preference, economy, or operational need, to fly older airplanes. As long as those aircraft are maintained airworthy, there is no reason to consider them any less safe or capable than "new" ones, when operated safely within their limitations.

As for powerplant, Vne is not power dependent. None of the times I have flown to speeds exceeding Vne (Vd) have required full power. I always use some, just to be kind to the engine cooling. Vne is based upon and limited by indicated airspeed in light aircraft. I have flown aircraft which are capable of exceeding Vne in level flight with high power settings. You just don't do that! (oher than for testing purposes).

As Vne is limited by indicated airspeed for light GA types, as long as the airspeed indicator is not past the red line, you are not going too fast in that plane, regarless of altitude or the engine installed. When Mach begins to be a factor, the airspeed indicators are equipped with moving "barberpole" redlines (with which I have limited experience).

[englishal]

As for powerplant, Vne is not power dependent. None of the times I have flown to speeds exceeding Vne (Vd) have required full power. I always use some, just to be kind to the engine cooling. Vne is based upon and limited by indicated airspeed in light aircraft. I have flown aircraft which are capable of exceeding Vne in level flight with high power settings. You just don't do that! (oher than for testing purposes).
This is worth a read:http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/hp_limts.pdf

Many pilots assume that operating at high altitude
(greater than 12,500 ft, say), even with the increased
power supplied by a turbocharger, will not be a problem
if the mechanical problems are solved. Sure, they
can go faster, but not so much faster that they exceed
the limitations marked in living color on the airspeed
indicator. How, they ask with apparently perfect logic,
can the airplane be exceeding Vne if the needle is in......
the green arc?
Because the airspeed indicator is The Gauge That
Lies. Despite its name, an airspeed indicator does not
measure speed. It measures “q” – dynamic pressure
caused by packing air molecules into a tube. Now,
several limiting speeds like stall speed (bottom of the
green and white arcs), gust loads (top of the green
arc), and maneuvering speed (blue line) are also functions
of q, so they may be read directly off the dial. In
these cases, the logic is true.
This logic is NOT true for the very important red
line at the top of the yellow arc. Here’s why:
Consider an aircraft flying in smooth air at cruise
speed. The aircraft structure is then slightly disturbed
(such as by turbulence). In response, the aircraft structure
will oscillate with amplitude decreasing until the
oscillation stops altogether. This dynamically stable
response is due to damping acting on the system, either
from the aircraft structure and/or air. If the cruise
speed is incrementally increased there will be a particular
speed at which the amplitude of structural oscillation
will remain constant. The speed at which constant
amplitude oscillation can be first maintained is
defined as the “critical flutter speed”, or more generi-
cally “flutter speed”. Flutter is almost a pretty word.
You’d associate it with butterflies and silk handkerchiefs.
But in the engineering sense, it can be highly
destructive. Once flutter has started, the amplitude
may quickly become so large that a structure will disintegrate,
literally shaken to pieces.
Remember, as the airplane climbs, there are
fewer air molecules and less air pressure, so the needle
on The Gauge That Lies reads a lower speed,
even though the airplane is actually going just as
fast. That’s why True airspeed is faster than Indicated.
But flutter does not depend on Indicated Air
Speed/dynamic pressure. It is directly related to True
Air Speed — the velocity of the air passing by the airframe.
The velocity of the excitation force is the prime
concern, not the magnitude. It is very possible to exceed
this critical “flutter speed” without encountering
flutter if there is no initial disturbance. But if the critical
flutter speed is exceeded and then a disturbance
is encountered, the aircraft structure will begin to oscillate
in response to the velocity of the passing air.
This is not a typical resonance, where either increasing
or decreasing the speed will move the aircraft
away from the critical frequency and the vibration will
stop on its own. Going faster merely pumps more energy
into the system, increasing the amplitude of the
flutter. Go faster, flutter harder. Only going slower
and lowering the velocity of the air over the airframe
will solve the problem.

....

It goes on to say that is why you should not "boy race" your Vans because their Vne speeds on the dial are based upon the engine not delivering 75% power at high alt. It also goes on to talk about Vne in gliders which may vary according to altitude.

Regarding old aeroplanes, we have just finished rebuilding a Commander that was going to be scrapped after a landing accident. I am glad we had the thing completely to pieces as we found corrosion in one of the rudder hinges and due to the location it would NEVER have been found had the rudder not been removed, which typically they are not unless there is a problem. We probably would have noticed when the hinge had broken.

As you are so trusting, you should also read:

AOPA Online: Never Again Online: Denali's rough ride (http://www.aopa.org/pilot/never_again/2006/na0603.html)

which describes a flutter incident in the Beaver

The FAA engineering team concluded that one aileron was 17 ounces out of balance and there was possibly a 0.003 discrepancy in a wing bushing that, when amplified to the length of the wing, was a contributing factor. General maintenance would not have detected this — everything was current and legal.

