Cessna 152 spin integrity

[Ricky]

I was watching the 50-something spins done in a 152 on youtube and it
got me thinking;

I seem to remember being taught during commercial training that spins
do not greatly increase G forces on the airplane, is this true?

I also remember being warned "no spin is exactly the same or
predictable, so DON'T do them solo! Was this just a warning from my
school so we wouldn't screw up their gyros or are spins indeed
possibly very dangerous inherently for some reason?

I would like to try some solo next time I'm up just for fun but may
take a willing CFI along (or fellow pilot) just in case.

Would 50-something spins compromise a Cessna 150 or 152's structure?

Another thing I'd be concerned about was getting overly dizzy beyond a
handful of spins.

Ricky

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Ricky > wrote in news:9430ddc9-22a2-4da2-a803-
:

>
> I was watching the 50-something spins done in a 152 on youtube and it
> got me thinking;
>
> I seem to remember being taught during commercial training that spins
> do not greatly increase G forces on the airplane, is this true?

Yeah, there's not a lot of G. There are probably some less than natural
loads on some parts of the airplane, but they're obviously not excessive.
The recovery will put a bit on , ocurse 2.5-3 G

>
> I also remember being warned "no spin is exactly the same or
> predictable, so DON'T do them solo! Was this just a warning from my
> school so we wouldn't screw up their gyros or are spins indeed
> possibly very dangerous inherently for some reason?
>
> I would like to try some solo next time I'm up just for fun but may
> take a willing CFI along (or fellow pilot) just in case.
>
> Would 50-something spins compromise a Cessna 150 or 152's structure?

No more than a three turn one in that case.It'd sure do somethign to my
head, though!

>
> Another thing I'd be concerned about was getting overly dizzy beyond a
> handful of spins.
>


Well, that can happen anyway. Not that big a deal!


Bertie

[Mike Noel]

One thing that will definitely be different is the CG of the aircraft solo
vs. dual. Also, spins can change as they 'fully develop' and possibly be
difficult to exit. It's not something to experiment with unless you have a
parachute and are ready to use it!

--
Best Regards,
Mike

http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel


"Ricky" > wrote in message
...
>
> I was watching the 50-something spins done in a 152 on youtube and it
> got me thinking;
>
> I seem to remember being taught during commercial training that spins
> do not greatly increase G forces on the airplane, is this true?
>
> I also remember being warned "no spin is exactly the same or
> predictable, so DON'T do them solo! Was this just a warning from my
> school so we wouldn't screw up their gyros or are spins indeed
> possibly very dangerous inherently for some reason?
>
> I would like to try some solo next time I'm up just for fun but may
> take a willing CFI along (or fellow pilot) just in case.
>
> Would 50-something spins compromise a Cessna 150 or 152's structure?
>
> Another thing I'd be concerned about was getting overly dizzy beyond a
> handful of spins.
>
> Ricky

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

On Jan 25, 12:55*pm, Ricky > wrote:
> I was watching the 50-something spins done in a 152 on youtube and it
> got me thinking;
>
> I seem to remember being taught during commercial training that spins
> do not greatly increase G forces on the airplane, is this true?
>
> I also remember being warned "no spin is exactly the same or
> predictable, so DON'T do them solo! Was this just a warning from my
> school so we wouldn't screw up their gyros or are spins indeed
> possibly very dangerous inherently for some reason?
>
> I would like to try some solo next time I'm up just for fun but may
> take a willing CFI along (or fellow pilot) just in case.
>
> Would 50-something spins compromise a Cessna 150 or 152's structure?
>
> Another thing I'd be concerned about was getting overly dizzy beyond a
> handful of spins.
>
> Ricky

Not sure if this is a troll or not.....but assuming it is serious,
spins do not create additional G loads any more than normal flight
maneuvers do.
As far as doing them solo? If you haven't done them with a qualified
CFI, and its a damned shame that I even have to qualify that comment,
don't do them solo. Get some training in a proper aircraft.
The number of turns has nothing to do with integrity of the aircraft,
only the recovery
Dizzy is a state of mind as far as doing spins. Visual perceptions
will appear to be going out of control but after you are accustomed to
spins, you can count 1/4 turns and roll out on a specific heading.
Nothing dizzy about it unless you are a genuine blond.
As previously discussed for hundreds of posts and responses, spins
continue to be controversial. Its a damned shame that general aviation
has come to such a poor state when a normal flight maneuver is such a
sore point and continues to kill people every year.
Ol S&B

[Ricky]

On Jan 25, 2:34*pm, "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:

(snipped...)

Hi and thanks for your answer...actually thanks to everyone who
responded to this so far.

What would make you think I am a troll?
Is my question silly, ridiculous, irritating?
FYI I am not a troll, just a comm/inst pilot wanting to do some spins
soon and wanting some advice.

Thanks,

Ricky

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Ricky wrote:

>
>I also remember being warned "no spin is exactly the same or
>predictable, so DON'T do them solo! Was this just a warning from my
>school so we wouldn't screw up their gyros or are spins indeed
>possibly very dangerous inherently for some reason?
>

Sounds like the school didn't have a whole lot of confidence in the spin
training they provided. Assuming you're within the proper weight and CG
envelope, spins should be quite predictable. Particularly in something like a
152.

A local FBO will only allow spins in their Great Lakes aerobatic trainers
(they also have Supercubs and Huskies) because the have cageable gyros. I've
often wondered if this isn't an Old Wives Tale. I've been spinning my
Cherokee on a fairly regular basis since 1994. The gyros often tumble during
spins, but that's never caused a maintenance problem. I've still got the
same gyros in the panel that were there when I bought the plane 14 yrs. ago.
They've never been removed for OH and they're still working fine.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200801/1

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in
news:7ec1fcb50fea9@uwe:

> Ricky wrote:
>
>>
>>I also remember being warned "no spin is exactly the same or
>>predictable, so DON'T do them solo! Was this just a warning from my
>>school so we wouldn't screw up their gyros or are spins indeed
>>possibly very dangerous inherently for some reason?
>>
>
> Sounds like the school didn't have a whole lot of confidence in the
> spin
> training they provided. Assuming you're within the proper weight and
> CG envelope, spins should be quite predictable. Particularly in
> something like a 152.
>
> A local FBO will only allow spins in their Great Lakes aerobatic
> trainers
> (they also have Supercubs and Huskies) because the have cageable
> gyros. I've often wondered if this isn't an Old Wives Tale. I've
> been spinning my Cherokee on a fairly regular basis since 1994. The
> gyros often tumble during spins, but that's never caused a maintenance
> problem. I've still got the same gyros in the panel that were there
> when I bought the plane 14 yrs. ago. They've never been removed for OH
> and they're still working fine.
>

Holy Crap! That's amazing!

It definitely wrecks gyros. The one place I worked that had no non gyro
airplanes had one airplane ( cherokee) for spins and it's gyros barely
showed any interest at all.
I suppose it depends on the quality, but it is defnitely not an old
wives tale.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Ricky wrote:
> I was watching the 50-something spins done in a 152 on youtube and it
> got me thinking;
>
> I seem to remember being taught during commercial training that spins
> do not greatly increase G forces on the airplane, is this true?
>
> I also remember being warned "no spin is exactly the same or
> predictable, so DON'T do them solo! Was this just a warning from my
> school so we wouldn't screw up their gyros or are spins indeed
> possibly very dangerous inherently for some reason?
>
> I would like to try some solo next time I'm up just for fun but may
> take a willing CFI along (or fellow pilot) just in case.
>
> Would 50-something spins compromise a Cessna 150 or 152's structure?
>
> Another thing I'd be concerned about was getting overly dizzy beyond a
> handful of spins.
>
> Ricky

Hi Rick;

I'm not trying to be confrontational here but I notice you are a
commercial pilot. I can't for the life of me rectify why you don't know
the answers to the questions you are asking here. I find it incredulous
that a commercial pilot could go through the process, then pass the
flight test and not know these answers.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Ricky wrote:
>> I was watching the 50-something spins done in a 152 on youtube and it
>> got me thinking;
>>
>> I seem to remember being taught during commercial training that spins
>> do not greatly increase G forces on the airplane, is this true?
>>
>> I also remember being warned "no spin is exactly the same or
>> predictable, so DON'T do them solo! Was this just a warning from my
>> school so we wouldn't screw up their gyros or are spins indeed
>> possibly very dangerous inherently for some reason?
>>
>> I would like to try some solo next time I'm up just for fun but may
>> take a willing CFI along (or fellow pilot) just in case.
>>
>> Would 50-something spins compromise a Cessna 150 or 152's structure?
>>
>> Another thing I'd be concerned about was getting overly dizzy beyond
a
>> handful of spins.
>>
>> Ricky
>
> Hi Rick;
>
> I'm not trying to be confrontational here but I notice you are a
> commercial pilot. I can't for the life of me rectify why you don't
know
> the answers to the questions you are asking here. I find it
incredulous
> that a commercial pilot could go through the process, then pass the
> flight test and not know these answers.
>
>

Modern life!

To be fair, I wouldn't have known much about structures and G limits
when I got my commercial either. There's certainly nothing presented in
the syllabus that could be described as anything more than rudimentary.
The current trend is to tell pilots less and less about how the
airplanes they fly are put together. The last type rating I did was just
appalling.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Ricky wrote:
>>> I was watching the 50-something spins done in a 152 on youtube and it
>>> got me thinking;
>>>
>>> I seem to remember being taught during commercial training that spins
>>> do not greatly increase G forces on the airplane, is this true?
>>>
>>> I also remember being warned "no spin is exactly the same or
>>> predictable, so DON'T do them solo! Was this just a warning from my
>>> school so we wouldn't screw up their gyros or are spins indeed
>>> possibly very dangerous inherently for some reason?
>>>
>>> I would like to try some solo next time I'm up just for fun but may
>>> take a willing CFI along (or fellow pilot) just in case.
>>>
>>> Would 50-something spins compromise a Cessna 150 or 152's structure?
>>>
>>> Another thing I'd be concerned about was getting overly dizzy beyond
> a
>>> handful of spins.
>>>
>>> Ricky
>> Hi Rick;
>>
>> I'm not trying to be confrontational here but I notice you are a
>> commercial pilot. I can't for the life of me rectify why you don't
> know
>> the answers to the questions you are asking here. I find it
> incredulous
>> that a commercial pilot could go through the process, then pass the
>> flight test and not know these answers.
>>
>>
>
> Modern life!
>
> To be fair, I wouldn't have known much about structures and G limits
> when I got my commercial either. There's certainly nothing presented in
> the syllabus that could be described as anything more than rudimentary.
> The current trend is to tell pilots less and less about how the
> airplanes they fly are put together. The last type rating I did was just
> appalling.
>
>
> Bertie

Again, I don't mean to be picking on the OP who innocently asked what
I'm sure he believes to be pertinent questions. My puzzlement is more
directed at the system that trained this pilot.

A commercial pilot who has to ask if a spin greatly increases the g
forces on an airplane?
A commercial pilot who has to ask if spins are inherently dangerous?

Things CAN'T be THIS bad....or ARE they!!!!!!

--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

>
> Things CAN'T be THIS bad....or ARE they!!!!!!
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques- Hide quoted text -

I know the answer to those questions and I'm a mere PPL. I didn't do
any formal ground school.

I learned the answer to the g question by having two spins
demonstrated to me.

The danger part, well, doesn't that ultimately have to do with
altitude, spin awareness, and ability to recover? Danger is relative
to the answers to those "questions".

So, I don't think things are THAT bad. ;)

However I do think a PPL should get enough training from a CFI well
trained in spins to actually recover from a spin before getting the
PPL. Doesn't have to be on the PTS. But ought to be an endorsement.
Every bit as important in my view as the x country.

[Jim Stewart]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Ricky wrote:
>>>> I was watching the 50-something spins done in a 152 on youtube and it
>>>> got me thinking;
>>>>
>>>> I seem to remember being taught during commercial training that spins
>>>> do not greatly increase G forces on the airplane, is this true?
>>>>
>>>> I also remember being warned "no spin is exactly the same or
>>>> predictable, so DON'T do them solo! Was this just a warning from my
>>>> school so we wouldn't screw up their gyros or are spins indeed
>>>> possibly very dangerous inherently for some reason?
>>>>
>>>> I would like to try some solo next time I'm up just for fun but may
>>>> take a willing CFI along (or fellow pilot) just in case.
>>>>
>>>> Would 50-something spins compromise a Cessna 150 or 152's structure?
>>>>
>>>> Another thing I'd be concerned about was getting overly dizzy beyond
>> a
>>>> handful of spins.
>>>>
>>>> Ricky
>>> Hi Rick;
>>>
>>> I'm not trying to be confrontational here but I notice you are a
>>> commercial pilot. I can't for the life of me rectify why you don't
>> know
>>> the answers to the questions you are asking here. I find it
>> incredulous
>>> that a commercial pilot could go through the process, then pass the
>>> flight test and not know these answers.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Modern life!
>> To be fair, I wouldn't have known much about structures and G limits
>> when I got my commercial either. There's certainly nothing presented
>> in the syllabus that could be described as anything more than
>> rudimentary. The current trend is to tell pilots less and less about
>> how the airplanes they fly are put together. The last type rating I
>> did was just appalling.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Again, I don't mean to be picking on the OP who innocently asked what
> I'm sure he believes to be pertinent questions. My puzzlement is more
> directed at the system that trained this pilot.
>
> A commercial pilot who has to ask if a spin greatly increases the g
> forces on an airplane?
> A commercial pilot who has to ask if spins are inherently dangerous?
>
> Things CAN'T be THIS bad....or ARE they!!!!!!

I can't speak for your field, Dudley, but in mine
I have to deal with electrical engineers that have
never touched a soldering iron and CS grads that
have never coded in assembly language.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Ricky wrote:
>>>> I was watching the 50-something spins done in a 152 on youtube and
>>>> it got me thinking;
>>>>
>>>> I seem to remember being taught during commercial training that
>>>> spins do not greatly increase G forces on the airplane, is this
>>>> true?
>>>>
>>>> I also remember being warned "no spin is exactly the same or
>>>> predictable, so DON'T do them solo! Was this just a warning from my
>>>> school so we wouldn't screw up their gyros or are spins indeed
>>>> possibly very dangerous inherently for some reason?
>>>>
>>>> I would like to try some solo next time I'm up just for fun but may
>>>> take a willing CFI along (or fellow pilot) just in case.
>>>>
>>>> Would 50-something spins compromise a Cessna 150 or 152's
>>>> structure?
>>>>
>>>> Another thing I'd be concerned about was getting overly dizzy
>>>> beyond
>> a
>>>> handful of spins.
>>>>
>>>> Ricky
>>> Hi Rick;
>>>
>>> I'm not trying to be confrontational here but I notice you are a
>>> commercial pilot. I can't for the life of me rectify why you don't
>> know
>>> the answers to the questions you are asking here. I find it
>> incredulous
>>> that a commercial pilot could go through the process, then pass the
>>> flight test and not know these answers.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Modern life!
>>
>> To be fair, I wouldn't have known much about structures and G limits
>> when I got my commercial either. There's certainly nothing presented
>> in the syllabus that could be described as anything more than
>> rudimentary. The current trend is to tell pilots less and less about
>> how the airplanes they fly are put together. The last type rating I
>> did was just appalling.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Again, I don't mean to be picking on the OP who innocently asked what
> I'm sure he believes to be pertinent questions. My puzzlement is more
> directed at the system that trained this pilot.

Likewise.

>
> A commercial pilot who has to ask if a spin greatly increases the g
> forces on an airplane?


Well, to be fair, it varies a bit

> A commercial pilot who has to ask if spins are inherently dangerous?
>
> Things CAN'T be THIS bad....or ARE they!!!!!!


Have been in some quarters for some time.. Most of the kids coming up as
FOs at my place have either never spun or have only seen them
demonstrated. Because of the other thread on it, I was talking with my
FO abou tit over dinner, and he told me that he had only had been shown
them oncece and that they had done three turns in a 172, but he thought
that the airplane must have been spiraling for the last few turns. I
told him that 172s are hard to get to go around more than about a half a
turn. He said that he queried it at the time, but was assured by the
instructor (at a big school that specialises in training airline piots)
that they were definitely spins..


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Ricky wrote:
>>>>> I was watching the 50-something spins done in a 152 on youtube and
>>>>> it got me thinking;
>>>>>
>>>>> I seem to remember being taught during commercial training that
>>>>> spins do not greatly increase G forces on the airplane, is this
>>>>> true?
>>>>>
>>>>> I also remember being warned "no spin is exactly the same or
>>>>> predictable, so DON'T do them solo! Was this just a warning from my
>>>>> school so we wouldn't screw up their gyros or are spins indeed
>>>>> possibly very dangerous inherently for some reason?
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to try some solo next time I'm up just for fun but may
>>>>> take a willing CFI along (or fellow pilot) just in case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would 50-something spins compromise a Cessna 150 or 152's
>>>>> structure?
>>>>>
>>>>> Another thing I'd be concerned about was getting overly dizzy
>>>>> beyond
>>> a
>>>>> handful of spins.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ricky
>>>> Hi Rick;
>>>>
>>>> I'm not trying to be confrontational here but I notice you are a
>>>> commercial pilot. I can't for the life of me rectify why you don't
>>> know
>>>> the answers to the questions you are asking here. I find it
>>> incredulous
>>>> that a commercial pilot could go through the process, then pass the
>>>> flight test and not know these answers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Modern life!
>>>
>>> To be fair, I wouldn't have known much about structures and G limits
>>> when I got my commercial either. There's certainly nothing presented
>>> in the syllabus that could be described as anything more than
>>> rudimentary. The current trend is to tell pilots less and less about
>>> how the airplanes they fly are put together. The last type rating I
>>> did was just appalling.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> Again, I don't mean to be picking on the OP who innocently asked what
>> I'm sure he believes to be pertinent questions. My puzzlement is more
>> directed at the system that trained this pilot.
>
> Likewise.
>
>> A commercial pilot who has to ask if a spin greatly increases the g
>> forces on an airplane?
>
>
> Well, to be fair, it varies a bit
>
>> A commercial pilot who has to ask if spins are inherently dangerous?
>>
>> Things CAN'T be THIS bad....or ARE they!!!!!!
>
>
> Have been in some quarters for some time.. Most of the kids coming up as
> FOs at my place have either never spun or have only seen them
> demonstrated. Because of the other thread on it, I was talking with my
> FO abou tit over dinner, and he told me that he had only had been shown
> them oncece and that they had done three turns in a 172, but he thought
> that the airplane must have been spiraling for the last few turns. I
> told him that 172s are hard to get to go around more than about a half a
> turn. He said that he queried it at the time, but was assured by the
> instructor (at a big school that specialises in training airline piots)
> that they were definitely spins..
>
>
> Bertie
>
I think my main concern isn't that formal instruction on spins is
missing, but rather that whoever trained this pilot apparently never
even engaged his student in a basic conversation more or less an
instructional period concerning the most general nature of the spin
environment.
It's inconceivable to me that I would send ANY applicant up for a
commercial flight test that I hadn't at least satisfied myself on the
fact that the pilot I was recommending had at least some basic
understanding about spins even though I knew the applicant wouldn't be
required to do spins.
I must be getting old or something. :-)))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Peter Dohm]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in
> news:7ec1fcb50fea9@uwe:
>
>> Ricky wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I also remember being warned "no spin is exactly the same or
>>>predictable, so DON'T do them solo! Was this just a warning from my
>>>school so we wouldn't screw up their gyros or are spins indeed
>>>possibly very dangerous inherently for some reason?
>>>
>>
>> Sounds like the school didn't have a whole lot of confidence in the
>> spin
>> training they provided. Assuming you're within the proper weight and
>> CG envelope, spins should be quite predictable. Particularly in
>> something like a 152.
>>
>> A local FBO will only allow spins in their Great Lakes aerobatic
>> trainers
>> (they also have Supercubs and Huskies) because the have cageable
>> gyros. I've often wondered if this isn't an Old Wives Tale. I've
>> been spinning my Cherokee on a fairly regular basis since 1994. The
>> gyros often tumble during spins, but that's never caused a maintenance
>> problem. I've still got the same gyros in the panel that were there
>> when I bought the plane 14 yrs. ago. They've never been removed for OH
>> and they're still working fine.
>>
>
> Holy Crap! That's amazing!
>
> It definitely wrecks gyros. The one place I worked that had no non gyro
> airplanes had one airplane ( cherokee) for spins and it's gyros barely
> showed any interest at all.
> I suppose it depends on the quality, but it is defnitely not an old
> wives tale.
>
>
> Bertie

