snap rolls and other flick manoeuvres
Dora - 9,
Although always a civilian pilot, I had the good fortune to do my initial flying training at a club where ALL the instructors were recently ex-RAF, some from as far back as the early 1930s. RAF Pilots Notes, Training Manuals, Met Books etc., all had an MoD reference number.
About the only "civilian" paperwork was a license application form.
No "home cooked" "rules".
These chaps had all survived years of Germans and/or Japanese trying to shoot them out of the sky, peacetime civilian public service bulldust got very very short shrift.
Tootle pip!!
Although always a civilian pilot, I had the good fortune to do my initial flying training at a club where ALL the instructors were recently ex-RAF, some from as far back as the early 1930s. RAF Pilots Notes, Training Manuals, Met Books etc., all had an MoD reference number.
About the only "civilian" paperwork was a license application form.
No "home cooked" "rules".
These chaps had all survived years of Germans and/or Japanese trying to shoot them out of the sky, peacetime civilian public service bulldust got very very short shrift.
Tootle pip!!
I believe that CASA requires Tigers to comply with UK operational limitations which would be http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/AANDocs/...2556100000.pdf - flick manoeuvres not permitted and I note that G limits are "semi-aerobatic" so please do "not apply more g than is necessary"!
As for the Chipmunk, a friend in the UK told me: "as far as I am aware, all Chipmunks owners in Aus should have purchased an Approved Flight Manual for each Chipmunk T Mk 10 from de Havilland Support Ltd. CASA insisted some years ago that such a document be prepared, even though the Chipmunks in Australia do not conform to the approved design standard in the UK ....". Not sure if the true sutuation.
As for the Chipmunk, a friend in the UK told me: "as far as I am aware, all Chipmunks owners in Aus should have purchased an Approved Flight Manual for each Chipmunk T Mk 10 from de Havilland Support Ltd. CASA insisted some years ago that such a document be prepared, even though the Chipmunks in Australia do not conform to the approved design standard in the UK ....". Not sure if the true sutuation.
Last edited by djpil; 4th Jan 2016 at 10:00. Reason: Clarify source of info
all Chipmunks owners in Aus should have purchased an Approved Flight Manual for each Chipmunk T Mk 10 from de Havilland Support Ltd.
Unlike the UK, CASA accept T.10's on the register here. The majority of Chipmunks here are in fact T.10's, off the top of my head I'm not sure where the T.10 AFM's come from.
I should've mentioned that I got that note from a friend in the UK, haven't checked with local Chipmunk owner friends yet (perhaps they prefer snail mail) nor did I check CASA documents.
djpil,
The "civilization" of ex-RAF Chipmunks involved extensive minor modifications, mostly nonsense, and the civilian powers that be just throwing their weight around. Amongst other things, apparently MoD/RAF wiring standards were not adequate for the rigors of civil use. One nonsense was the Ground/Flight switch had to be turned upside down.
Some of those involved became 10 Pound poms and joined DCA in the old Henty House.. We know the rest of that story.
DCA accepted ex- RAF Chipmunks basically as was, except for the anti-spin strakes. Indeed, the absence of a "manufacturer's AFM" only became evident in 1998, when the CASRs Part 21-35 were enacted, rendering the Australian "DCA approved" manual obsolete.
Hence the deal with DH Support to plug the bureaucratic gap.
Tootle pip!!
The "civilization" of ex-RAF Chipmunks involved extensive minor modifications, mostly nonsense, and the civilian powers that be just throwing their weight around. Amongst other things, apparently MoD/RAF wiring standards were not adequate for the rigors of civil use. One nonsense was the Ground/Flight switch had to be turned upside down.
Some of those involved became 10 Pound poms and joined DCA in the old Henty House.. We know the rest of that story.
DCA accepted ex- RAF Chipmunks basically as was, except for the anti-spin strakes. Indeed, the absence of a "manufacturer's AFM" only became evident in 1998, when the CASRs Part 21-35 were enacted, rendering the Australian "DCA approved" manual obsolete.
Hence the deal with DH Support to plug the bureaucratic gap.
Tootle pip!!
Dora9 & Leadsled:
Remember that, in RAF service, there were a bunch of other regulations as well as the Pilot's Notes for each type - Squadron and Station Flying Orders, Air Staff Instructions from Group and Command, and, at the top, Air Ministry Flying Orders or (later) Military Flying Regulations. The 1966 Pilot's Notes are as you say (though mine is labelled AP 101B-5510-15), but my recollection from the 60s is that among that other mass of rules there was a blanket ban on all flick manoevres in all RAF aircraft. From 1999, for a few years, I flew the Tutor (which had replaced the Bulldog, which in turn had replaced the Chipmunk in the RAF) and, most unusually, flick manoevres were (maybe still are) allowed in RAF use.
These days I fly a Chipmunk on the UK civil register, and we have a Flight Manual issued by the UK CAA. It is remarkably vague on aerobatics, and does not list manoevres, either permitted or forbidden. Flicks are not mentioned. One limitation is that aeros are prohibited unless the rear fuselage anti-spin strakes are fitted. Slightly odd, that, as my RAF experience on the type started before the strakes appeared, and we certainly did aeros without them.
Remember that, in RAF service, there were a bunch of other regulations as well as the Pilot's Notes for each type - Squadron and Station Flying Orders, Air Staff Instructions from Group and Command, and, at the top, Air Ministry Flying Orders or (later) Military Flying Regulations. The 1966 Pilot's Notes are as you say (though mine is labelled AP 101B-5510-15), but my recollection from the 60s is that among that other mass of rules there was a blanket ban on all flick manoevres in all RAF aircraft. From 1999, for a few years, I flew the Tutor (which had replaced the Bulldog, which in turn had replaced the Chipmunk in the RAF) and, most unusually, flick manoevres were (maybe still are) allowed in RAF use.
These days I fly a Chipmunk on the UK civil register, and we have a Flight Manual issued by the UK CAA. It is remarkably vague on aerobatics, and does not list manoevres, either permitted or forbidden. Flicks are not mentioned. One limitation is that aeros are prohibited unless the rear fuselage anti-spin strakes are fitted. Slightly odd, that, as my RAF experience on the type started before the strakes appeared, and we certainly did aeros without them.
The "civilization" of ex-RAF Chipmunks involved extensive minor modifications, mostly nonsense, and the civilian powers that be just throwing their weight around. Amongst other things, apparently MoD/RAF wiring standards were not adequate for the rigors of civil use. One nonsense was the Ground/Flight switch had to be turned upside down.
DCA accepted ex- RAF Chipmunks basically as was, except for the anti-spin strakes
And, semantics again, they're not "anti spin", never being intended to prevent spinning. They allegedly assist in spin recovery, although quantifying this is a debatable subject. DH refered to them simply as "fuselage strakes".
Hence the deal with DH Support to plug the bureaucratic gap.
My apologies for dragging this thread yet further OT.
Cheers.
Last edited by Dora-9; 4th Jan 2016 at 21:00.
Dora-9,
You're quite correct, of course,my misuse of terminology.
The most important item in spin recovery in a Chipmunk was #1 on the pre-aerobatic checklist --- brakes off.
In the late '90s, I was quite closely involved with the many anomalies thrown up by the enactment of CASR Parts 21-35. A carefully selected CASA/Industry team (dunces from both sides excluded) did a very pragmatic job of sorting out said years of collected anomalies.
The MoD and Bored (Board) of Trade (before the CAA -- the Campaign Against Aviation) in UK agreed about nothing, and the ARB always threw in their two bob's worth.
Tootle pip!!
You're quite correct, of course,my misuse of terminology.
The most important item in spin recovery in a Chipmunk was #1 on the pre-aerobatic checklist --- brakes off.
In the late '90s, I was quite closely involved with the many anomalies thrown up by the enactment of CASR Parts 21-35. A carefully selected CASA/Industry team (dunces from both sides excluded) did a very pragmatic job of sorting out said years of collected anomalies.
