Limitations imposed on Stearman and Harvard?
Thread Starter
Limitations imposed on Stearman and Harvard?
I've been told recently that in the UK Stearman are no longer approved for spinning and Harvards are no longer approved for stall turns - is this right? I've previously done both with both so would like to understand whether these reported limitations are real and why they've been introduced.
HFD
HFD
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wherever I go, there I am
Age: 43
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe because the world has gone soft and no one knows how to fly tail-draggers and do spins any more except those lucky enough to do a bit of aerobatics and the one or two spins required by most Instructor Ratings... ?
If the regulatory bodies don't allow a Stearman to do a spin or a Harvard to do a wing stall, then the complete take-over of the worlds Civil Aviation Authorities by Human Resource junkies who see airplanes as just one big car with boat terms is complete and we are all working for large HR companies with ambitions of becoming IT companies with a small, passing interest in airplanes.
If the regulatory bodies don't allow a Stearman to do a spin or a Harvard to do a wing stall, then the complete take-over of the worlds Civil Aviation Authorities by Human Resource junkies who see airplanes as just one big car with boat terms is complete and we are all working for large HR companies with ambitions of becoming IT companies with a small, passing interest in airplanes.
Thread Starter
If what I've been told is correct, then I agree. I hope it isn't correct!
(BTW, a stall turn is the same as what colonials (
) call a hammerhead)
HFD
(BTW, a stall turn is the same as what colonials (
) call a hammerhead)HFD
Thread Starter
The comment about the Stearman came from someone who's thinking of buying one and has talked to a few "supposedly knowledgeable" people. From digging-around I've found a CAA approval doc for an R-680-E3B conversion which requires a "no intentional spinning" placard, so I'm beginning to think the restriction may just be on those with larger engines and that the story got distorted in the telling.
The comment about the Harvard came from someone who ought to know.
HFD
The comment about the Harvard came from someone who ought to know.
HFD
R-680-E3B conversion which requires a "no intentional spinning" placard, so I'm beginning to think the restriction may just be on those with larger engines
stall turn is the same as what colonials () call a hammerhead
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 534
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STEARMAN
With reference to the Stearman, looking on the FAA website at the Type Certificate Data Sheet A-743 it shows that only models IB75A modified according to Inland Aviation [and Air Repair] have the limitation of 'no spinning':
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/1b66a9575ec373858525673000457610/$FILE/A-743.pdf
This was the retro-fitting of the 450 engine, and upgrading of pushrods in the elevator and rudder linkage.
Other models have a mass limitation on spinning. Norfolk Aero have a similar Airworthiness Approval Notice issued by the UK CAA dated 1996 which permits spinning:
http://www.caa.co.uk/aandocs/24731/24731000000.pdf
HARVARD
For the Harvard, TCDS A-2-575 is applicable, which lists "No Spinning" under the initial certification, under Note 2.
Additionally the CAA have issued an Airworthiness Approval Notice 23967, which limits aerobatic manoeuvres and prohibits intentional spins.
HFD, give me a call if you/your friend needs specific advice.
Edited to add that EASA Annex II list the same FAA TCDS:
http://www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/c/doc...1_Jan_2010.pdf
ifitaint..
With reference to the Stearman, looking on the FAA website at the Type Certificate Data Sheet A-743 it shows that only models IB75A modified according to Inland Aviation [and Air Repair] have the limitation of 'no spinning':
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/1b66a9575ec373858525673000457610/$FILE/A-743.pdf
This was the retro-fitting of the 450 engine, and upgrading of pushrods in the elevator and rudder linkage.
Other models have a mass limitation on spinning. Norfolk Aero have a similar Airworthiness Approval Notice issued by the UK CAA dated 1996 which permits spinning:
http://www.caa.co.uk/aandocs/24731/24731000000.pdf
HARVARD
For the Harvard, TCDS A-2-575 is applicable, which lists "No Spinning" under the initial certification, under Note 2.
Additionally the CAA have issued an Airworthiness Approval Notice 23967, which limits aerobatic manoeuvres and prohibits intentional spins.
HFD, give me a call if you/your friend needs specific advice.
Edited to add that EASA Annex II list the same FAA TCDS:
http://www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/c/doc...1_Jan_2010.pdf
ifitaint..
Last edited by ifitaintboeing; 8th Aug 2010 at 08:00.
Thread Starter
I found the Norfolk Aero link earlier and it says that the POH approves spins below 2950lb but requires a placard saying "no intentional spinning" as part of the conversion. The Stearman I used to fly had a MAUW of 2950lb 
The 23967 AAN confirms what I was told: only loops, rolls and roll-off-the-top are approved
Thanks for your help, and for leading me to look at the TCDS database - I hadn't heard of it before.
HFD
The 23967 AAN confirms what I was told: only loops, rolls and roll-off-the-top are approved
Thanks for your help, and for leading me to look at the TCDS database - I hadn't heard of it before.
HFD
Just happened to come across this in a book:
In 2002, James M. Patton got a job by an operator of several Stearmans who wanted to remove the restriction on spins for that STC on the bigger engine installation. He flew 255 spin turns in the test program for the FAA.
"And soon thereafter, the "no spins" placard was gone."
In 2002, James M. Patton got a job by an operator of several Stearmans who wanted to remove the restriction on spins for that STC on the bigger engine installation. He flew 255 spin turns in the test program for the FAA.
"And soon thereafter, the "no spins" placard was gone."
