Spin training

[Steven Barnes]

Woohoo!

I just got back from my spin training for my CFI. I went up with a local
acrobatic instructor in his Pitts. First time doing any severe unusual
attitude stuff and 1st time in a tail dragger. First off, hats off to all
those who fly taildraggers. That takes some foot work.



Spins weren't as bad as I thought. We did a couple normal stalls to see how
quickly the Pitts moves. Next, recovery from incipient spin. Then 1, then 2
turn spins. Learned quite a bit. Even got to do a couple rolls on the way
back to the field. Never lost my lunch! I did get a cramp in my right foot
from the rudder work, though. J



If you've never done any unusual attitude stuff, I would highly recommend
it.


--



CP-ASEL, instrument

[george]

Steven Barnes wrote:
> Woohoo!
>
> I just got back from my spin training for my CFI. I went up with a local
> acrobatic instructor in his Pitts. First time doing any severe unusual
> attitude stuff and 1st time in a tail dragger. First off, hats off to all
> those who fly taildraggers. That takes some foot work.
>
>
>
> Spins weren't as bad as I thought. We did a couple normal stalls to see how
> quickly the Pitts moves. Next, recovery from incipient spin. Then 1, then 2
> turn spins. Learned quite a bit. Even got to do a couple rolls on the way
> back to the field. Never lost my lunch! I did get a cramp in my right foot
> from the rudder work, though. J
>
>
>
> If you've never done any unusual attitude stuff, I would highly recommend
> it.

Yup. Should be a requirement before PPL.
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> CP-ASEL, instrument

[Stubby]

george wrote:
> Steven Barnes wrote:
>> Woohoo!
>>
>> I just got back from my spin training for my CFI. I went up with a local
>> acrobatic instructor in his Pitts. First time doing any severe unusual
>> attitude stuff and 1st time in a tail dragger. First off, hats off to all
>> those who fly taildraggers. That takes some foot work.
>>
>>
>>
>> Spins weren't as bad as I thought. We did a couple normal stalls to see how
>> quickly the Pitts moves. Next, recovery from incipient spin. Then 1, then 2
>> turn spins. Learned quite a bit. Even got to do a couple rolls on the way
>> back to the field. Never lost my lunch! I did get a cramp in my right foot
>> from the rudder work, though. J
>>
>>
>>
>> If you've never done any unusual attitude stuff, I would highly recommend
>> it.
>
> Yup. Should be a requirement before PPL.

I believe it was required long ago, perhaps 30 years. I had a bit of
spin work in the glider. It might be required. It was fun!

[nobody]

I second the motion! Got my spin endorsement at night, shortly after
getting my PPL.

>
>
> Yup. Should be a requirement before PPL.
>
>>
>>--
>>

>>
>>CP-ASEL, instrument
>
>

[Timmay]

nobody wrote:
> I second the motion! Got my spin endorsement at night, shortly after
> getting my PPL.
>


A spin endorsement? After getting your PPL? Fill me in, I'm not aware
of any endorsements concerning spins.

[Vaughn Simon]

"Timmay" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> A spin endorsement? After getting your PPL? Fill me in, I'm not aware
> of any endorsements concerning spins.

An endorsement for spin training is required for CFI. Could it have been
concurrent training for Commercial and CFI?

Vaughn




>

[Jim Macklin]

Spins were a requirement back in the pre-1960 period [the
exact date can be looked up] and the training and testing
resulted in several fatal accidents. The FAA dropped the
requirement and for a time even dropped full stalls. They
do require spin training but not a high degree of skill for
CFI applicants. Many schools and FBOs do not want their
planes spun due to damage to instruments/gyros.

The FAA did a similar thing with Vmc demonstrations and
testing. The procedures were being read as do Vmc demos at
very low altitude and they even has a single-engine stall in
the testing procedures for a multiengine check-ride. That
was one of the reasons the Feds will not act as PIC during a
flight test, they got sued.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in
message
...
|
| "Timmay" > wrote in message
|
oups.com...
| > A spin endorsement? After getting your PPL? Fill me in,
I'm not aware
| > of any endorsements concerning spins.
|
| An endorsement for spin training is required for CFI.
Could it have been
| concurrent training for Commercial and CFI?
|
| Vaughn
|
|
|
|
| >
|
|

[GeorgeC]

I got my licence in 1972, but no spin training, not even a demo.

