If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Flat Spin
I'm surprised this spin thread hasn't produced more discussion of the flat
spin. One poster told us about getting into a flat spin after several revolutions of a "normal" spin" at Minden when the Puch went flat (nose on horizon). The poster thought it was kind of thrilling, until he applied spin recovery controls (opposite rudder & forward stick) The Puch continued to flat spin for another 5 or 6 revolutions. This spin started at 12,000 feet. Had it been initiated at a much lower altitude, we might be investigating yet another Puch-in. Has anyone else had the Puch go into a flat spin? Perhaps those who have are no longer with us? JJ Sinclair |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I wonder where the CG was for the "Puch Flat Spin"
BT "JJ Sinclair" wrote in message ... I'm surprised this spin thread hasn't produced more discussion of the flat spin. One poster told us about getting into a flat spin after several revolutions of a "normal" spin" at Minden when the Puch went flat (nose on horizon). The poster thought it was kind of thrilling, until he applied spin recovery controls (opposite rudder & forward stick) The Puch continued to flat spin for another 5 or 6 revolutions. This spin started at 12,000 feet. Had it been initiated at a much lower altitude, we might be investigating yet another Puch-in. Has anyone else had the Puch go into a flat spin? Perhaps those who have are no longer with us? JJ Sinclair |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"The Puch continued to flat
spin for another 5 or 6 revolutions. This spin started at 12,000 feet. = Had it been initiated at a much lower altitude, we might be investigating yet = another Puch-in." Rather unlkely scenario as you are not taking account of air = density/Reynolds number. My experience of extensive spinning in the SZD30 Puchacz is that at = altitudes in excess of 8,000 feet the spin recovery is prolonged = regardless of spin characteristics. If "out spin" aileron is applied the = spin tends to go flat and the rotation apparently decreases. If "in = spin" aileron is applied the spin goes nose down and appears to increase = in rate of rotation. Standard recovery action results in both types of = spin stopping after three to 5 turns - remember that part of the = recovery procedure is "centralise ailerons". Below 5,000 feet the SZD30 tends to cease spinning if the back pressure = on the stick is simply relaxed, i.e. without application of out spin = rudder. The difference is nothing to do with C of G position or aircraft = configuration - it is simple aerodynamics connected to the air density = decreasing with increasing altitude.=20 When considering the various reports of spinning on this forum how many = actually take into consideration the altitude at which the exercise was = undertaken. Admittedly this does not explain the high?? accident rate but there is = currently a lack of suitable training gliders in which to undertake spin = training. The ASK21 has been designed as supposedly unspinnable - try it = at 10,000 feet - you might be surprised. As said elsewhere how does the = accident rate in the Puchacz compare to say the Bocian which was another = excellent aircraft for spin recovery training. The DG505 is one of the = newer German aircraft that also exhibits good characteristics for spin = training although be aware of spinning close to the aft C of G. I have to admit to deliberately spinnIng any aircraft (subject to its = Cof A limitations) so that I am thoroughly aware of any peculiarites in = respect of its handling. I would be amiss in not doing so as I would = then be unable to thoroughly brief any pupils for their first flight in = these aircraft. I also want to know what the characteristics of the = aircraft are from a self preservation aspect - at least I will not be = caught out by inadvertant departure from normal flight due to gusts, = rotor, etc. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I haven't flown a puch, but I have been in a flat spin
in an SF34 with an instructor some years ago. The instructor had decided to see how many turns we could manage in a spin (note that after 3 you become a test pilot). We were at 6500ft when we entered the spin. After 10 turns he decided to recover, but the spin was already completely flat, with the nose gently nodding above and below the horizon as we turned. Upon application of the recovery control inputs, the spin continued for another 3 turns (which gave plenty of time to start worrying and thinking about the parachute) before we eventually recovered. Unfortunately I never noted down accurate start and finish heights in my log book, but I think that we recovered at about 3500'. Needless to say we never tried that again, and I wouldn't recommend anyone prolonging a spin beyond 3 turns. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
... and then you wonder why the back end fell off that
particular glider! At 11:18 06 February 2004, Jon Meyer wrote: I haven't flown a puch, but I have been in a flat spin in an SF34 with an instructor some years ago. The instructor had decided to see how many turns we could manage in a spin (note that after 3 you become a test pilot). We were at 6500ft when we entered the spin. After 10 turns he decided to recover, but the spin was already completely flat, with the nose gently nodding above and below the horizon as we turned. Upon application of the recovery control inputs, the spin continued for another 3 turns (which gave plenty of time to start worrying and thinking about the parachute) before we eventually recovered. Unfortunately I never noted down accurate start and finish heights in my log book, but I think that we recovered at about 3500'. Needless to say we never tried that again, and I wouldn't recommend anyone prolonging a spin beyond 3 turns. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Jon Meyer wrote:
had decided to see how many turns we could manage in a spin (note that after 3 you become a test pilot). JAR requires 5 turns. JAR 22.221 (b) The sailplane must be able to recover from spins of at least five turns or such lesser number at which the spin changes into a spiral dive, by applying the controls in a manner normal for recovery ... etc. Stefan |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
At 14:48 06 February 2004, Jon Meyer wrote:
French engineering at its best! That would be 'Scheibe' , makers of 'Le Moteur Falke' ? :-) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Jon Meyer wrote:
The thought had occured to me Kevin, but I suspect that a flat spin puts very little strain on the airframe compared with other manouvres.....provided it doesnt continue all the way to ground level that is. I think that thing was just never glued together properly at the back end, considering the fact that after the accident you mention, they found that none of the frames in the tail section were bonded to the fuselage skins. French engineering at its best! Considering the way that thing was built I think all of us who flew it should just be glad that it didnt break when we were flying it and that, when it did break, nobody was hurt. By the way, could you explain us what French engeneering has to do with the Puch or the SF34 ? I have seen particularly badly engeneered French gliders, notably the Bijave and the Javelot, but here i am really wondering about what glider you are speaking. Incidentally we have heard recently discussions about poorly glued wings from the most prestigious German factory, while this did not occur, up to my knowledge, with the *much* cheaper Pegase. -- Michel Talon |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry my mistake, got confused by the fact that the Alliance 34 is made by Pegase (a copy of the SF34). I know all about the quality of french construction though, I fly an ASW20F and drive a Peugeot......neither is as well made as their german equivalents :-) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
SR22 Spin Recovery | gwengler | Piloting | 9 | September 24th 04 07:31 AM |
Cirrus and Lancair Make Bonanza Obsolete? | Potential Bo Buyer | Owning | 211 | November 20th 03 05:29 AM |
Cessna 150 Price Outlook | Charles Talleyrand | Owning | 80 | October 16th 03 02:18 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |