C172 and Spins [Archive] - AviationBanter

Dan[_10_]

March 17th 08, 11:13 PM

On Mar 17, 6:38 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Dan wrote:
> > Anyone else have expereince with the C172E (1964)?
>
> > No matter what I did I could not get that bird to spin to the right.
>
> > Left spins take some work, and power helps (of course).
>
> > But right it just wallows and then steep spirals.
>
> > Dan Mc
>
> Try accelerating the stall a bit just before reaching the 1g stall point .
> Decelerate the airplane carrying just a bit of power into the stall,
> then just before it would break naturally, apply aggressive pitch, as
> the stall breaks, apply full pro-spin rudder. It should break a lot
> cleaner and right into the spin; assuming normal rigging.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

So a sharper transition to full back pressure?

I tried entering a bit faster (80 MPH) to have enough energy, but no
dice.

As far as rigging -- good question. The right rudder authority seems
less than left. I thought it was left turning tendencies but may
simply be out of rig.

It spun to the right quite nicely from a cross control turn to the
left, but you would have to be a total nincompoop to let that happen
in that airplane -- full left rudder, full right aileron, and yoke all
the way back to the stop.

Dan Mc

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 17th 08, 11:26 PM

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 17, 6:38 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>>> Anyone else have expereince with the C172E (1964)?
>>> No matter what I did I could not get that bird to spin to the right.
>>> Left spins take some work, and power helps (of course).
>>> But right it just wallows and then steep spirals.
>>> Dan Mc
>> Try accelerating the stall a bit just before reaching the 1g stall point .
>> Decelerate the airplane carrying just a bit of power into the stall,
>> then just before it would break naturally, apply aggressive pitch, as
>> the stall breaks, apply full pro-spin rudder. It should break a lot
>> cleaner and right into the spin; assuming normal rigging.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> So a sharper transition to full back pressure?
>
> I tried entering a bit faster (80 MPH) to have enough energy, but no
> dice.
>
> As far as rigging -- good question. The right rudder authority seems
> less than left. I thought it was left turning tendencies but may
> simply be out of rig.
>
> It spun to the right quite nicely from a cross control turn to the
> left, but you would have to be a total nincompoop to let that happen
> in that airplane -- full left rudder, full right aileron, and yoke all
> the way back to the stop.
>
>
> Dan Mc
Yes, the trick is an old one really. You "quickly" take the angle of
attack through CLmax instead of flattening out the transition. It's
quicker and a lot sharper a stall break. If you throw in the yaw just as
the stall breaks you should see some increased entry performance.
Actually, if you are REAL sharp and your timing is good, you can help
the entry by leaving the power in to aid the yaw with dynamic pressure
on the deflected rudder, and you can also use aileron into the spin
direction as an aid as the stall moves out toward the tips and the
ailerons still have some degree of input in roll.
Keep in mind that what I'm telling you is for ENTRY only, NOT to be
sustained as entry is achieved. Pro spin controls for the 172 are yoke
full back, rudder full pro into, and ailerons neutral. Make sure you
acheive this configuration as auto rotation commences.

--
Dudley Henriques

Dan[_10_]

March 17th 08, 11:31 PM

On Mar 17, 7:26 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Dan wrote:
> > On Mar 17, 6:38 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> Dan wrote:
> >>> Anyone else have expereince with the C172E (1964)?
> >>> No matter what I did I could not get that bird to spin to the right.
> >>> Left spins take some work, and power helps (of course).
> >>> But right it just wallows and then steep spirals.
> >>> Dan Mc
> >> Try accelerating the stall a bit just before reaching the 1g stall point .
> >> Decelerate the airplane carrying just a bit of power into the stall,
> >> then just before it would break naturally, apply aggressive pitch, as
> >> the stall breaks, apply full pro-spin rudder. It should break a lot
> >> cleaner and right into the spin; assuming normal rigging.
>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > So a sharper transition to full back pressure?
>
> > I tried entering a bit faster (80 MPH) to have enough energy, but no
> > dice.
>
> > As far as rigging -- good question. The right rudder authority seems
> > less than left. I thought it was left turning tendencies but may
> > simply be out of rig.
>
> > It spun to the right quite nicely from a cross control turn to the
> > left, but you would have to be a total nincompoop to let that happen
> > in that airplane -- full left rudder, full right aileron, and yoke all
> > the way back to the stop.
>
> > Dan Mc
>
> Yes, the trick is an old one really. You "quickly" take the angle of
> attack through CLmax instead of flattening out the transition. It's
> quicker and a lot sharper a stall break. If you throw in the yaw just as
> the stall breaks you should see some increased entry performance.
> Actually, if you are REAL sharp and your timing is good, you can help
> the entry by leaving the power in to aid the yaw with dynamic pressure
> on the deflected rudder, and you can also use aileron into the spin
> direction as an aid as the stall moves out toward the tips and the
> ailerons still have some degree of input in roll.
> Keep in mind that what I'm telling you is for ENTRY only, NOT to be
> sustained as entry is achieved. Pro spin controls for the 172 are yoke
> full back, rudder full pro into, and ailerons neutral. Make sure you
> acheive this configuration as auto rotation commences.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

OK... that makes sense. Maintaining a spin required rudder into the
direction of the spin -- otherwise the airplane wanted to transition
to a spiral...

Didn't try aileron into the spin....

So Rolling Rock is close to you? You must be in my neighborhood!

Dan Mc

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 17th 08, 11:34 PM

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 17, 7:26 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>>> On Mar 17, 6:38 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> Dan wrote:
>>>>> Anyone else have expereince with the C172E (1964)?
>>>>> No matter what I did I could not get that bird to spin to the right.
>>>>> Left spins take some work, and power helps (of course).
>>>>> But right it just wallows and then steep spirals.
>>>>> Dan Mc
>>>> Try accelerating the stall a bit just before reaching the 1g stall point .
>>>> Decelerate the airplane carrying just a bit of power into the stall,
>>>> then just before it would break naturally, apply aggressive pitch, as
>>>> the stall breaks, apply full pro-spin rudder. It should break a lot
>>>> cleaner and right into the spin; assuming normal rigging.
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> So a sharper transition to full back pressure?
>>> I tried entering a bit faster (80 MPH) to have enough energy, but no
>>> dice.
>>> As far as rigging -- good question. The right rudder authority seems
>>> less than left. I thought it was left turning tendencies but may
>>> simply be out of rig.
>>> It spun to the right quite nicely from a cross control turn to the
>>> left, but you would have to be a total nincompoop to let that happen
>>> in that airplane -- full left rudder, full right aileron, and yoke all
>>> the way back to the stop.
>>> Dan Mc
>> Yes, the trick is an old one really. You "quickly" take the angle of
>> attack through CLmax instead of flattening out the transition. It's
>> quicker and a lot sharper a stall break. If you throw in the yaw just as
>> the stall breaks you should see some increased entry performance.
>> Actually, if you are REAL sharp and your timing is good, you can help
>> the entry by leaving the power in to aid the yaw with dynamic pressure
>> on the deflected rudder, and you can also use aileron into the spin
>> direction as an aid as the stall moves out toward the tips and the
>> ailerons still have some degree of input in roll.
>> Keep in mind that what I'm telling you is for ENTRY only, NOT to be
>> sustained as entry is achieved. Pro spin controls for the 172 are yoke
>> full back, rudder full pro into, and ailerons neutral. Make sure you
>> acheive this configuration as auto rotation commences.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> OK... that makes sense. Maintaining a spin required rudder into the
> direction of the spin -- otherwise the airplane wanted to transition
> to a spiral...
>
> Didn't try aileron into the spin....
>
> So Rolling Rock is close to you? You must be in my neighborhood!
>
>
> Dan Mc
Pro-spin for your airplane is power idle, rudder full into, and yoke
full back. Aileron is an ENTRY option ONLY! Neutralize it as the auto
rotaton begins.

We're on the East Coast. You?

--
Dudley Henriques

[email protected]

March 17th 08, 11:42 PM

On Mar 17, 3:19 pm, Dan > wrote:
> Anyone else have expereince with the C172E (1964)?
>
> No matter what I did I could not get that bird to spin to the right.
>
> Left spins take some work, and power helps (of course).
>
> But right it just wallows and then steep spirals.
>
> Dan Mc

172s are reluctant to spin anyway. They'll do it to the lft
readily enough if some power is used to get the speed lower and nose
higher just before stall, but to the right they'll sometimes just
rumble around into a spiral. The left wing stalls earlier due to the
rotating propeller blast striking the left root at a higher AOA, and
so trying to spin right just makes them both stall at the same time,
which won't encourage autorotation.

Dan

Dan[_10_]

March 17th 08, 11:43 PM

On Mar 17, 7:34 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Dan wrote:
> > On Mar 17, 7:26 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> Dan wrote:
> >>> On Mar 17, 6:38 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >>>> Dan wrote:
> >>>>> Anyone else have expereince with the C172E (1964)?
> >>>>> No matter what I did I could not get that bird to spin to the right.
> >>>>> Left spins take some work, and power helps (of course).
> >>>>> But right it just wallows and then steep spirals.
> >>>>> Dan Mc
> >>>> Try accelerating the stall a bit just before reaching the 1g stall point .
> >>>> Decelerate the airplane carrying just a bit of power into the stall,
> >>>> then just before it would break naturally, apply aggressive pitch, as
> >>>> the stall breaks, apply full pro-spin rudder. It should break a lot
> >>>> cleaner and right into the spin; assuming normal rigging.
> >>>> --
> >>>> Dudley Henriques
> >>> So a sharper transition to full back pressure?
> >>> I tried entering a bit faster (80 MPH) to have enough energy, but no
> >>> dice.
> >>> As far as rigging -- good question. The right rudder authority seems
> >>> less than left. I thought it was left turning tendencies but may
> >>> simply be out of rig.
> >>> It spun to the right quite nicely from a cross control turn to the
> >>> left, but you would have to be a total nincompoop to let that happen
> >>> in that airplane -- full left rudder, full right aileron, and yoke all
> >>> the way back to the stop.
> >>> Dan Mc
> >> Yes, the trick is an old one really. You "quickly" take the angle of
> >> attack through CLmax instead of flattening out the transition. It's
> >> quicker and a lot sharper a stall break. If you throw in the yaw just as
> >> the stall breaks you should see some increased entry performance.
> >> Actually, if you are REAL sharp and your timing is good, you can help
> >> the entry by leaving the power in to aid the yaw with dynamic pressure
> >> on the deflected rudder, and you can also use aileron into the spin
> >> direction as an aid as the stall moves out toward the tips and the
> >> ailerons still have some degree of input in roll.
> >> Keep in mind that what I'm telling you is for ENTRY only, NOT to be
> >> sustained as entry is achieved. Pro spin controls for the 172 are yoke
> >> full back, rudder full pro into, and ailerons neutral. Make sure you
> >> acheive this configuration as auto rotation commences.
>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > OK... that makes sense. Maintaining a spin required rudder into the
> > direction of the spin -- otherwise the airplane wanted to transition
> > to a spiral...
>
> > Didn't try aileron into the spin....
>
> > So Rolling Rock is close to you? You must be in my neighborhood!
>
> > Dan Mc
>
> Pro-spin for your airplane is power idle, rudder full into, and yoke
> full back. Aileron is an ENTRY option ONLY! Neutralize it as the auto
> rotaton begins.
>
> We're on the East Coast. You?
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Western Pennsylvania, not far from the real, actual home of Rolling
Rock (Latrobe) and Arnold Palmer.

Dan Mc

Dan[_10_]

March 17th 08, 11:44 PM

On Mar 17, 7:34 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Dan wrote:
> > On Mar 17, 7:26 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> Dan wrote:
> >>> On Mar 17, 6:38 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >>>> Dan wrote:
> >>>>> Anyone else have expereince with the C172E (1964)?
> >>>>> No matter what I did I could not get that bird to spin to the right.
> >>>>> Left spins take some work, and power helps (of course).
> >>>>> But right it just wallows and then steep spirals.
> >>>>> Dan Mc
> >>>> Try accelerating the stall a bit just before reaching the 1g stall point .
> >>>> Decelerate the airplane carrying just a bit of power into the stall,
> >>>> then just before it would break naturally, apply aggressive pitch, as
> >>>> the stall breaks, apply full pro-spin rudder. It should break a lot
> >>>> cleaner and right into the spin; assuming normal rigging.
> >>>> --
> >>>> Dudley Henriques
> >>> So a sharper transition to full back pressure?
> >>> I tried entering a bit faster (80 MPH) to have enough energy, but no
> >>> dice.
> >>> As far as rigging -- good question. The right rudder authority seems
> >>> less than left. I thought it was left turning tendencies but may
> >>> simply be out of rig.
> >>> It spun to the right quite nicely from a cross control turn to the
> >>> left, but you would have to be a total nincompoop to let that happen
> >>> in that airplane -- full left rudder, full right aileron, and yoke all
> >>> the way back to the stop.
> >>> Dan Mc
> >> Yes, the trick is an old one really. You "quickly" take the angle of
> >> attack through CLmax instead of flattening out the transition. It's
> >> quicker and a lot sharper a stall break. If you throw in the yaw just as
> >> the stall breaks you should see some increased entry performance.
> >> Actually, if you are REAL sharp and your timing is good, you can help
> >> the entry by leaving the power in to aid the yaw with dynamic pressure
> >> on the deflected rudder, and you can also use aileron into the spin
> >> direction as an aid as the stall moves out toward the tips and the
> >> ailerons still have some degree of input in roll.
> >> Keep in mind that what I'm telling you is for ENTRY only, NOT to be
> >> sustained as entry is achieved. Pro spin controls for the 172 are yoke
> >> full back, rudder full pro into, and ailerons neutral. Make sure you
> >> acheive this configuration as auto rotation commences.
>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > OK... that makes sense. Maintaining a spin required rudder into the
> > direction of the spin -- otherwise the airplane wanted to transition
> > to a spiral...
>
> > Didn't try aileron into the spin....
>
> > So Rolling Rock is close to you? You must be in my neighborhood!
>
> > Dan Mc
>
> Pro-spin for your airplane is power idle, rudder full into, and yoke
> full back. Aileron is an ENTRY option ONLY! Neutralize it as the auto
> rotaton begins.
>
> We're on the East Coast. You?
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Absolutely -- aileron into the turn ONLY for the entry..then neutral!

Pro direction rudder helps keep it in an actual spin, otherwise it
slides out.

Dan Mc

skym

March 18th 08, 01:42 AM

On Mar 17, 5:42*pm, wrote:
> On Mar 17, 3:19 pm, Dan > wrote:
>
> > Anyone else have expereince with the C172E (1964)?
>
> > No matter what I did I could not get that bird to spin to the right.
>
> > Left spins take some work, and power helps (of course).
>
> > But right it just wallows and then steep spirals.
>
> > Dan Mc
>
> * * 172s are reluctant to spin anyway. They'll do it to the lft
> readily enough if some power is used to get the speed lower and nose
> higher just before stall, but to the right they'll sometimes just
> rumble around into a spiral. The left wing stalls earlier due to the
> rotating propeller blast striking the left root at a higher AOA, and
> so trying to spin right just makes them both stall at the same time,
> which won't encourage autorotation.
>
> * * * Dan

What is difference between a spin and a spiral?

Dan[_10_]

March 18th 08, 01:47 AM

On Mar 17, 9:42 pm, skym > wrote:
> On Mar 17, 5:42 pm, wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 17, 3:19 pm, Dan > wrote:
>
> > > Anyone else have expereince with the C172E (1964)?
>
> > > No matter what I did I could not get that bird to spin to the right.
>
> > > Left spins take some work, and power helps (of course).
>
> > > But right it just wallows and then steep spirals.
>
> > > Dan Mc
>
> > 172s are reluctant to spin anyway. They'll do it to the lft
> > readily enough if some power is used to get the speed lower and nose
> > higher just before stall, but to the right they'll sometimes just
> > rumble around into a spiral. The left wing stalls earlier due to the
> > rotating propeller blast striking the left root at a higher AOA, and
> > so trying to spin right just makes them both stall at the same time,
> > which won't encourage autorotation.
>
> > Dan
>
> What is difference between a spin and a spiral?

A spin is a condition of stalled flight -- usually due to yaw applied
at the moment the wing stalls. This can be caused intentionally or
unintentionally (such as not accounting for left turning when
practicing stalls).

Airspeed is very low, while descent rate is high, all while pitching
and yawing to the right or left. One wing is providing slightly more
lift and this causes the autorotation.

The wings are not stalled in a spiral, and the airspeed is high and/
or increasing.

Dan Mc

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 18th 08, 01:48 AM

skym wrote:
> On Mar 17, 5:42 pm, wrote:
>> On Mar 17, 3:19 pm, Dan > wrote:
>>
>>> Anyone else have expereince with the C172E (1964)?
>>> No matter what I did I could not get that bird to spin to the right.
>>> Left spins take some work, and power helps (of course).
>>> But right it just wallows and then steep spirals.
>>> Dan Mc
>> 172s are reluctant to spin anyway. They'll do it to the lft
>> readily enough if some power is used to get the speed lower and nose
>> higher just before stall, but to the right they'll sometimes just
>> rumble around into a spiral. The left wing stalls earlier due to the
>> rotating propeller blast striking the left root at a higher AOA, and
>> so trying to spin right just makes them both stall at the same time,
>> which won't encourage autorotation.
>>
>> Dan
>
> What is difference between a spin and a spiral?
The short answer. There are much longer ones :-))
Autorotation.

The spin requires 2 very distinct things to happen aerodynamically;
stall and a yaw rate. A spiral is an ever tightening nose low condition
with constantly increasing airspeed that occurs above stall and involves
no autorotation.
--
Dudley Henriques

Tina

March 18th 08, 12:19 PM

Some SEL airplanes are not certified for spins. I assume the 172 isn't
in that group.

Dan[_10_]

March 18th 08, 12:31 PM

On Mar 18, 8:19 am, Tina > wrote:
> Some SEL airplanes are not certified for spins. I assume the 172 isn't
> in that group.

The POH will let you know if spins are permitted in the airplane.

The 172E is approved for spins while loaded in the Utility category
(easily loaded that way with two occupants in the front seats and no
anvil in the baggage area).

Dan Mc

JGalban via AviationKB.com

March 18th 08, 08:06 PM

Tina wrote:
>Some SEL airplanes are not certified for spins. I assume the 172 isn't
>in that group.

I'm pretty sure that all of the older 172s (before production restarted in
'97) are approved for intentional spins in the Utility Category. Not sure
about the later models.

The nice thing about the 172 is that it's pretty easy to get it into the
Utility Category. My Cherokee, on the other hand, requires some careful W&B
to fit into its relatively narrow U.C. envelope. I'd spin it a lot more if
it wasn't such a pain.

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

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200803/1

Peter Clark

March 18th 08, 08:25 PM

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 05:19:25 -0700 (PDT), Tina >
wrote:

>Some SEL airplanes are not certified for spins. I assume the 172 isn't
>in that group.

The ones I've seen are approved for spins only when loaded into the
utility catagory.

Roger[_4_]

March 19th 08, 12:57 AM

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:38:38 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Dan wrote:
>> Anyone else have expereince with the C172E (1964)?
>>
>> No matter what I did I could not get that bird to spin to the right.
>>
>> Left spins take some work, and power helps (of course).
>>
>> But right it just wallows and then steep spirals.
>>
>>
>>
>> Dan Mc
>Try accelerating the stall a bit just before reaching the 1g stall point .
>Decelerate the airplane carrying just a bit of power into the stall,
>then just before it would break naturally, apply aggressive pitch, as
>the stall breaks, apply full pro-spin rudder. It should break a lot
>cleaner and right into the spin; assuming normal rigging.

Of course an extra bit of enthusiasm could lead to a snap roll. <:-))
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 19th 08, 01:03 AM

Roger wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:38:38 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> Dan wrote:
>>> Anyone else have expereince with the C172E (1964)?
>>>
>>> No matter what I did I could not get that bird to spin to the right.
>>>
>>> Left spins take some work, and power helps (of course).
>>>
>>> But right it just wallows and then steep spirals.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dan Mc
>> Try accelerating the stall a bit just before reaching the 1g stall point .
>> Decelerate the airplane carrying just a bit of power into the stall,
>> then just before it would break naturally, apply aggressive pitch, as
>> the stall breaks, apply full pro-spin rudder. It should break a lot
>> cleaner and right into the spin; assuming normal rigging.
>
> Of course an extra bit of enthusiasm could lead to a snap roll. <:-))
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

Timing Rog....TIMING!!! With women and flying.......it's all in the
TIMING!!!! :-)))

--
Dudley Henriques

Dan[_10_]

March 19th 08, 01:40 AM

On Mar 18, 8:57 pm, Roger > wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:38:38 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >Dan wrote:
> >> Anyone else have expereince with the C172E (1964)?
>
> >> No matter what I did I could not get that bird to spin to the right.
>
> >> Left spins take some work, and power helps (of course).
>
> >> But right it just wallows and then steep spirals.
>
> >> Dan Mc
> >Try accelerating the stall a bit just before reaching the 1g stall point .
> >Decelerate the airplane carrying just a bit of power into the stall,
> >then just before it would break naturally, apply aggressive pitch, as
> >the stall breaks, apply full pro-spin rudder. It should break a lot
> >cleaner and right into the spin; assuming normal rigging.
>
> Of course an extra bit of enthusiasm could lead to a snap roll. <:-))
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)www.rogerhalstead.com

An enthusiastic Cross control stall has the same effect.

"Hey, I'm right side up!"
"Hey, I'm upside down!"

:-)

Dan

Highflyer

March 19th 08, 01:46 AM

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:38:38 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>>Dan wrote:
>>> Anyone else have expereince with the C172E (1964)?
>>>
>>> No matter what I did I could not get that bird to spin to the right.
>>>
>>> Left spins take some work, and power helps (of course).
>>>
>>> But right it just wallows and then steep spirals.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dan Mc
>>Try accelerating the stall a bit just before reaching the 1g stall point .
>>Decelerate the airplane carrying just a bit of power into the stall,
>>then just before it would break naturally, apply aggressive pitch, as
>>the stall breaks, apply full pro-spin rudder. It should break a lot
>>cleaner and right into the spin; assuming normal rigging.
>
> Of course an extra bit of enthusiasm could lead to a snap roll. <:-))
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

Hi Roger,

That is understandable. Of course, a snap roll is just a spin in a
different direction! :-) It is the only way to roll in an old Citabria with
no spades. Otherwise your arm wears out holding that aileron pressure! :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport PJY

Highflyer

March 19th 08, 01:53 AM

"Tina" > wrote in message
...
> Some SEL airplanes are not certified for spins. I assume the 172 isn't
> in that group.

Hi Tina,

Depends on the 172. Most, but not all, C172's were certified in both the
Normal and the Utility categories. The Normal category does not require
spin recoveries for certification. If you spin an airplane in that
certification category you become an instant test pilot! :-) The Utility
category requires spins and spin recoveries for certification and aircraft
in the Utility category can be spun.

Many GA airplanes are certified in both categories, but the Utility category
has a more restrictive weight and balance limitation. Lower weight, and
more forward CG range.

The old straight tail Cessnas would spin nicely. Then they slanted the tail
back for cosmetic reasons and shot themselves in the foot aerodynamically.
Now the bulk of the rudder is in the shade of the stabilizer in a spin and
the airplanes do not enter well or spin as well. They may also not want to
pop out of a fully developed spin. Most failed spin attempts will result in
a high speed spiral and you can build excessive speed quickly and then must
be very careful pulling out of the resulting dive so that you do not
overstress the aircraft at a speed well above maneuvering speed.

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport PJY

Dave Doe

March 19th 08, 02:16 AM

In article >,
says...
> Roger wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:38:38 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> Dan wrote:
> >>> Anyone else have expereince with the C172E (1964)?
> >>>
> >>> No matter what I did I could not get that bird to spin to the right.
> >>>
> >>> Left spins take some work, and power helps (of course).
> >>>
> >>> But right it just wallows and then steep spirals.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Dan Mc
> >> Try accelerating the stall a bit just before reaching the 1g stall point .
> >> Decelerate the airplane carrying just a bit of power into the stall,
> >> then just before it would break naturally, apply aggressive pitch, as
> >> the stall breaks, apply full pro-spin rudder. It should break a lot
> >> cleaner and right into the spin; assuming normal rigging.
> >
> > Of course an extra bit of enthusiasm could lead to a snap roll. <:-))
> > Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> > (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> > www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>
> Timing Rog....TIMING!!! With women and flying.......it's all in the
> TIMING!!!! :-)))

Question on this - snap rolls can put some big strains on the a/c - so I
presume the a/c (most 172's I've flown, actually make that *all* - are
in the normal cat, not utility) - is aerobatic? - or at least in the
utility category?

I snap rolled a Traumahawk years ago when I performed a stall turn
(himmelman (sp?) - call it what you like) - when I whacked the rudder
in while I was (obviously) still above stall speed. I ended up flick
rolling and upside down and recovered just fine - but it scared the chit
out of me (the turning force was really quite considerable).

Opinions?

--
Duncan

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 19th 08, 02:28 AM

Dave Doe wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>> Roger wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:38:38 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dan wrote:
>>>>> Anyone else have expereince with the C172E (1964)?
>>>>>
>>>>> No matter what I did I could not get that bird to spin to the right.
>>>>>
>>>>> Left spins take some work, and power helps (of course).
>>>>>
>>>>> But right it just wallows and then steep spirals.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan Mc
>>>> Try accelerating the stall a bit just before reaching the 1g stall point .
>>>> Decelerate the airplane carrying just a bit of power into the stall,
>>>> then just before it would break naturally, apply aggressive pitch, as
>>>> the stall breaks, apply full pro-spin rudder. It should break a lot
>>>> cleaner and right into the spin; assuming normal rigging.
>>> Of course an extra bit of enthusiasm could lead to a snap roll. <:-))
>>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>>
>> Timing Rog....TIMING!!! With women and flying.......it's all in the
>> TIMING!!!! :-)))
>
> Question on this - snap rolls can put some big strains on the a/c - so I
> presume the a/c (most 172's I've flown, actually make that *all* - are
> in the normal cat, not utility) - is aerobatic? - or at least in the
> utility category?
>
> I snap rolled a Traumahawk years ago when I performed a stall turn
> (himmelman (sp?) - call it what you like) - when I whacked the rudder
> in while I was (obviously) still above stall speed. I ended up flick
> rolling and upside down and recovered just fine - but it scared the chit
> out of me (the turning force was really quite considerable).
>
> Opinions?
>
Only one. Don't snap a normal OR a utility category airplane. It ain't
healthy! :-)) Neither category comes near meeting aerobatic category
standards.
I would strongly suggest from reading what you say you were doing with a
Tomahawk that you not continue that practice PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--
Dudley Henriques

Dave Doe

March 19th 08, 03:07 AM

In article >,
says...
> Dave Doe wrote:
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >> Roger wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:38:38 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Dan wrote:
> >>>>> Anyone else have expereince with the C172E (1964)?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No matter what I did I could not get that bird to spin to the right.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Left spins take some work, and power helps (of course).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But right it just wallows and then steep spirals.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dan Mc
> >>>> Try accelerating the stall a bit just before reaching the 1g stall point .
> >>>> Decelerate the airplane carrying just a bit of power into the stall,
> >>>> then just before it would break naturally, apply aggressive pitch, as
> >>>> the stall breaks, apply full pro-spin rudder. It should break a lot
> >>>> cleaner and right into the spin; assuming normal rigging.
> >>> Of course an extra bit of enthusiasm could lead to a snap roll. <:-))
> >>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> >>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> >>> www.rogerhalstead.com
> >>
> >> Timing Rog....TIMING!!! With women and flying.......it's all in the
> >> TIMING!!!! :-)))
> >
> > Question on this - snap rolls can put some big strains on the a/c - so I
> > presume the a/c (most 172's I've flown, actually make that *all* - are
> > in the normal cat, not utility) - is aerobatic? - or at least in the
> > utility category?
> >
> > I snap rolled a Traumahawk years ago when I performed a stall turn
> > (himmelman (sp?) - call it what you like) - when I whacked the rudder
> > in while I was (obviously) still above stall speed. I ended up flick
> > rolling and upside down and recovered just fine - but it scared the chit
> > out of me (the turning force was really quite considerable).
> >
> > Opinions?
> >
> Only one. Don't snap a normal OR a utility category airplane. It ain't
> healthy! :-)) Neither category comes near meeting aerobatic category
> standards.
> I would strongly suggest from reading what you say you were doing with a
> Tomahawk that you not continue that practice PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I *did* say it was years ago, about 20 to be more accurate. :)

Still, the main question remains unanswered - re the 172 as posted by
the OP.
--
Duncan

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 19th 08, 03:21 AM

Dave Doe wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>> Dave Doe wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> says...
>>>> Roger wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:38:38 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan wrote:
>>>>>>> Anyone else have expereince with the C172E (1964)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No matter what I did I could not get that bird to spin to the right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Left spins take some work, and power helps (of course).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But right it just wallows and then steep spirals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dan Mc
>>>>>> Try accelerating the stall a bit just before reaching the 1g stall point .
>>>>>> Decelerate the airplane carrying just a bit of power into the stall,
>>>>>> then just before it would break naturally, apply aggressive pitch, as
>>>>>> the stall breaks, apply full pro-spin rudder. It should break a lot
>>>>>> cleaner and right into the spin; assuming normal rigging.
>>>>> Of course an extra bit of enthusiasm could lead to a snap roll. <:-))
>>>>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>>>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>>>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>>>> Timing Rog....TIMING!!! With women and flying.......it's all in the
>>>> TIMING!!!! :-)))
>>> Question on this - snap rolls can put some big strains on the a/c - so I
>>> presume the a/c (most 172's I've flown, actually make that *all* - are
>>> in the normal cat, not utility) - is aerobatic? - or at least in the
>>> utility category?
>>>
>>> I snap rolled a Traumahawk years ago when I performed a stall turn
>>> (himmelman (sp?) - call it what you like) - when I whacked the rudder
>>> in while I was (obviously) still above stall speed. I ended up flick
>>> rolling and upside down and recovered just fine - but it scared the chit
>>> out of me (the turning force was really quite considerable).
>>>
>>> Opinions?
>>>
>> Only one. Don't snap a normal OR a utility category airplane. It ain't
>> healthy! :-)) Neither category comes near meeting aerobatic category
>> standards.
>> I would strongly suggest from reading what you say you were doing with a
>> Tomahawk that you not continue that practice PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> I *did* say it was years ago, about 20 to be more accurate. :)
>
> Still, the main question remains unanswered - re the 172 as posted by
> the OP.
What remains to be unanswered? Can you be specific please?