My recollection is that a "normal" spin entry would tumble the gyros in a
150M, but not in a 152. Apparently, if my recollection of the gimbal limits
is correct, the 150 dipped through 80 degrees nose down on the entry and the
152 did not.

There seems to be a wide variation in the spin entry for various aircraft,
even when the entry is not from an accelerated stall, and there are also a
variety of non-tumbling gyros (in addition to gageable viarieties) in the GA
fleet. All of the cageable gyros that I have personally seen were the old
fashioned varieties (gull-wing horizons and those old DGs that looked like
the whiskey compass in the windshield) which would tumble on any excursion
through 60 degrees of pitch or roll if not gaged.

I have never personally seen any of the newer type gyros which were
cageable, although I presume that they exist. In any case, the newer types
(which can now be close to 40 years old) are certainly more rugged than
their predecessors.

Please treat this as a request for information and comment.

Peter

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
>> Things CAN'T be THIS bad....or ARE they!!!!!!
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques- Hide quoted text -
>
> I know the answer to those questions and I'm a mere PPL. I didn't do
> any formal ground school.
>
> I learned the answer to the g question by having two spins
> demonstrated to me.
>
> The danger part, well, doesn't that ultimately have to do with
> altitude, spin awareness, and ability to recover? Danger is relative
> to the answers to those "questions".
>
> So, I don't think things are THAT bad. ;)
>
> However I do think a PPL should get enough training from a CFI well
> trained in spins to actually recover from a spin before getting the
> PPL. Doesn't have to be on the PTS. But ought to be an endorsement.
> Every bit as important in my view as the x country.

You did the right thing familiarizing yourself with the spin
environment. I highly recommend that all pilots do that.
What we have been discussing here is nothing more than basic reading!!
I can't imagine a pilot carrying an active commercial plus an instrument
rating who hasn't at least READ something about spins.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Peter Dohm]

>
> Things CAN'T be THIS bad....or ARE they!!!!!!
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

They already were in Southeastern Florida c1980, and I doubt that they have
improved.

Peter

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Jim Stewart wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Ricky wrote:
>>>>> I was watching the 50-something spins done in a 152 on youtube and it
>>>>> got me thinking;
>>>>>
>>>>> I seem to remember being taught during commercial training that spins
>>>>> do not greatly increase G forces on the airplane, is this true?
>>>>>
>>>>> I also remember being warned "no spin is exactly the same or
>>>>> predictable, so DON'T do them solo! Was this just a warning from my
>>>>> school so we wouldn't screw up their gyros or are spins indeed
>>>>> possibly very dangerous inherently for some reason?
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to try some solo next time I'm up just for fun but may
>>>>> take a willing CFI along (or fellow pilot) just in case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would 50-something spins compromise a Cessna 150 or 152's structure?
>>>>>
>>>>> Another thing I'd be concerned about was getting overly dizzy beyond
>>> a
>>>>> handful of spins.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ricky
>>>> Hi Rick;
>>>>
>>>> I'm not trying to be confrontational here but I notice you are a
>>>> commercial pilot. I can't for the life of me rectify why you don't
>>> know
>>>> the answers to the questions you are asking here. I find it
>>> incredulous
>>>> that a commercial pilot could go through the process, then pass the
>>>> flight test and not know these answers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Modern life!
>>> To be fair, I wouldn't have known much about structures and G limits
>>> when I got my commercial either. There's certainly nothing presented
>>> in the syllabus that could be described as anything more than
>>> rudimentary. The current trend is to tell pilots less and less about
>>> how the airplanes they fly are put together. The last type rating I
>>> did was just appalling.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Again, I don't mean to be picking on the OP who innocently asked what
>> I'm sure he believes to be pertinent questions. My puzzlement is more
>> directed at the system that trained this pilot.
>>
>> A commercial pilot who has to ask if a spin greatly increases the g
>> forces on an airplane?
>> A commercial pilot who has to ask if spins are inherently dangerous?
>>
>> Things CAN'T be THIS bad....or ARE they!!!!!!
>
> I can't speak for your field, Dudley, but in mine
> I have to deal with electrical engineers that have
> never touched a soldering iron and CS grads that
> have never coded in assembly language.

I know. We have a son who was a high level head hunter for a major
company dealing with the hiring of computer science grads on the Masters
level who needed remedial training in basic algebra to go on the job.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Peter Dohm wrote:
>> Things CAN'T be THIS bad....or ARE they!!!!!!
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> They already were in Southeastern Florida c1980, and I doubt that they have
> improved.
>
> Peter
>
>

Stand um up and move um out. Kind of gives you that "safe" feeling :-)))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Ricky wrote:
>>>>>> I was watching the 50-something spins done in a 152 on youtube
>>>>>> and it got me thinking;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I seem to remember being taught during commercial training that
>>>>>> spins do not greatly increase G forces on the airplane, is this
>>>>>> true?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also remember being warned "no spin is exactly the same or
>>>>>> predictable, so DON'T do them solo! Was this just a warning from
>>>>>> my school so we wouldn't screw up their gyros or are spins indeed
>>>>>> possibly very dangerous inherently for some reason?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would like to try some solo next time I'm up just for fun but
>>>>>> may take a willing CFI along (or fellow pilot) just in case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would 50-something spins compromise a Cessna 150 or 152's
>>>>>> structure?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another thing I'd be concerned about was getting overly dizzy
>>>>>> beyond
>>>> a
>>>>>> handful of spins.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ricky
>>>>> Hi Rick;
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not trying to be confrontational here but I notice you are a
>>>>> commercial pilot. I can't for the life of me rectify why you don't
>>>> know
>>>>> the answers to the questions you are asking here. I find it
>>>> incredulous
>>>>> that a commercial pilot could go through the process, then pass
>>>>> the flight test and not know these answers.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Modern life!
>>>>
>>>> To be fair, I wouldn't have known much about structures and G
>>>> limits when I got my commercial either. There's certainly nothing
>>>> presented in the syllabus that could be described as anything more
>>>> than rudimentary. The current trend is to tell pilots less and less
>>>> about how the airplanes they fly are put together. The last type
>>>> rating I did was just appalling.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> Again, I don't mean to be picking on the OP who innocently asked
>>> what I'm sure he believes to be pertinent questions. My puzzlement
>>> is more directed at the system that trained this pilot.
>>
>> Likewise.
>>
>>> A commercial pilot who has to ask if a spin greatly increases the g
>>> forces on an airplane?
>>
>>
>> Well, to be fair, it varies a bit
>>
>>> A commercial pilot who has to ask if spins are inherently dangerous?
>>>
>>> Things CAN'T be THIS bad....or ARE they!!!!!!
>>
>>
>> Have been in some quarters for some time.. Most of the kids coming up
>> as FOs at my place have either never spun or have only seen them
>> demonstrated. Because of the other thread on it, I was talking with
>> my FO abou tit over dinner, and he told me that he had only had been
>> shown them oncece and that they had done three turns in a 172, but he
>> thought that the airplane must have been spiraling for the last few
>> turns. I told him that 172s are hard to get to go around more than
>> about a half a turn. He said that he queried it at the time, but was
>> assured by the instructor (at a big school that specialises in
>> training airline piots) that they were definitely spins..
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
> I think my main concern isn't that formal instruction on spins is
> missing, but rather that whoever trained this pilot apparently never
> even engaged his student in a basic conversation more or less an
> instructional period concerning the most general nature of the spin
> environment.
> It's inconceivable to me that I would send ANY applicant up for a
> commercial flight test that I hadn't at least satisfied myself on the
> fact that the pilot I was recommending had at least some basic
> understanding about spins even though I knew the applicant wouldn't be
> required to do spins.
> I must be getting old or something. :-)))