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 16:23:36 -0400, Stubby
> wrote:


>I believe it was required long ago, perhaps 30 years. I had a bit of
>spin work in the glider. It might be required. It was fun!

GeorgeC

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 16:23:36 -0400, Stubby
> wrote:

> >> I just got back from my spin training for my CFI....
> >
> > Yup. Should be a requirement before PPL.
>
> I believe it was required long ago, perhaps 30 years. I had a bit of
> spin work in the glider. It might be required. It was fun!

Yeah, was eliminated in the late '60s, I think. Basic reason, IIRC, is that the
number of casualties that occurred during training were thought to be about
equal to the additional spin fatalities if training WEREN'T required. Since
most stall/spin accidents occur at very low altitudes (the base-to-final turn,
usually) the FAA decided to emphasize stall recognition/avoidance, instead.

True "spin" accidents (those that occur at high enough altitudes to recover and
not associated with any physical problem with the airplane) are quite rare.
Canada still requires spin training, and I understand their stall/spin accident
rate is about the same as the US.

Ron Wanttaja

[john smith]

In article >,
"Steven Barnes" > wrote:

> Woohoo!
>
> I just got back from my spin training for my CFI. I went up with a local
> acrobatic instructor in his Pitts. First time doing any severe unusual
> attitude stuff and 1st time in a tail dragger. First off, hats off to all
> those who fly taildraggers. That takes some foot work.
> Spins weren't as bad as I thought. We did a couple normal stalls to see how
> quickly the Pitts moves. Next, recovery from incipient spin. Then 1, then 2
> turn spins. Learned quite a bit. Even got to do a couple rolls on the way
> back to the field. Never lost my lunch! I did get a cramp in my right foot
> from the rudder work, though. J
> If you've never done any unusual attitude stuff, I would highly recommend
> it.

You did spins in a Pitts and you instructor did not show you the
Mueller-Beggs Recovery method?

[Viperdoc[_1_]]

Beggs-Mueller does not work for all planes (although it does for Pitts'),
and some pilots do not necessarily believe in letting go of the stick for a
recovery, preferring to "fly" out of the spin.

[john smith]

In article >,
"Viperdoc" > wrote:

> Beggs-Mueller does not work for all planes (although it does for Pitts'),
> and some pilots do not necessarily believe in letting go of the stick for a
> recovery, preferring to "fly" out of the spin.

That's true, but shouldn't it at least be taught so that the student
fully understands spin recovery?

[Viperdoc[_1_]]

Probably, but it might fall into more advanced lessons, like inverted spins,
flat, crossover, etc. A single flight with a spin demo does not make most
pilots capable of recovery from inadvertent spins.

[Peter Dohm]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 16:23:36 -0400, Stubby
> > wrote:
>
> > >> I just got back from my spin training for my CFI....
> > >
> > > Yup. Should be a requirement before PPL.
> >
> > I believe it was required long ago, perhaps 30 years. I had a bit of
> > spin work in the glider. It might be required. It was fun!
>
> Yeah, was eliminated in the late '60s, I think. Basic reason, IIRC, is
that the
> number of casualties that occurred during training were thought to be
about
> equal to the additional spin fatalities if training WEREN'T required.
Since
> most stall/spin accidents occur at very low altitudes (the base-to-final
turn,
> usually) the FAA decided to emphasize stall recognition/avoidance,
instead.
>
> True "spin" accidents (those that occur at high enough altitudes to
recover and
> not associated with any physical problem with the airplane) are quite
rare.
> Canada still requires spin training, and I understand their stall/spin
accident
> rate is about the same as the US.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

Back in the early '80s, spin training was not required and was only
marginally available. When I demanded it, after getting a little too close
for comfort on a final turn in the PA-38 Tomohawk, I had to interview more
than one additional instructor before I found one who was comfortable doing
spins.

IMHO the important point was that, once I was comfortable about the spin
entry, it was almost ridiculously easy to fly away from an incipient spin in
the C-150M and C-152. After getting over the initial discomfort, I found
that recovery during the first half turn used very little altitude and
recovering on point after 2 or 3 turns became easy. Both Cessna models
recovered very sharply on command and could have easily been flown away from
a spin entry at below 300 feet.

At that time, I was unable to find an instructor who was comfortable in the
PA-38. It remains my opinion that they simply lacked training and
experience with the aircraft; and therefore believed the scare stories which
circulated. It certainly was no less controllable, and had no less rudder
authority during a stall. Remember that there still a lot of pilots who
believe that turning a twin toward an inoperative engine is less safe than
"Russian Roulette" with 2 cartridges in the ol' wheel-gun.