--
Dudley Henriques

Ken S. Tucker

March 19th 08, 04:04 AM

On Mar 18, 5:40 pm, Dan > wrote:
> On Mar 18, 8:57 pm, Roger > wrote:

> > On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:38:38 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>
> > > wrote:
> > >Dan wrote:
> > >> Anyone else have expereince with the C172E (1964)?
>
> > >> No matter what I did I could not get that bird to spin to the right.
>
> > >> Left spins take some work, and power helps (of course).
>
> > >> But right it just wallows and then steep spirals.
>
> > >> Dan Mc
> > >Try accelerating the stall a bit just before reaching the 1g stall point .
> > >Decelerate the airplane carrying just a bit of power into the stall,
> > >then just before it would break naturally, apply aggressive pitch, as
> > >the stall breaks, apply full pro-spin rudder. It should break a lot
> > >cleaner and right into the spin; assuming normal rigging.
>
> > Of course an extra bit of enthusiasm could lead to a snap roll. <:-))
> > Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> > (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)www.rogerhalstead.com
>
> An enthusiastic Cross control stall has the same effect.
>
> "Hey, I'm right side up!"
> "Hey, I'm upside down!"

Now you're talking!
Do a 180 roll, then stall, and watch the heading
indicator do a fast 180, (The attitude indicator is
having a fit), as you recover from a spiral dive.
Most Flight Instructors are sissy pilots, that's
how I qualify them, by how much they shreak.
Ken

Dan[_10_]

March 19th 08, 11:18 AM

On Mar 18, 11:07 pm, Dave Doe > wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>
>
> > Dave Doe wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > says...
> > >> Roger wrote:
> > >>> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:38:38 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > >>> > wrote:
>
> > >>>> Dan wrote:
> > >>>>> Anyone else have expereince with the C172E (1964)?
>
> > >>>>> No matter what I did I could not get that bird to spin to the right.
>
> > >>>>> Left spins take some work, and power helps (of course).
>
> > >>>>> But right it just wallows and then steep spirals.
>
> > >>>>> Dan Mc
> > >>>> Try accelerating the stall a bit just before reaching the 1g stall point .
> > >>>> Decelerate the airplane carrying just a bit of power into the stall,
> > >>>> then just before it would break naturally, apply aggressive pitch, as
> > >>>> the stall breaks, apply full pro-spin rudder. It should break a lot
> > >>>> cleaner and right into the spin; assuming normal rigging.
> > >>> Of course an extra bit of enthusiasm could lead to a snap roll. <:-))
> > >>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> > >>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> > >>>www.rogerhalstead.com
>
> > >> Timing Rog....TIMING!!! With women and flying.......it's all in the
> > >> TIMING!!!! :-)))
>
> > > Question on this - snap rolls can put some big strains on the a/c - so I
> > > presume the a/c (most 172's I've flown, actually make that *all* - are
> > > in the normal cat, not utility) - is aerobatic? - or at least in the
> > > utility category?
>
> > > I snap rolled a Traumahawk years ago when I performed a stall turn
> > > (himmelman (sp?) - call it what you like) - when I whacked the rudder
> > > in while I was (obviously) still above stall speed. I ended up flick
> > > rolling and upside down and recovered just fine - but it scared the chit
> > > out of me (the turning force was really quite considerable).
>
> > > Opinions?
>
> > Only one. Don't snap a normal OR a utility category airplane. It ain't
> > healthy! :-)) Neither category comes near meeting aerobatic category
> > standards.
> > I would strongly suggest from reading what you say you were doing with a
> > Tomahawk that you not continue that practice PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> I *did* say it was years ago, about 20 to be more accurate. :)
>
> Still, the main question remains unanswered - re the 172 as posted by
> the OP.
> --
> Duncan

You must have missed Dudley's reply.

The technique works.

I'm the OP, and I approved this message.

Dan Mc

Peter Dohm

March 19th 08, 12:52 PM

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Doe wrote:
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>> Dave Doe wrote:
>>>> In article >,
>>>> says...
---------------some sniped---------------
>>>> I snap rolled a Traumahawk years ago when I performed a stall turn
>>>> (himmelman (sp?) - call it what you like) - when I whacked the rudder
>>>> in while I was (obviously) still above stall speed. I ended up flick
>>>> rolling and upside down and recovered just fine - but it scared the
>>>> chit out of me (the turning force was really quite considerable).
>>>>
>>>> Opinions?
>>>>
>>> Only one. Don't snap a normal OR a utility category airplane. It ain't
>>> healthy! :-)) Neither category comes near meeting aerobatic category
>>> standards.
>>> I would strongly suggest from reading what you say you were doing with a
>>> Tomahawk that you not continue that practice PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> I *did* say it was years ago, about 20 to be more accurate. :)
>>
>> Still, the main question remains unanswered - re the 172 as posted by the
>> OP.
> What remains to be unanswered? Can you be specific please?
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Just guessing, but I really don't think he was attempting an Emmelman or was
even all that far above the normal stall speed--it seems more likely that he
was just trying to duplicate the "turn to final" scenario and added some
bottom rudder at the entry of an accellerated stall.

Peter

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 19th 08, 07:13 PM

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 18, 11:07 pm, Dave Doe > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>
>>
>>
>>> Dave Doe wrote:
>>>> In article >,
>>>> says...
>>>>> Roger wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:38:38 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>> Dan wrote:
>>>>>>>> Anyone else have expereince with the C172E (1964)?
>>>>>>>> No matter what I did I could not get that bird to spin to the right.
>>>>>>>> Left spins take some work, and power helps (of course).
>>>>>>>> But right it just wallows and then steep spirals.
>>>>>>>> Dan Mc
>>>>>>> Try accelerating the stall a bit just before reaching the 1g stall point .
>>>>>>> Decelerate the airplane carrying just a bit of power into the stall,
>>>>>>> then just before it would break naturally, apply aggressive pitch, as
>>>>>>> the stall breaks, apply full pro-spin rudder. It should break a lot
>>>>>>> cleaner and right into the spin; assuming normal rigging.
>>>>>> Of course an extra bit of enthusiasm could lead to a snap roll. <:-))
>>>>>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>>>>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>>>>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>>>>> Timing Rog....TIMING!!! With women and flying.......it's all in the
>>>>> TIMING!!!! :-)))
>>>> Question on this - snap rolls can put some big strains on the a/c - so I
>>>> presume the a/c (most 172's I've flown, actually make that *all* - are
>>>> in the normal cat, not utility) - is aerobatic? - or at least in the
>>>> utility category?
>>>> I snap rolled a Traumahawk years ago when I performed a stall turn
>>>> (himmelman (sp?) - call it what you like) - when I whacked the rudder
>>>> in while I was (obviously) still above stall speed. I ended up flick
>>>> rolling and upside down and recovered just fine - but it scared the chit
>>>> out of me (the turning force was really quite considerable).
>>>> Opinions?
>>> Only one. Don't snap a normal OR a utility category airplane. It ain't
>>> healthy! :-)) Neither category comes near meeting aerobatic category
>>> standards.
>>> I would strongly suggest from reading what you say you were doing with a
>>> Tomahawk that you not continue that practice PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> I *did* say it was years ago, about 20 to be more accurate. :)
>>
>> Still, the main question remains unanswered - re the 172 as posted by
>> the OP.
>> --
>> Duncan
>
>
> You must have missed Dudley's reply.
>
> The technique works.
>
> I'm the OP, and I approved this message.
>
> Dan Mc

Yes, but did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?
:-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Dan[_10_]

March 19th 08, 07:17 PM

On Mar 19, 3:13 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> Yes, but did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?
> :-))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

I'm very sad to report that I am a Platinum member in Priority Club,
Hilton, and Marriot.

So in all likelihood -- yes.

Dan Mc

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 19th 08, 07:21 PM

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 19, 3:13 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Yes, but did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?
>> :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> I'm very sad to report that I am a Platinum member in Priority Club,
> Hilton, and Marriot.
>
> So in all likelihood -- yes.
>
>
> Dan Mc
>

I also stay at Holiday Inn Express, which proves beyond question that
both you and I must be right about everything :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Dan[_10_]

March 19th 08, 07:23 PM

On Mar 19, 3:21 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Dan wrote:
> > On Mar 19, 3:13 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> Yes, but did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?
> >> :-))
>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > I'm very sad to report that I am a Platinum member in Priority Club,
> > Hilton, and Marriot.
>
> > So in all likelihood -- yes.
>
> > Dan Mc
>
> I also stay at Holiday Inn Express, which proves beyond question that
> both you and I must be right about everything :-))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Cool!

Kenny is a nut case!

Dan Mc

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 19th 08, 07:29 PM

Peter Dohm wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dave Doe wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> says...
>>>> Dave Doe wrote:
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> says...
> ---------------some sniped---------------
>>>>> I snap rolled a Traumahawk years ago when I performed a stall turn
>>>>> (himmelman (sp?) - call it what you like) - when I whacked the rudder
>>>>> in while I was (obviously) still above stall speed. I ended up flick
>>>>> rolling and upside down and recovered just fine - but it scared the
>>>>> chit out of me (the turning force was really quite considerable).
>>>>>
>>>>> Opinions?
>>>>>
>>>> Only one. Don't snap a normal OR a utility category airplane. It ain't
>>>> healthy! :-)) Neither category comes near meeting aerobatic category
>>>> standards.
>>>> I would strongly suggest from reading what you say you were doing with a
>>>> Tomahawk that you not continue that practice PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>> I *did* say it was years ago, about 20 to be more accurate. :)
>>>
>>> Still, the main question remains unanswered - re the 172 as posted by the
>>> OP.
>> What remains to be unanswered? Can you be specific please?
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Just guessing, but I really don't think he was attempting an Emmelman or was
> even all that far above the normal stall speed--it seems more likely that he
> was just trying to duplicate the "turn to final" scenario and added some
> bottom rudder at the entry of an accellerated stall.
>
> Peter
>
>
That would do it!

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 19th 08, 07:31 PM

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 19, 3:21 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>>> On Mar 19, 3:13 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> Yes, but did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?
>>>> :-))
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> I'm very sad to report that I am a Platinum member in Priority Club,
>>> Hilton, and Marriot.
>>> So in all likelihood -- yes.
>>> Dan Mc
>> I also stay at Holiday Inn Express, which proves beyond question that
>> both you and I must be right about everything :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Cool!
>
> Kenny is a nut case!
>
> Dan Mc

I have to be VERY careful here. I haven't yet informed my wife of this.
:-)

--
Dudley Henriques

Dan[_10_]

March 19th 08, 08:35 PM

On Mar 19, 3:31 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

>
> I have to be VERY careful here. I haven't yet informed my wife of this.
> :-)
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

That Kenny is a nut case?
Or the HIE stay?

:-X

Dan Mc

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 19th 08, 08:47 PM

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 19, 3:31 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> I have to be VERY careful here. I haven't yet informed my wife of this.
>> :-)
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> That Kenny is a nut case?
> Or the HIE stay?
>
> :-X
>
>
> Dan Mc
Oh...she's READ his posts and laughed like hell at them. She actually
HAS a strong physics background. She thinks he's funny :-)
No, meant the HIE for sure. :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Dan[_10_]

March 19th 08, 08:53 PM

On Mar 19, 4:47 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> Oh...she's READ his posts and laughed like hell at them. She actually
> HAS a strong physics background. She thinks he's funny :-)
> No, meant the HIE for sure. :-))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

You were just researching in preparation for a getaway weekend, of
course!!!

FWIW, I find HIE the least consistent chain.

The HIE near ISP is awesome, the same brand in Dahlgren, VA is ... not
so good.

Hampton Inns are consistent anywhere in the country.

Hilton Garden is another consistently good chain.

Dan Mc

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 19th 08, 09:07 PM

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 19, 4:47 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> Oh...she's READ his posts and laughed like hell at them. She actually
>> HAS a strong physics background. She thinks he's funny :-)
>> No, meant the HIE for sure. :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
>
> You were just researching in preparation for a getaway weekend, of
> course!!!
>
> FWIW, I find HIE the least consistent chain.
>
> The HIE near ISP is awesome, the same brand in Dahlgren, VA is ... not
> so good.
>
> Hampton Inns are consistent anywhere in the country.
>
> Hilton Garden is another consistently good chain.
>
>
>
> Dan Mc

Believe it or not, when we travel we don't even reserve ahead. We just
go until we get tired then find a place to stay. We've had fantastic
luck doing this and have never had a situation where we couldn't find a
great place to stay.
Flying is another matter of course. Your choices are fine. We've used them.

--
Dudley Henriques

Dan[_10_]

March 19th 08, 09:13 PM

On Mar 19, 5:07 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> Believe it or not, when we travel we don't even reserve ahead. We just
> go until we get tired then find a place to stay. We've had fantastic
> luck doing this and have never had a situation where we couldn't find a
> great place to stay.
> Flying is another matter of course. Your choices are fine. We've used them.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

I *used* to do that, until a trip to ISP turned into a 3 hour drive to
BFE NJ to a Holiday Inn (not express).

So I've joined the ranks of the "planners."

It doesn't sit well with my adventurous side, but there it is.

Dan Mc

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 19th 08, 09:33 PM

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 19, 5:07 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> Believe it or not, when we travel we don't even reserve ahead. We just
>> go until we get tired then find a place to stay. We've had fantastic
>> luck doing this and have never had a situation where we couldn't find a
>> great place to stay.
>> Flying is another matter of course. Your choices are fine. We've used them.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> I *used* to do that, until a trip to ISP turned into a 3 hour drive to
> BFE NJ to a Holiday Inn (not express).
>
> So I've joined the ranks of the "planners."
>
> It doesn't sit well with my adventurous side, but there it is.
>
>
>
> Dan Mc
>
My wife calls it "an adventure" :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Dan[_10_]

March 19th 08, 10:55 PM

On Mar 19, 5:33 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

>
> My wife calls it "an adventure" :-))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Sounds like a keeper!

