So... Has anyone spun a -9?

With luck I will get a chance to fly on Sunday and I was thinking I would like to take my -9 out for a spin.

Has anyone done this yet? If so, any tips for me?

Before you flame me, I know, I've read the manual and it's not approved for spins, bla, bla, bla. Well, I got news for you, it's not approved for rolls either and it rolls really nice! Not as fast a -7 but not as slow as some other planes I've rolled.

I've also read all I can find about spinning the -6, -6A, -7, -7A, and -8. Something tells me I won't have much to worry about with the -9.

My plan is to start with spin entry and recovery, moving up to one rotation, then two, and finally three turns. If that goes well, I might let it progress up to five. The issue is, will it go flat? I doubt that it will. I also wonder how much altitude is lost with each revolution.

Hey Bill,

I am not going to flame you, and I hope others don't....I don't know know your flying background, so I might be talking way out of school, but unless you get some answers from folks that have actually spun one, please be really, really careful! That gets into real test pilot stuff, and unless I were to talk with guys at Van's that had spun one, I doubt I'd personally go there. The problem is that intuition only works some of the time when it comes to spin characteristics.

It sounds like you're approaching this very carefully, checking with others, and studying the spin characteristics of other RV's....but they don't all spin alike, because their designs are different, and the -9 is, of course, different still. So I wouldn't presume that knowing how the others spin will be a real predictor. Might be....but might not.

Like I said Bill, I guess I'm not so much advising you, since I know you're thinking hard about it - just wanted to make those points for others that might read this, and go off with less knowledge and prep work. Spins don't scare me, but I have a heck of a lot of respect for them, and if I don't know how an airplane spins, I have to think long and hard before being the fleet leader in trying them out...

Just stay safe!

Paul

Also not intended as a flame but...it is my understanding that spin testing a new design should involve some plan for exiting the plane if it fails to recover or perhaps a drogue chute on the airplane. If 9's have been spun and recovery is normal, then all you're up against are the peculiarities of your particular plane, but if they haven't, then it might not want to recover at all. No way I'd want to be the first guy to spin a type. I hope all goes well, but also hope you wait to hear from those that have spun this type with similar configuration.

Ironflight said:

Hey Bill,

I am not going to flame you, and I hope others don't....I don't know know your flying background, so I might be talking way out of school, but unless you get some answers from folks that have actually spun one, please be really, really careful! That gets into real test pilot stuff, and unless I were to talk with guys at Van's that had spun one, I doubt I'd personally go there. The problem is that intuition only works some of the time when it comes to spin characteristics.

It sounds like you're approaching this very carefully, checking with others, and studying the spin characteristics of other RV's....but they don't all spin alike, because their designs are different, and the -9 is, of course, different still. So I wouldn't presume that knowing how the others spin will be a real predictor. Might be....but might not.

Like I said Bill, I guess I'm not so much advising you, since I know you're thinking hard about it - just wanted to make those points for others that might read this, and go off with less knowledge and prep work. Spins don't scare me, but I have a heck of a lot of respect for them, and if I don't know how an airplane spins, I have to think long and hard before being the fleet leader in trying them out...

Just stay safe!

Paul

Click to expand...

Paul, I believe NASA years ago produced a film of one of their test pilots spin testing a Grumman Yankee or Trainer. If I recall correctly, they had the plane equipped with some kind of movable weight that could be adjusted fore and aft along the CG. The pilot entered the spin, and tried to recover with the weight farthest aft. He kept moving the weight forwards while trying to recover. With the weight in the most forward position, the pilot finally bailed out of the non-recoverable spinning plane!
The Grumman, as you know, has a tubular wing spar that also serves as the plane's fuel tanks. Apparently there is a regime where with a partial fuel load, the fuel load is forced by the centrifugal action of the spinning plane towards the wing tips, and that keeps the plane in the spin! It was thought that the Grumman could be spun when either full or empty, but with a partial fuel load you were in trouble.
I was hoping maybe you would have access to this film if it still exists.

I have been to the point where autorotation starts, but that is really only an asymetric stall. It is all very benign to there, but that is enough for me. I just wanted to be sure I knew what happened/ was familiar with the feeling, since I used to frequently approach slow into a short strip.

My W&B was almost the same as the one in the build book.

Take care.

The only question that comes to mind is why? I mean, you can spin in the -3, -4, -6, -7, -8, why do you want to spin the -9 when it's designed particularly NOT to do these kinds of maneuvers?

Bill: Here are two good books I can recommend. "Anatomy of a Spin" by John Lowery, Airguide Publications, 1981. "Stalls, Spins, and Safety" by Sammy Mason, MacMillan, 1982. Lowery's book is better. If you don't know who Art Scholl was, look him up on Wiki. His unfortunate end might be instructive. Wiki doesn't mention that Scholl had a camera added to the top of the fin of his two hole Pitts. From my personal store of stories, I once knew a wise old timer who had to jump from a Cessna P210 while flight testing for spins. (The spin chute hung up.) The only configuration change from the last successful spin series was the addition of an underwing radar pod. They didn't expect any difference in recovery characteristics but to everyone's surprise the airplane went flat. In my youth I spun, or tried to spin, every airplane I could get my hands on. Fortunately, I couldn't get a Cherokee to spin (they were pretty new then). I later read that a Cherokee is hard to get into a spin, and even harder to unspin. So I lucked out there. During my check-out in a Schweitzer 2-32 sailplane (a big, heavy three place) we did a spin. I expertly got it going around and around and then put in the anti-spin controls. Nothing happened. I held on, terrified and mesmerized by the rapidly approaching desert floor. After about another full turn it suddenly popped out of the spin. That was enough for me. I thought maybe I had pinched a hole in the seat cushion. The CFI in the back chuckled said that was how 2-32's were. Up until then all the airplanes I had ever spun had come right out. But not all will. In every other respect a 2-32 is a very nice flying airplane so its spin characteristics were a big surprise to me, and I learned something important. Today I am much less enthusiastic about spinning airplanes. Personally, I wouldn't be the first to spin an airplane type, or even a particular airplane. Too many unknown and unknowable variables, which is the reason for spin testing, parachutes, spin chutes for the airplane, and professional test pilots. What does Van say about the 9? I think he hired his spin testing out to a pro for the 7. Compared to the 6, the 7 unexpectedly wrapped up tight and was a little slow to come out, which is maybe why Van hired a test pilot and why the 7 got a redesigned, larger rudder. I read that in the RVator, I think. Surprising and unexpected, just like what happened to me. If you read Lowery I think you will agree that there is still a lot of the black art in spins. Good luck and be real careful.

Inquiring Minds Want to Know.

As a low time pilot building a -9A, I'd be interested in knowing if recovery is similar to what I was taught or if there's some "quirk" I'd need to be aware of. Please post your results.

Unknown

I have quite bit of spin experience and have owned a T-6. I also flew Cessna Agwagons and 'Trucks for 20-some years and taught spins in Cessna 150's and Cherokees (which almost have to be snapped into a spin). Both of these airplanes (T-6 and Agwagons) would appear to be good spinners/recoverers. These airplanes take a decisive forward elevator slam (literally) followed by a hard, forceful rudder slam opposite the direction of rotation, WITH THE CONTROLS HELD IN THAT POSITION until the rotation stops, if it does. This tidbit essentially from the AT-6 POH. My boss taught in these and tried to spin an Agwagon of his. He almost bought the farm but using the T-6 technique saved his bacon.

I'd venture to say that the RV-9 should do a good spin but without a pro having tested one, I'd be very wary. Besides, it has a Roncz airfoil and a different stabilizer and elevator. No telling how the wing might blank the tail during a spin....could be messy.

Regards,

Spin flight testing is serious business. There was a recent fatal accident north of Winnipeg during spin testing of the prototype of the type-certificated version of the Seawind. Things don't always go as expected during spin testing.

If you are determined to do this test, check the canopy jettison mechanism to be sure it works freely. Review and practice your bail out procedures until you know them cold. Wear a parachute and helmet. The aircraft CG should be as far forward as possible. There should be no loose items in the cockpit or baggage area. Tell someone of the ground where you will be doing the spin testing, and what time you will be back, so they can start looking for you if you have to bail out.

