Shirley wrote:

I mentioned to the CFIGs/DPEs where I fly the comments made by people on this
group about the 1-26 spinning easily--this was met with various reactions,
though NO ONE agreed that the 1-26 spins "easily".

The 1-26 spins "more" easily than the 2-33. The 1-26 stalls "more"
easily and with "less" warning than the 2-33.


The comment was made here on RAS: "We teach people in the 2-33 and then put
them into a 1-26 that spins at the drop of a hat with virtually little or no
spin training ... shame on us!" In the hours
I've flown the 1-26 (summers in AZ
include some great-but-turbulent weather), I have not *unintentionally* come
close to stalling it, and no, I have not chosen to spin it on purpose.

The pitch sensitivity and elevator authority at most CGs of the
1-26 is much greater than for the 2-33. Combine this with the
lack of a back seat (no instructor to help on the first flight)
and a student can "more" easily get into a spin than in a 2-33.
Ideally, flying dual with a student in a glider which is pitch sensitive
with lots of elevator authority, before signing them off for
the 1-26, might have historically prevented some of the
accidents listed at

www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp#query_start

To those who have stressed the importance of spin training *when talking about
flying the 1-26*, I would like to know specifics -- are you saying it stalls
and spins with little or no warning? If so, I'd like to hear details of
specific instances where this has actually happened to you ... not just the
blanket warning that applies to being aware of stalls and spins in *any*
aircraft...I'm assuming we always have that in mind.

The 1-26 stalls with "less" warning than the 2-33. And it stalls
with "less" back pressure (in terms of absolute force applied
to the stick). And the wing stalls "more" uniformly than the
2-33 (where part of the wing, the inner part, stalls well before
the outer part). And the 1-26 has "less" dihedral than the
2-33, and the wing is "lower" with respect to the CG, so
a wing will drop "more" quickly during a stall (causing
a "quicker" spin entry).

I put "lower" and "more" like that to emphasize that no
aircraft spins "easily", just "more" easily and "less" easily
than something else. The only way to really explain
the characteristics is to compare them relatively to
another known aircraft.

Will a heavy person with very short legs and a huge
seat cushion stall/spin with the same stick pressure as
a tall, skinny person with a water bag behind the seat?
Not as easily. CG is a bigger issue for making stalls (and therefore
spins) easier or harder to initiate (on purpose or by accident).

My first flight with rear seat passengers in a power plane,
I almost stalled on takeoff, because the amount of
stick pressure needed for rotation and takeoff was
much lighter than I expected. Fortunately I trusted
the airspeed instead of my motor-mechanical memory of
pressure...

Can you use things like trim forward, or use seat cushions
to get yourself forward on CG, so stalls require more
back pressure? Sure. Will this mean you never inadvertently
stall, spin? Well, if you do this very consistently,
it may reduce the chances. But if one day you forget the
cushions, and trim far back right before landing, this
technique may have the opposite effect and encourage you to put
in more back pressure (since that's what you
always did before).

Sounds uncertain? Well, the airspeed indicator is pretty
accurate, so use it instead of "pressure" to determine
if you're close to stall. The 1-26 that I
fly won't stay in a spin easily, so I'm not worried about
stall/spin at high altitude (above 1500 ft), since I
can recover. In the pattern, I just use airspeed well
above stall. I check airspeed quite often during landing also,
to ensure I'm not getting too slow.

Should you practice a spin in the 1-26 solo to see
what it's like? I don't know, that is a very individual
decision... Should you spin a more "spinable"
trainer dual? If there's one available, it sure is
a good eye-opener...