The MoD and Bored (Board) of Trade (before the CAA -- the Campaign Against Aviation) in UK agreed about nothing, and the ARB always threw in their two bob's worth.
Tootle pip!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BubbaMc,
I did not say the CAAP was wrong, I said it had some questionable aerodynamic comments in it and that I was still 'mulling over' the statement about stick position being an indication of the approach of the stall.
In relatively simple control systems such as those fitted to a light aircraft, the control column directly repositions the elevator (trim tabs etc accepted). A down force is needed, in level balanced flight, from the tailplane to counteract the nose down moment of the wings.
But the CG position relative to the neutral point influences not only the stick position but also the stick forces; i.e. the force per 'g', required to be applied by the pilot. This CG / NP relationship also affects longitudinal static stability, i.e. the tendency of the aircraft to resume the trimmed state when the control inputs are removed.
Angle of attack is measured from the relative airflow over the wing. Is is possible to have the control column in a position that equates roughly to the attitude that approaches 16 degrees (to pick a number) but due to the flight path of the aircraft not be at or near 16 degrees angle of attack?
I think it is. A side slip to land most probably approximates those conditions.
If you are 'tooling around', non aerobatic flight below 10,000 feet (to avoid reduced aerodynamic damping due to the reduction in air density), then the control column position is most probably a last ditch indication of the impending stall but my point is that there should be other cues that the pilot should recognise before you have to rely on stick position.
I did not say the CAAP was wrong, I said it had some questionable aerodynamic comments in it and that I was still 'mulling over' the statement about stick position being an indication of the approach of the stall.
In relatively simple control systems such as those fitted to a light aircraft, the control column directly repositions the elevator (trim tabs etc accepted). A down force is needed, in level balanced flight, from the tailplane to counteract the nose down moment of the wings.
But the CG position relative to the neutral point influences not only the stick position but also the stick forces; i.e. the force per 'g', required to be applied by the pilot. This CG / NP relationship also affects longitudinal static stability, i.e. the tendency of the aircraft to resume the trimmed state when the control inputs are removed.
Angle of attack is measured from the relative airflow over the wing. Is is possible to have the control column in a position that equates roughly to the attitude that approaches 16 degrees (to pick a number) but due to the flight path of the aircraft not be at or near 16 degrees angle of attack?
I think it is. A side slip to land most probably approximates those conditions.
If you are 'tooling around', non aerobatic flight below 10,000 feet (to avoid reduced aerodynamic damping due to the reduction in air density), then the control column position is most probably a last ditch indication of the impending stall but my point is that there should be other cues that the pilot should recognise before you have to rely on stick position.
The most important item in spin recovery in a Chipmunk was #1 on the pre-aerobatic checklist --- brakes off.
I'm contacting friends with T.10's to see where their T.10 AFM's came from (and when).
Cheers.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Snap (Flick) Rolls Ancient and Modern
I hesitate to intrude into the company of so many experts, but when I was doing my Primary School on the Arnold Scheme in '41 with the Stearman, I was taught that the Snap Roll was simply one turn of a horizontal spin, the preliminary stall induced by a sudden increase of the AoA when flying slightly above normal stall speed. They taught a half-Snap roll, too, which they called a "Snap Vertical Reverse".
The idea here was that, in a tight left turn, say, you executed a SVR to the right, which left you in a tight right turn, to the sudden dicomfiture of the chap who had been tailchasing you.
Even as a clueless LAC (masquerading as an Aviation Cadet in the USAAC), it struck me that a Tiger Moth (which I had never flown) would not survive this treatment for long.
Curiously, many years later ('50), I was taught that the best way to spin the Meteor 7 was to snap-roll it into the spin. The first few seconds after the snap were a true "out of the body" experience. Some time after that, intentional spins in the Meteor were prohibited (and a good thing, too).
Danny42C.
The idea here was that, in a tight left turn, say, you executed a SVR to the right, which left you in a tight right turn, to the sudden dicomfiture of the chap who had been tailchasing you.
Even as a clueless LAC (masquerading as an Aviation Cadet in the USAAC), it struck me that a Tiger Moth (which I had never flown) would not survive this treatment for long.
Curiously, many years later ('50), I was taught that the best way to spin the Meteor 7 was to snap-roll it into the spin. The first few seconds after the snap were a true "out of the body" experience. Some time after that, intentional spins in the Meteor were prohibited (and a good thing, too).
Danny42C.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meteor
Ah, the 'meatbox'.
I was told very early on to be very wary of an aircraft that was difficult to get into a spin. The theory being that if the control surfaces had insufficient authority to get the aircraft into a spin, then they may very well have insufficient authority to get it out again.
Flick entries to spins are fun if if you ensure the throttle is closed, ailerons neutral (provided out spin control column deflection is not required to initiate the manoeuvre) and you 'hang on' until the aircraft adopts a flight regime you recognise and take it from there.
The Stearman is certainly a more substantial airframe than the DH 82 but aerodynamic forces are never as obvious as one would like.
Having said that, you have had a marvellous career considering aviation today as opposed to the challenging days of 1941.
Well done.
I was told very early on to be very wary of an aircraft that was difficult to get into a spin. The theory being that if the control surfaces had insufficient authority to get the aircraft into a spin, then they may very well have insufficient authority to get it out again.
Flick entries to spins are fun if if you ensure the throttle is closed, ailerons neutral (provided out spin control column deflection is not required to initiate the manoeuvre) and you 'hang on' until the aircraft adopts a flight regime you recognise and take it from there.
The Stearman is certainly a more substantial airframe than the DH 82 but aerodynamic forces are never as obvious as one would like.
Having said that, you have had a marvellous career considering aviation today as opposed to the challenging days of 1941.
Well done.
Snap (Flick) Rolls Ancient and Modern
Good to hear from you, Danny42C. The Cessna Aerobat's POH includes the vertical reversement - been years since I've done one. Another book in my library is the little Aerobatic Handbook by Sam Urshan which seems to be based on the Stearman.
My flying interests are pretty much limited to aerobatics so perhaps a specialist, certainly not an expert - still learning. Being addicted to aerobatics I got into competition aerobatics therefore some advanced snapping, still enjoying the occasional snap on a vertical up line and multiple horizontal snaps in a Pitts.
Re the CAAP: "3.14 Stick Position And The Stall
3.14.1 An important aspect of both normal and aerobatic flight is the relationship of the stick position to the angle of attack of a wing for a specific flap setting or centre of gravity, in particular at the stall. The fore and aft position of the control column determines the angle of the aircraft's wings to the airflow. For example, the stick positions for cruise, glide and the stall move progressively aft. Once the stick position for the stall has been determined (and remembered), it can be used as a measure of whether an aircraft's wing is stalled or not. If the stick is forward of the 'stalled stick position', the aircraft will always be in unstalled flight, regardless of aircraft attitude or airspeed.
3.14.2 Appreciation of this concept, and the ability to recognise and apply stick position to achieve CLMAX (that is the point just before a wing stalls) can increase awareness and enhance a pilot's confidence and aircraft handling at this critical phase of flight."
That bit about "the stick position ... can be used as a measure of whether an aircraft's wing is stalled or not" is definitely incorrect as it ignores a number of considerations - one being the response of an aircraft to the stick being moved - move the stick aft of the stall stick position and at some time the angle of attack will increase to the critical angle but certainly the stick position is not a "measure" that the "wing is stalled".
When the CAAP was written, some people in CASA were enamoured of stall stick position - I suggested to one FOI that he should read The Silver Chain from the 1944 book Stick and Rudder before continuing the discussion - never heard from him again (I know I have that effect on some people).