Start each spin at a fairly high altitude (10,000 ft?) so you have more altitude to attempt to recover before you have to bail out. Pick a bail out altitude, and if you reach that altitude with the aircraft still spinning, bail out without delay.

captainron said:

Paul, I believe NASA years ago produced a film of one of their test pilots spin testing a Grumman Yankee or Trainer. If I recall correctly, they had the plane equipped with some kind of movable weight that could be adjusted fore and aft along the CG. The pilot entered the spin, and tried to recover with the weight farthest aft. He kept moving the weight forward while trying to recover. With the weight in the most forward position, the pilot finally bailed out of the non-recoverable spinning plane!
The Grumman, as you know, has a tubular wing spar that also serves as the plane's fuel tanks. Apparently there is a regime where with a partial fuel load, the fuel load is forced by the centrifugal action of the spinning plane towards the wing tips, and that keeps the plane in the spin! It was thought that the Grumman could be spun when either full or empty, but with a partial fuel load you were in trouble.
I was hoping maybe you would have access to this film if it still exists.

Click to expand...

Hi Ron,

Having spent better than 25 years and a couple thousand hours in my AA1B, I was plenty wary of spins in the type, and knew all the stories (some apocryphal) of it's spin characteristics. No way I would have spun one intentionally! There is a short film that surfaces on the internet occasionally which has a clip of one of the NASA spin tests, but I have never seen anything that shows the full test - the one I have just shows about one or two turns, then an exterior camera shot of the spin chute being deployed. It was deployed A LOT during the test series! I saw the airplane one time - I am forgetting where - maybe at the Wallops Island visitor center on the Eastern shore - and it had extensive modifications to the leading edge. They were testing generic "solutions" to make GA aircraft more spin resistant. I have never confirmed that NASA actually lost an airplane in the testing, but I know that the factory did - and there is another harrowing story of two guys who got one spinning flat, had no chutes, and stuck their arms out of the opened canopy to change the aerodynamics just enough to get it to start pitching. As I understand it, the basic problem was that not only did the airplane want to spin flat (fuel flung out to the tips), but the entire rudder was above the horizontal tail, so once it was flat, the rudder was completely blanked (and too small to begin with).

Spins are a lot of fun, but I won't be the first to spin a type! One other consideration is that the test pilot in the early phases of spin testing probably should not have any emotional or financial attachment to the airplane - getting out needs to be a dispassionate decision.

definition?

Doesn't it mean if an airplane is not approved for spins that it won't recover using normal techniques within a certain number of turns?
You can roll any airplane if you know what you're doing and you don't exceed the designed g limits. Remember that old Boeing 707 video? The -9 was designed for the normal category +3g/-2g (or something close to that).

Dude, be careful.
Steve

Steve said:

Doesn't it mean if an airplane is not approved for spins that it won't recover using normal techniques within a certain number of turns?

Click to expand...

It depends.

If it is a type-certificated aircraft designed to CAR 3, FAR 23, JAR 23 or CS 23, even aircraft that are not approved for spins must be able to recover from one turn spins in a specified number of turns after recovery is initiated (note that a spin is not fully developed at this point). See FAR 23.221 or CAR 3.124. Type-certificated aircraft in the aerobatic category must be approved for spins, and the spin flight test program would show acceptable recovery from up to six turn spins. The flight test program would include a huge matrix of spins, at different weights and CGs, with different types of entries, different uses of engine power, different types of control movements in the spin, different types of control movements for recovery, assymetric fuel, etc. If a type-certificated aircraft is not approved for spins, it may mean that the aircraft won't recover from a fully developed spin, or it may mean that the manufacturer didn't want to spend the money to do the spin flight testing required to get approval.

If it is an amateur-built aircraft, there are no design requirements to refer to, so only the designer can tell you what it means when an aircraft is not approved for spins.

Thanks Paul

Paul, thanks for the response. It has been a long time since I saw that clip. I learned to fly in the AA1A's, instructed in them, and eventually owned one. I did everything you weren't supposed to do in those planes, but even being young and dumb, I never tried to spin one! Spins aren't really a high "G" maneuver, but sometimes planes are broken when the recovery is attempted too abruptly in panic. If there is no need to test a plane for spins, and especially if the designer hasn't approved it, then why attempt it?

To whom it may concern: It has been said here before, but worth repeating- Be careful about what you post on the internet!

N941WR said:

With luck I will get a chance to fly on Sunday and I was thinking I would like to take my -9 out for a spin.

Has anyone done this yet? If so, any tips for me?

