![]() |
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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Interesting........how is the information in the POH
obtained, yes the answer is test flying. But what is tested? There are requirements laid down that gliders must conform to in spin recovery. There are two ways of approaching testing. 1. Test to see if the glider complies with the requirements during the test flights. If it does it has passed. 2. Fly in all possible configuarations and allowable C of G positions and see how the glider behaves. Fly in configurations which are most unlikely to be met in normal service and with the C of G right on the theoretical limits and maybe beyond and assess the behaviour. Which approach do you think a glider manufacturer test pilot takes. Prove that the glider complies with the requirements or test right to the limits. The latter is the way that military aircraft are tested at great expense, do you honestly think that glider manufacturers can go to that expense. It has been said that the Puch has featured in several fatal spin ins. What was the cause? In the absence of any mechanical failure it is assumed that the failure to recover was caused by pilot mishandling, and that may be the case. We can never know that, the only person who could prove or disprove that is very difficult to communicate with unless you happen to know a medium. We do not KNOW that there is not a configuration or combination of configuration and airframe loading which will make a spin recovery impossible or more difficult and until someone survives such an occurrence we will not KNOW. We do know that no-one has found such a configuration and survived to tell anyone about it, which is not the same as saying it has never or cannot happen. You may think that my scenario is unlikely, I freely admit that I do but I do not intend to find out the hard way. Spinning below safe abandonment height leaves no option if it all goes to rats. What is a safe abandonment height, that is another question. I know what I think mine is. Do you know what yours is? I pray that I never have to find out if I am right. Make love to the wife.........do people still do that? :-) At 16:31 19 January 2005, Stefan wrote: Don Johnstone wrote: I too know how to recover from a spin, and I don't need to find an instructor, I were one. Then I'm even more puzzled that you consider exploring spins in a certified glider, which's spin recovery procedures are described in detail in the POH, as test piloting. I always thought test piloting was about exploring things which are not described in the POH. But then, I'm not an instructor. The points Ian was making was why try something that had no useful purpose I surely hope you don't ever make love to your wife whithout producing children, because this would not have any useful purpose. Stefan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |
Who's At Fault in UAV/Part91 MAC? | Larry Dighera | Instrument Flight Rules | 24 | April 29th 04 03:08 PM |
Single-Seat Accident Records (Was BD-5B) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 41 | November 20th 03 05:39 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |