Cessna 150 Price Outlook

Am in temp hiatus in my lessons due to financial shortages but I understood
from my instructor that it was just around the corner, lesson immediately
after stalls. Let's see - lesson 13 in the FTM Aeroplane, 4th edition.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/ge...13747/menu.htm

however it's not in the flight test standards.

Lesson 13 in the online version of the flight training syllabus talks about
incipient spins and recoveries but the downloadable PDF file still calls for
full spin training. Wonder what the real story is.


"David Megginson" wrote in message
...
"Steve House" writes:

Unless you're training for the PPL here in Canada, where spins and
recovery are part of the required syllabus at about lesson 11.

Transport Canada removed spin training from the syllabus in the late
1990's (I don't know the exact year). It was not part of my PPL
training in 2002.

As far as I understand (*not* confirmed from an official source),
there were two problems with spin training:

1. The stall/spin accident rate was slightly higher in Canada than the
U.S., despite the fact that all Canadian PPL holders had spin training
and most U.S. PPL holders did not.

2. There were occasional training fatalities during spin training,
including one where the rudder in a 152 jumped its stop and jammed
past full deflection.

Given #1, there was no justification for the deaths in #2 (even if
they were fairly rare).


All the best,


David

"Rich Stowell" wrote in message om...


We need to be very careful here -- just because an airplane is
approved for operation in the Utility Category does NOT mean it is
certified for intentional spins!

That is correct, but if it's not approved in the utility category it is almost
certainly NOT approved for spins.

Furhter, there may be further restrictions on the spinning than just the
utility category loading. For example, the Cherokees prohibit anything
from being in the baggage compartment while spinning.

(Rich Stowell) wrote in message
snip
That said, here's what I've got for the Piper PA-28-140 and PA-28-180
airplanes, excerpted from my stall/spin due for publication in 2004.

Hope this helps,


Rich,

Thanks for the detailed explanation. Can't wait for the book to
come out. I have a question, though.

The PA28-180 section makes repeated references to the fact that
intentional spins are prohibited. I don't think that is right.
There were several versions of the PA28-180 and some do indeed
prohibit intentional spins (primarily the stretched versions with
beginning with ser# 28-7305001). I own an earlier version ('68 180D,
ser# 28-4474) that is approved for intentional spins in the utility
category. This is according to the AFM and associated placards on the
aircraft. Specifically, the Operating Limitations placard refers to
entry speeds for manuevers approved in the utility category. Spins
are included, along with chandelles, lazy 8s, etc... I have flown
other PA28-180s, some older, some newer, that have the same placard
(these were not versions subject to AD 74-26-07). Am I missing
something?

A couple of notes on the chapter :

The 1st sentence under the PA28-140 section mentions Warriors. The
Warriors were actually PA28-151/161 models produced under sections XIV
& XVI of TCDS 2A13.

The PA28-180 under section XII of the TCDS was sold as the
Challenger ('73) and Archer ('74 &'75). This is the stretched version
(no-spins) affected by AD 74-26-02. Earlier PA28-180 versions
produced under section III of the TCDS were sold as the Cherokee.

Thanks again,

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message om...
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message m...

"John Galban" wrote in message om...

I've flown and spun 150/160s that were approved for spins in the
Utility Category.

Let me be more exact. The PA-28-150 and PA-28-160 are NOT
certficated in the utility category, hence no spins. The PA-28-151
and PA-28-161 are certificated in the utility category.

snip

BTW - I checked my logbook and you were absolutely correct. Turns
out the planes I mentioned above were 150 and 160 hp versions of the
-140.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

Ron Natalie wrote:
: I've flown and spun 150/160s that were approved for spins in the
: Utility Category.

: Let me be more exact. The PA-28-150 and PA-28-160 are NOT
: certficated in the utility category, hence no spins. The PA-28-151
: and PA-28-161 are certificated in the utility category.

Hrmm... sounds illegal to me then?

: The PA-28-140, -180, -181 are certificated in the utility category

: For those models that are certificated with for utility category operations.
: 1. You have to get the CG in the utility envelope.
Of course.

: 2. You have to not have the 2150 gross weight increase.on the -140.
Probably not too many of them left.

: 3. There is a serial number limit on the -180 for utility category operations.
Probably the old (non-clamshell cowling) version?

: 4. You can only use the two front seats.
Of course

Mine need not legally apply since the engine upgrade expressly
says Normal only.

Thanks for the info though... I would think it's pretty much a legal
issue. The important thing would be to keep it loaded in the Utility CG
range. Other than that there's no real difference between the airframes.

-Cory

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

wrote:

I would think it's pretty much a legal issue.

I don't think so. Two CFIs were killed near Solberg a few years ago when a spin
went flat. I think they were flying a Cherokee.

George Patterson
God grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the
good fortune to run into the ones I like, and the eyesight to tell the
difference.

G.R. Patterson III wrote:
: wrote:
:
: I would think it's pretty much a legal issue.

: I don't think so. Two CFIs were killed near Solberg a few years ago when a spin
: went flat. I think they were flying a Cherokee.

The Normal category is much more aft CG, and was most likely the
cause. I know from flying mine that it's a whole different animal in
'Utility' loading... extremely benign stall, etc. More aft it's tricky.
Aside from that, however, the airframes are identical.

-Cory
--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

writes:

: I would think it's pretty much a legal issue.

: I don't think so. Two CFIs were killed near Solberg a few years
: ago when a spin went flat. I think they were flying a Cherokee.

The Normal category is much more aft CG, and was most likely the
cause. I know from flying mine that it's a whole different animal
in 'Utility' loading... extremely benign stall, etc. More aft it's
tricky. Aside from that, however, the airframes are identical.

The different engine weights (and accessory weights) will affect the
CG and the ability to recover, together with other small differences.
The later four-place Cherokees also have various combinations of a
longer fuselage and semi-tapered wings.

Either Piper spin-tested the other models and found them
unsatisfactory, or else the test pilots wouldn't even try spinning
them in the first place (because of engineering predictions). Neither
thought makes me too comfortable.


All the best,


David

David Megginson wrote in message ...

Either Piper spin-tested the other models and found them
unsatisfactory, or else the test pilots wouldn't even try spinning
them in the first place (because of engineering predictions). Neither
thought makes me too comfortable.


Piper spin tested the "stretched" models. They had to as part of
the certification testing. That's a whole different ballgame than
approval for intentional spins. Oddly enough, the original stretched
models were not restricted from intentional spins when they 1st came
out. Spin approval was rescinded for those models a few years later
by AD.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

I would think it's pretty much a legal issue.


I don't think so. Two CFIs were killed near Solberg a few years ago when a spin
went flat. I think they were flying a Cherokee.

I've spun (with utility loading) a '68 PA28-180 that wasn't placarded
against it.

It didn't spin well. By that I mean it was _really_ uninterested in
entering a spin; stick back full stall (well, mush) and full rudder made
it want to spiral. A jab of throttle was needed to convince it to
wallow over and spin.

Recovery was normal and uneventful.

Some PA28's (notably later ones) are placarded against spins, I suspect
because some CG loadings may make recovery -er- difficult.