Peter

[vlado]

Viperdoc wrote:
> Beggs-Mueller does not work for all planes (although it does for Pitts'),
> and some pilots do not necessarily believe in letting go of the stick for a
> recovery, preferring to "fly" out of the spin.

What airplanes does this (Beggs-Mueller) not work for?
Thx,
VL

[Jim Macklin]

Not sure, but here are some guesses.
F4, A4, F104, MU2, anything with heavy span loads and
anything with small elevator and rudder.



"vlado" > wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Viperdoc wrote:
| > Beggs-Mueller does not work for all planes (although it
does for Pitts'),
| > and some pilots do not necessarily believe in letting go
of the stick for a
| > recovery, preferring to "fly" out of the spin.
|
| What airplanes does this (Beggs-Mueller) not work for?
| Thx,
| VL
|

[GeorgeC]

Just letting go works on an F86.

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 21:42:21 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:

>Not sure, but here are some guesses.
>F4, A4, F104, MU2, anything with heavy span loads and
>anything with small elevator and rudder.
>
>
>
>"vlado" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>|
>| Viperdoc wrote:
>| > Beggs-Mueller does not work for all planes (although it
>does for Pitts'),
>| > and some pilots do not necessarily believe in letting go
>of the stick for a
>| > recovery, preferring to "fly" out of the spin.
>|
>| What airplanes does this (Beggs-Mueller) not work for?
>| Thx,
>| VL
>|
>

GeorgeC

[john smith]

In article om>,
"vlado" > wrote:

> Viperdoc wrote:
> > Beggs-Mueller does not work for all planes (although it does for Pitts'),
> > and some pilots do not necessarily believe in letting go of the stick for a
> > recovery, preferring to "fly" out of the spin.
>
> What airplanes does this (Beggs-Mueller) not work for?

Cessna 150.
Note that the Christen Eagle and Pitts were the only acro aircraft
tested extensively. Limited testing was done with the C-150.
Gene Beggs did not have the time nor the money to carry out extensive
testing on popular GA trainers and cruisers.
This research was conducted in the early 1980's.

[vlado]

john smith wrote:
> In article om>,
> "vlado" > wrote:
>
> > Viperdoc wrote:
> > > Beggs-Mueller does not work for all planes (although it does for Pitts'),
> > > and some pilots do not necessarily believe in letting go of the stick for a
> > > recovery, preferring to "fly" out of the spin.
> >
> > What airplanes does this (Beggs-Mueller) not work for?
>
> Cessna 150.
> Note that the Christen Eagle and Pitts were the only acro aircraft
> tested extensively. Limited testing was done with the C-150.
> Gene Beggs did not have the time nor the money to carry out extensive
> testing on popular GA trainers and cruisers.
> This research was conducted in the early 1980's.

If anyone needs to know, Beggs-Mueller does work for the T-6, T-28 and
P-51 aircraft.
VL

[Dave Doe]

In article >, lefty133
@bellsouth.net says...
> "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 16:23:36 -0400, Stubby
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > >> I just got back from my spin training for my CFI....
> > > >
> > > > Yup. Should be a requirement before PPL.
> > >
> > > I believe it was required long ago, perhaps 30 years. I had a bit of
> > > spin work in the glider. It might be required. It was fun!
> >
> > Yeah, was eliminated in the late '60s, I think. Basic reason, IIRC, is
> that the
> > number of casualties that occurred during training were thought to be
> about
> > equal to the additional spin fatalities if training WEREN'T required.
> Since
> > most stall/spin accidents occur at very low altitudes (the base-to-final
> turn,
> > usually) the FAA decided to emphasize stall recognition/avoidance,
> instead.
> >
> > True "spin" accidents (those that occur at high enough altitudes to
> recover and
> > not associated with any physical problem with the airplane) are quite
> rare.
> > Canada still requires spin training, and I understand their stall/spin
> accident
> > rate is about the same as the US.
> >
> > Ron Wanttaja
>
> Back in the early '80s, spin training was not required and was only
> marginally available. When I demanded it, after getting a little too close
> for comfort on a final turn in the PA-38 Tomohawk, I had to interview more
> than one additional instructor before I found one who was comfortable doing
> spins.
>
> IMHO the important point was that, once I was comfortable about the spin
> entry, it was almost ridiculously easy to fly away from an incipient spin in
> the C-150M and C-152. After getting over the initial discomfort, I found
> that recovery during the first half turn used very little altitude and
> recovering on point after 2 or 3 turns became easy. Both Cessna models
> recovered very sharply on command and could have easily been flown away from
> a spin entry at below 300 feet.
>
> At that time, I was unable to find an instructor who was comfortable in the
> PA-38. It remains my opinion that they simply lacked training and
> experience with the aircraft; and therefore believed the scare stories which
> circulated. It certainly was no less controllable, and had no less rudder
> authority during a stall. Remember that there still a lot of pilots who
> believe that turning a twin toward an inoperative engine is less safe than
> "Russian Roulette" with 2 cartridges in the ol' wheel-gun.