I agree that it is a useful concept to understand as another cue to approaching the stall for some-one in a familiar aeroplane. My instructor trainees get to see a stall where there is little, if any, of the normal symptoms of an approaching stall - however, they also don't notice the aft stick position either because they are looking outside (pilots also sense stick force much more than stick position, in my opinion). Plus, there are some types with minimal longitudinal stick-fixed stability margin (i.e. stick position for steady flight does not vary much between high and low angle of attack) where the concept is pretty useless.
My flying interests are pretty much limited to aerobatics so perhaps a specialist, certainly not an expert - still learning. Being addicted to aerobatics I got into competition aerobatics therefore some advanced snapping, still enjoying the occasional snap on a vertical up line and multiple horizontal snaps in a Pitts.
Re the CAAP: "3.14 Stick Position And The Stall
3.14.1 An important aspect of both normal and aerobatic flight is the relationship of the stick position to the angle of attack of a wing for a specific flap setting or centre of gravity, in particular at the stall. The fore and aft position of the control column determines the angle of the aircraft's wings to the airflow. For example, the stick positions for cruise, glide and the stall move progressively aft. Once the stick position for the stall has been determined (and remembered), it can be used as a measure of whether an aircraft's wing is stalled or not. If the stick is forward of the 'stalled stick position', the aircraft will always be in unstalled flight, regardless of aircraft attitude or airspeed.
3.14.2 Appreciation of this concept, and the ability to recognise and apply stick position to achieve CLMAX (that is the point just before a wing stalls) can increase awareness and enhance a pilot's confidence and aircraft handling at this critical phase of flight."
That bit about "the stick position ... can be used as a measure of whether an aircraft's wing is stalled or not" is definitely incorrect as it ignores a number of considerations - one being the response of an aircraft to the stick being moved - move the stick aft of the stall stick position and at some time the angle of attack will increase to the critical angle but certainly the stick position is not a "measure" that the "wing is stalled".
When the CAAP was written, some people in CASA were enamoured of stall stick position - I suggested to one FOI that he should read The Silver Chain from the 1944 book Stick and Rudder before continuing the discussion - never heard from him again (I know I have that effect on some people).
I agree that it is a useful concept to understand as another cue to approaching the stall for some-one in a familiar aeroplane. My instructor trainees get to see a stall where there is little, if any, of the normal symptoms of an approaching stall - however, they also don't notice the aft stick position either because they are looking outside (pilots also sense stick force much more than stick position, in my opinion). Plus, there are some types with minimal longitudinal stick-fixed stability margin (i.e. stick position for steady flight does not vary much between high and low angle of attack) where the concept is pretty useless.
Leadie:
Speaking of pointless items required to civilianize a Chipmunk T.10, check out this placard. Note in particular the last two lines - as you're gyrating earthwards at a frightening rate, are you seriously expected to drag out the AFM and read up on recovery procedures?
Speaking of pointless items required to civilianize a Chipmunk T.10, check out this placard. Note in particular the last two lines - as you're gyrating earthwards at a frightening rate, are you seriously expected to drag out the AFM and read up on recovery procedures?
Anyone considering spinning a chipmunk must read a TNS 142 (DH service bulletin). This document addresses the myths and rumours about Chippy spinning. Chipmunks spin and recover as per text book, they only gained a reputation for being difficult to recover due to poor recovery technique. Anyone I do training with in a Chippy is issued with a copy of TNS 142 and I will not do any aerobatic training with them until they have read and understood it.
Stick Position at Stall
Colleagues,
I see that the "Stick Position at Stall" discussions have migrated to this thread after the Tiger thread was closed.
Some of the fallacious advice on "stick position at the stall" being given in this and other thread concerns me and needs a rejoinder, if not a complete rebuttal.
First of all we need to agree that what is being talked about is fore and aft Control Column (CC) position. i.e. elevator position, as determined by fore and aft CC position in the cockpit.
Fore and aft CC ("Stick") position may sometimes be useful as a cue to the approaching stall – but no more than a cue. As a cue this is exactly the same as IAS, airflow noise, ineffective (“sloppy”) controls, high nose attitude (and all the other “cues” that are taught in basic stalling exercises). It is just that - a cue - and is not always valid.
The fore and aft CC position at stall will vary with C of G, acceleration and deceleration rates, flap position, thrust (power) and, in some aircraft, trim position.
In a pure aerobatic aircraft, where aeros are usually performed at a (more or less) fixed fuel load with a given pilot (weight) and no baggage / freight (fixed C of G), clean aircraft and a set trim position (not normal to trim into aerobatic manoeuvres) the “fixed stall stick position” cue may be valid. However, for many other cases that are experienced every day in GA (for example, even a simple C172 with 1 POB versus 3 – 4 POB) the premise is not valid and, if taken as gospel, can be dangerously misleading.
It is just as incorrect to say that an aircraft will always stall at the "same stick position" as it is to say it will always stall at the same IAS. Both are true for any given, fixed set of variables. Change the variables and both are quite wrong.
Fore and aft CC ("Stick") position is just a cue and to be taught as an absolute is simply wrong and potentially dangerous.
By the way, a comment or two on the subject of spin recovery that has also surfaced in this thread. Roundsounds' post has touched on it. In my humble opinion, one of the biggest issues in aircraft that have a reputation for "spin accidents" (the Chipmunk being an example) is the fact that during a classic recovery drill, after the full anti - spin rudder is applied, as the CC is moved forward, the spin rotation rate increases. This leads the uninformed to react by either moving the CC back - or at least to stop moving it forward. In the Tiger, Chipmunk, Winjeel, CT4, Bulldog, Tutor, Stearman, Firefly and a range of other "classic" ex - mil training aircraft, failure to continue to move the CC forward "until the spin stops" is very likely to result in a high - rotational spin with delayed subsequent recovery and significantly increased rate of height loss. A problem exists where a pilot has been "taught" spin recovery in a more benign aircraft type, where simply releasing the back pressure or moving the CC forward a little will bring about recovery. Having been involved in high - rotational spinning trials, I will say that continuing to move the CC forward - sometimes to the stop - and sitting there, is quite counter - intuitive but, the placard shown on the Chippie's instrument panel says it all.
Fly Safe PJ
I see that the "Stick Position at Stall" discussions have migrated to this thread after the Tiger thread was closed.
Some of the fallacious advice on "stick position at the stall" being given in this and other thread concerns me and needs a rejoinder, if not a complete rebuttal.
First of all we need to agree that what is being talked about is fore and aft Control Column (CC) position. i.e. elevator position, as determined by fore and aft CC position in the cockpit.
Fore and aft CC ("Stick") position may sometimes be useful as a cue to the approaching stall – but no more than a cue. As a cue this is exactly the same as IAS, airflow noise, ineffective (“sloppy”) controls, high nose attitude (and all the other “cues” that are taught in basic stalling exercises). It is just that - a cue - and is not always valid.
The fore and aft CC position at stall will vary with C of G, acceleration and deceleration rates, flap position, thrust (power) and, in some aircraft, trim position.
In a pure aerobatic aircraft, where aeros are usually performed at a (more or less) fixed fuel load with a given pilot (weight) and no baggage / freight (fixed C of G), clean aircraft and a set trim position (not normal to trim into aerobatic manoeuvres) the “fixed stall stick position” cue may be valid. However, for many other cases that are experienced every day in GA (for example, even a simple C172 with 1 POB versus 3 – 4 POB) the premise is not valid and, if taken as gospel, can be dangerously misleading.
It is just as incorrect to say that an aircraft will always stall at the "same stick position" as it is to say it will always stall at the same IAS. Both are true for any given, fixed set of variables. Change the variables and both are quite wrong.
Fore and aft CC ("Stick") position is just a cue and to be taught as an absolute is simply wrong and potentially dangerous.
By the way, a comment or two on the subject of spin recovery that has also surfaced in this thread. Roundsounds' post has touched on it. In my humble opinion, one of the biggest issues in aircraft that have a reputation for "spin accidents" (the Chipmunk being an example) is the fact that during a classic recovery drill, after the full anti - spin rudder is applied, as the CC is moved forward, the spin rotation rate increases. This leads the uninformed to react by either moving the CC back - or at least to stop moving it forward. In the Tiger, Chipmunk, Winjeel, CT4, Bulldog, Tutor, Stearman, Firefly and a range of other "classic" ex - mil training aircraft, failure to continue to move the CC forward "until the spin stops" is very likely to result in a high - rotational spin with delayed subsequent recovery and significantly increased rate of height loss. A problem exists where a pilot has been "taught" spin recovery in a more benign aircraft type, where simply releasing the back pressure or moving the CC forward a little will bring about recovery. Having been involved in high - rotational spinning trials, I will say that continuing to move the CC forward - sometimes to the stop - and sitting there, is quite counter - intuitive but, the placard shown on the Chippie's instrument panel says it all.
Fly Safe PJ
Last edited by Propjet88; 5th Jan 2016 at 10:55.
Amendments/corrections to, and apologies for, my earlier postings:
1. DHSL have been supplying a Chipmunk T.10 AFM to Australian owners since late 2002.
2. The T.10 AFM does in fact permit spinning in T.10's that are not fitted with strakes.
3. You'll love this one Leadie - the AFM actually calls them "anti spinning strakes", which I should have appreciated by simply opening my AFM! In fact, everywhere I look (I've just been re-reading the UK CAA's CAP562 "Chipmunk Spinning and Aerobatics") calls them that, so I'll have to pull my head in on this one!
Roundsounds:
Amen to that.
Propjet:
Great post! I possibly should have clarified that my ongoing amusement from the placard stems from those last two lines. Another Chipmunk issue is that the forward elevator stick forces firm up in the spin, so that more "grunt" than normal may be required to ensure the stick is actually fully forward. One aero club painted witness marks on the stick/pedestal, and you had to look down to ensure that you had it fully forward. Having to peer down inside as the world tumbled past didn't make spinning any more comfortable!
Cheers.
1. DHSL have been supplying a Chipmunk T.10 AFM to Australian owners since late 2002.
2. The T.10 AFM does in fact permit spinning in T.10's that are not fitted with strakes.
3. You'll love this one Leadie - the AFM actually calls them "anti spinning strakes", which I should have appreciated by simply opening my AFM! In fact, everywhere I look (I've just been re-reading the UK CAA's CAP562 "Chipmunk Spinning and Aerobatics") calls them that, so I'll have to pull my head in on this one!
Roundsounds:
Amen to that.
Propjet:
Great post! I possibly should have clarified that my ongoing amusement from the placard stems from those last two lines. Another Chipmunk issue is that the forward elevator stick forces firm up in the spin, so that more "grunt" than normal may be required to ensure the stick is actually fully forward. One aero club painted witness marks on the stick/pedestal, and you had to look down to ensure that you had it fully forward. Having to peer down inside as the world tumbled past didn't make spinning any more comfortable!
Cheers.
Last edited by Dora-9; 5th Jan 2016 at 18:17.
Agreed roundsounds, I was given a copy of that info when I did my Chipmunk check back in the '70s. I ensure that my spin trainees understand that what I teach in the Decathlon (my normal mount these days) definitely doesn't apply to types such as the Chipmunk.
A pity that CASA doesn't require more of a spin instructor than what they have put in the Part 61 MOS (not that I am proposing more regulation .....). I always recommend this book to spin instructors: http://www.amazon.com.au/Stalls-Spins-Safety-Revised-Edition-ebook/dp/B008P1HLJ4/ref=pd_sim_351_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=0BXASGPCBK5VG2EYCV40
A pity that CASA doesn't require more of a spin instructor than what they have put in the Part 61 MOS (not that I am proposing more regulation .....). I always recommend this book to spin instructors: http://www.amazon.com.au/Stalls-Spins-Safety-Revised-Edition-ebook/dp/B008P1HLJ4/ref=pd_sim_351_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=0BXASGPCBK5VG2EYCV40
Roundsounds - PM sent.