Altitude loss in spins

[Ed Guthrie]

If a Mooney accidentally got into a spin, would the recovery be fairly standard (since the recovery technique wouldn't be mentioned in the POH)? Like PARE, or Muller-Beggs type recovery?

Obviously I can't speak to the recovery past the first 3/4 turn, but full opposite rudder at the break and hold, and yoke forward did the job. FWIW, the Mooney's rotational stop was lumbering by comparison to C172 standards. The Mooney definitely took full opposite rudder and it let you ponder for a minute whether or not full opposite rudder was going to get the job done.

 

[Skyport]

FYI-

It's good to remember that there have been fatal accidents in a number of GA aircraft because pilots have ignored a spin prohibition. I know of one in a Yankee where an experienced pilot was sure he "knew better" than the test pilot and entered an unrecoverable spin. Apparently the Yankee recovers easily in many configurations and he finally found the one that triggered the prohibition.

While many of these prohibitions are a result of flight test problems that resulted in the use of spin chutes for recovery a significant number of test pilots have died in GA aircraft spin testing accidents. I seem to remember that Piper lost a pair of test pilots some years ago at Vero Beach.

Even aircraft that are approved for spins may have recovery difficulties in some configurations, such as slightly out of CG, over gross, out of rig, for example Cherokees are only spinable in a very limted CG range.

It's always good to remember that when the test pilot is doing spin testing he is wearing a chute, has a quick release door, AND the aircraft has a spin recovery chute installed.....................or even has the weight in the form of lead shot with a quick release device to return the CG to a known recoverable location in an EMERGENCY...........................now why is it that you feel a need to spin a Mooney, to do cross-control stalls in a Mooney????????????????

Tom-

 

[Skyport]

Diana-

To answer your question obliquely since spins are PROHIBITED the manufacturer doesn't publish a recovery technique, in fact the technique may be different for different configurations and one of the reasons for the prohibition may be that the technique is so unusual, or that there is NO techniqure that works in all normal configurations, or even that spins are unrecoverable. Since spins are prohibited the manufacturer has no obligation to answer these questions, and rumours about the reasons for any prohibition are not valid sources of information...........................I've seen too many people get in trouble when they chose to ignore a limitation because they "knew better".

Tom-

 

[gismo]

If a Mooney accidentally got into a spin, would the recovery be fairly standard (since the recovery technique wouldn't be mentioned in the POH)? Like PARE, or Muller-Beggs type recovery?

Actually, a "suggested" recovery is often given in the POH for airplanes in which spins are prohibited. I don't have my M20J manual here at work, but chances are it's PARE like.

 

[Ken Ibold]

Actually, a "suggested" recovery is often given in the POH for airplanes in which spins are prohibited. I don't have my M20J manual here at work, but chances are it's PARE like.

Keep in mind also that the reasons airplanes are certified "spins prohibited" varies. In some cases, control authority is inadequate for recovery in common spin attitudes. In others, only control authority is inadequate in only a small portion of the flight envelope. In others, the manuf simply doesn't want the potential liability or doesn't want to assume the cost of certfication testing/compliance.

 

[Skyport]

FYI-

In one very interesting example of spin testing, recovery, and surprises, the prototype Cessna T-37 was lost in spin testing, the nose strakes apparently cured that problem and T-37's delivered to the USAF were approved for spins. I met the former USAF instructor who entered an unrecoverable spin and bailed out, both Cessna and the USAF said impossible, show us. In the subsequent demo they lost another T-37, subsequently solo spins were prohibited for many years and a very rigid spin recovery procedure was established. There may be surprises at the edges of the envelope even in an aircraft approved for spins, and tested by the most experienced test pilots..

As Ken points out if an aircraft isn't approved for spins we have no real knowledge of why it isn't, rumours don't count...........................

There are a number of aircraft in the fleet that have had post-certification mods or prohibitions imposed because someone found out the hard way that spins weren't a good idea.

And it's important to remember that even if the aircraft is approved for spins only six turn spins are required, spin stability, and recovery after six turns may not be the same as that up to the demonstrated six turns.

Tom-

 

[Richard]

FYI-

In one very interesting example of spin testing, recovery, and surprises, the prototype Cessna T-37 was lost in spin testing, the nose strakes apparently cured that problem and T-37's delivered to the USAF were approved for spins.

Tom-

Now I know what those strakes are for. Diana and Michael, I don't know if you remember, when we were outside the museum when I was showing you the T-37 (Cessna jet, side by side seating) and I think it was Diana who asked about those strakes, I said I didn't know what they were for. Now I do. Thanks, Tom.

 

[Skyport]

Richard-

You will often see similar stakes on Tiger Moth's, forward of the vertical fin on the top of the fuselage. They were a wartime modification and have often been removed. British built Chipmunks had similar anti-spin stakes just forward of the inboard ends of the horizontal stablilzer.

On close examination you will find an very interesting variety of devices to tame the stall, stall strips, VG's,, fences, and improve spin recovery, or in some cases to make a docile wing stall and spin better.

Tom-