Well, like I said, this stuff has been happening since I've been flying.
I suppose the only consolation is that they're harder to spin thse days.
One of the guys in my club didn't kow how to slip, never mind spin..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in
>> news:7ec1fcb50fea9@uwe:
>>
>>> Ricky wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I also remember being warned "no spin is exactly the same or
>>>>predictable, so DON'T do them solo! Was this just a warning from my
>>>>school so we wouldn't screw up their gyros or are spins indeed
>>>>possibly very dangerous inherently for some reason?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sounds like the school didn't have a whole lot of confidence in
>>> the spin
>>> training they provided. Assuming you're within the proper weight
>>> and CG envelope, spins should be quite predictable. Particularly in
>>> something like a 152.
>>>
>>> A local FBO will only allow spins in their Great Lakes aerobatic
>>> trainers
>>> (they also have Supercubs and Huskies) because the have cageable
>>> gyros. I've often wondered if this isn't an Old Wives Tale. I've
>>> been spinning my Cherokee on a fairly regular basis since 1994. The
>>> gyros often tumble during spins, but that's never caused a
>>> maintenance problem. I've still got the same gyros in the panel
>>> that were there when I bought the plane 14 yrs. ago. They've never
>>> been removed for OH and they're still working fine.
>>>
>>
>> Holy Crap! That's amazing!
>>
>> It definitely wrecks gyros. The one place I worked that had no non
>> gyro airplanes had one airplane ( cherokee) for spins and it's gyros
>> barely showed any interest at all.
>> I suppose it depends on the quality, but it is defnitely not an old
>> wives tale.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> My recollection is that a "normal" spin entry would tumble the gyros
> in a 150M, but not in a 152. Apparently, if my recollection of the
> gimbal limits is correct, the 150 dipped through 80 degrees nose down
> on the entry and the 152 did not.

Well, that seems kinda strange! The airframes are essentially the
same.The CG would probably be a bit different and maybe they've riggd
the airplane differently ( decalage) I haven't got a lot of time in a
152 and in fact I don't think I've ever taught in one. I can't even
remember what a Cherokee spins like..

>
> There seems to be a wide variation in the spin entry for various
> aircraft, even when the entry is not from an accelerated stall, and
> there are also a variety of non-tumbling gyros (in addition to
> gageable viarieties) in the GA fleet. All of the cageable gyros that
> I have personally seen were the old fashioned varieties (gull-wing
> horizons and those old DGs that looked like the whiskey compass in the
> windshield) which would tumble on any excursion through 60 degrees of
> pitch or roll if not gaged.
>

True enough. sounds plausible, allright. I don't know though. Most of
the airplanes I used to spin had wrecked gyros in no time, though.

> I have never personally seen any of the newer type gyros which were
> cageable, although I presume that they exist. In any case, the newer
> types (which can now be close to 40 years old) are certainly more
> rugged than their predecessors.

I've seen them for sale OK. New ones. They're megabucks.
>
> Please treat this as a request for information and comment.


I'm not that scary!



Bertie


Bertie

[[email protected]]

> My recollection is that a "normal" spin entry would tumble the gyros in a
> 150M, but not in a 152. *Apparently, if my recollection of the gimbal limits
> is correct, the 150 dipped through 80 degrees nose down on the entry and the
> 152 did not.

Oh. The 152 goes at least to 80. I'd say inverted through 90, pretty
much, on entry.

It's got a caged gyro but when I've done spins it wasn't caged --
definitely took a tumble.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ricky wrote:
>>>>>>> I was watching the 50-something spins done in a 152 on youtube
>>>>>>> and it got me thinking;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I seem to remember being taught during commercial training that
>>>>>>> spins do not greatly increase G forces on the airplane, is this
>>>>>>> true?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also remember being warned "no spin is exactly the same or
>>>>>>> predictable, so DON'T do them solo! Was this just a warning from
>>>>>>> my school so we wouldn't screw up their gyros or are spins indeed
>>>>>>> possibly very dangerous inherently for some reason?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would like to try some solo next time I'm up just for fun but
>>>>>>> may take a willing CFI along (or fellow pilot) just in case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would 50-something spins compromise a Cessna 150 or 152's
>>>>>>> structure?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Another thing I'd be concerned about was getting overly dizzy
>>>>>>> beyond
>>>>> a
>>>>>>> handful of spins.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ricky
>>>>>> Hi Rick;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not trying to be confrontational here but I notice you are a
>>>>>> commercial pilot. I can't for the life of me rectify why you don't
>>>>> know
>>>>>> the answers to the questions you are asking here. I find it
>>>>> incredulous
>>>>>> that a commercial pilot could go through the process, then pass
>>>>>> the flight test and not know these answers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Modern life!
>>>>>
>>>>> To be fair, I wouldn't have known much about structures and G
>>>>> limits when I got my commercial either. There's certainly nothing
>>>>> presented in the syllabus that could be described as anything more
>>>>> than rudimentary. The current trend is to tell pilots less and less
>>>>> about how the airplanes they fly are put together. The last type
>>>>> rating I did was just appalling.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> Again, I don't mean to be picking on the OP who innocently asked
>>>> what I'm sure he believes to be pertinent questions. My puzzlement
>>>> is more directed at the system that trained this pilot.
>>> Likewise.
>>>
>>>> A commercial pilot who has to ask if a spin greatly increases the g
>>>> forces on an airplane?
>>>
>>> Well, to be fair, it varies a bit
>>>
>>>> A commercial pilot who has to ask if spins are inherently dangerous?
>>>>
>>>> Things CAN'T be THIS bad....or ARE they!!!!!!
>>>
>>> Have been in some quarters for some time.. Most of the kids coming up
>>> as FOs at my place have either never spun or have only seen them
>>> demonstrated. Because of the other thread on it, I was talking with
>>> my FO abou tit over dinner, and he told me that he had only had been
>>> shown them oncece and that they had done three turns in a 172, but he
>>> thought that the airplane must have been spiraling for the last few
>>> turns. I told him that 172s are hard to get to go around more than
>>> about a half a turn. He said that he queried it at the time, but was
>>> assured by the instructor (at a big school that specialises in
>>> training airline piots) that they were definitely spins..
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>> I think my main concern isn't that formal instruction on spins is
>> missing, but rather that whoever trained this pilot apparently never
>> even engaged his student in a basic conversation more or less an
>> instructional period concerning the most general nature of the spin
>> environment.
>> It's inconceivable to me that I would send ANY applicant up for a
>> commercial flight test that I hadn't at least satisfied myself on the
>> fact that the pilot I was recommending had at least some basic
>> understanding about spins even though I knew the applicant wouldn't be
>> required to do spins.
>> I must be getting old or something. :-)))
>
> Well, like I said, this stuff has been happening since I've been flying.
> I suppose the only consolation is that they're harder to spin thse days.
> One of the guys in my club didn't kow how to slip, never mind spin..
>
>
> Bertie

I slipped yesterday....damn near fell!
:-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Ricky]

On Jan 25, 5:30*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Ricky wrote:
> > I was watching the 50-something spins done in a 152 on youtube and it
> > got me thinking;
>
> > I seem to remember being taught during commercial training that spins
> > do not greatly increase G forces on the airplane, is this true?
>
> > I also remember being warned "no spin is exactly the same or
> > predictable, so DON'T do them solo! Was this just a warning from my
> > school so we wouldn't screw up their gyros or are spins indeed
> > possibly very dangerous inherently for some reason?
>
> > I would like to try some solo next time I'm up just for fun but may
> > take a willing CFI along (or fellow pilot) just in case.
>
> > Would 50-something spins compromise a Cessna 150 or 152's structure?
>
> > Another thing I'd be concerned about was getting overly dizzy beyond a
> > handful of spins.
>
> > Ricky
>
> Hi Rick;
>
> I'm not trying to be confrontational here but I notice you are a
> commercial pilot. I can't for the life of me rectify why you don't know
> the answers to the questions you are asking here. I find it incredulous
> that a commercial pilot could go through the process, then pass the
> flight test and not know these answers.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

My commercial was earned almost 20 years ago & I rarely fly now. As I
mentioned my school said "don't spin solo, they're dangerous and
unpredictable." I've never spun but want to now. Over my flying career
I've heard that a 152 has little problem with G loads during spins but
I wanted confirmation.
The part 141 school I went to was a lousy place who used an easy FAA
examiner b/c they're training was so poor. For example my instrument/
commercial ride was a single ILS approach which turned into a
localizer app. when I discovered the inop glideslope, and a trip
around the pattern in the Arrow, all because it was getting dark and
he had a private candidate waiting for his ride.
So, no, I don't know absolutely the danger of spinning a 152 and have
been "taught" different views...which is the purpose of my post. I
guess the knowledge I should have as a commercial pilot is not only
rusty, but was cut way short by the cheap school I chose.