I think the problem probably lies with an instructor that doesn't mind
the physical sense of spinning in a Traumahawk :)

(that's the trouble I had). BTW, I got an instructor to put the a/c in
a spin and recover under the hood - on one session. My recoverys were a
bit steep (I *tried* to allow for the instrument lag, honest!) But I'm
really glad I did that exercise.

--
Duncan

[Jim Macklin]

My problem with the PA 38 was the number of control wheels
that broke. I heard of CFI carrying Vise-Grips to use in an
emergency. Look the AD up.



"Dave Doe" > wrote in message
. nz...
| In article >,
lefty133
| @bellsouth.net says...
| > "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in
message
| > ...
| > > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 16:23:36 -0400, Stubby
| > > > wrote:
| > >
| > > > >> I just got back from my spin training for my
CFI....
| > > > >
| > > > > Yup. Should be a requirement before PPL.
| > > >
| > > > I believe it was required long ago, perhaps 30
years. I had a bit of
| > > > spin work in the glider. It might be required.
It was fun!
| > >
| > > Yeah, was eliminated in the late '60s, I think. Basic
reason, IIRC, is
| > that the
| > > number of casualties that occurred during training
were thought to be
| > about
| > > equal to the additional spin fatalities if training
WEREN'T required.
| > Since
| > > most stall/spin accidents occur at very low altitudes
(the base-to-final
| > turn,
| > > usually) the FAA decided to emphasize stall
recognition/avoidance,
| > instead.
| > >
| > > True "spin" accidents (those that occur at high enough
altitudes to
| > recover and
| > > not associated with any physical problem with the
airplane) are quite
| > rare.
| > > Canada still requires spin training, and I understand
their stall/spin
| > accident
| > > rate is about the same as the US.
| > >
| > > Ron Wanttaja
| >
| > Back in the early '80s, spin training was not required
and was only
| > marginally available. When I demanded it, after getting
a little too close
| > for comfort on a final turn in the PA-38 Tomohawk, I had
to interview more
| > than one additional instructor before I found one who
was comfortable doing
| > spins.
| >
| > IMHO the important point was that, once I was
comfortable about the spin
| > entry, it was almost ridiculously easy to fly away from
an incipient spin in
| > the C-150M and C-152. After getting over the initial
discomfort, I found
| > that recovery during the first half turn used very
little altitude and
| > recovering on point after 2 or 3 turns became easy.
Both Cessna models
| > recovered very sharply on command and could have easily
been flown away from
| > a spin entry at below 300 feet.
| >
| > At that time, I was unable to find an instructor who was
comfortable in the
| > PA-38. It remains my opinion that they simply lacked
training and
| > experience with the aircraft; and therefore believed the
scare stories which
| > circulated. It certainly was no less controllable, and
had no less rudder
| > authority during a stall. Remember that there still a
lot of pilots who
| > believe that turning a twin toward an inoperative engine
is less safe than
| > "Russian Roulette" with 2 cartridges in the ol'
wheel-gun.
|
| I think the problem probably lies with an instructor that
doesn't mind
| the physical sense of spinning in a Traumahawk :)
|
| (that's the trouble I had). BTW, I got an instructor to
put the a/c in
| a spin and recover under the hood - on one session. My
recoverys were a
| bit steep (I *tried* to allow for the instrument lag,
honest!) But I'm
| really glad I did that exercise.
|
| --
| Duncan

[Dave Doe]

In article <z5EYg.3142$XX2.290@dukeread04>, p51mustang[threeX12]
@xxxhotmail.calm says...
> My problem with the PA 38 was the number of control wheels
> that broke. I heard of CFI carrying Vise-Grips to use in an
> emergency. Look the AD up.

No thank you! :)

Wouldn't one just use the other wheel?

--
Duncan

[Jim Macklin]

There were reported cases of both breaking. Piper built all
the PA38 aircraft in a rush in order to beat Beech to the
market. Many of the airplanes were junk.

"Dave Doe" > wrote in message
. nz...
| In article <z5EYg.3142$XX2.290@dukeread04>,
p51mustang[threeX12]
| @xxxhotmail.calm says...
| > My problem with the PA 38 was the number of control
wheels
| > that broke. I heard of CFI carrying Vise-Grips to use
in an
| > emergency. Look the AD up.
|
| No thank you! :)
|
| Wouldn't one just use the other wheel?
|
| --
| Duncan

[Dave Doe]

In article <yKNYg.4751$XX2.3882@dukeread04>, p51mustang[threeX12]
@xxxhotmail.calm says...
> There were reported cases of both breaking. Piper built all
> the PA38 aircraft in a rush in order to beat Beech to the
> market. Many of the airplanes were junk.

Interesting. I thought they built it in competition to the Cessna. I
know that a known potential weak point was in the T-tail, where the
thing is welded onto the control actuator (hope I've got that right). I
was told to always check that weld as best I could w' ma naked eye for
cracks.

--
Duncan

[Jim Macklin]

Look up Beech Skipper and Piper Tomahawk, visually nearly
identical. There was some industrial espionage with an
employee named Piper working for both companies.


Beech had a prototype flying in the mid 70s with out the T
tail, then added the T tail. Piper started the PA38 in the
late 70s and delivered over 1,000 airplanes before Beech did
their first one.


"Dave Doe" > wrote in message
. nz...
| In article <yKNYg.4751$XX2.3882@dukeread04>,
p51mustang[threeX12]
| @xxxhotmail.calm says...
| > There were reported cases of both breaking. Piper built
all
| > the PA38 aircraft in a rush in order to beat Beech to
the
| > market. Many of the airplanes were junk.
|
| Interesting. I thought they built it in competition to
the Cessna. I
| know that a known potential weak point was in the T-tail,
where the
| thing is welded onto the control actuator (hope I've got
that right). I
| was told to always check that weld as best I could w' ma
naked eye for
| cracks.
|
| --
| Duncan

[Cubdriver]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:23:24 GMT, "Steven Barnes"
> wrote:

> Never lost my lunch! I

I took the aerobat course at Chandler AZ because locally we aren't
allowed to spin our Cubs. It was April, I think, hot enough already at
Phoenix. I did 90 minutes in the morning and 90 minutes in the
afternoon, going back to the motel between times. Halfway from field
to motel was a stockyard. By the third day it was all I could do to
get past the stockyard without tossing my breakfast.

I thought the training was great. Everyone should do it, not just
instructors.

[Cubdriver]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:06:24 -0500, GeorgeC >
wrote:

>I got my licence in 1972, but no spin training, not even a demo.

I did get a demo (1997) but my instructor at that time was a free
spirit. He taught the Marine way, not the airport way. Indeed, it was
that trial spin that convinced me that I should do the upset training
after I got my cert.

[john smith]

In article <HBWYg.5034$XX2.3466@dukeread04>,
"Jim Macklin" > wrote:

> Look up Beech Skipper and Piper Tomahawk, visually nearly
> identical. There was some industrial espionage with an
> employee named Piper working for both companies.

Tomahawk has a aT-tail, Skipper has a cruixiform tail.

[Jim Macklin]

Really. They both have T-tails. The Commander 112 has a
cruixiform tail.


see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_Skipper
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_Tomahawk

http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?aircraftsearch=Rockwell%20Commander%2 0112A&distinct_entry=true


Interesting and true story. The ABQ Beech AeroClub, a
dealer organization, ran an ad in the Western Flyer, that
talked about the wonderful Beech Skipper, but the publisher
ran a picture that was 1/2 the page of a Piper PA38.



"john smith" > wrote in message
...
| In article <HBWYg.5034$XX2.3466@dukeread04>,
| "Jim Macklin" >
wrote:
|
| > Look up Beech Skipper and Piper Tomahawk, visually
nearly
| > identical. There was some industrial espionage with an
| > employee named Piper working for both companies.
|
| Tomahawk has a aT-tail, Skipper has a cruixiform tail.