An FAA inspector who did the investigation stated — with no supporting data — that I had exceeded the aircraft's VNE speed and caused this to happen, a statement that caused me considerable hardship. I have since been totally exonerated from any wrongdoing, and I actually have been credited with a save of the three lives and my own, with my correct and swift response to the emergency.

Flutter is a very dangerous event, and any indication should be dealt with seriously. I'm glad that I was able to act quickly and nurse the aircraft back to a safe landing. I've also learned several important lessons.

[mary meagher]

Recommended to me by a wiser friend:

Only Seconds to Live, by Dunstan Hadley. try Amazon.

[ProfChrisReed]

Pace asked:

Due to the Gliders long wings and the problems you mention are there any with fusealage mounted brakes?


Not currently in production. The first production glass glider (the Phoenix, back in the late 50s) had a sort of belly flap which apparently worked OK. Trailing edge airbrakes have been used, which are pure drag devices.

However, as glider performance improved, the difficulties of getting back on the ground also increased. Thus most need to have lift-killing brakes, as Mark1234 noted, to reduce the gide angle from 50:1 to a more manageable 8:1 or so. They've also been found to be most easily manageable for the pilot in practice.

As always in aviation, a trade-off (in this case between performance/handling and potential structural compromise). I think a reasonable one - many more gliders are broken through overshooting than through structural failure from all causes.

Going beyond VNE in a glider is potentially more dangerous than in a short wing a/c because of the risk of flutter - long and flexible wings are ideal for this purpose. Thus Mary's earlier point about pulling G rather than exceeding VNE, as flutter is more likely to break bits off than over-stressing. In extremis only, of course, and you may be unable to re-use the aircraft.

[Pilot DAR]

Englishal,

It seems to me that your examples cite aircraft, which I would agree, sound to not be "airworthy" (conforming to their type design, and in safe condition). My argument does not extend to unairworthy aircraft.

When I rebilt a Thorpe T-18 years ago, the fine fit of the stabiliator pivot was of critical importance. I used an adjustable reamer to assure a bushing fit of better than 0.0005" tolerance, so as to prevent a loose fit there being a source of flutter.

Yes, if a flight control is out of balance, or a bushing is loose, flutter can happen very quickly, and with horrendous results. For anyone who has not seen it, allow me to link the following....

pEOmCkZyXzk

As for airspeeds, I cannot speak to limitations for Vans aircraft, other than to say that I am not aware of Van's aircraft having demonstrated compliance for certification - but I could be wrong.

For certified "slow" GA aircraft, operating at their normal altitudes, the following Wikipedia passage would describe why Vne in IAS is Vne. A pilot does not have to worry about exceeding safe maximum speeds, while still flying at an IAS of less than Vne.

"The IAS is an important value for the pilot because it directly indicates stall speed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stall_speed) and various airframe structurally limited speeds, regardless of density altitude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_altitude)."

[ProfChrisReed]

Pilor DAR wrote:

A pilot does not have to worry about exceeding safe maximum speeds, while still flying at an IAS of less than Vne.
Not so!

Vne is a TAS value, not an IAS value. For practical purposes at lower altitudes they can be treated as roughly the same. However, at high altitudes this becomes critical. Gliders regularly fly in in wave above 30,000 ft, and there the IAS value for Vne is substantially lower and needs to be known and respected.

[Edited to add: Wikipedia says "various" airspeeds for structural limitations. Those for gust factors etc remain unchanged, because they are related to the stall speed, but the flutter limitations are TAS based.

[Pilot DAR]

Aw, c'mon, if you're going to quote me, at least quote me in context.....

I did say "For certified "slow" GA aircraft, operating at their normal altitudes....."

I would not include a glider operating at 30,000 feet in this category! Yes, I do realize the TAS/IAS relationship. For your average single engined, light aircraft flying below 10,000 feet, the TAS/IAS relationship is not going to affect Vne in any meaningful way. Were it to be so, it would be a design requirment that TAS be displayed to the pilot, for the purpose of defining Vne. It was on the Piper PA-31T used to fly at 25,000 feet all those years ago! Not on a PA 28-161....

As this is a thread about spin training PA-28-161, I suggest that dramatic remarks about flutter, TAS/IAS and high performance sailplanes is rather out of place here! Would somome like to start a new thread for this extreme performance discussion?

[BackPacker]

Here we go. Vne, flutter and their effect on transonic gliders at 30.000'. I can't wait.:ok:

(We're on page 5 of this thread. That's roughly the place where a thread drift is mandatory. Unless the thread is about Oban...:})

[ProfChrisReed]

We;re not talking transonic gliders here, and 30,000 ft is not abnormal operations.

