Spins in cessnas 150s and 152s
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vancouver
Age: 43
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spins in cessnas 150s and 152s
I guess my concern for safety when doing spins is justified
well, at least in the 152s that i've been in. I knew those things are too ghetto to be safe!
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?c...5-7233c1bb43f8
What od you guys think?
well, at least in the 152s that i've been in. I knew those things are too ghetto to be safe!
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?c...5-7233c1bb43f8
What od you guys think?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deepest Warwickshire
Age: 47
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two incidents and you're worried? Aircraft of all types have accidents all the time. So will that stop you from flying commercial air transport? Goodbye career 
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vancouver
Age: 43
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i was talking specifcally about doing spins in 150s/152s
and my point was that the 150s and 152s are a lot more fragile than Oh i dont know, the 737s and 747s
and my point was that the 150s and 152s are a lot more fragile than Oh i dont know, the 737s and 747s
Spinning is a low energy manouvre. The main issue with spinning most GA aircraft is their recovery characteristics not the intergrity of the airframe.
In both of these incidents the problem was caused by incorrect repairs/assembly and or maintenance.
I don't think it reflects in any way at all on the suitability of the C150/2 for spinning. Any other aircraft could be afflicted with a similar problem. The C150/2 airframe is very robust, I am not aware of any structural failures caused through operation in the design envelope.
I think your comparision of the C150 to a 737 is a bit flawed, just becase the C 150 is smaller it does not necessarily translate that it is less robust.
It does highlight the need for a very thorough pre flight inspection (including the full and free movements of control surfaces) before going out and doing such manouvres.
In both of these incidents the problem was caused by incorrect repairs/assembly and or maintenance.
I don't think it reflects in any way at all on the suitability of the C150/2 for spinning. Any other aircraft could be afflicted with a similar problem. The C150/2 airframe is very robust, I am not aware of any structural failures caused through operation in the design envelope.
I think your comparision of the C150 to a 737 is a bit flawed, just becase the C 150 is smaller it does not necessarily translate that it is less robust.
It does highlight the need for a very thorough pre flight inspection (including the full and free movements of control surfaces) before going out and doing such manouvres.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vancouver
Age: 43
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does highlight the need for a very thorough pre flight inspection (including the full and free movements of control surfaces) before going out and doing such manouvres.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually a poor comparison the C150/2 is very much stronger than the 737 or any other heavy commerical aircraft. The design codes for light aircraft specify very much G levels.
And remember the airbus where quick rudder reversal removed the fin?
Back to the plot as far as spinning - the C150/2 is one of the safest of the trainers to spin, it will almost recover by itself and using a variety of methods - something which a number of trainers simply will not permit. So check the aircraft is in decent condition and go and enjoy it.
And remember the airbus where quick rudder reversal removed the fin?
Back to the plot as far as spinning - the C150/2 is one of the safest of the trainers to spin, it will almost recover by itself and using a variety of methods - something which a number of trainers simply will not permit. So check the aircraft is in decent condition and go and enjoy it.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: DUBLIN
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For some very strange reason, when ever I was flying the 152 I never felt safe in the aircraft. Probably just metal thing, but all the same, just didnt feel safe. In the 172 I was ok, more so just the 152 scared the be-jasus out of me.
BlueRobinTwo incidents and you're worried?
Well BlueRobin, it only takes one!?
BlueRobinTwo incidents and you're worried?
Well BlueRobin, it only takes one!?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Warboys
Age: 55
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did many spins in 150s when I did my PPL in '86, the first lot I was as sick as a dog after a very late night clubbing, so on my first solo away from the airfield I went and practiced them myself (strictly against the rules) We used to see who could hold it in for the most turns, my record was 4.
Later I flew in an AEF Chipmunk and asked to do Spins, the lightning Jock flying was a bit hesitant but agreed, we went up to 5000' and he said that if we went through 3000' without recovery, I was too get out, don't wait for his command!
That was a Different kind of spinning to a 150!
Later I flew in an AEF Chipmunk and asked to do Spins, the lightning Jock flying was a bit hesitant but agreed, we went up to 5000' and he said that if we went through 3000' without recovery, I was too get out, don't wait for his command!
That was a Different kind of spinning to a 150!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i was talking specifcally about doing spins in 150s/152s
Spins are low energy until you mess up the recovery and start blacking out under the G force...... I'd do them in a proper aerobatic aeroplane with G meter, parachute and stick as opposed to yoke (call me a chicken, but hey....
).
Moderator
Hey Energie,
Relax... 27/09 has it right. If you're flying an aircraft with a maintenance defect then all bets are off. If you fly an aircraft in accordance with this approved desgin, condition and operating techniques, you will not be at increased risk of an unfortunate event.
In order for the rudder of a 150/152 to lock over as described, there had to be a pre-existing maintenance or condition failing. It is my ver well informed opinion that the Cessna mod kit, which is on my 150 is a quick fix, for no real problem in the first place, to reduce liability exposure. I can't really blame Cessna for that.
Why would you think that it would be a spin which was dangerous? How much rudder do you have applied in a full sideslip, very close to the ground on short final? I think that you'd have even less time to made that work out right after rudder system problems, than the extra few thousand feet going down in a spin!
Spins are very safe, if undertaken in airworthy aircraft approved for spins, using proper technique. Age of the aircraft is not relevent! If you think it's unsafe to spin because it's old, I guess that you really think that it's not in airworthy condition, and should not be flown at all! Time for proper maintenance again!
In the past year I have spun repeatedly the following (all in accordance with Transport Canada approved flight test plans): A Cessna T207A, A Cessna 172, A Cessna 185 on wheels and floats at gross weight, both C of G limits (500+ pounds of bagged gravel carefully tied down in the back), A Lake amphibian, My Cessna 150 dozens of times, and last week a Cessna U206H. All but my plane had major external modification which could affect handling. They didn't.
I have done this to assure that when you get in one of those planes, and something does not go the way you plan, it will still recover the way you're really hoping that it will (it takes more altitude to recover though!).
Relax, and put your faith in our industry, to collectively do it's part to keep your flying environment safe.
Pilot DAR
Relax... 27/09 has it right. If you're flying an aircraft with a maintenance defect then all bets are off. If you fly an aircraft in accordance with this approved desgin, condition and operating techniques, you will not be at increased risk of an unfortunate event.
In order for the rudder of a 150/152 to lock over as described, there had to be a pre-existing maintenance or condition failing. It is my ver well informed opinion that the Cessna mod kit, which is on my 150 is a quick fix, for no real problem in the first place, to reduce liability exposure. I can't really blame Cessna for that.
Why would you think that it would be a spin which was dangerous? How much rudder do you have applied in a full sideslip, very close to the ground on short final? I think that you'd have even less time to made that work out right after rudder system problems, than the extra few thousand feet going down in a spin!
Spins are very safe, if undertaken in airworthy aircraft approved for spins, using proper technique. Age of the aircraft is not relevent! If you think it's unsafe to spin because it's old, I guess that you really think that it's not in airworthy condition, and should not be flown at all! Time for proper maintenance again!
In the past year I have spun repeatedly the following (all in accordance with Transport Canada approved flight test plans): A Cessna T207A, A Cessna 172, A Cessna 185 on wheels and floats at gross weight, both C of G limits (500+ pounds of bagged gravel carefully tied down in the back), A Lake amphibian, My Cessna 150 dozens of times, and last week a Cessna U206H. All but my plane had major external modification which could affect handling. They didn't.
I have done this to assure that when you get in one of those planes, and something does not go the way you plan, it will still recover the way you're really hoping that it will (it takes more altitude to recover though!).
Relax, and put your faith in our industry, to collectively do it's part to keep your flying environment safe.
Pilot DAR
"Later I flew in an AEF Chipmunk and asked to do Spins, the lightning Jock flying was a bit hesitant"
I'm not a bit surprised, if the lightning Jock had any knowledge of the spinning history and characteristics of the Chipmunk. I'd have gone up to 10,000 and started to dismount at 6,000 if the recovery failed.
I'm not a bit surprised, if the lightning Jock had any knowledge of the spinning history and characteristics of the Chipmunk. I'd have gone up to 10,000 and started to dismount at 6,000 if the recovery failed.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: west berkshire
Age: 59
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Englishal.
I'm a chicken when it comes to aeros, but I refused to do the spin awareness / demonstration for my C.P.L. in the T67 because of its record, even though it was a great 'plane to fly. I took the Zlin and paid a bit more. I always felt safe in a 152 even though it had a yoke and no G metre.
I'm a chicken when it comes to aeros, but I refused to do the spin awareness / demonstration for my C.P.L. in the T67 because of its record, even though it was a great 'plane to fly. I took the Zlin and paid a bit more. I always felt safe in a 152 even though it had a yoke and no G metre.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Later I flew in an AEF Chipmunk and asked to do Spins, the lightning Jock flying was a bit hesitant"
I'm not a bit surprised, if the lightning Jock had any knowledge of the spinning history and characteristics of the Chipmunk. I'd have gone up to 10,000 and started to dismount at 6,000 if the recovery failed.
Well I am - very surprised; at the Lightning jock's attitude and even more at your post. I've been spinning ours regularly since 1979, and it displays classic recovery characteristics. After a few turns it might require FULL forward stick, but other than that it's absolutely straightforward (and Chippys are placarded that full forward stick might be required under those circumstances).
Civilan Chippys have been spun on a regular basis for about.... errrr.... more than 30 years now. Often without parachutes. I can't recall one AAIB report where one spun in.
I'm not a bit surprised, if the lightning Jock had any knowledge of the spinning history and characteristics of the Chipmunk. I'd have gone up to 10,000 and started to dismount at 6,000 if the recovery failed.
Well I am - very surprised; at the Lightning jock's attitude and even more at your post. I've been spinning ours regularly since 1979, and it displays classic recovery characteristics. After a few turns it might require FULL forward stick, but other than that it's absolutely straightforward (and Chippys are placarded that full forward stick might be required under those circumstances).
Civilan Chippys have been spun on a regular basis for about.... errrr.... more than 30 years now. Often without parachutes. I can't recall one AAIB report where one spun in.
There is no reason to feel that a light GA aircraft such as a C152 is inherently weaker than a B737 or B747. You might be surprised to learn that most commercial heavy jets are certificated at only +2.5G/-1G in flaps up condition. A typical GA aircraft is certificated at around twice that level. I have spun the C150 many times. It is not a high G manoeuvre, even if it feels like it, and drastic control inputs are not required for recovery. I went to the Hamble flying college in the 60's when basic training was on Chipmunks. Spinning practise was confined to ex-RAF Chippies which had the anti-spin strakes fitted. These exercises were done dual and solo, without parachutes, with an entry height of 6000ft and minimum recovery by 3000ft. Full and forceful forward stick was required for recovery and it always worked. There was one fatal spin accident in 1966, but that was in an non-straked aircraft.