[john smith]

In article <VY5Zg.6004$XX2.3553@dukeread04>,
"Jim Macklin" > wrote:

> Really. They both have T-tails. The Commander 112 has a
> cruixiform tail.

Looking at the Wiki photo, I think that is a Tomahawk.
I always looked at the tail to determine which airplane was which.
The Piper tail is definitely a T because it sits atop the vertical
stabilizer.
I always remembered the Beech tail as mounted below the top of the
horizontal stabilizer, hence I referred to it as a cruciform. Not as low
as the Commanders (mid-vertical stabilizer), but not atop the vertical.

[Peter Dohm]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article <VY5Zg.6004$XX2.3553@dukeread04>,
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote:
>
> > Really. They both have T-tails. The Commander 112 has a
> > cruixiform tail.
>
> Looking at the Wiki photo, I think that is a Tomahawk.
> I always looked at the tail to determine which airplane was which.
> The Piper tail is definitely a T because it sits atop the vertical
> stabilizer.
> I always remembered the Beech tail as mounted below the top of the
> horizontal stabilizer, hence I referred to it as a cruciform. Not as low
> as the Commanders (mid-vertical stabilizer), but not atop the vertical.

Both links and the photos shown are accurate. Regrettably, both are small
and taken from different angles. However:
The Tomahawk T-tail is mounted to look like a DC-9.
The Skipper T-tail is mounted slightly higher.
The Tomahawk side windows are nearly rectangular.
The Skipper side windows are trapezoidal.
The Tomahawk has a longer wing.
The Skipper wing has deeper chord and greater area.
The Tomahawk has wider spaced main gear attached outboard.
The Skipper main gear extends from the wing-fusalage intersection.

There are some other visual differences that I don't recall.

Peter

[Jim Macklin]

You have them backward, the Beech T-tail is completely flat
on top. The Piper has about 6 inches of fin above the
horizontal surface.



"john smith" > wrote in message
...
| In article <VY5Zg.6004$XX2.3553@dukeread04>,
| "Jim Macklin" >
wrote:
|
| > Really. They both have T-tails. The Commander 112 has a
| > cruixiform tail.
|
| Looking at the Wiki photo, I think that is a Tomahawk.
| I always looked at the tail to determine which airplane
was which.
| The Piper tail is definitely a T because it sits atop the
vertical
| stabilizer.
| I always remembered the Beech tail as mounted below the
top of the
| horizontal stabilizer, hence I referred to it as a
cruciform. Not as low
| as the Commanders (mid-vertical stabilizer), but not atop
the vertical.

[Jim Macklin]

The Beech Skipper has a better electrical system, a better
panel and control lay-out IMHO. The only thing wrong with a
Skipper is it really could use another 25-50 hp. That way
it would climb fast enough to do more spins in an hour. And
maybe a nice, electrically driven airconditioner that could
be mounted in the baggage area and removed when it wasn't
July and August.

Google for Beech Skipper and then click on images, lots of
good pictures and details. 225 pictures
ditto for Piper Tomahawk and 604 pictures.


Not all the pictures are correctly identified, no doubt
because the words are on the same page with the picture.


"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
.. .
| "john smith" > wrote in message
|
...
| > In article <VY5Zg.6004$XX2.3553@dukeread04>,
| > "Jim Macklin" >
wrote:
| >
| > > Really. They both have T-tails. The Commander 112 has
a
| > > cruixiform tail.
| >
| > Looking at the Wiki photo, I think that is a Tomahawk.
| > I always looked at the tail to determine which airplane
was which.
| > The Piper tail is definitely a T because it sits atop
the vertical
| > stabilizer.
| > I always remembered the Beech tail as mounted below the
top of the
| > horizontal stabilizer, hence I referred to it as a
cruciform. Not as low
| > as the Commanders (mid-vertical stabilizer), but not
atop the vertical.
|
| Both links and the photos shown are accurate.
Regrettably, both are small
| and taken from different angles. However:
| The Tomahawk T-tail is mounted to look like a DC-9.
| The Skipper T-tail is mounted slightly higher.
| The Tomahawk side windows are nearly rectangular.
| The Skipper side windows are trapezoidal.
| The Tomahawk has a longer wing.
| The Skipper wing has deeper chord and greater area.
| The Tomahawk has wider spaced main gear attached
outboard.
| The Skipper main gear extends from the wing-fusalage
intersection.
|
| There are some other visual differences that I don't
recall.
|
| Peter
|
|
|

[[email protected]]

vlado wrote:
>
> What airplanes does this (Beggs-Mueller) not work for?
> Thx,
> VL
Decathlons for Inverted Spins, as I recall. (They sometimes
need a little pull on the stick to get them to pop out of the
inverted spin.)