If you want a more realistic example, take a glider with a Vne of 120kt operating at 15,000 ft (commonplace in the Western US, Australia, New Zealand, the Alps, South Africa, and in Scotland and Wales in the UK).

An online calculator tells me that an IAS of 120kt translates into a TAS of 156kt. That;s way beyond what an airframe (brand new) has been tested to (135kt) and is probably into flutter and structural damage territory.

[Pace]

http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/hp_limts.pdf

This is quite interesting ;)

pace

[Cows getting bigger]

As one who occasionally takes LAA aircraft to Vne, I make absolutely sure I have done the TAS/IAS calculation before launching into the wild blue yonder.

[Pilot DAR]

In reviewing the FAA approved flight manual for a 1978 Cessna 210 (and aircraft certainly capable of getting into the part of the sky where IAS/TAS split noticably), the limitations clearly say that Vne is a speed in "KIAS". Cessna had the opportunity to define KTAS as the limiting speed measure, but met the design requirement with IAS. Therefore, I would agree that you could have well exceeded the speed number in TAS before you reached Vne in IAS - an that is obviously permitted!

By the way, as a further thread drift, and purely for my education, what is an "LAA" aircraft? I prsume it has an approved flight manual, with a limitations section?

[Genghis the Engineer]

LAA = Light Aircraft Association, formerly known as the Popular Flying Association. An LAA aircraft is a sub-ICAO aeroplane, certified for operation in the UK by the LAA. The organisation has a similar, but not identical, role to EAA in the USA. Pretty much anything that in other countries would be "Experimental" or "Homebuilt" along with a lot of simpler vintage aeroplanes - although not the majority of microlights (2 seaters up to 450kg MTOW and single seaters up to 300kg in the UK) come under LAA.

The rules require that they have approved operators manuals, in many cases however they don't because LAA don't think this is necessary. I believe that, in this regard, LAA is wrong. To be fair, their policy on this does seem to have changed in the last couple of years; I tested a vintage aeroplane for them last year, and the approach taken to operating data was very thorough.

LAA do, to be fair, publish a set of operating limits which must be placarded. These might, on the other hand, have more credibility, if they ever determined the PECs for their aircraft which, in the vast majority of cases, they don't. In this regard, I also think that LAA is wrong; their policy on this doesn't seem to have changed that I'm aware of.


ProfChrisReed is incorrect in stating that Vne is declared in TAS; it is, like most other V speeds, normally declared in IAS. However, if it is determined by flutter onset, then this is a function of TAS, for which reason it may be necessary in some aeroplanes to vary Vne with altitude. This isn't however often done, in which regard, I think that many of the engineers certifying gliders are probably also wrong.

G

[ProfChrisReed]

Ghengis wrote:

ProfChrisReed is incorrect in stating that Vne is declared in TAS; it is, like most other V speeds, normally declared in IAS. However, if it is determined by flutter onset, then this is a function of TAS, for which reason it may be necessary in some aeroplanes to vary Vne with altitude. This isn't however often done, in which regard, I think that many of the engineers certifying gliders are probably also wrong.Interesting - I wasn't aware of that, so thanks.

The UK glider training tells us to treat Vne as a TAS value because of the flutter risks, which must be why I thought that was how it was as standard expressed. This is contrasted in the training with Vs, which we are told remains the same as an IAS irrespective of altitude.

[Genghis the Engineer]

That teaching doesn't match CS.22; on the other hand it's certainly in the safe sense.

G

[englishal]

The reason Vne can be shown on the ASI as an IAS is because in that design configuration, the aeroplane will never get anywhere near Vne in level flight due to the power self limiting properties of the engine in relation to altitude (where TAS departs IAS considerably). So in a TB20, with say a Vne of 180 kts IAS (just made that up by the way), likely at FL200 you will show 100 kts IAS. This 100 Kts IAS will be less than the Vne at 140 kts TAS.

However what Vans were warning about, is those who insist on taking an RV6 (for example) and changing out the IO360 with say a TIO360.

Now the aeroplane has a turbo charger and can hence develop much more power at high altitude, which = > IAS. Even though s(he) may be travelling at 150Kts IAS which is well below the indicated Vne of 180 kts (made that up too) the TAS is 210 Kts which is > Vne by 30kts !

Gliders are different animals obviously as they don't have an engine to deliver less power at alt, which is why the obviously have Vne tables.

[Pilot DAR]

The UK glider training tells us to treat Vne as a TAS value because of the flutter risks, which must be why I thought that was how it was as standard expressed

This is one of the sideline issues I have with training. Instructors, most likely because of reasoning pased 90% urban legend and 10% understanding, are sometimes training pilots with information which is not in harmony with certification methods, and thus the approved limitations for an aircraft (flight manual information). The result is lesser experienced pilots, doing things in aircarft which conflict with the "approved" procedures for that aircraft. When you challenge the pilot was to why he/she did it that way, they say "'cause I was trained to!". Good answer, but not always correct.