Roger[_4_]

March 20th 08, 03:58 AM

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:03:09 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Roger wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:38:38 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Dan wrote:
>>>> Anyone else have expereince with the C172E (1964)?
>>>>
>>>> No matter what I did I could not get that bird to spin to the right.
>>>>
>>>> Left spins take some work, and power helps (of course).
>>>>
>>>> But right it just wallows and then steep spirals.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dan Mc
>>> Try accelerating the stall a bit just before reaching the 1g stall point .
>>> Decelerate the airplane carrying just a bit of power into the stall,
>>> then just before it would break naturally, apply aggressive pitch, as
>>> the stall breaks, apply full pro-spin rudder. It should break a lot
>>> cleaner and right into the spin; assuming normal rigging.
>>
>> Of course an extra bit of enthusiasm could lead to a snap roll. <:-))
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>
>Timing Rog....TIMING!!! With women and flying.......it's all in the
>TIMING!!!! :-)))

Yup, and if your timing is off on either they are likely to give you
an attitude adjustment along with a new outlook on life.<:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger[_4_]

March 20th 08, 04:18 AM

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:28:21 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Dave Doe wrote:
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>> Roger wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:38:38 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dan wrote:
>>>>>> Anyone else have expereince with the C172E (1964)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No matter what I did I could not get that bird to spin to the right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Left spins take some work, and power helps (of course).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But right it just wallows and then steep spirals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan Mc
>>>>> Try accelerating the stall a bit just before reaching the 1g stall point .
>>>>> Decelerate the airplane carrying just a bit of power into the stall,
>>>>> then just before it would break naturally, apply aggressive pitch, as
>>>>> the stall breaks, apply full pro-spin rudder. It should break a lot
>>>>> cleaner and right into the spin; assuming normal rigging.
>>>> Of course an extra bit of enthusiasm could lead to a snap roll. <:-))
>>>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>>>
>>> Timing Rog....TIMING!!! With women and flying.......it's all in the
>>> TIMING!!!! :-)))
>>
>> Question on this - snap rolls can put some big strains on the a/c - so I
>> presume the a/c (most 172's I've flown, actually make that *all* - are
>> in the normal cat, not utility) - is aerobatic? - or at least in the
>> utility category?
>>
>> I snap rolled a Traumahawk years ago when I performed a stall turn
>> (himmelman (sp?) - call it what you like) - when I whacked the rudder
>> in while I was (obviously) still above stall speed. I ended up flick
>> rolling and upside down and recovered just fine - but it scared the chit
>> out of me (the turning force was really quite considerable).
>>
>> Opinions?
>>
>Only one. Don't snap a normal OR a utility category airplane. It ain't
>healthy! :-)) Neither category comes near meeting aerobatic category
>standards.
>I would strongly suggest from reading what you say you were doing with a
>Tomahawk that you not continue that practice PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Two things I'd like to add and Dudley please correct me if I'm wrong.
(I know I didn't need to say that <:-)) ) I've only done basic
aerobatics and even that has been quite a while.

The weakest part of an airplane is the tail section or empennage.
Regular and Utility category airplanes along with no few basic
aerobatic planes were never meant to go backwards. That is the
reason hammerheads were removed from the accepted maneuvers for 152
Aerobats. They may have put them back, but I don't know.

At any rate when doing hammerheads and even stall turns and
chandelles (in planes rated for them) never, ever let it slide
backwards. With the hammerhead you are going straight up so even a
tiny delay in the reverse could be disastrous. You can easily fold
that tail right up along side the fuselage and they don't fly worth a
darn after that.

The other is snap rolls. Snap rolls can cover a wide range of stress
both on the airplane and pilot. I've heard the snap roll described as
one of the most uncomfortable maneuvers for new pilots. Think of it
this way. The airplane is basically flying in a straight line. It
then goes to a high angle of attack and rotates around the
longitudinal axis. That means you go from a hefty +G to sideways
flight, to negative G at about the same as the positive G, then
sideways again and finally back to the original attitude. Most of the
planes we fly are rated for very little in the way of negative G and
these forces are applied abruptly in the snap roll. Dudley knows
better than I how much force a snap can put on the tail/empennage, but
should the pilot screw up the maneuver it can be well beyond that
required for structural failure.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 20th 08, 04:27 AM

Roger wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:03:09 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> Roger wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:38:38 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dan wrote:
>>>>> Anyone else have expereince with the C172E (1964)?
>>>>>
>>>>> No matter what I did I could not get that bird to spin to the right.
>>>>>
>>>>> Left spins take some work, and power helps (of course).
>>>>>
>>>>> But right it just wallows and then steep spirals.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan Mc
>>>> Try accelerating the stall a bit just before reaching the 1g stall point .
>>>> Decelerate the airplane carrying just a bit of power into the stall,
>>>> then just before it would break naturally, apply aggressive pitch, as
>>>> the stall breaks, apply full pro-spin rudder. It should break a lot
>>>> cleaner and right into the spin; assuming normal rigging.
>>> Of course an extra bit of enthusiasm could lead to a snap roll. <:-))
>>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>>
>> Timing Rog....TIMING!!! With women and flying.......it's all in the
>> TIMING!!!! :-)))
>
> Yup, and if your timing is off on either they are likely to give you
> an attitude adjustment along with a new outlook on life.<:-))
>
>
>
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

At first glance the control inputs seem similar, but there are subtle
differences between the two maneuver entries.
There is no doubt that if mishandled, a ham handed pilot could initiate
a snap roll, but if done the way I suggested, the result should only be
an erect spin entry in an airplane like a 172.

The difference in the two inputs is that to initiate a snap, you need an
airspeed higher than for the spin entry but below Va, and the entry is
different. For the snap, you raise the nose to entry airspeed and
briskly apply full RUDDER in the desired roll direction. This is
FOLLOWED almost immediately with full back stick to cause an acellerated
stall. You need almost perfect timing to get it just right. Although
it's two control inputs, they are "jointed together" as one.
For the spin entry, you are simply leading a 1g stall at a very low
energy state with a pitch input without the rudder lead until the stall
breaks. As it breaks, you THEN apply pro-spin rudder to yaw the wing
into auto rotation.
I've never seen a snap roll develop from the spin entry input. The
controls are out of sequence; the timing is different; and the energy
state at initiation is not high enough to snap an airplane like a 172.

--
Dudley Henriques

Roger[_4_]

March 20th 08, 04:30 AM

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:06:59 GMT, "JGalban via AviationKB.com"
<u32749@uwe> wrote:

>Tina wrote:
>>Some SEL airplanes are not certified for spins. I assume the 172 isn't
>>in that group.
>
> I'm pretty sure that all of the older 172s (before production restarted in
>'97) are approved for intentional spins in the Utility Category. Not sure
>about the later models.
>
> The nice thing about the 172 is that it's pretty easy to get it into the
>Utility Category. My Cherokee, on the other hand, requires some careful W&B
>to fit into its relatively narrow U.C. envelope. I'd spin it a lot more if
>it wasn't such a pain.

Our 180 was pretty easy to get into the Utility category. Then after
several years I found that placard on the panel "Spin Entry from full
stall only" was a mistake and it wasn't certified for spins.

Recovery from a fully developed spin was interesting. It'd make one
full turn after the application of opposite rudder as if you'd done
nothing. Then it'd stop in about a half turn.

I saw two videos, IIRC from Piper. The first was a Archer with 4 guys
in it. (no way was that in the utility category). Flat spin all the
way to the ocean. I'm not sure about the other but I think it was a
Cherokee 180. It too went into a flat spin with no recovery.

>
>John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 20th 08, 04:39 AM

Roger wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:28:21 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> Dave Doe wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> says...
>>>> Roger wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:38:38 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan wrote:
>>>>>>> Anyone else have expereince with the C172E (1964)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No matter what I did I could not get that bird to spin to the right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Left spins take some work, and power helps (of course).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But right it just wallows and then steep spirals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dan Mc
>>>>>> Try accelerating the stall a bit just before reaching the 1g stall point .
>>>>>> Decelerate the airplane carrying just a bit of power into the stall,
>>>>>> then just before it would break naturally, apply aggressive pitch, as
>>>>>> the stall breaks, apply full pro-spin rudder. It should break a lot
>>>>>> cleaner and right into the spin; assuming normal rigging.
>>>>> Of course an extra bit of enthusiasm could lead to a snap roll. <:-))
>>>>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>>>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>>>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>>>> Timing Rog....TIMING!!! With women and flying.......it's all in the
>>>> TIMING!!!! :-)))
>>> Question on this - snap rolls can put some big strains on the a/c - so I
>>> presume the a/c (most 172's I've flown, actually make that *all* - are
>>> in the normal cat, not utility) - is aerobatic? - or at least in the
>>> utility category?
>>>
>>> I snap rolled a Traumahawk years ago when I performed a stall turn
>>> (himmelman (sp?) - call it what you like) - when I whacked the rudder
>>> in while I was (obviously) still above stall speed. I ended up flick
>>> rolling and upside down and recovered just fine - but it scared the chit
>>> out of me (the turning force was really quite considerable).
>>>
>>> Opinions?
>>>
>> Only one. Don't snap a normal OR a utility category airplane. It ain't
>> healthy! :-)) Neither category comes near meeting aerobatic category
>> standards.
>> I would strongly suggest from reading what you say you were doing with a
>> Tomahawk that you not continue that practice PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
> Two things I'd like to add and Dudley please correct me if I'm wrong.
> (I know I didn't need to say that <:-)) ) I've only done basic
> aerobatics and even that has been quite a while.
>
> The weakest part of an airplane is the tail section or empennage.
> Regular and Utility category airplanes along with no few basic
> aerobatic planes were never meant to go backwards. That is the
> reason hammerheads were removed from the accepted maneuvers for 152
> Aerobats. They may have put them back, but I don't know.
>
> At any rate when doing hammerheads and even stall turns and
> chandelles (in planes rated for them) never, ever let it slide
> backwards. With the hammerhead you are going straight up so even a
> tiny delay in the reverse could be disastrous. You can easily fold
> that tail right up along side the fuselage and they don't fly worth a
> darn after that.
>
> The other is snap rolls. Snap rolls can cover a wide range of stress
> both on the airplane and pilot. I've heard the snap roll described as
> one of the most uncomfortable maneuvers for new pilots. Think of it
> this way. The airplane is basically flying in a straight line. It
> then goes to a high angle of attack and rotates around the
> longitudinal axis. That means you go from a hefty +G to sideways
> flight, to negative G at about the same as the positive G, then
> sideways again and finally back to the original attitude. Most of the
> planes we fly are rated for very little in the way of negative G and
> these forces are applied abruptly in the snap roll. Dudley knows
> better than I how much force a snap can put on the tail/empennage, but
> should the pilot screw up the maneuver it can be well beyond that
> required for structural failure.
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

Let me jump in here if I may :-))

A snap roll is positive g all the way around if inside or negative all
the way around if outside. It's not uncomfortable t all to the pilot. In
fact, if done correctly, it's quite comfortable. You apply pro snap
controls and watch it go around. Trust me it's no big whoop :-))
BTW, the little Aerobat was certified for snaps and did a great snap roll.
Now, as to the Hammerheads and the tail issue.
Many of the light training type aerobatic airplanes are NOT certified
for tail slides, nor is it a good idea to get into one. If you do, you
simply hold the elevators rock solid neutral and wait for the airplane
to swap ends, which it will.
There is no reason for anyone to tail slide out of a hammerhead if
rudder is applied at the right point on the up line. The aircraft will
pivot rather than slide backward. You really have to be sound asleep to
tail slide backwards, and instructors always cover the alternate
procedures involved if you do.

Hope I cleared this up. :-)))

--
Dudley Henriques

Dan[_10_]

March 20th 08, 12:17 PM

On Mar 20, 12:27 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> I've never seen a snap roll develop from the spin entry input. The
> controls are out of sequence; the timing is different; and the energy
> state at initiation is not high enough to snap an airplane like a 172.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

I was thinking as I was reading your post "There's no way the 145 hp
172 is going to make it that far into that maneuver!"

These old 172 have too much surface, too little power.

Dan Mc

JGalban via AviationKB.com

March 20th 08, 05:03 PM

Roger wrote:
>Our 180 was pretty easy to get into the Utility category.

Really? Mine is a pain. The U.C. range is only a few inches wide, so I
have to carefully balance the fuel vs. cockpit load. It's actually easier
when I take an instructor along in the right seat.

>I saw two videos, IIRC from Piper. The first was a Archer with 4 guys
>in it. (no way was that in the utility category). Flat spin all the
>way to the ocean. I'm not sure about the other but I think it was a
>Cherokee 180. It too went into a flat spin with no recovery.
>
One of the reasons for the very narrow envelope in the Cherokee is that the
spin tends to flatten pretty dramatically as the C.G. moves rearward. Even
in the utility category, I can feel the spin flattening after the 3rd or 4th
turn, when the C.G. is up against the rear limit in the U.C.

Most early model (pre '73) Cherokee 140s and 180s are approved for
intentional spins. The exceptions are models with air conditioning, or the
big fresh air fan in the tail. Any of the post '73 stretched fuselage
models (Challengers, Warriors, Archers, ...) are prohibited because the
stretched fuselage and the much larger stabilator moved the C.G. too far back.

Originally, some of the stretched '73 models were released with placards
and manuals that indicated that intentional spins were approved. After Piper
caught on that the C.G. change was just too much, an AD was issued to
rescind spin approval (removing placards and manual entries) for all of the
stretched models. The lowly 140 kept its spin approval until they quit
making it in '77.

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

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

Dan[_10_]

March 20th 08, 05:10 PM

On Mar 20, 1:03 pm, "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote:
>
> One of the reasons for the very narrow envelope in the Cherokee is that the
> spin tends to flatten pretty dramatically as the C.G. moves rearward. Even
> in the utility category, I can feel the spin flattening after the 3rd or 4th
> turn, when the C.G. is up against the rear limit in the U.C.
>
> Most early model (pre '73) Cherokee 140s and 180s are approved for
> intentional spins. The exceptions are models with air conditioning, or the
> big fresh air fan in the tail. Any of the post '73 stretched fuselage
> models (Challengers, Warriors, Archers, ...) are prohibited because the
> stretched fuselage and the much larger stabilator moved the C.G. too far back.
>
> Originally, some of the stretched '73 models were released with placards
> and manuals that indicated that intentional spins were approved. After Piper
> caught on that the C.G. change was just too much, an AD was issued to
> rescind spin approval (removing placards and manual entries) for all of the
> stretched models. The lowly 140 kept its spin approval until they quit
> making it in '77.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

I haven't flown a 140 in a long time -- are they still spinnable?

(There's one for sale locally)

What did you do to get the airplane in a condition where the "C.G. is
up against the rear limit in the U.C?"

Seems to me if you were heading out to do spins you'd want no more
than two people (both up front), nothing loose in the airplane, and no
anvils in the baggage area.

Dan Mc

JGalban via AviationKB.com

March 20th 08, 06:30 PM

Dan wrote:
>
>I haven't flown a 140 in a long time -- are they still spinnable?
>
>(There's one for sale locally)

Most are, as long as they don't have any heavy junk installed in the tail.

>
>What did you do to get the airplane in a condition where the "C.G. is
>up against the rear limit in the U.C?"
>
>Seems to me if you were heading out to do spins you'd want no more
>than two people (both up front), nothing loose in the airplane, and no
>anvils in the baggage area.

Definitely empty rear seats and empty baggage. That's a condition of
operating in the Utility Category. In addition, there's a lower gross
weight limit, plus you have to adjust the fuel load to stay within the narrow
envelope. With 1 person on board and lots of fuel, it's possible to be right
at the rear limit of the envelope. The Utility Category C.G. envelope is
only 2.5 inches wide at 1650 lbs. and narrows to .7 inches wide at 1950 lbs.
(max weight for Utility Category).