Ricky

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ricky wrote:
>>>>>>>> I was watching the 50-something spins done in a 152 on youtube
>>>>>>>> and it got me thinking;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I seem to remember being taught during commercial training that
>>>>>>>> spins do not greatly increase G forces on the airplane, is this
>>>>>>>> true?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I also remember being warned "no spin is exactly the same or
>>>>>>>> predictable, so DON'T do them solo! Was this just a warning
>>>>>>>> from my school so we wouldn't screw up their gyros or are spins
>>>>>>>> indeed possibly very dangerous inherently for some reason?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would like to try some solo next time I'm up just for fun but
>>>>>>>> may take a willing CFI along (or fellow pilot) just in case.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Would 50-something spins compromise a Cessna 150 or 152's
>>>>>>>> structure?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Another thing I'd be concerned about was getting overly dizzy
>>>>>>>> beyond
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> handful of spins.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ricky
>>>>>>> Hi Rick;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not trying to be confrontational here but I notice you are a
>>>>>>> commercial pilot. I can't for the life of me rectify why you
>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>> know
>>>>>>> the answers to the questions you are asking here. I find it
>>>>>> incredulous
>>>>>>> that a commercial pilot could go through the process, then pass
>>>>>>> the flight test and not know these answers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Modern life!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To be fair, I wouldn't have known much about structures and G
>>>>>> limits when I got my commercial either. There's certainly nothing
>>>>>> presented in the syllabus that could be described as anything
>>>>>> more than rudimentary. The current trend is to tell pilots less
>>>>>> and less about how the airplanes they fly are put together. The
>>>>>> last type rating I did was just appalling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> Again, I don't mean to be picking on the OP who innocently asked
>>>>> what I'm sure he believes to be pertinent questions. My puzzlement
>>>>> is more directed at the system that trained this pilot.
>>>> Likewise.
>>>>
>>>>> A commercial pilot who has to ask if a spin greatly increases the
>>>>> g forces on an airplane?
>>>>
>>>> Well, to be fair, it varies a bit
>>>>
>>>>> A commercial pilot who has to ask if spins are inherently
>>>>> dangerous?
>>>>>
>>>>> Things CAN'T be THIS bad....or ARE they!!!!!!
>>>>
>>>> Have been in some quarters for some time.. Most of the kids coming
>>>> up as FOs at my place have either never spun or have only seen them
>>>> demonstrated. Because of the other thread on it, I was talking with
>>>> my FO abou tit over dinner, and he told me that he had only had
>>>> been shown them oncece and that they had done three turns in a 172,
>>>> but he thought that the airplane must have been spiraling for the
>>>> last few turns. I told him that 172s are hard to get to go around
>>>> more than about a half a turn. He said that he queried it at the
>>>> time, but was assured by the instructor (at a big school that
>>>> specialises in training airline piots) that they were definitely
>>>> spins..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>> I think my main concern isn't that formal instruction on spins is
>>> missing, but rather that whoever trained this pilot apparently never
>>> even engaged his student in a basic conversation more or less an
>>> instructional period concerning the most general nature of the spin
>>> environment.
>>> It's inconceivable to me that I would send ANY applicant up for a
>>> commercial flight test that I hadn't at least satisfied myself on
>>> the fact that the pilot I was recommending had at least some basic
>>> understanding about spins even though I knew the applicant wouldn't
>>> be required to do spins.
>>> I must be getting old or something. :-)))
>>
>> Well, like I said, this stuff has been happening since I've been
>> flying. I suppose the only consolation is that they're harder to spin
>> thse days. One of the guys in my club didn't kow how to slip, never
>> mind spin..
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I slipped yesterday....damn near fell!
>:-)
>

Groan!

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Ricky > wrote in news:6673c0ef-fe3c-43af-95c3-
:
>
> My commercial was earned almost 20 years ago & I rarely fly now. As I
> mentioned my school said "don't spin solo, they're dangerous and
> unpredictable." I've never spun but want to now. Over my flying career
> I've heard that a 152 has little problem with G loads during spins but
> I wanted confirmation.
> The part 141 school I went to was a lousy place who used an easy FAA
> examiner b/c they're training was so poor. For example my instrument/
> commercial ride was a single ILS approach which turned into a
> localizer app. when I discovered the inop glideslope, and a trip
> around the pattern in the Arrow, all because it was getting dark and
> he had a private candidate waiting for his ride.
> So, no, I don't know absolutely the danger of spinning a 152 and have
> been "taught" different views...which is the purpose of my post. I
> guess the knowledge I should have as a commercial pilot is not only
> rusty, but was cut way short by the cheap school I chose.


Fairly evident from your earlier posts, but doesn't matter in your case
since you want to fix it!
My suggestion if you want to fix and since you're not hampered by paper
chasing is to go off and learn aerobatics. Find someone who knows what
they're doing to teach you. There are simple five hour introductory courses
if you're strapped for cash or you oculd just do it when able , but if you
have the dough go out and splurge.
No exotics, BTW. Extras and Pitts are too easy and you won't learn as much.
Find a Great Lakes or a Citabria. The tailwheel experience will teach you a
lot as well.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Ricky wrote:
> On Jan 25, 5:30 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Ricky wrote:
>>> I was watching the 50-something spins done in a 152 on youtube and it
>>> got me thinking;
>>> I seem to remember being taught during commercial training that spins
>>> do not greatly increase G forces on the airplane, is this true?
>>> I also remember being warned "no spin is exactly the same or
>>> predictable, so DON'T do them solo! Was this just a warning from my
>>> school so we wouldn't screw up their gyros or are spins indeed
>>> possibly very dangerous inherently for some reason?
>>> I would like to try some solo next time I'm up just for fun but may
>>> take a willing CFI along (or fellow pilot) just in case.
>>> Would 50-something spins compromise a Cessna 150 or 152's structure?
>>> Another thing I'd be concerned about was getting overly dizzy beyond a
>>> handful of spins.
>>> Ricky
>> Hi Rick;
>>
>> I'm not trying to be confrontational here but I notice you are a
>> commercial pilot. I can't for the life of me rectify why you don't know
>> the answers to the questions you are asking here. I find it incredulous
>> that a commercial pilot could go through the process, then pass the
>> flight test and not know these answers.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> My commercial was earned almost 20 years ago & I rarely fly now. As I
> mentioned my school said "don't spin solo, they're dangerous and
> unpredictable." I've never spun but want to now. Over my flying career
> I've heard that a 152 has little problem with G loads during spins but
> I wanted confirmation.
> The part 141 school I went to was a lousy place who used an easy FAA
> examiner b/c they're training was so poor. For example my instrument/
> commercial ride was a single ILS approach which turned into a
> localizer app. when I discovered the inop glideslope, and a trip
> around the pattern in the Arrow, all because it was getting dark and
> he had a private candidate waiting for his ride.
> So, no, I don't know absolutely the danger of spinning a 152 and have
> been "taught" different views...which is the purpose of my post. I
> guess the knowledge I should have as a commercial pilot is not only
> rusty, but was cut way short by the cheap school I chose.
>
> Ricky
I would second what the Bunyip has said above. Sign up for a basic
aerobatic course with a qualified instructor. That should bring you not
only up to speed but round out your basic flying as well.
It will probably be the best money you have ever spent for flying, and
the most productive.


--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

> So, no, I don't know absolutely the danger of spinning a 152 and have
> been "taught" different views...which is the purpose of my post. I
> guess the knowledge I should have as a commercial pilot is not only
> rusty, but was cut way short by the cheap school I chose.
>
> Ricky- Hide quoted text -

I betcha you could go up and so some spins in the 150 over at
McGregor. I know at least one of the instructors over there does that
on occasion.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 26, 8:04*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Ricky wrote:
> > On Jan 25, 5:30 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> Ricky wrote:
> >>> I was watching the 50-something spins done in a 152 on youtube and it
> >>> got me thinking;
> >>> I seem to remember being taught during commercial training that spins
> >>> do not greatly increase G forces on the airplane, is this true?
> >>> I also remember being warned "no spin is exactly the same or
> >>> predictable, so DON'T do them solo! Was this just a warning from my
> >>> school so we wouldn't screw up their gyros or are spins indeed
> >>> possibly very dangerous inherently for some reason?
> >>> I would like to try some solo next time I'm up just for fun but may
> >>> take a willing CFI along (or fellow pilot) just in case.
> >>> Would 50-something spins compromise a Cessna 150 or 152's structure?
> >>> Another thing I'd be concerned about was getting overly dizzy beyond a
> >>> handful of spins.
> >>> Ricky
> >> Hi Rick;
>
> >> I'm not trying to be confrontational here but I notice you are a
> >> commercial pilot. I can't for the life of me rectify why you don't know
> >> the answers to the questions you are asking here. I find it incredulous
> >> that a commercial pilot could go through the process, then pass the
> >> flight test and not know these answers.
>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > My commercial was earned almost 20 years ago & I rarely fly now. As I
> > mentioned my school said "don't spin solo, they're dangerous and
> > unpredictable." I've never spun but want to now. Over my flying career
> > I've heard that a 152 has little problem with G loads during spins but
> > I wanted confirmation.
> > The part 141 school I went to was a lousy place who used an easy FAA
> > examiner b/c they're training was so poor. For example my instrument/
> > commercial ride was a single ILS approach which turned into a
> > localizer app. when I discovered the inop glideslope, and a trip
> > around the pattern in the Arrow, all because it was getting dark and
> > he had a private candidate waiting for his ride.
> > So, no, I don't know absolutely the danger of spinning a 152 and have
> > been "taught" different views...which is the purpose of my post. I
> > guess the knowledge I should have as a commercial pilot is not only
> > rusty, but was cut way short by the cheap school I chose.
>
> > Ricky
>
> I would second what the Bunyip has said above. Sign up for a basic
> aerobatic course with a qualified instructor. That should bring you not
> only up to speed but round out your basic flying as well.
> It will probably be the best money you have ever spent for flying, and
> the most productive.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes, better than doing a spin with a random over at McGregor!