Those of us who write flight manuals, do so to comply with standards which are long established, and define and limit the aircraft in accordance with design and test results. It is frustrating to be reminded that after the effort of exactly wording a flight manual to conform to a standards, and convey exactly what the pilot needs to know about the plane, without unduly limiting that pilot, pilots go and limit themselves more, perhaps for the wrong reasons.

Pilot's training must have a large emphasis on the flight manual and reading and understanding it. This may mean that many instructors have to receive this training first!

Pilots, remind yourself, that you are responsible for understanding and correctly applying, the information in the flight manual for the aircraft you are flying. If in doubt, ask!

[Pace]

Gliders Do have power in the form of potential energy. A glider will tap into that energy in the descent as well as while conceding the energy from lift into level flight.
Hence the glider could exceed YNE in level flight or descent
Pace

[ProfChrisReed]

Gliders Do have power in the form of potential energy. A glider will tap into that energy in the descent as well as while conceding the energy from lift into level flight.
Hence the glider could exceed YNE in level flight or descent
Pace

And the greatest likelihood of this happening is delay in pulling out of the dive after a spin recovery.

Back on topic, hurrah!

[Pace]

I was flying a private jet over the alps coming out of Nice with severe turbulence forecast between FL 200 and Fl300 hitting the turbulence which was severe
I requested and immediate climb to Fl340.
Normally the Citation mid twenties is climbing at 1000 fpm.
I went from FL240 to FL320 at 3000 fpm.
Ie 2000 fpm from the air currents.

Convert that to level flight on a glider and you would easily break VNE in level flight who needs descent to do so ? :E
So back off topic again :E

Pace

[djpil]

In certifying an aircraft (one where Vne and Vdf are defined solely in terms of IAS) the engineers consider the performance of the airplane in determining the max TAS achievable. Freedom from flutter has to be shown throughout the flight envelope (plus a margin) - thats the speed-altitude envelope not just the V-n envelope.
As others have noted, you came come unstuck when adding more power so expanding the flight envelope with the resultant erosion of flutter margins.

One thing I like about FAR 23 airplanes is the confidence in the proof of freedom from flutter.

I know I was one of the first to drift away from spinning so, as some compensation: I also like the confidence with FAR 23 airplanes on spin recovery.

[mary meagher]

Somebody wiser than me has pointed out that gliders and power aircraft are really different animals, as well as the people flying them.

To put it briefly, I have been reminded to respect all the limitations all the time: they are there for a reason. As Pilot DAR says, understand and apply the information in the flight manual for the aircraft you are flying. Hopefully it won't be in French.....

[FlyingKiwi_73]

gliders don't usually have a nose full of lycomming... gotta have an impact on how things spin.

I did spin training in gliders, Instructor knew i was nervous about it, made me spin and not recover for at least 3-4 rotations. didn't make me feel better about doing it in the future... i used to make the canopy fog on entry.. breathing too hard :-)

[Pace]

Mary

First not sure we are talking about spinning Gliders/powered or flying gliders above VNE at FL300.
Firstly as a non Glider pilot I am surprised that they fly up at FL300! most I have seen are below cloud base ie 3000-5000 feet. a couple of times above over the Alps one being around 13000 feet.
Am amazed with the claims that some are up around FL300??? and braking VNE at TAS rather than IAS?
Having said all that I think gliding would suit me so maybe I should have a go?

Pace

[mad_jock]

What gay trainers you have on ;)

And that Alt is illegal

[mad_jock]

Not 100% certain but the whole guage is illegal for fixed wing powered.

And you are let off with having gay trainers as you are also a hairy fecker like myself who fly's in shorts.

Though my prefered garb is shorts and a pair of flipflops and the wee window open to flick my ash out of.

[mary meagher]

The highest I ever got in a glider was 20,300 feet agl, over Aboyne on the River Dee, in Scotland. The height record there was set with Chris Rollings and Briony Hicks in a 2 seater, somewhere around 38,000 feet, I think. But the highest one of course was in the US, c. 48,000.

Tis said that he had oxygen, under pressure, but the veins in his legs squirmed like worms. And the FAA was none too pleased, as one doesn't always know when it is the perfect day, he hadn't authorised his special VFR above 18,500, as one was supposed to do. Don't know whether or not he was wearing shorts.

We in gliders do definitely enjoy looking down on airliners, but usually are talking to enroute controllers, or have a special window of space opened for us. One glider pilot of ancient fame used to soar his Auster (a primitive SEP, rather a shed, actually) up to 20,000 or so. The controller, when receiving his transmission, had to ask several times "What type aircraft did you say?!"

Pace, I'm sending you a private message.