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

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

Dan[_10_]

March 20th 08, 07:27 PM

On Mar 20, 2:30 pm, "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>
> >I haven't flown a 140 in a long time -- are they still spinnable?
>
> >(There's one for sale locally)
>
> Most are, as long as they don't have any heavy junk installed in the tail.
>
>
>
> >What did you do to get the airplane in a condition where the "C.G. is
> >up against the rear limit in the U.C?"
>
> >Seems to me if you were heading out to do spins you'd want no more
> >than two people (both up front), nothing loose in the airplane, and no
> >anvils in the baggage area.
>
> Definitely empty rear seats and empty baggage. That's a condition of
> operating in the Utility Category. In addition, there's a lower gross
> weight limit, plus you have to adjust the fuel load to stay within the narrow
> envelope. With 1 person on board and lots of fuel, it's possible to be right
> at the rear limit of the envelope. The Utility Category C.G. envelope is
> only 2.5 inches wide at 1650 lbs. and narrows to .7 inches wide at 1950 lbs.
> (max weight for Utility Category).
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
> --
> Message posted viahttp://www.aviationkb.com

Yikes..

so fuel burn alters CG in flight?

(This is also a problem in the V tail Bonanzas).

Dan Mc

JGalban via AviationKB.com

March 20th 08, 09:54 PM

Dan wrote:
>Yikes..
>
>so fuel burn alters CG in flight?
>

The change is very slight and doesn't affect operation in the Normal
Category. The fuel tanks are just forward of the C.G. Fortunately, the C.G.
envelope gets wider as the weight goes down.

Not nearly as bad as the problem on the Bo, which could leave you outside
of the Normal Category envelope at the end of a long flight.

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

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200803/1

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 21st 08, 01:16 AM

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Mar 18, 5:40 pm, Dan > wrote:
>> On Mar 18, 8:57 pm, Roger > wrote:
>
>> > On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:38:38 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >Dan wrote:
>> > >> Anyone else have expereince with the C172E (1964)?
>>
>> > >> No matter what I did I could not get that bird to spin to the
>> > >> right.
>>
>> > >> Left spins take some work, and power helps (of course).
>>
>> > >> But right it just wallows and then steep spirals.
>>
>> > >> Dan Mc
>> > >Try accelerating the stall a bit just before reaching the 1g stall
>> > >point . Decelerate the airplane carrying just a bit of power into
>> > >the stall, then just before it would break naturally, apply
>> > >aggressive pitch, as the stall breaks, apply full pro-spin rudder.
>> > >It should break a lot cleaner and right into the spin; assuming
>> > >normal rigging.
>>
>> > Of course an extra bit of enthusiasm could lead to a snap roll.
>> > <:-)) Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> > (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)www.rogerhalstead.com
>>
>> An enthusiastic Cross control stall has the same effect.
>>
>> "Hey, I'm right side up!"
>> "Hey, I'm upside down!"
>
> Now you're talking!
> Do a 180 roll, then stall, and watch the heading
> indicator do a fast 180, (The attitude indicator is
> having a fit), as you recover from a spiral dive.
> Most Flight Instructors are sissy pilots, that's
> how I qualify them, by how much they shreak.

Good God. Those poor boys

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 21st 08, 01:22 AM

Dan > wrote in news:ec7e887b-7eee-4bae-9805-
:

> On Mar 20, 12:27 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> I've never seen a snap roll develop from the spin entry input. The
>> controls are out of sequence; the timing is different; and the energy
>> state at initiation is not high enough to snap an airplane like a
172.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> I was thinking as I was reading your post "There's no way the 145 hp
> 172 is going to make it that far into that maneuver!"
>
> These old 172 have too much surface, too little power.
>

Well, you can snap roll some gliders! not to well, but they'll do it.
Power has';t got a lot to do with it, though it's handy for keeping the
nose up a bit and increasing authority of the elevator and rudder.

Bertie

>

Dan[_10_]

March 21st 08, 01:46 AM

On Mar 20, 9:22 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > I was thinking as I was reading your post "There's no way the 145 hp
> > 172 is going to make it that far into that maneuver!"
>
> > These old 172 have too much surface, too little power.
>
> Well, you can snap roll some gliders! not to well, but they'll do it.
> Power has';t got a lot to do with it, though it's handy for keeping the
> nose up a bit and increasing authority of the elevator and rudder.
>
> Bertie
>

True! I guess a nice steep dive will get all the energy needed....

But it's a borrowed 44 year old airplane, so we'll avoid those sorts
of things..

;-)

Dan Mc

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 21st 08, 01:53 AM

Dan > wrote in news:31e85801-4568-4ca1-9037-
:

> On Mar 20, 9:22 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> > I was thinking as I was reading your post "There's no way the 145
hp
>> > 172 is going to make it that far into that maneuver!"
>>
>> > These old 172 have too much surface, too little power.
>>
>> Well, you can snap roll some gliders! not to well, but they'll do it.
>> Power has';t got a lot to do with it, though it's handy for keeping
the
>> nose up a bit and increasing authority of the elevator and rudder.
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
>
> True! I guess a nice steep dive will get all the energy needed....
>
> But it's a borrowed 44 year old airplane, so we'll avoid those sorts
> of things..
>

i've never snapped a 172. Why would you anyway? I would think it
wouldn;'t be all that good at it. 150s snap very well indeed. Nice clean
accurate exits are possible in them.

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 21st 08, 01:57 AM

On Mar 20, 9:53 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> i've never snapped a 172. Why would you anyway? I would think it
> wouldn;'t be all that good at it. 150s snap very well indeed. Nice clean
> accurate exits are possible in them.
>
> Bertie

Don't want too, really -- that's a fairly violent maneuver for such a
stable airplane.

Is the 150 wing the same as the older 172s?

The 150 series certainly stall breaks cleaner, but I don't know if
that's due to CG or wing design.

Dan Mc

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 21st 08, 02:15 AM

Dan > wrote in news:c0af6cc3-fd00-43e1-bed9-
:

> On Mar 20, 9:53 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> i've never snapped a 172. Why would you anyway? I would think it
>> wouldn;'t be all that good at it. 150s snap very well indeed. Nice
clean
>> accurate exits are possible in them.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Don't want too, really -- that's a fairly violent maneuver for such a
> stable airplane.

It's not the stability, it's the stress on the airframe. snaps are very
hard on airfames. Aside form the straight G, there's all srots of whip
loads on tail surfaces, fuselage, there's torsional loads in the wing,
etc.
>
> Is the 150 wing the same as the older 172s?
>

Well, they're roughly the same planform, though the 150s surely must be
smaller overall. I think they both use an old fat NACA semi-symetrical.
In fact, I think Cessna only used one airfoil for all the strutted
pistons, so it would be CG and elevator authority that dicated it's
ability to do one. I'd say you could do it, but the chances of pulling
something off would be pretty good. At the very least I'd say you might
find some slightly stretched metal wing mounting parts if you looked
after doing a few snap rolls at a good speed.

> The 150 series certainly stall breaks cleaner, but I don't know if
> that's due to CG or wing design.

Proly CG and the relatively limited elevator available compared to the
150. Neither will stay in a spin very long, but the 172, I dont think
I've ever managed over a turn in any of them, and a half a turn is more
par for the course. The added power in a snap would probably aid in the
elevator department and allow a complete rotation, but I'm only
guessing.

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 21st 08, 11:09 AM

On Mar 20, 10:15 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> Well, they're roughly the same planform, though the 150s surely must be
> smaller overall. I think they both use an old fat NACA semi-symetrical.
> In fact, I think Cessna only used one airfoil for all the strutted
> pistons, so it would be CG and elevator authority that dicated it's
> ability to do one. I'd say you could do it, but the chances of pulling
> something off would be pretty good. At the very least I'd say you might
> find some slightly stretched metal wing mounting parts if you looked
> after doing a few snap rolls at a good speed.

Well, that's certainly more than enough reason NOT to do that in this
172!

> > The 150 series certainly stall breaks cleaner, but I don't know if
> > that's due to CG or wing design.
>
> Proly CG and the relatively limited elevator available compared to the
> 150. Neither will stay in a spin very long, but the 172, I dont think
> I've ever managed over a turn in any of them, and a half a turn is more
> par for the course. The added power in a snap would probably aid in the
> elevator department and allow a complete rotation, but I'm only
> guessing.
>
> Bertie

The best spin wrung from the C172E (3 turns, tiny amount of residual
power going into the spin) was from a cross control stall to the left.
Full left rudder, full right aileron, full back elevator....

In a blink we were inverted, then into fairly nice high rotation rate,
low airspeed, very little pitch bobbing -- a by-the-book fully
developed spin.

Power off, full opposite rudder and simply release the back pressure
and the spin stopped.

Otherwise, you're right -- by turn 1 1/2 the 172 is pulling itself
into a steep spiral.

Dan Mc

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 21st 08, 05:44 PM

Dan > wrote in news:d6ef000c-45fe-42e6-93e2-
:

> On Mar 20, 10:15 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> Well, they're roughly the same planform, though the 150s surely must
be
>> smaller overall. I think they both use an old fat NACA semi-
symetrical.
>> In fact, I think Cessna only used one airfoil for all the strutted
>> pistons, so it would be CG and elevator authority that dicated it's
>> ability to do one. I'd say you could do it, but the chances of
pulling
>> something off would be pretty good. At the very least I'd say you
might
>> find some slightly stretched metal wing mounting parts if you looked
>> after doing a few snap rolls at a good speed.
>
> Well, that's certainly more than enough reason NOT to do that in this
> 172!
>
>
>> > The 150 series certainly stall breaks cleaner, but I don't know if
>> > that's due to CG or wing design.
>>
>> Proly CG and the relatively limited elevator available compared to
the
>> 150. Neither will stay in a spin very long, but the 172, I dont think
>> I've ever managed over a turn in any of them, and a half a turn is
more
>> par for the course. The added power in a snap would probably aid in
the
>> elevator department and allow a complete rotation, but I'm only
>> guessing.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> The best spin wrung from the C172E (3 turns, tiny amount of residual
> power going into the spin) was from a cross control stall to the left.
> Full left rudder, full right aileron, full back elevator....
>
> In a blink we were inverted, then into fairly nice high rotation rate,
> low airspeed, very little pitch bobbing -- a by-the-book fully
> developed spin.
>
> Power off, full opposite rudder and simply release the back pressure
> and the spin stopped.
>
> Otherwise, you're right -- by turn 1 1/2 the 172 is pulling itself
> into a steep spiral.
>

I never spun as early a one as that. in fact, I don't think I've ever
flown a continental powered 172, so they might be slightly different in
more than just the engine. You sure you weren't spiraling, though? The
very early square tail 172s might have had more elevator authority and
they definitely would have had more rudder. I don't think I'bve ever
spun a 170, though we definitly would have done things like falling
leaves and such in the one I used to fly since it was a trainer. Come to
think of it I've done falling leaves in a 172 as well. They'll drop a
wing allright, they just won't stay in the spin.

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 21st 08, 07:35 PM

On Mar 21, 1:44 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:d6ef000c-45fe-42e6-93e2-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 20, 10:15 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> Well, they're roughly the same planform, though the 150s surely must
> be
> >> smaller overall. I think they both use an old fat NACA semi-
> symetrical.
> >> In fact, I think Cessna only used one airfoil for all the strutted
> >> pistons, so it would be CG and elevator authority that dicated it's
> >> ability to do one. I'd say you could do it, but the chances of
> pulling
> >> something off would be pretty good. At the very least I'd say you
> might
> >> find some slightly stretched metal wing mounting parts if you looked
> >> after doing a few snap rolls at a good speed.
>
> > Well, that's certainly more than enough reason NOT to do that in this
> > 172!
>
> >> > The 150 series certainly stall breaks cleaner, but I don't know if
> >> > that's due to CG or wing design.
>
> >> Proly CG and the relatively limited elevator available compared to
> the
> >> 150. Neither will stay in a spin very long, but the 172, I dont think
> >> I've ever managed over a turn in any of them, and a half a turn is
> more
> >> par for the course. The added power in a snap would probably aid in
> the
> >> elevator department and allow a complete rotation, but I'm only
> >> guessing.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > The best spin wrung from the C172E (3 turns, tiny amount of residual
> > power going into the spin) was from a cross control stall to the left.
> > Full left rudder, full right aileron, full back elevator....
>
> > In a blink we were inverted, then into fairly nice high rotation rate,
> > low airspeed, very little pitch bobbing -- a by-the-book fully
> > developed spin.
>
> > Power off, full opposite rudder and simply release the back pressure
> > and the spin stopped.
>
> > Otherwise, you're right -- by turn 1 1/2 the 172 is pulling itself
> > into a steep spiral.
>
> I never spun as early a one as that. in fact, I don't think I've ever
> flown a continental powered 172, so they might be slightly different in
> more than just the engine. You sure you weren't spiraling, though? The
> very early square tail 172s might have had more elevator authority and
> they definitely would have had more rudder. I don't think I'bve ever
> spun a 170, though we definitly would have done things like falling
> leaves and such in the one I used to fly since it was a trainer. Come to
> think of it I've done falling leaves in a 172 as well. They'll drop a
> wing allright, they just won't stay in the spin.
>
> Bertie

May have been spiraling by turn 3...

I was in right seat and had a hard time getting a good read on the
ASI.

Dan Mc

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 21st 08, 07:43 PM

Dan > wrote in news:1cb92ef6-6416-49a4-b564-eb00a52135a1
@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> Bertie
>
> May have been spiraling by turn 3...
>
> I was in right seat and had a hard time getting a good read on the
> ASI.
>

Dunno, it wouldn't take much of a rigging change to make a difference.
Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 21st 08, 07:51 PM

On Mar 21, 3:43 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > May have been spiraling by turn 3...
>
> > I was in right seat and had a hard time getting a good read on the
> > ASI.
>
> Dunno, it wouldn't take much of a rigging change to make a difference.
> Bertie

Oh?

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 21st 08, 07:58 PM

Dan > wrote in news:567b2791-aea0-4f51-b1e7-
:

> On Mar 21, 3:43 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> > May have been spiraling by turn 3...
>>
>> > I was in right seat and had a hard time getting a good read on the
>> > ASI.
>>
>> Dunno, it wouldn't take much of a rigging change to make a
difference.
>> Bertie
>
> Oh?
>

More up elevator would probably do it for starters. There's only enough
to get you to crit alpha, no more, thats one reason why power helps, it
increases the authority of the elevator

Bertie

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 21st 08, 08:08 PM

On Mar 21, 3:58 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> Dunno, it wouldn't take much of a rigging change to make a
> difference.
> >> Bertie
>
> > Oh?
>
> More up elevator would probably do it for starters. There's only enough
> to get you to crit alpha, no more, thats one reason why power helps, it
> increases the authority of the elevator
>
> Bertie

True... I was only thinking of rigging n the fly-straight sense, not
elevator -- duh.

This particular airplane seems to have weak right rudder -- 10 knot x-
wind is more than it can handle in a slip -- rudder is to the stop,
while left I can easily stay straight banking much more steeply (this
is in approach, so left turning tendency is not a factor).

Yet the airplane appears to fly straight...

I suppose it's asking alot of a 44 year old airplane for everything to
be in perfect harmony!

Dan Mc

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 21st 08, 08:11 PM

Dan > wrote in news:815d450d-6bc2-46f0-8513-
:

> On Mar 21, 3:58 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> Dunno, it wouldn't take much of a rigging change to make a
>> difference.
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > Oh?
>>
>> More up elevator would probably do it for starters. There's only
enough
>> to get you to crit alpha, no more, thats one reason why power helps,
it
>> increases the authority of the elevator
>>
>> Bertie
>
> True... I was only thinking of rigging n the fly-straight sense, not
> elevator -- duh.
>
> This particular airplane seems to have weak right rudder -- 10 knot x-
> wind is more than it can handle in a slip -- rudder is to the stop,
> while left I can easily stay straight banking much more steeply (this
> is in approach, so left turning tendency is not a factor).
>
> Yet the airplane appears to fly straight...
>
> I suppose it's asking alot of a 44 year old airplane for everything to
> be in perfect harmony!