Check out University Flying Club, too, they've got an A152 and an
instructor who has been doing aerobatics instruction for many years
(though maybe there's somebody around Waco?)

http://studentorgs.utexas.edu/flying/

[Jim Logajan]

John Smith > wrote:
> In article >,
> Jim Stewart > wrote:
>
>> I can't speak for your field, Dudley, but in mine
>> I have to deal with electrical engineers that have
>> never touched a soldering iron and CS grads that
>> have never coded in assembly language.
>
> When I was in school for EE 35 years ago, I was the treasurer for the
> ham radio club. I had to go to our advisor for a signature. When I went
> into his office he was gazing at a perfboard circuit, and shook his
> head. He showed it to me and I noted the globs of solder attaching the
> components. He then commented on how grad students should not be
> allowed into the program until they could demonstrate proper solder
> technique.

I strongly disagree with the essential complaint of Stewart and Smith. The
second E in EE is engineer. Engineers design electronic circuits - having
the personal skills to build them is secondary at best. And soldering as an
example of a demanded skill? I think you guys are showing your age! ;-)
These days circuit boards use surface mount soldered components - even that
is for the few remaining components that aren't included on the integrated
circuits. For that the EE should have some knowledge of solid state physics
at both the theoretical and empirical level.

No one would reasonably demand (at least I wouldn't!) that civil engineers,
or mechanical engineers must be proficient at welding, running a lathe,
running a milling machine, laying bricks, woodworking, plumbing, electrical
wiring, and so on before they can be considered competent engineers.

Lastly, when running into a "problem" EE who can't solder, what precisely
was wrong with suggesting the person try using plugboards or wirewrap? (My
older brother used wirewrap to build an S-100 bus graphics card back around
1980. Worked fine.)

[Ricky]

On Jan 26, 2:11*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

[Ricky]

On Jan 26, 8:49*am, wrote:
> > So, no, I don't know absolutely the danger of spinning a 152 and have
> > been "taught" different views...which is the purpose of my post. I
> > guess the knowledge I should have as a commercial pilot is not only
> > rusty, but was cut way short by the cheap school I chose.
>
> > Ricky- Hide quoted text -
>
> I betcha you could go up and so some spins in the 150 over at
> McGregor. I know at least one of the instructors over there does that
> on occasion.

Is it Keith H. (last name abbreviated on purpose) you know? He's an
instructor at Aurora and is a good friend of mine.

Good to know Aurora has a 150 that they'll allow spins in. As soon as
the pocketbook allows I'll get my BFR over there.
I heard they also have a new generation 172 (not a glass cockpit, just
new).

Ricky

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Ricky > wrote in
:

> On Jan 26, 2:11*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> .
>> Find a Great Lakes or a Citabria. The tailwheel experience will teach
>> you
> a
>> lot as well.
>>
>> Bertie-
>
> Among the three part 141 schools I went to, Le Tourneau University was
> the best. I went there with my commercial / instrument in hand,
> preparing to go through CFII, multi & A&P. The high quality, serious
> level of instruction at Le Tourneau quickly overwhelmed me as did the
> huge expense of this small, private, Christian school. I had to leave
> after one semester because I simply couldn't afford it. I was also
> quite the irresponsible idiot at the time who'd rather play than
> study, so the caliber of instruction at Le Tourneau was something I
> could not handle.
>
> I did, however, get my checkout in their Citabria which they used for
> tailwheel training and spins for the CFI candidates. We were not
> allowed to do aerobatics in the Citabria or fly solo, but it remains
> some of the best training and most rewarding flying I've done. The
> Citabria was loads of fun and I caught on really fast. In an hour I
> was doing it all alone, including wheelies and 3 pointers. Far too
> many schools don't offer tailwheel checkouts, at Le Tourneau it was
> required for graduation, as was a landing at DFW in an Archer or Arrow
> (and the landing fee came out of YOUR pocket). BTW the Warriors,
> Archers & Arrows were all air conditioned at Le Tourneau which was
> great in the Texas Summer!
>
> The suggestion for aerobatic instruction is well-received and when I
> can afford it, I'll do it. My short term plan at the moment is to
> finish my A&P and 2 yr. degree, get a job and then jump back into
> flight instruction, finishing my flight degree started long ago and
> getting my CFII & multi. TSTC has an above-average rating among those
> I've talked with so I'm anticipating good instruction. It will take a
> while to get up to snuff on my commercial / instrument before
> progressing into CFI. There are many places in the DFW area (bit over
> an hour drive north) offering aerobatic instruction and I even know
> one or two locally.
>
> You said the Pitts was "easy," implying the Citabria was not as easy?
> I got the impression in my 10 or so hours in the Citabria that it was
> a pretty easy airplane to fly & land. Did you mean it's a bit
> challenging for aerobatics, moreso than a Pitts?


Yes, exactly, The Pitts is a lot more difficult to land than the
Citabria. I've only flown two easier taildraggers than a Citabria and
that's the Hatz and the Aeronca Sedan. And mabye a Taylorcraft.
>
> My dad built a Pitts in the 70s and sold it within a year because he
> didn't like the way it flew. I was just a wee lad but I seem to
> remember his not liking the speed and instability, and he had little
> interest in aerobatics. So he took it to a few airshows and won awards
> for quality of construction, finish and decor and then sold it after
> spending over 5 years building the thing. He really loved working on
> planes as much as flying them & was a perfectionist.
>

Yeah, I've flown two in my early years and found them a handful then,
probably wouldn't find them so much of a handful now, but thye do keep
your attentin on the ground.
The problem with them doing rolls in particualr is all you really have
to do to do a passable roll is slap the sick to the side and it will go
around. Doing them in a Citabria requires you to do everything right or
it's a bi tof a mess. Bipes are better becasue they're stringer and
draggier and if you **** up you have a far greater margin than you would
in a Citabria or Decathlon. That's why I suggested the Great Lakes.



Bertie

[[email protected]]

> Good to know Aurora has a 150 that they'll allow spins in. As soon as
> the pocketbook allows I'll get my BFR over there.
> I heard they also have a new generation 172 (not a glass cockpit, just
> new).
>
> Ricky

I met Keith briefly once recently.

Hmm. Well, I don't know if they allow spins without instructor -- UFC
does.

I was thinking of Travis, who told me he sometimes goes and does a
spin or two in the 150 "to blow off steam". But I didn't ask if they
allow spins as a rule. That was my checkride plane, by the way.
Switched from AUS to PWG at the last minute. Not a recommended
procedure, a last minute type switch-a-roo, by-the-by!

Glass 172 is pricey, compared to my club.

[Peter Dohm]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in
>>> news:7ec1fcb50fea9@uwe:
>>>
>>>> Ricky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I also remember being warned "no spin is exactly the same or
>>>>>predictable, so DON'T do them solo! Was this just a warning from my
>>>>>school so we wouldn't screw up their gyros or are spins indeed
>>>>>possibly very dangerous inherently for some reason?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like the school didn't have a whole lot of confidence in
>>>> the spin
>>>> training they provided. Assuming you're within the proper weight
>>>> and CG envelope, spins should be quite predictable. Particularly in
>>>> something like a 152.
>>>>
>>>> A local FBO will only allow spins in their Great Lakes aerobatic
>>>> trainers
>>>> (they also have Supercubs and Huskies) because the have cageable
>>>> gyros. I've often wondered if this isn't an Old Wives Tale. I've
>>>> been spinning my Cherokee on a fairly regular basis since 1994. The
>>>> gyros often tumble during spins, but that's never caused a
>>>> maintenance problem. I've still got the same gyros in the panel
>>>> that were there when I bought the plane 14 yrs. ago. They've never
>>>> been removed for OH and they're still working fine.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Holy Crap! That's amazing!
>>>
>>> It definitely wrecks gyros. The one place I worked that had no non
>>> gyro airplanes had one airplane ( cherokee) for spins and it's gyros
>>> barely showed any interest at all.
>>> I suppose it depends on the quality, but it is defnitely not an old
>>> wives tale.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> My recollection is that a "normal" spin entry would tumble the gyros
>> in a 150M, but not in a 152. Apparently, if my recollection of the
>> gimbal limits is correct, the 150 dipped through 80 degrees nose down
>> on the entry and the 152 did not.
>
> Well, that seems kinda strange! The airframes are essentially the
> same.The CG would probably be a bit different and maybe they've riggd
> the airplane differently ( decalage) I haven't got a lot of time in a
> 152 and in fact I don't think I've ever taught in one. I can't even
> remember what a Cherokee spins like..
>
>>
>> There seems to be a wide variation in the spin entry for various
>> aircraft, even when the entry is not from an accelerated stall, and
>> there are also a variety of non-tumbling gyros (in addition to
>> gageable viarieties) in the GA fleet. All of the cageable gyros that
>> I have personally seen were the old fashioned varieties (gull-wing
>> horizons and those old DGs that looked like the whiskey compass in the
>> windshield) which would tumble on any excursion through 60 degrees of
>> pitch or roll if not gaged.
>>
>
> True enough. sounds plausible, allright. I don't know though. Most of
> the airplanes I used to spin had wrecked gyros in no time, though.
>
>> I have never personally seen any of the newer type gyros which were
>> cageable, although I presume that they exist. In any case, the newer
>> types (which can now be close to 40 years old) are certainly more
>> rugged than their predecessors.
>
> I've seen them for sale OK. New ones. They're megabucks.