I'm actually surprised that it works on a T-6. The few times
I've spun a Harvard, it seemed to take 1-2turns after full
opposite rudder and the stick was well forward before it
stopped. (I'm actually going to waste an absurd amount
of money going on a couple of trips with Lee in the TF51
at the end of Nov. If we get as far as spins, I'm curious to
hear what he says. I've heard even Bob Hoover wasn't too
comfortable spinning the P51. I vaguely recall reading
that he said "some were ok, others not so good"?)

Can't wait until end of Nov, rick

[Jim Macklin]

Be very careful with spinning the F51. I've read reports of
pilots doing simulated dog-fights at 10,000 over the
Pacific. One pilot looses sight of the other, looks around
and then sees a splash . I'd sure I had a good parachute.



> wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| vlado wrote:
| >
| > What airplanes does this (Beggs-Mueller) not work for?
| > Thx,
| > VL
| Decathlons for Inverted Spins, as I recall. (They
sometimes
| need a little pull on the stick to get them to pop out of
the
| inverted spin.)
|
| I'm actually surprised that it works on a T-6. The few
times
| I've spun a Harvard, it seemed to take 1-2turns after full
| opposite rudder and the stick was well forward before it
| stopped. (I'm actually going to waste an absurd amount
| of money going on a couple of trips with Lee in the TF51
| at the end of Nov. If we get as far as spins, I'm curious
to
| hear what he says. I've heard even Bob Hoover wasn't too
| comfortable spinning the P51. I vaguely recall reading
| that he said "some were ok, others not so good"?)
|
| Can't wait until end of Nov, rick
|

[john smith]

In article <GrcZg.8309$XX2.3853@dukeread04>,
"Jim Macklin" > wrote:

> Be very careful with spinning the F51. I've read reports of
> pilots doing simulated dog-fights at 10,000 over the
> Pacific. One pilot looses sight of the other, looks around
> and then sees a splash . I'd sure I had a good parachute.

Was that an original combat P/F-51? Or one of todays stripped down
two-eaters?

[Jim Macklin]

That detail was not given. But since it was many years ago,
the odds are that it was close to a stock P/F 51.


"john smith" > wrote in message
...
| In article <GrcZg.8309$XX2.3853@dukeread04>,
| "Jim Macklin" >
wrote:
|
| > Be very careful with spinning the F51. I've read
reports of
| > pilots doing simulated dog-fights at 10,000 over the
| > Pacific. One pilot looses sight of the other, looks
around
| > and then sees a splash . I'd sure I had a good
parachute.
|
| Was that an original combat P/F-51? Or one of todays
stripped down
| two-eaters?

[vlado]

wrote:
> vlado wrote:
> >
> > What airplanes does this (Beggs-Mueller) not work for?
> > Thx,
> > VL
> Decathlons for Inverted Spins, as I recall. (They sometimes
> need a little pull on the stick to get them to pop out of the
> inverted spin.)
>
> I'm actually surprised that it works on a T-6. The few times
> I've spun a Harvard, it seemed to take 1-2turns after full
> opposite rudder and the stick was well forward before it
> stopped. (I'm actually going to waste an absurd amount
> of money going on a couple of trips with Lee in the TF51
> at the end of Nov. If we get as far as spins, I'm curious to
> hear what he says. I've heard even Bob Hoover wasn't too
> comfortable spinning the P51. I vaguely recall reading
> that he said "some were ok, others not so good"?)
>
> Can't wait until end of Nov, rick

In these warbirds, recovery from a right spin is quicker than a left
spin. That being said, some T-6s recover quicker than others; I have a
friend whose SNJ-5 will recover in a HALF turn from either left or
right right spins (I have dibbs on this airframe if he ever sells it).
Also, the more turns you go beyond two or so, the longer it takes to
recover: the spin is more "developed". T-28s are awful to spin;
watching the top of the wing constantly 'oil-canning' is extremely
distracting(sic)!!! But for all of them, in a training situation, you
really have to coax them into a spin; definate control inputs are
needed and be maintained (esp. the P-51), otherwise they roll-off into
spirals or such.