A 44 year old anything.

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 21st 08, 08:17 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:815d450d-6bc2-46f0-8513-
> :
>
>> On Mar 21, 3:58 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>> Dunno, it wouldn't take much of a rigging change to make a
>>> difference.
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> Oh?
>>> More up elevator would probably do it for starters. There's only
> enough
>>> to get you to crit alpha, no more, thats one reason why power helps,
> it
>>> increases the authority of the elevator
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> True... I was only thinking of rigging n the fly-straight sense, not
>> elevator -- duh.
>>
>> This particular airplane seems to have weak right rudder -- 10 knot x-
>> wind is more than it can handle in a slip -- rudder is to the stop,
>> while left I can easily stay straight banking much more steeply (this
>> is in approach, so left turning tendency is not a factor).
>>
>> Yet the airplane appears to fly straight...
>>
>> I suppose it's asking alot of a 44 year old airplane for everything to
>> be in perfect harmony!
>
>
> A 44 year old anything.
>
>
>
Hey...I haven't been in perfect harmony for a LONG time :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 21st 08, 08:24 PM

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dan > wrote in news:815d450d-6bc2-46f0-8513-
>> :
>>
>>> On Mar 21, 3:58 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>> Dunno, it wouldn't take much of a rigging change to make a
>>>> difference.
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> Oh?
>>>> More up elevator would probably do it for starters. There's only
>> enough
>>>> to get you to crit alpha, no more, thats one reason why power
helps,
>> it
>>>> increases the authority of the elevator
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> True... I was only thinking of rigging n the fly-straight sense, not
>>> elevator -- duh.
>>>
>>> This particular airplane seems to have weak right rudder -- 10 knot
x-
>>> wind is more than it can handle in a slip -- rudder is to the stop,
>>> while left I can easily stay straight banking much more steeply
(this
>>> is in approach, so left turning tendency is not a factor).
>>>
>>> Yet the airplane appears to fly straight...
>>>
>>> I suppose it's asking alot of a 44 year old airplane for everything
to
>>> be in perfect harmony!
>>
>>
>> A 44 year old anything.
>>
>>
>>
> Hey...I haven't been in perfect harmony for a LONG time :-)
>

unless you count eveything falling apart in equal portions as harmony!

Bertie

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 21st 08, 08:25 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dan > wrote in news:815d450d-6bc2-46f0-8513-
>>> :
>>>
>>>> On Mar 21, 3:58 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>>> Dunno, it wouldn't take much of a rigging change to make a
>>>>> difference.
>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>> Oh?
>>>>> More up elevator would probably do it for starters. There's only
>>> enough
>>>>> to get you to crit alpha, no more, thats one reason why power
> helps,
>>> it
>>>>> increases the authority of the elevator
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> True... I was only thinking of rigging n the fly-straight sense, not
>>>> elevator -- duh.
>>>>
>>>> This particular airplane seems to have weak right rudder -- 10 knot
> x-
>>>> wind is more than it can handle in a slip -- rudder is to the stop,
>>>> while left I can easily stay straight banking much more steeply
> (this
>>>> is in approach, so left turning tendency is not a factor).
>>>>
>>>> Yet the airplane appears to fly straight...
>>>>
>>>> I suppose it's asking alot of a 44 year old airplane for everything
> to
>>>> be in perfect harmony!
>>>
>>> A 44 year old anything.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Hey...I haven't been in perfect harmony for a LONG time :-)
>>
>
> unless you count eveything falling apart in equal portions as harmony!
>
> Bertie
You might just have a point there :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 21st 08, 08:27 PM

Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:I-
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dan > wrote in news:815d450d-6bc2-46f0-8513-
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 21, 3:58 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dunno, it wouldn't take much of a rigging change to make a
>>>>>> difference.
>>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>> Oh?
>>>>>> More up elevator would probably do it for starters. There's only
>>>> enough
>>>>>> to get you to crit alpha, no more, thats one reason why power
>> helps,
>>>> it
>>>>>> increases the authority of the elevator
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> True... I was only thinking of rigging n the fly-straight sense,
not
>>>>> elevator -- duh.
>>>>>
>>>>> This particular airplane seems to have weak right rudder -- 10
knot
>> x-
>>>>> wind is more than it can handle in a slip -- rudder is to the
stop,
>>>>> while left I can easily stay straight banking much more steeply
>> (this
>>>>> is in approach, so left turning tendency is not a factor).
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet the airplane appears to fly straight...
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose it's asking alot of a 44 year old airplane for
everything
>> to
>>>>> be in perfect harmony!
>>>>
>>>> A 44 year old anything.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Hey...I haven't been in perfect harmony for a LONG time :-)
>>>
>>
>> unless you count eveything falling apart in equal portions as
harmony!
>>
>> Bertie
> You might just have a point there :-)
>

i've only got one part at a time faiing at the moment, fortunately. I
suppose my time will come..

Bertie

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 21st 08, 08:32 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:I-
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Dan > wrote in news:815d450d-6bc2-46f0-8513-
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 21, 3:58 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Dunno, it wouldn't take much of a rigging change to make a
>>>>>>> difference.
>>>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>>> Oh?
>>>>>>> More up elevator would probably do it for starters. There's only
>>>>> enough
>>>>>>> to get you to crit alpha, no more, thats one reason why power
>>> helps,
>>>>> it
>>>>>>> increases the authority of the elevator
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>> True... I was only thinking of rigging n the fly-straight sense,
> not
>>>>>> elevator -- duh.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This particular airplane seems to have weak right rudder -- 10
> knot
>>> x-
>>>>>> wind is more than it can handle in a slip -- rudder is to the
> stop,
>>>>>> while left I can easily stay straight banking much more steeply
>>> (this
>>>>>> is in approach, so left turning tendency is not a factor).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet the airplane appears to fly straight...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suppose it's asking alot of a 44 year old airplane for
> everything
>>> to
>>>>>> be in perfect harmony!
>>>>> A 44 year old anything.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Hey...I haven't been in perfect harmony for a LONG time :-)
>>>>
>>> unless you count eveything falling apart in equal portions as
> harmony!
>>> Bertie
>> You might just have a point there :-)
>>
>
> i've only got one part at a time faiing at the moment, fortunately. I
> suppose my time will come..
>
>
>
> Bertie

Yeah; growing old is surely no fun, but the alternative is not so good
either :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 21st 08, 08:47 PM

Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:I-
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:I-
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> Dan > wrote in news:815d450d-6bc2-46f0-8513-
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 3:58 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Dunno, it wouldn't take much of a rigging change to make a
>>>>>>>> difference.
>>>>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>>>> Oh?
>>>>>>>> More up elevator would probably do it for starters. There's
only
>>>>>> enough
>>>>>>>> to get you to crit alpha, no more, thats one reason why power
>>>> helps,
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> increases the authority of the elevator
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>> True... I was only thinking of rigging n the fly-straight sense,
>> not
>>>>>>> elevator -- duh.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This particular airplane seems to have weak right rudder -- 10
>> knot
>>>> x-
>>>>>>> wind is more than it can handle in a slip -- rudder is to the
>> stop,
>>>>>>> while left I can easily stay straight banking much more steeply
>>>> (this
>>>>>>> is in approach, so left turning tendency is not a factor).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yet the airplane appears to fly straight...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suppose it's asking alot of a 44 year old airplane for
>> everything
>>>> to
>>>>>>> be in perfect harmony!
>>>>>> A 44 year old anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hey...I haven't been in perfect harmony for a LONG time :-)
>>>>>
>>>> unless you count eveything falling apart in equal portions as
>> harmony!
>>>> Bertie
>>> You might just have a point there :-)
>>>
>>
>> i've only got one part at a time faiing at the moment, fortunately. I
>> suppose my time will come..
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Yeah; growing old is surely no fun, but the alternative is not so good
> either :-)
>

Well, there's a group trying to live forever! You could always try
it..on the down side I think it means a lot of cold baths. On the up,
you have to have sex every day.

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 21st 08, 08:59 PM

On Mar 21, 4:11 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:815d450d-6bc2-46f0-8513-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 21, 3:58 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> >> Dunno, it wouldn't take much of a rigging change to make a
> >> difference.
> >> >> Bertie
>
> >> > Oh?
>
> >> More up elevator would probably do it for starters. There's only
> enough
> >> to get you to crit alpha, no more, thats one reason why power helps,
> it
> >> increases the authority of the elevator
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > True... I was only thinking of rigging n the fly-straight sense, not
> > elevator -- duh.
>
> > This particular airplane seems to have weak right rudder -- 10 knot x-
> > wind is more than it can handle in a slip -- rudder is to the stop,
> > while left I can easily stay straight banking much more steeply (this
> > is in approach, so left turning tendency is not a factor).
>
> > Yet the airplane appears to fly straight...
>
> > I suppose it's asking alot of a 44 year old airplane for everything to
> > be in perfect harmony!
>
> A 44 year old anything.

HEY!

I resemble that remark....

Dan[_10_]

March 21st 08, 09:00 PM

On Mar 21, 4:47 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>
> Well, there's a group trying to live forever! You could always try
> it..on the down side I think it means a lot of cold baths. On the up,
> you have to have sex every day.
>
> Bertie

You post that and fail to provide a link????

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 21st 08, 09:00 PM

Dan > wrote in news:349036d3-c584-45a5-837f-
:

> On Mar 21, 4:11 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dan > wrote in news:815d450d-6bc2-46f0-8513-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 21, 3:58 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Dunno, it wouldn't take much of a rigging change to make a
>> >> difference.
>> >> >> Bertie
>>
>> >> > Oh?
>>
>> >> More up elevator would probably do it for starters. There's only
>> enough
>> >> to get you to crit alpha, no more, thats one reason why power
helps,
>> it
>> >> increases the authority of the elevator
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > True... I was only thinking of rigging n the fly-straight sense,
not
>> > elevator -- duh.
>>
>> > This particular airplane seems to have weak right rudder -- 10 knot
x-
>> > wind is more than it can handle in a slip -- rudder is to the stop,
>> > while left I can easily stay straight banking much more steeply
(this
>> > is in approach, so left turning tendency is not a factor).
>>
>> > Yet the airplane appears to fly straight...
>>
>> > I suppose it's asking alot of a 44 year old airplane for everything
to
>> > be in perfect harmony!
>>
>> A 44 year old anything.
>
> HEY!
>
> I resemble that remark....
>

That's not my fault!

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 21st 08, 09:03 PM

Dan > wrote in news:40d6d1e2-b576-4872-87dd-
:

> On Mar 21, 4:47 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, there's a group trying to live forever! You could always try
>> it..on the down side I think it means a lot of cold baths. On the up,
>> you have to have sex every day.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> You post that and fail to provide a link????
>

I'm sure you can find lots. I heard it in a talk radio interview years ago.
As well as that they just about live on anti-oxidant food and drink wheat
grass juice every day, IIRC. The sex thing sounds good though.

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 21st 08, 09:06 PM

On Mar 21, 5:03 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:40d6d1e2-b576-4872-87dd-
> :
>
> > On Mar 21, 4:47 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> Well, there's a group trying to live forever! You could always try
> >> it..on the down side I think it means a lot of cold baths. On the up,
> >> you have to have sex every day.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > You post that and fail to provide a link????
>
> I'm sure you can find lots. I heard it in a talk radio interview years ago.
> As well as that they just about live on anti-oxidant food and drink wheat
> grass juice every day, IIRC. The sex thing sounds good though.
>
> Bertie

Really, ok, some wheat grass and fake vitamins, I think my system can
handle, as long as the rest were required and provided.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 21st 08, 09:07 PM

Dan > wrote in news:40d6d1e2-b576-4872-87dd-
:

> On Mar 21, 4:47 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, there's a group trying to live forever! You could always try
>> it..on the down side I think it means a lot of cold baths. On the up,
>> you have to have sex every day.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> You post that and fail to provide a link????
>

Here you go. I think this was probably them. Prolly too left wing for
you though.

http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000607.php

They probably wear sandals made from hemp and believe that war is
something that shortens life as well

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 21st 08, 09:10 PM

On Mar 21, 5:07 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:40d6d1e2-b576-4872-87dd-
> :
>
> > On Mar 21, 4:47 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> Well, there's a group trying to live forever! You could always try
> >> it..on the down side I think it means a lot of cold baths. On the up,
> >> you have to have sex every day.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > You post that and fail to provide a link????
>
> Here you go. I think this was probably them. Prolly too left wing for
> you though.
>
> http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000607.php
>
> They probably wear sandals made from hemp and believe that war is
> something that shortens life as well
>
> Bertie

Dude, sex or war..I'm a soldier, not an idiot.

;-)

Dan Mc

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 21st 08, 09:34 PM

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 21, 5:03 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dan > wrote in news:40d6d1e2-b576-4872-87dd-
>> :
>>
>> > On Mar 21, 4:47 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> Well, there's a group trying to live forever! You could always try
>> >> it..on the down side I think it means a lot of cold baths. On the
>> >> up, you have to have sex every day.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > You post that and fail to provide a link????
>>
>> I'm sure you can find lots. I heard it in a talk radio interview
>> years ago. As well as that they just about live on anti-oxidant food
>> and drink wheat grass juice every day, IIRC. The sex thing sounds
>> good though.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Really, ok, some wheat grass and fake vitamins, I think my system can
> handle, as long as the rest were required and provided.
>

Fake vitamins?

You're an anti oxidant denier as well?

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 21st 08, 09:39 PM

Dan > wrote in news:134cab0c-f2e3-4252-ab5b-
:

> On Mar 21, 5:07 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dan > wrote in news:40d6d1e2-b576-4872-87dd-
>> :
>>
>> > On Mar 21, 4:47 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> Well, there's a group trying to live forever! You could always try
>> >> it..on the down side I think it means a lot of cold baths. On the
up,
>> >> you have to have sex every day.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > You post that and fail to provide a link????
>>
>> Here you go. I think this was probably them. Prolly too left wing for
>> you though.
>>
>> http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000607.php
>>
>> They probably wear sandals made from hemp and believe that war is
>> something that shortens life as well
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Dude, sex or war..I'm a soldier, not an idiot.

OK, you can provide some sort of evidence to that effect, can you?

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 21st 08, 10:03 PM

On Mar 21, 5:39 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:134cab0c-f2e3-4252-ab5b-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 21, 5:07 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> Dan > wrote in news:40d6d1e2-b576-4872-87dd-
> >> :
>
> >> > On Mar 21, 4:47 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> >> Well, there's a group trying to live forever! You could always try
> >> >> it..on the down side I think it means a lot of cold baths. On the
> up,
> >> >> you have to have sex every day.
>
> >> >> Bertie
>
> >> > You post that and fail to provide a link????
>
> >> Here you go. I think this was probably them. Prolly too left wing for
> >> you though.
>
> >>http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000607.php
>
> >> They probably wear sandals made from hemp and believe that war is
> >> something that shortens life as well
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > Dude, sex or war..I'm a soldier, not an idiot.
>
> OK, you can provide some sort of evidence to that effect, can you?
>
> Bertie

Yep.