A friend was showing around a couple of copies of Aviation Consumer at a
meeting earlier today. One of them did indeed have pictures of two brands
of cageable artificial horizons, but circumstances did not permit me to find
the price, and both of the gyros shown were electric. A quick web search
was not informative as to the cost of TSO'd vacuum powered gyros with the
cageable feature,as would be used as a replacement part for a typical
trainer, but it does appear that you are correct--they are expensive and the
DGs would be similar.
>>
>> Please treat this as a request for information and comment.
>
>
> I'm not that scary!
>
>
That didn't apply to any one person, and someone might know something that
the rest of us have missed.

Peter

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in
:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>> "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in
>>>> news:7ec1fcb50fea9@uwe:
>>>>
>>>>> Ricky wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I also remember being warned "no spin is exactly the same or
>>>>>>predictable, so DON'T do them solo! Was this just a warning from
>>>>>>my school so we wouldn't screw up their gyros or are spins indeed
>>>>>>possibly very dangerous inherently for some reason?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like the school didn't have a whole lot of confidence in
>>>>> the spin
>>>>> training they provided. Assuming you're within the proper weight
>>>>> and CG envelope, spins should be quite predictable. Particularly
>>>>> in something like a 152.
>>>>>
>>>>> A local FBO will only allow spins in their Great Lakes aerobatic
>>>>> trainers
>>>>> (they also have Supercubs and Huskies) because the have cageable
>>>>> gyros. I've often wondered if this isn't an Old Wives Tale.
>>>>> I've been spinning my Cherokee on a fairly regular basis since
>>>>> 1994. The gyros often tumble during spins, but that's never
>>>>> caused a maintenance problem. I've still got the same gyros in
>>>>> the panel that were there when I bought the plane 14 yrs. ago.
>>>>> They've never been removed for OH and they're still working fine.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Holy Crap! That's amazing!
>>>>
>>>> It definitely wrecks gyros. The one place I worked that had no non
>>>> gyro airplanes had one airplane ( cherokee) for spins and it's
>>>> gyros barely showed any interest at all.
>>>> I suppose it depends on the quality, but it is defnitely not an old
>>>> wives tale.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> My recollection is that a "normal" spin entry would tumble the gyros
>>> in a 150M, but not in a 152. Apparently, if my recollection of the
>>> gimbal limits is correct, the 150 dipped through 80 degrees nose
>>> down on the entry and the 152 did not.
>>
>> Well, that seems kinda strange! The airframes are essentially the
>> same.The CG would probably be a bit different and maybe they've riggd
>> the airplane differently ( decalage) I haven't got a lot of time in
>> a 152 and in fact I don't think I've ever taught in one. I can't even
>> remember what a Cherokee spins like..
>>
>>>
>>> There seems to be a wide variation in the spin entry for various
>>> aircraft, even when the entry is not from an accelerated stall, and
>>> there are also a variety of non-tumbling gyros (in addition to
>>> gageable viarieties) in the GA fleet. All of the cageable gyros
>>> that I have personally seen were the old fashioned varieties
>>> (gull-wing horizons and those old DGs that looked like the whiskey
>>> compass in the windshield) which would tumble on any excursion
>>> through 60 degrees of pitch or roll if not gaged.
>>>
>>
>> True enough. sounds plausible, allright. I don't know though. Most of
>> the airplanes I used to spin had wrecked gyros in no time, though.
>>
>>> I have never personally seen any of the newer type gyros which were
>>> cageable, although I presume that they exist. In any case, the
>>> newer types (which can now be close to 40 years old) are certainly
>>> more rugged than their predecessors.
>>
>> I've seen them for sale OK. New ones. They're megabucks.
>
> A friend was showing around a couple of copies of Aviation Consumer at
> a meeting earlier today. One of them did indeed have pictures of two
> brands of cageable artificial horizons, but circumstances did not
> permit me to find the price, and both of the gyros shown were
> electric. A quick web search was not informative as to the cost of
> TSO'd vacuum powered gyros with the cageable feature,as would be used
> as a replacement part for a typical trainer, but it does appear that
> you are correct--they are expensive and the DGs would be similar.

Yeah. A friend of mine has a Yak 52 and that has a 360 deg gyro ( that
reads backwards, ground above, sky below) It'd probably last forever. it
looks pretty hefty, though.
>>>
>>> Please treat this as a request for information and comment.
>>
>>
>> I'm not that scary!
>>
>>
> That didn't apply to any one person, and someone might know something
> that the rest of us have missed.
>

Kay. now I'm disappointed that I'm not that scary.



Bertie


Bertie>

[Peter Dohm]

>>>>
>>>> Please treat this as a request for information and comment.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not that scary!
>>>
>>>
>> That didn't apply to any one person, and someone might know something
>> that the rest of us have missed.
>>
>
> Kay. now I'm disappointed that I'm not that scary.
>
>
>
There's just no pleasin' some folks.

Peter

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in news:WVPmj.49325$k27.34902
@bignews2.bellsouth.net:

>>>>>
>>>>> Please treat this as a request for information and comment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not that scary!
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That didn't apply to any one person, and someone might know something
>>> that the rest of us have missed.
>>>
>>
>> Kay. now I'm disappointed that I'm not that scary.
>>
>>
>>
> There's just no pleasin' some folks.
>

Now I'm unhappy that you think I'm a fussbudget.


Bertie

[NW_Pilot]

"Ricky" > wrote in message
...
>
> I was watching the 50-something spins done in a 152 on youtube and it
> got me thinking;
>
> I seem to remember being taught during commercial training that spins
> do not greatly increase G forces on the airplane, is this true?
>
> I also remember being warned "no spin is exactly the same or
> predictable, so DON'T do them solo! Was this just a warning from my
> school so we wouldn't screw up their gyros or are spins indeed
> possibly very dangerous inherently for some reason?
>
> I would like to try some solo next time I'm up just for fun but may
> take a willing CFI along (or fellow pilot) just in case.
>
> Would 50-something spins compromise a Cessna 150 or 152's structure?
>
> Another thing I'd be concerned about was getting overly dizzy beyond a
> handful of spins.
>
> Ricky

I Spin my 150-M all the time solo it's fun do it in an area where a landing
can be made with out harm just incase.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote

> No one would reasonably demand (at least I wouldn't!) that civil
> engineers,
> or mechanical engineers must be proficient at welding, running a lathe,
> running a milling machine, laying bricks, woodworking, plumbing,
> electrical
> wiring, and so on before they can be considered competent engineers.

I've run into civil engineers that didn't know what good wet concrete looked
like, or which end of a hammer was used to hit a nail, or how to use a
framing square to figure out how to figure out a roof pitch.

They drew plans that indicated their lack of grip on the subject.

I would not expect a civil engineer to have skills on the level of a
journeyman carpenter or mason.

They sure as hell should have a working knowledge of the skills they are
asking workers to employ, to build their plans. How else can they possibly
know how to engineer a job that gets the best bang for the buck? I've even
seen plans that could not be built as drawn. (many of them- I've always
thought that they should have 1 year of labor experience in their field, to
be able to walk for their diploma) If the engineer had ever done a little
building, they would have known that.

I wouldn't expect a software EE to be able to solder up, or repair a circuit
board. I would expect a hardware EE to be able to do some soldering, and
for sure, be able to examine a board and see if all of the solder joints and
traces look good.

Yes, I know that an EE is and EE, and they don't give two separate degrees.
They do specialize, and if they are hiring on as a software engineer, that
should be indicated by what experiences they have had on their resume and
transcripts.
--
Jim in NC

[birdog]

As an 80 year old ex-pilot, I am astonished at all this talk about spins by
presumibly experienced pilots! When I went thru training a century ago, we
did spins before we soloed! Of course, virtually every aircraft in that day
was prone to inadvertant spins, whereas GA aircraft today are almost
incapable of spinning. In addition, we were recovering from unusual
attitudes under the hood (needle, ball and airspeed, no gyros) and
recovering from inverted with minimum loss of altitude (don't remember what
the minimum was at the time, but it wasn't much) before we were signed off
as competent of unconditional flight.

I really enjoy this NG, learning a lot about all the aids and equipment
available nowdays, and especially enjoy the discussions on airmanship.

They grounded my ass quite some time ago, but my heart is still in the air.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

birdog wrote:
> As an 80 year old ex-pilot, I am astonished at all this talk about spins by
> presumibly experienced pilots! When I went thru training a century ago, we
> did spins before we soloed! Of course, virtually every aircraft in that day
> was prone to inadvertant spins, whereas GA aircraft today are almost
> incapable of spinning. In addition, we were recovering from unusual
> attitudes under the hood (needle, ball and airspeed, no gyros) and
> recovering from inverted with minimum loss of altitude (don't remember what
> the minimum was at the time, but it wasn't much) before we were signed off
> as competent of unconditional flight.
>
> I really enjoy this NG, learning a lot about all the aids and equipment
> available nowdays, and especially enjoy the discussions on airmanship.
>
> They grounded my ass quite some time ago, but my heart is still in the air.
>
>
Your points are well taken, but in the interest of clarity, I wouldn't
make the comparison between the GA planes of yesterday and today going
quite so far as to say the GA planes today are "almost incapable of
spinning". This simply isn't true, and if the two aerodynamic factors
required for a spin to occur are present, (stall and yaw), the vast
majority of the current crop of the GA fleet will indeed spin.


--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

> TSTC has an above-average rating among those
> I've talked with so I'm anticipating good instruction.
> ...
> Ricky

Does TSTC rent planes to anybody but enrolled students of TSTC?

It aggravates me that McGregor is the only place around renting. Up in
Tulsa a 152 rental is 65 an hour wet. At McGregor they've gone up to
90!

Fer Pete's sake ... we need some competion in the HOT.

[Ricky]

On Jan 27, 9:18*pm, wrote:
> > TSTC has an above-average rating among those
> > I've talked with so I'm anticipating good instruction.
> > *...
> > Ricky
>
> Does TSTC rent planes to anybody but enrolled students of TSTC?
>
> It aggravates me that McGregor is the only place around renting. Up in
> Tulsa a 152 rental is 65 an hour wet. At McGregor they've gone up to
> 90!
>
> Fer Pete's sake ... we need some competion in the HOT.

I'm not in pilot training there, in A&P school, but I am almost
positive the planes are only for students. I did go through part of
their pilot training and at the time, 12 or so years ago, the planes
were student-only.

I just found out tonight that if one works for RAM Aircraft at ACT
they have a 172, 210 and maybe a 206 that goes dirt cheap as an
employee benefit for rated pilots. $20 bucks an hour wet for the 172,
$40 for the 210!!!! Wow, makes me want to give RAM an application in a
few months when I'm done with school!

Wow, $95 for a 152?! Sheesh...

Enrolled TSTC students enjoy quite the low rates on the schools planes
from what I've heard, which is typical for a part 141 school I think.

Ricky

[[email protected]]

On Jan 27, 11:36*pm, Ricky > wrote:
> On Jan 27, 9:18*pm, wrote:
>
> > > TSTC has an above-average rating among those
> > > I've talked with so I'm anticipating good instruction.
> > > *...
> > > Ricky
>
> > Does TSTC rent planes to anybody but enrolled students of TSTC?
>
> > It aggravates me that McGregor is the only place around renting. Up in
> > Tulsa a 152 rental is 65 an hour wet. At McGregor they've gone up to
> > 90!
>
> > Fer Pete's sake ... we need some competion in the HOT.
>
> I'm not in pilot training there, in A&P school, but I am almost
> positive the planes are only for students. I did go through part of
> their pilot training and at the time, 12 or so years ago, the planes
> were student-only.
>
> I just found out tonight that if one works for RAM Aircraft at ACT
> they have a 172, 210 and maybe a 206 that goes dirt cheap as an
> employee benefit for rated pilots. $20 bucks an hour wet for the 172,
> $40 for the 210!!!! Wow, makes me want to give RAM an application in a
> few months when I'm done with school!
>
> Wow, $95 for a 152?! Sheesh...
>
> Enrolled TSTC students enjoy quite the low rates on the schools planes
> from what I've heard, which is typical for a part 141 school I think.
>
> Ricky

You know what? Maybe I'll enroll for a semester or two. One class a
semester ... I've wanted to do some A&P stuff anyhow. $90 an hour. All
this talk of user fees pales in comparison -- although those fees in
addition would put me squarely in the VFR only fly-from-your-grass-
airstrip-avoid-control-tower-airspace camp.

[birdog]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> birdog wrote:
>> As an 80 year old ex-pilot, I am astonished at all this talk about spins
>> by presumibly experienced pilots! When I went thru training a century
>> ago, we did spins before we soloed! Of course, virtually every aircraft
>> in that day was prone to inadvertant spins, whereas GA aircraft today are
>> almost incapable of spinning. In addition, we were recovering from
>> unusual attitudes under the hood (needle, ball and airspeed, no gyros)
>> and recovering from inverted with minimum loss of altitude (don't
>> remember what the minimum was at the time, but it wasn't much) before we
>> were signed off as competent of unconditional flight.
>>
>> I really enjoy this NG, learning a lot about all the aids and equipment
>> available nowdays, and especially enjoy the discussions on airmanship.
>>
>> They grounded my ass quite some time ago, but my heart is still in the
>> air.
> Your points are well taken, but in the interest of clarity, I wouldn't
> make the comparison between the GA planes of yesterday and today going
> quite so far as to say the GA planes today are "almost incapable of
> spinning". This simply isn't true, and if the two aerodynamic factors
> required for a spin to occur are present, (stall and yaw), the vast
> majority of the current crop of the GA fleet will indeed spin.
>
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Point well taken. Most of my latter day flying was Tripacers, Cessnas,
Bellancas, Mooneys - not aircraft you would take up to practice aerobatics.
Along the way an Aerobat and a Citabra for foolish endevours. Had an 7AC
Champ that would NOT spin solo. Had an old P51 pilot try it, among others.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

birdog wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> birdog wrote:
>>> As an 80 year old ex-pilot, I am astonished at all this talk about spins
>>> by presumibly experienced pilots! When I went thru training a century
>>> ago, we did spins before we soloed! Of course, virtually every aircraft
>>> in that day was prone to inadvertant spins, whereas GA aircraft today are
>>> almost incapable of spinning. In addition, we were recovering from
>>> unusual attitudes under the hood (needle, ball and airspeed, no gyros)
>>> and recovering from inverted with minimum loss of altitude (don't
>>> remember what the minimum was at the time, but it wasn't much) before we
>>> were signed off as competent of unconditional flight.
>>>
>>> I really enjoy this NG, learning a lot about all the aids and equipment
>>> available nowdays, and especially enjoy the discussions on airmanship.
>>>
>>> They grounded my ass quite some time ago, but my heart is still in the
>>> air.
>> Your points are well taken, but in the interest of clarity, I wouldn't
>> make the comparison between the GA planes of yesterday and today going
>> quite so far as to say the GA planes today are "almost incapable of
>> spinning". This simply isn't true, and if the two aerodynamic factors
>> required for a spin to occur are present, (stall and yaw), the vast
>> majority of the current crop of the GA fleet will indeed spin.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Point well taken. Most of my latter day flying was Tripacers, Cessnas,
> Bellancas, Mooneys - not aircraft you would take up to practice aerobatics.
> Along the way an Aerobat and a Citabra for foolish endevours. Had an 7AC
> Champ that would NOT spin solo. Had an old P51 pilot try it, among others.
>
>
You and I probably learned to fly around the same period. It's funny
about the "old P51 pilot" and the Champ. I have a few hours in P51's
myself and have spun the Champ many times. I can't explain why the 7AC
you are referring to wouldn't spin, but I've never had problems spinning
them. The only variable I can see in the Champ equation might have been
pilot weight and fuel, but I've never run into this issue with a Champ.
There are several Champ owners on the forum who might be able to shed
some light on why yours wouldn't spin.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Ricky]

On Jan 28, 6:32*am, wrote:
> On Jan 27, 11:36*pm, Ricky > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 27, 9:18*pm, wrote:
>
> > > > TSTC has an above-average rating among those
> > > > I've talked with so I'm anticipating good instruction.
> > > > *...
> > > > Ricky
>
> > > Does TSTC rent planes to anybody but enrolled students of TSTC?
>
> > > It aggravates me that McGregor is the only place around renting. Up in
> > > Tulsa a 152 rental is 65 an hour wet. At McGregor they've gone up to
> > > 90!
>
> > > Fer Pete's sake ... we need some competion in the HOT.
>
> > I'm not in pilot training there, in A&P school, but I am almost
> > positive the planes are only for students. I did go through part of
> > their pilot training and at the time, 12 or so years ago, the planes
> > were student-only.
>
> > I just found out tonight that if one works for RAM Aircraft at ACT
> > they have a 172, 210 and maybe a 206 that goes dirt cheap as an
> > employee benefit for rated pilots. $20 bucks an hour wet for the 172,
> > $40 for the 210!!!! Wow, makes me want to give RAM an application in a
> > few months when I'm done with school!
>
> > Wow, $95 for a 152?! Sheesh...
>
> > Enrolled TSTC students enjoy quite the low rates on the schools planes
> > from what I've heard, which is typical for a part 141 school I think.
>
> > Ricky
>
> You know what? Maybe I'll enroll for a semester or two. One class a
> semester ... I've wanted to do some A&P stuff anyhow. $90 an hour. All
> this talk of user fees pales in comparison -- although those fees in
> addition would put me squarely in the VFR only fly-from-your-grass-
> airstrip-avoid-control-tower-airspace camp.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The TSTC planes are for pilot training students, not maintenance
students (unless I've REALLY missed something).

So if you enrolled you'd need to be in pilot training to get ahold of
the planes. They do allow (I think) use of the TSTC planes on a
personal basis if students aren't reserved in them for instruction.

Ricky

[[email protected]]

> The TSTC planes are for pilot training students, not maintenance
> students (unless I've REALLY missed something).
>
> So if you enrolled you'd need to be in pilot training to get ahold of
> the planes. They do allow (I think) use of the TSTC planes on a
> personal basis if students aren't reserved in them for instruction.
>
> Ricky-

Oh well. Another plan down the tubes!