Before you flame me, I know, I've read the manual and it's not approved for spins, bla, bla, bla. Well, I got news for you, it's not approved for rolls either and it rolls really nice! Not as fast a -7 but not as slow as some other planes I've rolled.

I've also read all I can find about spinning the -6, -6A, -7, -7A, and -8. Something tells me I won't have much to worry about with the -9.

My plan is to start with spin entry and recovery, moving up to one rotation, then two, and finally three turns. If that goes well, I might let it progress up to five. The issue is, will it go flat? I doubt that it will. I also wonder how much altitude is lost with each revolution.

Click to expand...

Bill,

Before jumping off this cliff, e-mail Van's and ask why the airplane is not recommended for spins. For sure they tested that envelope and there is a reason for the limitation. Perhaps it is the lighter construction materials, the different wing design or a concern for something less than a normal recovery, like a vertical dive requiring 4-5 G's to pull out.

After spending so much time and money building the 9 when you could have built any of the spin approved versions, this doesn't make much sense. Pilots do not get medals for flying into dark caves or out of known envelopes unless it is a combat mission. What's this all about?

N941WR said:

Before you flame me, I know, I've read the manual and it's not approved for spins, bla, bla, bla. Well, I got news for you, it's not approved for rolls either and it rolls really nice! Not as fast a -7 but not as slow as some other planes I've rolled.

Click to expand...

I'm sure that the disapproval for rolls has nothing to do with how "nicely" it does one, but rather was due to the comparitively frail structure of this model and what could happen to it if the roll ends severely nose-down. Any airplane that flies can roll (cuz that's what you're doing while rolling) but spinning is not flying. The fact that Van's says no spins could be for the same reason that he disapproved rolls, or it could be because this type simply does not recover at all.

Info from Van's

I would be very surprised if you were to get any info from Van's on what, if any, testing was done on the 9 or 9A. That goes for any flight testing or static testing. There would be very little incentive for disclosure of this type of information and a possibility of it coming back to him in the way of litigation. He is very conservative about this model probably because of the larger and different airfoil and tail section, and probably not because he has done tests, but because he has NOT done tests. I probed and probed with him and others connected with the company in an attempt to get some info about why he claimed that the 210 MPH redline on the airspeed referred to TAS and not IAS for purposes of preventing flutter and why he thought flutter might occur at that TAS. Some static load tests had been done on the wings of other models, but he would not say if they had been done on the 9. Moreover his brother Jerry told a friend of mine that no flutter testing of any kind had been done on the 9 or for that matter any of the models, but that Van was concerned that the wing was so different and so much larger that it should not be loaded or speeded up. So IMHO he is just doing CYA and will not give out anything at all. Having said this, I would not be the first person to do a spin in a 9. I would however be interested in reading about a successful spin and how the plane recovered. I would not want to read about an unsuccessful atempt. So please be very careful and think hard about your decision

It bears repeating for the many people here that may be relatively new to aviation. This is experimental aviation. RVs are not type certificated and probably have not have been as extensively tested as regular production airplanes. Some RVs may not be able to meet type certificate standards if they were tested, either because of individual variations in the airplanes (ie: builder mods) or maybe because of characteristics inherent in the fleet. We can't know without testing, and as far as I know that level of testing hasn't been done. We build these things ourselves in our garages and we take our chances. It is reassuring that so many have been successfully flown for so many years, but still there could be unknowns. There is a tendency to think that these increasingly ubiquitous RVs are the same as production airplanes, but they are not. (I am thinking of statements made comparing the RV10 to the Cirrus and other production airplanes, for example.) Just something to bear in mind. Now back to the shop and that @#$% canopy.

Van's spin testing - RVator

The fifth issue 1999 RVator details the results of the spin test program that Van's did on the RV-9A. They hired Len Fox to do the testing, and the prototype was fitted with a spin recovery chute on a framework below the rudder. The spin recovery characterisitics with the original tail were unacceptable. Van's designed and installed the larger VS and rudder that became part of design. The article says "Testing revealed spin recovery characteristics were improved, and, in fact, went well beyond those required by FAR 23 for normal category aircraft".

