Spin training

"john smith" wrote in message
...
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.

Both links and the photos shown are accurate. Regrettably, both are small
and taken from different angles. However:
The Tomahawk T-tail is mounted to look like a DC-9.
The Skipper T-tail is mounted slightly higher.
The Tomahawk side windows are nearly rectangular.
The Skipper side windows are trapezoidal.
The Tomahawk has a longer wing.
The Skipper wing has deeper chord and greater area.
The Tomahawk has wider spaced main gear attached outboard.
The Skipper main gear extends from the wing-fusalage intersection.

There are some other visual differences that I don't recall.

Peter

You have them backward, the Beech T-tail is completely flat
on top. The Piper has about 6 inches of fin above the
horizontal surface.



"john smith" wrote in message
...
| 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.

The Beech Skipper has a better electrical system, a better
panel and control lay-out IMHO. The only thing wrong with a
Skipper is it really could use another 25-50 hp. That way
it would climb fast enough to do more spins in an hour. And
maybe a nice, electrically driven airconditioner that could
be mounted in the baggage area and removed when it wasn't
July and August.

Google for Beech Skipper and then click on images, lots of
good pictures and details. 225 pictures
ditto for Piper Tomahawk and 604 pictures.


Not all the pictures are correctly identified, no doubt
because the words are on the same page with the picture.


"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
.. .
| "john smith" wrote in message
|
...
| 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.
|
| Both links and the photos shown are accurate.
Regrettably, both are small
| and taken from different angles. However:
| The Tomahawk T-tail is mounted to look like a DC-9.
| The Skipper T-tail is mounted slightly higher.
| The Tomahawk side windows are nearly rectangular.
| The Skipper side windows are trapezoidal.
| The Tomahawk has a longer wing.
| The Skipper wing has deeper chord and greater area.
| The Tomahawk has wider spaced main gear attached
outboard.
| The Skipper main gear extends from the wing-fusalage
intersection.
|
| There are some other visual differences that I don't
recall.
|
| Peter
|
|
|

vlado wrote:

What airplanes does this (Beggs-Mueller) not work for?
Thx,
VL
Decathlons for Inverted Spins, as I recall. (They sometimes
need a little pull on the stick to get them to pop out of the
inverted spin.)

I'm actually surprised that it works on a T-6. The few times
I've spun a Harvard, it seemed to take 1-2turns after full
opposite rudder and the stick was well forward before it
stopped. (I'm actually going to waste an absurd amount
of money going on a couple of trips with Lee in the TF51
at the end of Nov. If we get as far as spins, I'm curious to
hear what he says. I've heard even Bob Hoover wasn't too
comfortable spinning the P51. I vaguely recall reading
that he said "some were ok, others not so good"?)

Can't wait until end of Nov, rick

Be very careful with spinning the F51. I've read reports of
pilots doing simulated dog-fights at 10,000 over the
Pacific. One pilot looses sight of the other, looks around
and then sees a splash . I'd sure I had a good parachute.



wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| vlado wrote:
|
| What airplanes does this (Beggs-Mueller) not work for?
| Thx,
| VL
| Decathlons for Inverted Spins, as I recall. (They
sometimes
| need a little pull on the stick to get them to pop out of
the
| inverted spin.)
|
| I'm actually surprised that it works on a T-6. The few
times
| I've spun a Harvard, it seemed to take 1-2turns after full
| opposite rudder and the stick was well forward before it
| stopped. (I'm actually going to waste an absurd amount
| of money going on a couple of trips with Lee in the TF51
| at the end of Nov. If we get as far as spins, I'm curious
to
| hear what he says. I've heard even Bob Hoover wasn't too
| comfortable spinning the P51. I vaguely recall reading
| that he said "some were ok, others not so good"?)
|
| Can't wait until end of Nov, rick
|

In article GrcZg.8309$XX2.3853@dukeread04,
"Jim Macklin" wrote:

Be very careful with spinning the F51. I've read reports of
pilots doing simulated dog-fights at 10,000 over the
Pacific. One pilot looses sight of the other, looks around
and then sees a splash . I'd sure I had a good parachute.

Was that an original combat P/F-51? Or one of todays stripped down
two-eaters?

That detail was not given. But since it was many years ago,
the odds are that it was close to a stock P/F 51.


"john smith" wrote in message
...
| In article GrcZg.8309$XX2.3853@dukeread04,
| "Jim Macklin"
wrote:
|
| Be very careful with spinning the F51. I've read
reports of
| pilots doing simulated dog-fights at 10,000 over the
| Pacific. One pilot looses sight of the other, looks
around
| and then sees a splash . I'd sure I had a good
parachute.
|
| Was that an original combat P/F-51? Or one of todays
stripped down
| two-eaters?

wrote:
vlado wrote:

What airplanes does this (Beggs-Mueller) not work for?
Thx,
VL
Decathlons for Inverted Spins, as I recall. (They sometimes
need a little pull on the stick to get them to pop out of the
inverted spin.)

I'm actually surprised that it works on a T-6. The few times
I've spun a Harvard, it seemed to take 1-2turns after full
opposite rudder and the stick was well forward before it
stopped. (I'm actually going to waste an absurd amount
of money going on a couple of trips with Lee in the TF51
at the end of Nov. If we get as far as spins, I'm curious to
hear what he says. I've heard even Bob Hoover wasn't too
comfortable spinning the P51. I vaguely recall reading
that he said "some were ok, others not so good"?)

Can't wait until end of Nov, rick

In these warbirds, recovery from a right spin is quicker than a left
spin. That being said, some T-6s recover quicker than others; I have a
friend whose SNJ-5 will recover in a HALF turn from either left or
right right spins (I have dibbs on this airframe if he ever sells it).
Also, the more turns you go beyond two or so, the longer it takes to
recover: the spin is more "developed". T-28s are awful to spin;
watching the top of the wing constantly 'oil-canning' is extremely
distracting(sic)!!! But for all of them, in a training situation, you
really have to coax them into a spin; definate control inputs are
needed and be maintained (esp. the P-51), otherwise they roll-off into
spirals or such.