Rolling a Non Aerobat 150

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com wrote in message
And, one could consider the fact that wearing a parachute or not won't
make one bit of difference (at least as far as survival is concerned) in
90+% of the aircraft used for training if one were to find a spin to be
unrecoverable and/or if one were to pull the wings off.

Why would you say this? The door would be fairly easy to open in a spin.
In a high
speed loss of control it might be very difficult to overcome aerodynamic
resistance but
it is possible to open a forward hinged door and force it open enough to
squeeze out
at even 100kts in straight flight. With a modern canopy you stand a chance
of a survivable
deployment at even a few hundred feet.

The only reason I responded to the post is to encourage anyone wearing a
parachute
to drill the procedure like any other flying skill (and I know this was a
casual usenet
post, but avoid those negative thoughts).

1. Jettison the canopy/pull the door release pins (if so equipped)
2. Grasp the door frame/strut with one hand
3. Then, release the seat belt(s) with the other hand
4. pull clear and jump
5. assume the hard arch position, look, grasp the ripcord with both hands
and pull
to full arm extension until the cables clear the housing.
6. Discard the ripcord handle and look over your right shoulder.

There was a series of articles in Soaring/Sport Aerobatics a few years ago:

http://www.silverparachutes.com/uplo...PROCEDURES.htm

I would encourage anyone to make a recreational jump, even a tandem, to
familiarize
themselves with the experience. You may find it opens the door to a whole
new
expression of aviation; after all riding in a boat ain't swimming and by the
same token
sitting in an airplane isn't really flying ...

Stay Lucky,
Todd

In rec.aviation.student Todd W. Deckard wrote:
I would encourage anyone to make a recreational jump, even a tandem, to
familiarize
themselves with the experience. You may find it opens the door to a whole
new
expression of aviation; after all riding in a boat ain't swimming and by the
same token
sitting in an airplane isn't really flying ...

Neither is dropping straight down to the earth.

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

In article . net,
"Todd W. Deckard" wrote:

Why would you say this? The door would be fairly easy to open in a spin.
In a high speed loss of control it might be very difficult to overcome
aerodynamic resistance but it is possible to open a forward hinged door
and force it open enough to squeeze out at even 100kts in straight flight.
With a modern canopy you stand a chance of a survivable deployment at
even a few hundred feet.

I wouldn't be too positive about those statements.
I have over 300 freefalls and 25 hours of acro in a Citabria.
The Citabria only has one door... on the right side. In a right spin,
the rate of descent is still going to be about 800 fpm with an indicated
airspeed of 45-50 mph. That's quite and airload on the inside turn side
of the airframe. Add to that centrifugal forces and getting through the
doorway after jettisoning the door will be a challenging proposition.
You have two sets of seatbelts to release, a headset to remove and a
body with a parachute attached to fit through the doorway. When you exit
you will be on the inside side of the airplane, which you have to clear
before you pull the D-ring.
Tic-toc, the clock is winding down as fast as the altimeter.
I have knowledge of only one acro pilot who successfully exited a
Decathlon.

john smith wrote:
.... snipped
the rate of descent is still going to be about 800 fpm with an indicated
airspeed of 45-50 mph. That's quite and airload on the inside turn side
.... snipped

800 fpm is surprisingly low - are you sure? The aircraft I normally fly
does about 300 feet per turn and about 1-2 seconds per turn - so being
conservative that's about 10,000 fpm.

Dave

In article ,
NoSpam wrote:

john smith wrote:
... snipped
the rate of descent is still going to be about 800 fpm with an indicated
airspeed of 45-50 mph. That's quite and airload on the inside turn side
... snipped

800 fpm is surprisingly low - are you sure? The aircraft I normally fly
does about 300 feet per turn and about 1-2 seconds per turn - so being
conservative that's about 10,000 fpm.
Dave

Oops, you're right, it is higher. Don't know what I was thinking when I
wrote that.

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 21:35:00 -0500, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea
Hawk at wow way d0t com wrote:

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
Note that what is said here is not true. The regs say that you can teach
any maneuver that is "required for a rating" without parachutes. This
includes spins. You can teach a student spins without a parachute(s) if
you wish.

Jim


And, one could consider the fact that wearing a parachute or not won't make
one bit of difference (at least as far as survival is concerned) in 90+% of
the aircraft used for training if one were to find a spin to be
unrecoverable and/or if one were to pull the wings off.

A spin is a fully stalled condition. The doors of a 150 or 172 should
be *relatively* easy to open as opposed to being in a high speed
spiral.


For the parachute to do any good, you would have to be able to open the door
far enough to actually get out of the airplane. You could do it in a
Citabria or 150 Acro with the door release - or something like a Cub. But
anything else? Naah...

But, of course, if one were to die inside the aircraft, having a 'chute on
should be enough to assure that one would go to heaven since he and/or she
would have died while complying with FAA regulations. The rest of us will
end up in a significantly less comforable environment, eh?

Personally I think spins are fun.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 01:38:09 -0500, Roger
wrote in :

A spin is a fully stalled condition.

I would characterize it as more of a condition where one wing is
partially stalled.

On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 20:40:18 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 01:38:09 -0500, Roger
wrote in :

A spin is a fully stalled condition.

I would characterize it as more of a condition where one wing is
partially stalled.

Or more stalled than the other. Either way a spin is a pretty benign
condition in most of the stuff we fly. OTOH an acellerated or inverted
spin is a bit more interesting.:-))

But the point is that in a regular spin the doors should be relatively
easy to open in a 150 or 172.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger wrote:



A spin is a fully stalled condition. The doors of a 150 or 172 should
be *relatively* easy to open as opposed to being in a high speed
spiral.

As I understand it, there is a difference in the _extent_ of the stall
between the two wings. If that were not the case and both wings were
fully stalled (which would require AOA to be ~90 degrees I think) the
yaw would decay due to fusilage and tail drag?

Cheers Mark

------------ And now a word from our sponsor ---------------------
For a secure high performance FTP using SSL/TLS encryption
upgrade to SurgeFTP
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgeftp.htm ----

On 2007-03-05, DR wrote:
Roger wrote:
A spin is a fully stalled condition. The doors of a 150 or 172 should
be *relatively* easy to open as opposed to being in a high speed
spiral.

As I understand it, there is a difference in the _extent_ of the stall
between the two wings.

I think 'fully stalled' in the context of a spin means that both wings
exceed the critical angle of attack. That's not to say one wing can't
have a different AoA than the other (IIRC, the critical angle of attack
is something on the order of 16 degrees)

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de