Note: FAR 23 spin requirements for normal category aircraft only require recovery from one turn spins. The spin is not even close to being fully developed after one turn. The fully developed spin will probably have higher yaw rate, and possibly a less steep pitch attitude, both of which could hinder recovery. It is quite possible that the aircraft might not be able to recover from a fully developed spin.

pierre smith said:

I have quite bit of spin experience and have owned a T-6. I also flew Cessna Agwagons and 'Trucks for 20-some years and taught spins in Cessna 150's and Cherokees (which almost have to be snapped into a spin).

Click to expand...

Pierre: I read that Cherokees are very sensitive to cg, spinwise, and will get into a hard to recover from spin if even the seat is too far back. Good thing I never found out. I never thought to try to snap it! How was the recovery? I flew 150 and 235 Pawnees during the summer while in college. They wouldn't spin, either, at least while they were empty. Forgive me the sins of my youth.

Kevin Horton said:

The fifth issue 1999 RVator details the results of the spin test program that Van's did on the RV-9A. They hired Len Fox to do the testing, and the prototype was fitted with a spin recovery chute on a framework below the rudder. The spin recovery characterisitics with the original tail were unacceptable. Van's designed and installed the larger VS and rudder that became part of design. The article says "Testing revealed spin recovery characteristics were improved, and, in fact, went well beyond those required by FAR 23 for normal category aircraft".

Click to expand...

Kevin,

You are starting to catch up to some of the research I have done on the subject but not all. Keep digging.

BTW, it looks like some other things will keep me from spinning it this weekend. This may happen sometime next month, based on my current schedule.

N941WR said:

Kevin,

You are starting to catch up to some of the research I have done on the subject but not all. Keep digging.

Click to expand...

So what is the secret info? I'm sure all the -9 drivers could benefit.

CFI requirement

Stephen Lindberg said:

Pierre: I read that Cherokees are very sensitive to cg, spinwise, and will get into a hard to recover from spin if even the seat is too far back. Good thing I never found out. I never thought to try to snap it! How was the recovery? I flew 150 and 235 Pawnees during the summer while in college. They wouldn't spin, either, at least while they were empty. Forgive me the sins of my youth.

Click to expand...

Hi Steve,
Spins were required demonstration in 1969 when I became a CFI. We were flying Cherokee 140's and they were reluctant to spin. I didn't snap one....never would. What I meant was that we had to snatch the elevator and apply full rudder before the stall or it wouldn't spin. A Cessna 150, on the other hand, spins well. As it stalls, full elevator and rudder yield a very stable moderate speed rotation. We'd start at 6000' over a long, straight hiway or powerline so we could count the turns. As it went over, we'd say, "half...one..two.. now" and apply spin recovery controls. Recovery was quick (In the 0-200 models) and rotation stopped almost immediately when you applied opposite rudder. You then found yourself in a near vertical dive and the usual 2 1/2- 3 G pullout back to level flight. I encouraged all my students at the time to learn this technique and 9 out of 10 did and learned quickly. I think they should still be taught before solo....my opinion.

Regards,

Spin training recovery in a 152...

Pierre,

I remember the day my CFI taught me about spin recovery in a Cessna 152 when I was student pilot in 1992. I did not like the effect of the recovery on my body. I learned the technique and got it right on the first try, and the second, etc. That was enough for me.

I have been flying my RV-9A for over two years, going places, seeing things, having fun. I have no intention of putting into unusual attitudes. I have done the usual 60-degree bank angles for 2G steep turns, and that is a far as I have pushed it.

Like the posting above, I am too emotionally attached to my airplane. I have put blood, sweat, and tears into its construction with the usual skinned knuckles and scraped arms. I do not intend to put my blood all over it as my final life experience. I intend to keep the right side up and the nose always going forward. At age 60, there is something to be said for life's experiences. I hope to still be flying my RV-9A until I am 80 if I can continue to pass the physicals. If not, I will cash in my "Enterprise" 401K.

Jerry K. Thorne
RV-9A - - N2PZ "Enterprise"
www.n2prise.org

pierre smith said:

Hi Steve,
Spins were required demonstration in 1969 when I became a CFI. We were flying Cherokee 140's and they were reluctant to spin. I didn't snap one....never would. What I meant was that we had to snatch the elevator and apply full rudder before the stall or it wouldn't spin. A Cessna 150, on the other hand, spins well. As it stalls, full elevator and rudder yield a very stable moderate speed rotation. We'd start at 6000' over a long, straight hiway or powerline so we could count the turns. As it went over, we'd say, "half...one..two.. now" and apply spin recovery controls. Recovery was quick (In the 0-200 models) and rotation stopped almost immediately when you applied opposite rudder. You then found yourself in a near vertical dive and the usual 2 1/2- 3 G pullout back to level flight. I encouraged all my students at the time to learn this technique and 9 out of 10 did and learned quickly. I think they should still be taught before solo....my opinion.

Regards,

Click to expand...

Pierre, I had a 150 once upon a time and along with another CFI had a small business going until we went broke.

The 150 did spin in a very stable manner but could be altitude consuming if the nose got too low on recovery. The thing really wound up the ASI quick unless back pressure was just barely released after rotation stopped with rudder.

The elevator part during recovery varies with airplanes, the T-28 for example, required a definite forward stick movement to get the nose down and flying again but the 150 will almost fly itself out of the situation without popping the stick forward. The T-34 would recover itself if left alone with stick neutral. (We had a 30 TT check ride in those days and I managed to stall the machine on top of a loop and not knowing for sure what to do, just let go of the stick and the thing righted itself and I resumed flying, the check officer said on interphone "great job recovering" - little did he know

I don't have a ton of experience doing this stuff but do remember these charateristics of these airplanes. I have no idea what the proper recovery technique would be in a 9. Considering Van's hired a guy to do the tests should tell us something about it as they did not feel up to the job.

n2prise said:

Like the posting above, I am too emotionally attached to my airplane. I have put blood, sweat, and tears into its construction with the usual skinned knuckles and scraped arms. I do not intend to put my blood all over it as my final life experience. I intend to keep the right side up and the nose always going forward. At age 60, there is something to be said for life's experiences. I hope to still be flying my RV-9A until I am 80 if I can continue to pass the physicals. If not, I will cash in my "Enterprise" 401K.

Click to expand...

There is a nice "big" Pitt's M-12 ( 9 cyl.Russian radial) that resides three feet from my 6's wingtip. It also has two parachutes. IMO, this type of airplane is for the thrill of spins!

Turns out by chance, as I rented my half of the hangar from his partner; that the 1/2 owner of this airplane is the same aerobatic instructor I had in a Pitt's S2B many years ago. We did many spins (including inverted), and always included several with just about every lesson.

My RV6A is a very late "bloomer", as I've spent far too many years on this project. It's now, in the about done stage, as soon I bolt the painted ailerons on today. I have no real burning desire to spin it, and probably never will. Just light aerobatic maneuvers such as rolls and probably a few loops.

For the good stuff, such as sustained spins, tail slides, snap rolls, and all that, the Pitt's is just a great contender; and I'd rather put my money with the Pitt's, instructor, and chutes......next door

L.Adamson

Spinning a Seawind????

Surely you must be kidding??? My neighbor built a Seawind and he told me all Seawind pilots know you never, never, never should ever stall one, or you probably will not live to tell the tale. So that company test pilot must have been pretty brave to go and actually spin one...

Doug Lomheim
RV-9A, Finishing
OK City, OK

I have not spun my -9 and don't plan on it. Only reason being is that I am not much of a thrill seeker. I have rolled it a number of times and practice unusual attitude recovery. The plane is very well behaved in all maneuvers.
My flight this morning included a climb to 7k to get above a broken cloud layer. Flying above the buildups with no particular place to go - nothing but blue sky and sunshine in your canopy and some music in your ears is about as good as it gets as far as I am concerned.

BTW Bill, your tip about my brake lines worked great! Thanks.

N941WR said:

..... I was thinking I would like to take my -9 out for a spin.

Has anyone done this yet? If so, any tips for me?

My plan is to start with spin entry and recovery, moving up to one rotation, then two, and finally three turns. If that goes well, I might let it progress up to five. The issue is, will it go flat? I doubt that it will. I also wonder how much altitude is lost with each revolution.

Click to expand...

Bill, I would be very interested in the results of your spin testing and the control inputs to recover. Me personally, I don't have the cojones to try it myself. However, there is a chance that the RV-9 I'll be flying might end up in a spin by some fluke stall or pilot error. I sure would like to know the control inputs that someone else used to get their -9 out of a spin so I would, at the very least, have that knowledge when it became my turn. Hopefully the spin would be one that I could recover from.

Good luck - keep us informed.

pierre smith said:

Hi Steve,
Spins were required demonstration in 1969 when I became a CFI.

Click to expand...

Pierre: Naw, I didn't really think you were trying to snap roll a Cherokee. How does a Cherokee recover from a spin? ... I got my CFI in 1971 and all the FAA guy wanted to see was a logbook entry for spins. I think they changed the rules from demonstration to logbook entry at about that time. I'm with you on teaching spins to primary students. My three sons all had spin instruction before solo and they all soloed gliders first. Spin instruction before solo is standard fare in gliders. It's too easy to stall in a tight thermal and spin, so you must have hands on spin experience. However, the logistics of teaching spins to all primary power students is daunting. Plus, the airplane manufacturers and big flight schools would heavily lobby against it. Bad for business.

Robert M said:

Bill, I would be very interested in the results of your spin testing and the control inputs to recover. Me personally, I don't have the cojones to try it myself. However, there is a chance that the RV-9 I'll be flying might end up in a spin by some fluke stall or pilot error. I sure would like to know the control inputs that someone else used to get their -9 out of a spin so I would, at the very least, have that knowledge when it became my turn. Hopefully the spin would be one that I could recover from.

Good luck - keep us informed.

Click to expand...

Robert,

This is the reason I want to know.

BTW, I did not get a chance to try it today. One of the reason I built a -9 over the -7 is I have a bad back as the result of an accident a few years back and it is currently telling me it is time to take it easy.

As soon as my back and schedule come together, I will give it a try and report back.

Stall recognition.......

Robert, and others,
One big reason for stall training is that you can learn and recognize the approach to a stall and thereby know what one looks like as it develops and the means to avoid it. If you pay attention to the aircraft's attitude and airspeed, you'll be able to avoid a stall. Consequently, if a stall is avoided in the first place, the spin will never happen. Don't think, as you said, "Somehow get into a spin" happens arbitrarily. You just about have to make the airplane spin. I know, I know, there was a stall/spin fatality at last year's Osh and another one at Sun 'n Fun this year. In both cases, slow airspeeds and a turn combination stalled the airplane and God only knows what the rudder was doing. Whether or not spin training would have mitigated these accidents I don't know. Good pilot technique and awareness is necessary to avoid these acidents.

Take-off and departure stalls/spins are also a direct result of a too aggressive climb angle and low airspeed, so takeoff technique should include a shallow initial climb until a decent airspeed,... I'd recommend around 100 MPH in most RV's is reached and then the climb can be increased since airspeed is sufficient.

My .02,

Why spins no longer trained...

Stephen Lindberg said:

I got my CFI in 1971 and all the FAA guy wanted to see was a logbook entry for spins. I think they changed the rules from demonstration to logbook entry at about that time. I'm with you on teaching spins to primary students. My three sons all had spin instruction before solo and they all soloed gliders first. Spin instruction before solo is standard fare in gliders. It's too easy to stall in a tight thermal and spin, so you must have hands on spin experience. However, the logistics of teaching spins to all primary power students is daunting. Plus, the airplane manufacturers and big flight schools would heavily lobby against it. Bad for business.

Click to expand...

In Canada, it's been several years since students had to spin as part of primary training. I believe now that the CFI has to demonstrate one so the student recognizes it, but the student need not perform one (I did several myself, with my CFI, but wasn't required to).

Six or 8 years ago or so, an instructor was killed in a 152 from the school where I trained (just West of Montreal).

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/1998/a98q0114/a98q0114.asp

The rudder stop hung up the rudder when kicking into the spin, and they couldn't apply opposite rudder and rode it all the way to the ground. Landed in water. The student survived, but the CFI has "gone West." I believe this accident led to the changed rules in Canada. I'd heard that they found that more people were being killed or hurt in spin training than from inadvertent spins, though I have no idea if this is true.

I spun a Stearman one time and after three turns initiated a recovery, and absolutely nothing happened! Only after adding power, was I able to get the spin to stop. Used up about 4000 feet in the recovery, and one pair of shorts. Don't know what was going on, as Stearmans are good spinners, maybe cg issues, control rigging, who knows? Stopped doing fully developed spins after that. One turn and recovery.......OK, but fully developed spins stopped being fun that day.

