Spin training

My problem with the PA 38 was the number of control wheels
that broke. I heard of CFI carrying Vise-Grips to use in an
emergency. Look the AD up.



"Dave Doe" wrote in message
. nz...
| In article ,
lefty133
| @bellsouth.net says...
| "Ron Wanttaja" wrote in
message
| news | On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 16:23:36 -0400, Stubby
| wrote:
|
| I just got back from my spin training for my
CFI....
|
| Yup. Should be a requirement before PPL.
|
| I believe it was required long ago, perhaps 30
years. I had a bit of
| spin work in the glider. It might be required.
It was fun!
|
| Yeah, was eliminated in the late '60s, I think. Basic
reason, IIRC, is
| that the
| number of casualties that occurred during training
were thought to be
| about
| equal to the additional spin fatalities if training
WEREN'T required.
| Since
| most stall/spin accidents occur at very low altitudes
(the base-to-final
| turn,
| usually) the FAA decided to emphasize stall
recognition/avoidance,
| instead.
|
| True "spin" accidents (those that occur at high enough
altitudes to
| recover and
| not associated with any physical problem with the
airplane) are quite
| rare.
| Canada still requires spin training, and I understand
their stall/spin
| accident
| rate is about the same as the US.
|
| Ron Wanttaja
|
| Back in the early '80s, spin training was not required
and was only
| marginally available. When I demanded it, after getting
a little too close
| for comfort on a final turn in the PA-38 Tomohawk, I had
to interview more
| than one additional instructor before I found one who
was comfortable doing
| spins.
|
| IMHO the important point was that, once I was
comfortable about the spin
| entry, it was almost ridiculously easy to fly away from
an incipient spin in
| the C-150M and C-152. After getting over the initial
discomfort, I found
| that recovery during the first half turn used very
little altitude and
| recovering on point after 2 or 3 turns became easy.
Both Cessna models
| recovered very sharply on command and could have easily
been flown away from
| a spin entry at below 300 feet.
|
| At that time, I was unable to find an instructor who was
comfortable in the
| PA-38. It remains my opinion that they simply lacked
training and
| experience with the aircraft; and therefore believed the
scare stories which
| circulated. It certainly was no less controllable, and
had no less rudder
| authority during a stall. Remember that there still a
lot of pilots who
| believe that turning a twin toward an inoperative engine
is less safe than
| "Russian Roulette" with 2 cartridges in the ol'
wheel-gun.
|
| I think the problem probably lies with an instructor that
doesn't mind
| the physical sense of spinning in a Traumahawk
|
| (that's the trouble I had). BTW, I got an instructor to
put the a/c in
| a spin and recover under the hood - on one session. My
recoverys were a
| bit steep (I *tried* to allow for the instrument lag,
honest!) But I'm
| really glad I did that exercise.
|
| --
| Duncan

In article z5EYg.3142$XX2.290@dukeread04, p51mustang[threeX12]
@xxxhotmail.calm says...
My problem with the PA 38 was the number of control wheels
that broke. I heard of CFI carrying Vise-Grips to use in an
emergency. Look the AD up.

No thank you!

Wouldn't one just use the other wheel?

--
Duncan

There were reported cases of both breaking. Piper built all
the PA38 aircraft in a rush in order to beat Beech to the
market. Many of the airplanes were junk.

"Dave Doe" wrote in message
. nz...
| In article z5EYg.3142$XX2.290@dukeread04,
p51mustang[threeX12]
| @xxxhotmail.calm says...
| My problem with the PA 38 was the number of control
wheels
| that broke. I heard of CFI carrying Vise-Grips to use
in an
| emergency. Look the AD up.
|
| No thank you!
|
| Wouldn't one just use the other wheel?
|
| --
| Duncan

In article yKNYg.4751$XX2.3882@dukeread04, p51mustang[threeX12]
@xxxhotmail.calm says...
There were reported cases of both breaking. Piper built all
the PA38 aircraft in a rush in order to beat Beech to the
market. Many of the airplanes were junk.

Interesting. I thought they built it in competition to the Cessna. I
know that a known potential weak point was in the T-tail, where the
thing is welded onto the control actuator (hope I've got that right). I
was told to always check that weld as best I could w' ma naked eye for
cracks.

--
Duncan

Look up Beech Skipper and Piper Tomahawk, visually nearly
identical. There was some industrial espionage with an
employee named Piper working for both companies.


Beech had a prototype flying in the mid 70s with out the T
tail, then added the T tail. Piper started the PA38 in the
late 70s and delivered over 1,000 airplanes before Beech did
their first one.


"Dave Doe" wrote in message
. nz...
| In article yKNYg.4751$XX2.3882@dukeread04,
p51mustang[threeX12]
| @xxxhotmail.calm says...
| There were reported cases of both breaking. Piper built
all
| the PA38 aircraft in a rush in order to beat Beech to
the
| market. Many of the airplanes were junk.
|
| Interesting. I thought they built it in competition to
the Cessna. I
| know that a known potential weak point was in the T-tail,
where the
| thing is welded onto the control actuator (hope I've got
that right). I
| was told to always check that weld as best I could w' ma
naked eye for
| cracks.
|
| --
| Duncan

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:23:24 GMT, "Steven Barnes"
wrote:

Never lost my lunch! I

I took the aerobat course at Chandler AZ because locally we aren't
allowed to spin our Cubs. It was April, I think, hot enough already at
Phoenix. I did 90 minutes in the morning and 90 minutes in the
afternoon, going back to the motel between times. Halfway from field
to motel was a stockyard. By the third day it was all I could do to
get past the stockyard without tossing my breakfast.

I thought the training was great. Everyone should do it, not just
instructors.

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:06:24 -0500, GeorgeC
wrote:

I got my licence in 1972, but no spin training, not even a demo.

I did get a demo (1997) but my instructor at that time was a free
spirit. He taught the Marine way, not the airport way. Indeed, it was
that trial spin that convinced me that I should do the upset training
after I got my cert.

In article HBWYg.5034$XX2.3466@dukeread04,
"Jim Macklin" wrote:

Look up Beech Skipper and Piper Tomahawk, visually nearly
identical. There was some industrial espionage with an
employee named Piper working for both companies.

Tomahawk has a aT-tail, Skipper has a cruixiform tail.

Really. They both have T-tails. The Commander 112 has a
cruixiform tail.


see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_Skipper
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_Tomahawk

http://www.airliners.net/search/phot...nct_entry=true


Interesting and true story. The ABQ Beech AeroClub, a
dealer organization, ran an ad in the Western Flyer, that
talked about the wonderful Beech Skipper, but the publisher
ran a picture that was 1/2 the page of a Piper PA38.



"john smith" wrote in message
...
| In article HBWYg.5034$XX2.3466@dukeread04,
| "Jim Macklin"
wrote:
|
| Look up Beech Skipper and Piper Tomahawk, visually
nearly
| identical. There was some industrial espionage with an
| employee named Piper working for both companies.
|
| Tomahawk has a aT-tail, Skipper has a cruixiform tail.

In article VY5Zg.6004$XX2.3553@dukeread04,
"Jim Macklin" wrote:

Really. They both have T-tails. The Commander 112 has a
cruixiform tail.

Looking at the Wiki photo, I think that is a Tomahawk.
I always looked at the tail to determine which airplane was which.
The Piper tail is definitely a T because it sits atop the vertical
stabilizer.
I always remembered the Beech tail as mounted below the top of the
horizontal stabilizer, hence I referred to it as a cruciform. Not as low
as the Commanders (mid-vertical stabilizer), but not atop the vertical.