I always disagree with mx.

Dan Mc

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 21st 08, 10:07 PM

Dan > wrote in news:8d3ae7de-c682-4f64-8ddb-
:

> On Mar 21, 5:39 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dan > wrote in news:134cab0c-f2e3-4252-ab5b-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 21, 5:07 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> Dan > wrote in news:40d6d1e2-b576-4872-87dd-
>> >> :
>>
>> >> > On Mar 21, 4:47 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Well, there's a group trying to live forever! You could always
try
>> >> >> it..on the down side I think it means a lot of cold baths. On
the
>> up,
>> >> >> you have to have sex every day.
>>
>> >> >> Bertie
>>
>> >> > You post that and fail to provide a link????
>>
>> >> Here you go. I think this was probably them. Prolly too left wing
for
>> >> you though.
>>
>> >>http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000607.php
>>
>> >> They probably wear sandals made from hemp and believe that war is
>> >> something that shortens life as well
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > Dude, sex or war..I'm a soldier, not an idiot.
>>
>> OK, you can provide some sort of evidence to that effect, can you?
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Yep.
>
> I always disagree with mx.
>

No you don't.

Bertie

george

March 21st 08, 10:32 PM

On Mar 22, 9:03 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:40d6d1e2-b576-4872-87dd-
> :
>
> > On Mar 21, 4:47 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> Well, there's a group trying to live forever! You could always try
> >> it..on the down side I think it means a lot of cold baths. On the up,
> >> you have to have sex every day.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > You post that and fail to provide a link????
>
> I'm sure you can find lots. I heard it in a talk radio interview years ago.
> As well as that they just about live on anti-oxidant food and drink wheat
> grass juice every day, IIRC. The sex thing sounds good though.
>

I heard of a group called Breatherians who (theoretically) don't eat
and live for ever.
Apart from those who 'believed' , tried it and died.
Think of it as evolution in action

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 21st 08, 10:36 PM

george > wrote in
:

> On Mar 22, 9:03 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dan > wrote in news:40d6d1e2-b576-4872-87dd-
>> :
>>
>> > On Mar 21, 4:47 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> Well, there's a group trying to live forever! You could always try
>> >> it..on the down side I think it means a lot of cold baths. On the
>> >> up, you have to have sex every day.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > You post that and fail to provide a link????
>>
>> I'm sure you can find lots. I heard it in a talk radio interview
>> years ago. As well as that they just about live on anti-oxidant food
>> and drink wheat grass juice every day, IIRC. The sex thing sounds
>> good though.
>>
>
> I heard of a group called Breatherians who (theoretically) don't eat
> and live for ever.
> Apart from those who 'believed' , tried it and died.
> Think of it as evolution in action
>
>

IIRC I think Dick Gregory was promoting something like that years ago.
The guy I was listeing to didn't seem to be anthing like as big a
crackpot. Mostly they were just advocating good nutrition and other
sensible stuff. Seems to me like we got enough bods as it is without
having people living forever, though.

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 22nd 08, 12:01 AM

On Mar 21, 6:36 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> george > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Mar 22, 9:03 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> Dan > wrote in news:40d6d1e2-b576-4872-87dd-
> >> :
>
> >> > On Mar 21, 4:47 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> >> Well, there's a group trying to live forever! You could always try
> >> >> it..on the down side I think it means a lot of cold baths. On the
> >> >> up, you have to have sex every day.
>
> >> >> Bertie
>
> >> > You post that and fail to provide a link????
>
> >> I'm sure you can find lots. I heard it in a talk radio interview
> >> years ago. As well as that they just about live on anti-oxidant food
> >> and drink wheat grass juice every day, IIRC. The sex thing sounds
> >> good though.
>
> > I heard of a group called Breatherians who (theoretically) don't eat
> > and live for ever.
> > Apart from those who 'believed' , tried it and died.
> > Think of it as evolution in action
>
> IIRC I think Dick Gregory was promoting something like that years ago.
> The guy I was listeing to didn't seem to be anthing like as big a
> crackpot. Mostly they were just advocating good nutrition and other
> sensible stuff. Seems to me like we got enough bods as it is without
> having people living forever, though.
>
> Bertie

Oh sure you live forever.

But they don't tell you have a perpetual 83 year old body.

Dan Mc

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 22nd 08, 12:28 AM

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 21, 6:36 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> george > wrote
>> innews:5d9aedad-d66e-4cdb-9b17-ef9ca473fb06
@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.c
>> om:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 22, 9:03 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> Dan > wrote in news:40d6d1e2-b576-4872-87dd-
>> >> :
>>
>> >> > On Mar 21, 4:47 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Well, there's a group trying to live forever! You could always
>> >> >> try it..on the down side I think it means a lot of cold baths.
>> >> >> On the up, you have to have sex every day.
>>
>> >> >> Bertie
>>
>> >> > You post that and fail to provide a link????
>>
>> >> I'm sure you can find lots. I heard it in a talk radio interview
>> >> years ago. As well as that they just about live on anti-oxidant
>> >> food and drink wheat grass juice every day, IIRC. The sex thing
>> >> sounds good though.
>>
>> > I heard of a group called Breatherians who (theoretically) don't
>> > eat and live for ever.
>> > Apart from those who 'believed' , tried it and died.
>> > Think of it as evolution in action
>>
>> IIRC I think Dick Gregory was promoting something like that years
>> ago. The guy I was listeing to didn't seem to be anthing like as big
>> a crackpot. Mostly they were just advocating good nutrition and other
>> sensible stuff. Seems to me like we got enough bods as it is without
>> having people living forever, though.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Oh sure you live forever.
>
> But they don't tell you have a perpetual 83 year old body.
>

You're one of those "seatbelts will only trap you in the flaming
wreckage" guys, aren't you?

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 22nd 08, 02:41 AM

On Mar 21, 8:28 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote :
>
> > On Mar 21, 6:36 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> george > wrote
> >> innews:5d9aedad-d66e-4cdb-9b17-ef9ca473fb06
>
> @e10g2000prf.googlegroups.c
>
>
>
> >> om:
>
> >> > On Mar 22, 9:03 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> Dan > wrote in news:40d6d1e2-b576-4872-87dd-
> >> >> :
>
> >> >> > On Mar 21, 4:47 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> Well, there's a group trying to live forever! You could always
> >> >> >> try it..on the down side I think it means a lot of cold baths.
> >> >> >> On the up, you have to have sex every day.
>
> >> >> >> Bertie
>
> >> >> > You post that and fail to provide a link????
>
> >> >> I'm sure you can find lots. I heard it in a talk radio interview
> >> >> years ago. As well as that they just about live on anti-oxidant
> >> >> food and drink wheat grass juice every day, IIRC. The sex thing
> >> >> sounds good though.
>
> >> > I heard of a group called Breatherians who (theoretically) don't
> >> > eat and live for ever.
> >> > Apart from those who 'believed' , tried it and died.
> >> > Think of it as evolution in action
>
> >> IIRC I think Dick Gregory was promoting something like that years
> >> ago. The guy I was listeing to didn't seem to be anthing like as big
> >> a crackpot. Mostly they were just advocating good nutrition and other
> >> sensible stuff. Seems to me like we got enough bods as it is without
> >> having people living forever, though.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > Oh sure you live forever.
>
> > But they don't tell you have a perpetual 83 year old body.
>
> You're one of those "seatbelts will only trap you in the flaming
> wreckage" guys, aren't you?
>
> Bertie

Actually...

{story time}

In 1982 I attended a mandatory "Drivers Safety Course" the Air Force
put on...

I endured it, until the guy said "You paid $400 for the seat belts in
your car -- why waste that?"

Then, NY Governor Mario Cuomo (I met him -- very sincere and
remarkable, actually) pushed for a mandatory Seat Belt law in NY.

I figured, "Oh well, why not?" and got in the habit, and convinced my
new wife to as well.

(Keep in mind, hardly anyone wore seatbelts in the 70s).

I was driving a Ford Fiesta -- one of the first econoboxes. On April
3rd, 1982 we were driving back from a family viist and a drunk driver
came around a bend on our side -- head on collision at closing speed
in excess of 100 MPH.

I spent 3 days in intensive care (the engine had to be jacked up so I
could be extracted from underneath it). my wife was more fortunate,
but still spent about a month recuperating.

Exactly two weeks later my father and his wife hit a telephone pole --
neither was wearing a seat belt -- and both were killed.

So the short answer is -- I know all about seat belts, the power of
government to induce people to do good, the need for adjustment of
behavior, and the senseless tragedies that can be avoided.

I always wear a seat belt.

Dan Mc.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 22nd 08, 02:46 AM

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 21, 8:28 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dan > wrote
>> innews:25b782a4-f0f1-4928-85d2-0988b3120583
@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.c
>> om:
>>
>> > On Mar 21, 6:36 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> george > wrote
>> >> innews:5d9aedad-d66e-4cdb-9b17-ef9ca473fb06
>>
>> @e10g2000prf.googlegroups.c
>>
>>
>>
>> >> om:
>>
>> >> > On Mar 22, 9:03 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> >> Dan > wrote in news:40d6d1e2-b576-4872-87dd-
>> >> >> :
>>
>> >> >> > On Mar 21, 4:47 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> Well, there's a group trying to live forever! You could
>> >> >> >> always try it..on the down side I think it means a lot of
>> >> >> >> cold baths. On the up, you have to have sex every day.
>>
>> >> >> >> Bertie
>>
>> >> >> > You post that and fail to provide a link????
>>
>> >> >> I'm sure you can find lots. I heard it in a talk radio
>> >> >> interview years ago. As well as that they just about live on
>> >> >> anti-oxidant food and drink wheat grass juice every day, IIRC.
>> >> >> The sex thing sounds good though.
>>
>> >> > I heard of a group called Breatherians who (theoretically) don't
>> >> > eat and live for ever.
>> >> > Apart from those who 'believed' , tried it and died.
>> >> > Think of it as evolution in action
>>
>> >> IIRC I think Dick Gregory was promoting something like that years
>> >> ago. The guy I was listeing to didn't seem to be anthing like as
>> >> big a crackpot. Mostly they were just advocating good nutrition
>> >> and other sensible stuff. Seems to me like we got enough bods as
>> >> it is without having people living forever, though.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > Oh sure you live forever.
>>
>> > But they don't tell you have a perpetual 83 year old body.
>>
>> You're one of those "seatbelts will only trap you in the flaming
>> wreckage" guys, aren't you?
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Actually...
>
> {story time}
>
> In 1982 I attended a mandatory "Drivers Safety Course" the Air Force
> put on...
>
> I endured it, until the guy said "You paid $400 for the seat belts in
> your car -- why waste that?"
>
> Then, NY Governor Mario Cuomo (I met him -- very sincere and
> remarkable, actually) pushed for a mandatory Seat Belt law in NY.
>
> I figured, "Oh well, why not?" and got in the habit, and convinced my
> new wife to as well.
>
> (Keep in mind, hardly anyone wore seatbelts in the 70s).
>
> I was driving a Ford Fiesta -- one of the first econoboxes. On April
> 3rd, 1982 we were driving back from a family viist and a drunk driver
> came around a bend on our side -- head on collision at closing speed
> in excess of 100 MPH.
>
> I spent 3 days in intensive care (the engine had to be jacked up so I
> could be extracted from underneath it). my wife was more fortunate,
> but still spent about a month recuperating.
>
> Exactly two weeks later my father and his wife hit a telephone pole --
> neither was wearing a seat belt -- and both were killed.
>
> So the short answer is -- I know all about seat belts, the power of
> government to induce people to do good, the need for adjustment of
> behavior, and the senseless tragedies that can be avoided.
>
> I always wear a seat belt.

There's a lesson there.

Bertie

george

March 22nd 08, 02:51 AM

On Mar 22, 2:41 pm, Dan > wrote:

> I always wear a seat belt.
>
Any-one who has flown wears whatever harness is available to them in
aircraft or road transport..

Dan[_10_]

March 22nd 08, 02:53 AM

On Mar 21, 10:51 pm, george > wrote:
> On Mar 22, 2:41 pm, Dan > wrote:
>
> > I always wear a seat belt.
>
> Any-one who has flown wears whatever harness is available to them in
> aircraft or road transport..

Really?

Thanks for sharing.

Dan[_10_]

March 22nd 08, 02:53 AM

On Mar 21, 10:46 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote :
>
> > On Mar 21, 8:28 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> Dan > wrote
> >> innews:25b782a4-f0f1-4928-85d2-0988b3120583
>
> @n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.c
>
>
>
> >> om:
>
> >> > On Mar 21, 6:36 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> george > wrote
> >> >> innews:5d9aedad-d66e-4cdb-9b17-ef9ca473fb06
>
> >> @e10g2000prf.googlegroups.c
>
> >> >> om:
>
> >> >> > On Mar 22, 9:03 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> >> Dan > wrote in news:40d6d1e2-b576-4872-87dd-
> >> >> >> :
>
> >> >> >> > On Mar 21, 4:47 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> Well, there's a group trying to live forever! You could
> >> >> >> >> always try it..on the down side I think it means a lot of
> >> >> >> >> cold baths. On the up, you have to have sex every day.
>
> >> >> >> >> Bertie
>
> >> >> >> > You post that and fail to provide a link????
>
> >> >> >> I'm sure you can find lots. I heard it in a talk radio
> >> >> >> interview years ago. As well as that they just about live on
> >> >> >> anti-oxidant food and drink wheat grass juice every day, IIRC.
> >> >> >> The sex thing sounds good though.
>
> >> >> > I heard of a group called Breatherians who (theoretically) don't
> >> >> > eat and live for ever.
> >> >> > Apart from those who 'believed' , tried it and died.
> >> >> > Think of it as evolution in action
>
> >> >> IIRC I think Dick Gregory was promoting something like that years
> >> >> ago. The guy I was listeing to didn't seem to be anthing like as
> >> >> big a crackpot. Mostly they were just advocating good nutrition
> >> >> and other sensible stuff. Seems to me like we got enough bods as
> >> >> it is without having people living forever, though.
>
> >> >> Bertie
>
> >> > Oh sure you live forever.
>
> >> > But they don't tell you have a perpetual 83 year old body.
>
> >> You're one of those "seatbelts will only trap you in the flaming
> >> wreckage" guys, aren't you?
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > Actually...
>
> > {story time}
>
> > In 1982 I attended a mandatory "Drivers Safety Course" the Air Force
> > put on...
>
> > I endured it, until the guy said "You paid $400 for the seat belts in
> > your car -- why waste that?"
>
> > Then, NY Governor Mario Cuomo (I met him -- very sincere and
> > remarkable, actually) pushed for a mandatory Seat Belt law in NY.
>
> > I figured, "Oh well, why not?" and got in the habit, and convinced my
> > new wife to as well.
>
> > (Keep in mind, hardly anyone wore seatbelts in the 70s).
>
> > I was driving a Ford Fiesta -- one of the first econoboxes. On April
> > 3rd, 1982 we were driving back from a family viist and a drunk driver
> > came around a bend on our side -- head on collision at closing speed
> > in excess of 100 MPH.
>
> > I spent 3 days in intensive care (the engine had to be jacked up so I
> > could be extracted from underneath it). my wife was more fortunate,
> > but still spent about a month recuperating.
>
> > Exactly two weeks later my father and his wife hit a telephone pole --
> > neither was wearing a seat belt -- and both were killed.
>
> > So the short answer is -- I know all about seat belts, the power of
> > government to induce people to do good, the need for adjustment of
> > behavior, and the senseless tragedies that can be avoided.
>
> > I always wear a seat belt.
>
> There's a lesson there.
>
> Bertie

There sure is, and even you might be able to discern it.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 22nd 08, 04:41 AM

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 21, 10:46 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dan > wrote
>> innews:38025373-f533-4cd3-914d-

>> om:
>>
>> > On Mar 21, 8:28 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> Dan > wrote
>> >> innews:25b782a4-f0f1-4928-85d2-0988b3120583
>>
>> @n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.c
>>
>>
>>
>> >> om:
>>
>> >> > On Mar 21, 6:36 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> >> george > wrote
>> >> >> innews:5d9aedad-d66e-4cdb-9b17-ef9ca473fb06
>>
>> >> @e10g2000prf.googlegroups.c
>>
>> >> >> om:
>>
>> >> >> > On Mar 22, 9:03 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> >> >> Dan > wrote in
>> >> >> >> news:40d6d1e2-b576-4872-87dd-
>> >> >> >> :
>>
>> >> >> >> > On Mar 21, 4:47 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Well, there's a group trying to live forever! You could
>> >> >> >> >> always try it..on the down side I think it means a lot of
>> >> >> >> >> cold baths. On the up, you have to have sex every day.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Bertie
>>
>> >> >> >> > You post that and fail to provide a link????
>>
>> >> >> >> I'm sure you can find lots. I heard it in a talk radio
>> >> >> >> interview years ago. As well as that they just about live on
>> >> >> >> anti-oxidant food and drink wheat grass juice every day,
>> >> >> >> IIRC. The sex thing sounds good though.
>>
>> >> >> > I heard of a group called Breatherians who (theoretically)
>> >> >> > don't eat and live for ever.
>> >> >> > Apart from those who 'believed' , tried it and died.
>> >> >> > Think of it as evolution in action
>>
>> >> >> IIRC I think Dick Gregory was promoting something like that
>> >> >> years ago. The guy I was listeing to didn't seem to be anthing
>> >> >> like as big a crackpot. Mostly they were just advocating good
>> >> >> nutrition and other sensible stuff. Seems to me like we got
>> >> >> enough bods as it is without having people living forever,
>> >> >> though.
>>
>> >> >> Bertie
>>
>> >> > Oh sure you live forever.
>>
>> >> > But they don't tell you have a perpetual 83 year old body.
>>
>> >> You're one of those "seatbelts will only trap you in the flaming
>> >> wreckage" guys, aren't you?
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > Actually...
>>
>> > {story time}
>>
>> > In 1982 I attended a mandatory "Drivers Safety Course" the Air
>> > Force put on...
>>
>> > I endured it, until the guy said "You paid $400 for the seat belts
>> > in your car -- why waste that?"
>>
>> > Then, NY Governor Mario Cuomo (I met him -- very sincere and
>> > remarkable, actually) pushed for a mandatory Seat Belt law in NY.
>>
>> > I figured, "Oh well, why not?" and got in the habit, and convinced
>> > my new wife to as well.
>>
>> > (Keep in mind, hardly anyone wore seatbelts in the 70s).
>>
>> > I was driving a Ford Fiesta -- one of the first econoboxes. On
>> > April 3rd, 1982 we were driving back from a family viist and a
>> > drunk driver came around a bend on our side -- head on collision at
>> > closing speed in excess of 100 MPH.
>>
>> > I spent 3 days in intensive care (the engine had to be jacked up so
>> > I could be extracted from underneath it). my wife was more
>> > fortunate, but still spent about a month recuperating.
>>
>> > Exactly two weeks later my father and his wife hit a telephone pole
>> > -- neither was wearing a seat belt -- and both were killed.
>>
>> > So the short answer is -- I know all about seat belts, the power
>> > of government to induce people to do good, the need for adjustment
>> > of behavior, and the senseless tragedies that can be avoided.
>>
>> > I always wear a seat belt.
>>
>> There's a lesson there.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> There sure is, and even you might be able to discern it.
>
>

Don't bet on it. I'#ve seen your cards, you haven;'t seen mine.

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 22nd 08, 11:25 AM

On Mar 22, 12:41 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> Don't bet on it. I'#ve seen your cards, you haven;'t seen mine.
>
> Bertie

No, you really haven't.

Jay Maynard

March 22nd 08, 02:29 PM

On 2008-03-22, Dan > wrote:
> I always wear a seat belt.

In 17 years in volunteer EMS, I unbuckled exactly three patients, and two
were uninjured and merely scared.

I lean toward the libertarian side of things...but I absolutely support seat
belt and helmet laws. There's simply no excuse for not using either, and
they demonstrably save lives.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 22nd 08, 04:29 PM

Dan > wrote in news:86b2d0ec-88ab-4220-9f52-93f335014fee@
8g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

> On Mar 22, 12:41 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> Don't bet on it. I'#ve seen your cards, you haven;'t seen mine.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> No, you really haven't.
>
>

Yeh, i have.

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 23rd 08, 12:04 AM

On Mar 22, 12:29 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:86b2d0ec-88ab-4220-9f52-93f335014fee@
> 8g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Mar 22, 12:41 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> Don't bet on it. I'#ve seen your cards, you haven;'t seen mine.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > No, you really haven't.
>
> Yeh, i have.
>
> Bertie

Good.

Then you'll be pleased to know how little it means to me.

:-)

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 23rd 08, 12:11 AM

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 22, 12:29 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dan > wrote in
>> news:86b2d0ec-88ab-4220-9f52-93f335014fee@
>> 8g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Mar 22, 12:41 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> Don't bet on it. I'#ve seen your cards, you haven;'t seen mine.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > No, you really haven't.
>>
>> Yeh, i have.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Good.
>
> Then you'll be pleased to know how little it means to me.
>
>:-)
>

I already knew that.

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 23rd 08, 12:31 AM

On Mar 22, 8:11 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Mar 22, 12:29 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> Dan > wrote in
> >> news:86b2d0ec-88ab-4220-9f52-93f335014fee@
> >> 8g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > On Mar 22, 12:41 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> >> Don't bet on it. I'#ve seen your cards, you haven;'t seen mine.
>
> >> >> Bertie
>
> >> > No, you really haven't.
>
> >> Yeh, i have.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > Good.
>
> > Then you'll be pleased to know how little it means to me.
>
> >:-)
>
> I already knew that.
>
> Bertie

Even better.

So now we're in a last word contest, I see?

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 23rd 08, 12:31 AM

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 22, 8:11 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dan > wrote
>> innews:f163f394-ff8d-4ecc-a43c-62758c273c82
@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.c
>> om:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 22, 12:29 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> Dan > wrote in
>> >> news:86b2d0ec-88ab-4220-9f52-93f335014fee@
>> >> 8g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> > On Mar 22, 12:41 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Don't bet on it. I'#ve seen your cards, you haven;'t seen mine.
>>
>> >> >> Bertie
>>
>> >> > No, you really haven't.
>>
>> >> Yeh, i have.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > Good.
>>
>> > Then you'll be pleased to know how little it means to me.
>>
>> >:-)
>>
>> I already knew that.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Even better.
>
> So now we're in a last word contest, I see?

Nope. I always have that. It's never a contest.

It's not that I feel I have to , it's just that in these sorts of case
I just do.

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 23rd 08, 01:26 AM

On Mar 22, 8:31 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote :
>
> > On Mar 22, 8:11 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> Dan > wrote
> >> innews:f163f394-ff8d-4ecc-a43c-62758c273c82
>
> @d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.c
>
>
>
> >> om:
>
> >> > On Mar 22, 12:29 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> Dan > wrote in
> >> >> news:86b2d0ec-88ab-4220-9f52-93f335014fee@
> >> >> 8g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> >> > On Mar 22, 12:41 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> Don't bet on it. I'#ve seen your cards, you haven;'t seen mine.
>
> >> >> >> Bertie
>
> >> >> > No, you really haven't.
>
> >> >> Yeh, i have.
>
> >> >> Bertie
>
> >> > Good.
>
> >> > Then you'll be pleased to know how little it means to me.
>
> >> >:-)
>
> >> I already knew that.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > Even better.
>
> > So now we're in a last word contest, I see?
>
> Nope. I always have that. It's never a contest.
>
> It's not that I feel I have to , it's just that in these sorts of case
> I just do.
>
> Bertie

OK, you win.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 23rd 08, 01:31 AM

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 22, 8:31 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dan > wrote
>> innews:c7e3f7e6-c896-478d-9b4d-1f96d9e5c354
@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.c
>> om:
>>
>> > On Mar 22, 8:11 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> Dan > wrote
>> >> innews:f163f394-ff8d-4ecc-a43c-62758c273c82
>>
>> @d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.c
>>
>>
>>
>> >> om:
>>
>> >> > On Mar 22, 12:29 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> >> Dan > wrote in
>> >> >> news:86b2d0ec-88ab-4220-9f52-93f335014fee@
>> >> >> 8g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> >> > On Mar 22, 12:41 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> Don't bet on it. I'#ve seen your cards, you haven;'t seen
>> >> >> >> mine.
>>
>> >> >> >> Bertie
>>
>> >> >> > No, you really haven't.
>>
>> >> >> Yeh, i have.
>>
>> >> >> Bertie
>>
>> >> > Good.
>>
>> >> > Then you'll be pleased to know how little it means to me.
>>
>> >> >:-)
>>
>> >> I already knew that.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > Even better.
>>
>> > So now we're in a last word contest, I see?
>>
>> Nope. I always have that. It's never a contest.
>>
>> It's not that I feel I have to , it's just that in these sorts of
>> case I just do.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> OK, you win.
>
Nope. Told you it wasn;t a contest.
Just a natural fact.

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 23rd 08, 11:37 AM

On Mar 22, 9:31 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Nope. Told you it wasn;t a contest.
> Just a natural fact.
>
> Bertie

There you go again.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 23rd 08, 10:17 PM

Dan > wrote in news:27064780-e578-4616-9392-ea7c2f792936
@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

> On Mar 22, 9:31 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Nope. Told you it wasn;t a contest.
>> Just a natural fact.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> There you go again.
>
>

And will do again and again.

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 23rd 08, 10:25 PM

On Mar 23, 6:17 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:27064780-e578-4616-9392-ea7c2f792936
> @m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Mar 22, 9:31 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> Nope. Told you it wasn;t a contest.
> >> Just a natural fact.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > There you go again.
>
> And will do again and again.
>
> Bertie

Me too.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 23rd 08, 10:28 PM

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 23, 6:17 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dan > wrote in
>> news:27064780-e578-4616-9392-ea7c2f792936
>> @m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Mar 22, 9:31 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> Nope. Told you it wasn;t a contest.
>> >> Just a natural fact.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > There you go again.
>>
>> And will do again and again.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Me too.
>

OK.

You really need to check out my history, though....

Persistance is too mild a word.

Bertie

lowflyer

March 23rd 08, 11:13 PM

On Mar 17, 4:19 pm, Dan > wrote:
> Anyone else have expereince with the C172E (1964)?
>
> No matter what I did I could not get that bird to spin to the right.
>
> Left spins take some work, and power helps (of course).
>
> But right it just wallows and then steep spirals.
>
> Dan Mc

I used to regularly spin a 172K and occasionally later models from the
80s. What worked for me, if I remember correctly, was to pull the nose
way up and reduce and maintain power at 1800 rpm. At just about the
time for the stall, I'd kick FULL left or right rudder (obviously
depending on which way I wanted to go) and pull the yoke ALL the way
back (no aileron input needed). As soon as the spin developed, power
was reduced to idle. Spinning to the right was more difficult but
possible.

Dan[_10_]

March 23rd 08, 11:42 PM

On Mar 23, 6:28 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Mar 23, 6:17 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> Dan > wrote in
> >> news:27064780-e578-4616-9392-ea7c2f792936
> >> @m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > On Mar 22, 9:31 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> Nope. Told you it wasn;t a contest.
> >> >> Just a natural fact.
>
> >> >> Bertie
>
> >> > There you go again.
>
> >> And will do again and again.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > Me too.
>
> OK.
>
> You really need to check out my history, though....
>
> Persistance is too mild a word.
>
> Bertie

I've noticed.

Maybe a better word is "obstinate?"

(I learned that in 2nd grade when Sister Marie used it to describe me)

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 23rd 08, 11:44 PM

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 23, 6:28 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dan > wrote
>> innews:85683c58-db52-4c6a-99ed-bc6ea72a9f80
@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.c
>> om:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 23, 6:17 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> Dan > wrote in
>> >> news:27064780-e578-4616-9392-ea7c2f792936
>> >> @m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> > On Mar 22, 9:31 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> >> Nope. Told you it wasn;t a contest.
>> >> >> Just a natural fact.
>>
>> >> >> Bertie
>>
>> >> > There you go again.
>>
>> >> And will do again and again.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > Me too.
>>
>> OK.
>>
>> You really need to check out my history, though....
>>
>> Persistance is too mild a word.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I've noticed.
>
> Maybe a better word is "obstinate?"
>
> (I learned that in 2nd grade when Sister Marie used it to describe me)
>

I learned it in the first grade when I was used to describe the word.

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 24th 08, 12:02 AM

On Mar 23, 7:44 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > Maybe a better word is "obstinate?"
>
> > (I learned that in 2nd grade when Sister Marie used it to describe me)
>
> I learned it in the first grade when I was used to describe the word.
>
> Bertie

I can't believe it!

Surely you jest.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 24th 08, 12:06 AM

Dan > wrote in news:b1402ee9-fb90-41ea-96e3-
:

> On Mar 23, 7:44 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> > Maybe a better word is "obstinate?"
>>
>> > (I learned that in 2nd grade when Sister Marie used it to describe me)
>>
>> I learned it in the first grade when I was used to describe the word.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I can't believe it!

Of course you can't.

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 24th 08, 12:34 AM

On Mar 23, 8:23 pm, Clark > wrote:

>
> Mentally ill describes you both.

No, we've established that "obstinate" is the correct term.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 24th 08, 12:39 AM

Clark > wrote in
:

> Dan > wrote in
> news:db3cc73f-e333-4871-bbe6-
:
>
>> On Mar 23, 6:28 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> Dan > wrote
>>> innews:85683c58-db52-4c6a-99ed-bc6ea72a9f80
@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.
>>> com
>>> :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Mar 23, 6:17 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> >> Dan > wrote in
>>> >> news:27064780-e578-4616-9392-ea7c2f792936
>>> >> @m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>> >> > On Mar 22, 9:31 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> >> >> Nope. Told you it wasn;t a contest.
>>> >> >> Just a natural fact.
>>>
>>> >> >> Bertie
>>>
>>> >> > There you go again.
>>>
>>> >> And will do again and again.
>>>
>>> >> Bertie
>>>
>>> > Me too.
>>>
>>> OK.
>>>
>>> You really need to check out my history, though....
>>>
>>> Persistance is too mild a word.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> I've noticed.
>>
>> Maybe a better word is "obstinate?"
>>
>> (I learned that in 2nd grade when Sister Marie used it to describe
>> me)
>>
>
> Mentally ill describes you both.
>

Heh heh. Mines just a cold.

Bertie