As someone else mentioned, the late, great Art Sholl died in a spin in a Pitts.
They too are known to be good spin aircraft.

Yukon said:

As someone else mentioned, the late, great Art Sholl died in a spin in a Pitts.
They too are known to be good spin aircraft.

Click to expand...

Some info on several un-recoverable spinning Pitt's (possible CG issues), and others

http://www.flyingmag.com/article.asp?section_id=14&article_id=699&print_page=y

L.Adamson - RV6A

L.Adamson said:

Some info on several un-recoverable spinning Pitt's (possible CG issues), and others

http://www.flyingmag.com/article.asp?section_id=14&article_id=699&print_page=y

L.Adamson - RV6A

Click to expand...

Bill,

Please read the article above.

Spins

I know nothing about spinning RV's except what I've read, so can't comment on spinning the -9. It seems conventional in layout and likely would recover with the usual control inputs - but I don't know. I have flown and spun Pitts of various types for years and have great faith in their ability to recover from any spin type promptly assuming proper control inputs, control continuity and legal weight and balance. It's very easy to become disoriented during some spins and fixation can occur and prevent the pilot from making correct inputs. Where you look in an inverted spin can also affect pilot perception of direction of rotation, which is key to getting recovery inputs correct; there's a nice discussion of this in the Eagle flight manual as I recall. At any rate the Pitts recovers from upright or inverted spins, normal, flat or accelerated and with or without power after any number of turns, and does so quickly. That is, if the right inputs are made and weight and balance are OK. Note that the Pitts and Eagle that spun in were over weight and had excessive aft CG - dangerous stuff to play with. Nevertheless, the story goes that Curtiss Pitts demonstrated easy recovery from inverted flat spins in the S-2A with CG more than 2" aft of the limit. As to references, I think the Mueller and Beggs writings on spins are great, as is Neil Williams' book Aerobatics. Sammy Mason's book wasn't very helpful to me. The earlier suggestion of having a pilot chute and drogue chute is a good one if you want to be a test pilot. I think Van's said they knew of no one who had bailed out of an RV or whether it was even possible, so exit procedures should be reviewed and assured as far as possible. I'll spin my -8 when it's done; the -8 spin testing done in England and reported in the RVator is reassuring. This is an interesting thread and brought out some thoughtful responses. Thanks to all. Bill

spins

My 2 cents. Vans says don't spin it...I ain't gonna do it. Van knows a lot more about these ships than I do. I did ask one of the guys in the Vans tent about 9 spins at SNF this year, as my 9A is nearing completion. He said that spin characteristics were on par with most craft of this configuration, but they were concerned about HS loads due to high moment during recovery. Hence the no spins placard. Makes sense to me. Big 'ol HS and all of that. Didn't build the 9 for wifferdills and such, so I am unconcerned. My advice... I am always against sticking my head directly into the lions mouth..Please be careful, and wear a chute and helmet!! Keep us posted.

Just one more thing... My friend and flight instructor urged me to take spin training. Long story short, I did. I can attest to this. Before training I am sure I would have hit the ground long before I ever got it out of the spin. Thats the humble truth. After some training, I learned to pop them in, and out in less than 1 turn. Best training you could ever get. Please go do it. It will make you a better pilot. I really think that spin training should be part of all basic flight training. I can tell you from the cuff, it can save your life.

Best to all
Chris Schmitt
9A real close
N614RV (res)

Better Aerobatics book

I can recommend this book "Better Aerobatics", by Alan Cassidy. He's a UK aeros ace, and has written an up-to-date and very readable book on the subject. Chapters on recovery from inadvertent spins, and deliberate precision spins, upright and inverted.

Cheers...Keith

If ya gotta spin!

It should be for the purpose of safety training.

I think that from what reports we have heard reported of what Vans has said, Go up with an instructor and spin an RV of similar configuration and horsepower that is NOT a 9.

If you learned to spin in a Cessna Like I did, it will feel different and your instincts may be stuck with a Yoke mentality. It would at least get you the visual of what an RV looks like when it enters and how fast it might all take place.

Be safe, we would like to see you live to start more long and controversial threads.

To learn you have to ask, or do, or both.

I am glad you asked first.

Have fun and be safe!