Cessna 152 spin integrity

On Jan 26, 2:11*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

On Jan 26, 8:49*am, wrote:
So, no, I don't know absolutely the danger of spinning a 152 and have
been "taught" different views...which is the purpose of my post. I
guess the knowledge I should have as a commercial pilot is not only
rusty, but was cut way short by the cheap school I chose.

Ricky- Hide quoted text -

I betcha you could go up and so some spins in the 150 over at
McGregor. I know at least one of the instructors over there does that
on occasion.

Is it Keith H. (last name abbreviated on purpose) you know? He's an
instructor at Aurora and is a good friend of mine.

Good to know Aurora has a 150 that they'll allow spins in. As soon as
the pocketbook allows I'll get my BFR over there.
I heard they also have a new generation 172 (not a glass cockpit, just
new).

Ricky

Ricky wrote in
:

On Jan 26, 2:11*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
.
Find a Great Lakes or a Citabria. The tailwheel experience will teach
you
a
lot as well.

Bertie-

Among the three part 141 schools I went to, Le Tourneau University was
the best. I went there with my commercial / instrument in hand,
preparing to go through CFII, multi & A&P. The high quality, serious
level of instruction at Le Tourneau quickly overwhelmed me as did the
huge expense of this small, private, Christian school. I had to leave
after one semester because I simply couldn't afford it. I was also
quite the irresponsible idiot at the time who'd rather play than
study, so the caliber of instruction at Le Tourneau was something I
could not handle.

I did, however, get my checkout in their Citabria which they used for
tailwheel training and spins for the CFI candidates. We were not
allowed to do aerobatics in the Citabria or fly solo, but it remains
some of the best training and most rewarding flying I've done. The
Citabria was loads of fun and I caught on really fast. In an hour I
was doing it all alone, including wheelies and 3 pointers. Far too
many schools don't offer tailwheel checkouts, at Le Tourneau it was
required for graduation, as was a landing at DFW in an Archer or Arrow
(and the landing fee came out of YOUR pocket). BTW the Warriors,
Archers & Arrows were all air conditioned at Le Tourneau which was
great in the Texas Summer!

The suggestion for aerobatic instruction is well-received and when I
can afford it, I'll do it. My short term plan at the moment is to
finish my A&P and 2 yr. degree, get a job and then jump back into
flight instruction, finishing my flight degree started long ago and
getting my CFII & multi. TSTC has an above-average rating among those
I've talked with so I'm anticipating good instruction. It will take a
while to get up to snuff on my commercial / instrument before
progressing into CFI. There are many places in the DFW area (bit over
an hour drive north) offering aerobatic instruction and I even know
one or two locally.

You said the Pitts was "easy," implying the Citabria was not as easy?
I got the impression in my 10 or so hours in the Citabria that it was
a pretty easy airplane to fly & land. Did you mean it's a bit
challenging for aerobatics, moreso than a Pitts?


Yes, exactly, The Pitts is a lot more difficult to land than the
Citabria. I've only flown two easier taildraggers than a Citabria and
that's the Hatz and the Aeronca Sedan. And mabye a Taylorcraft.

My dad built a Pitts in the 70s and sold it within a year because he
didn't like the way it flew. I was just a wee lad but I seem to
remember his not liking the speed and instability, and he had little
interest in aerobatics. So he took it to a few airshows and won awards
for quality of construction, finish and decor and then sold it after
spending over 5 years building the thing. He really loved working on
planes as much as flying them & was a perfectionist.


Yeah, I've flown two in my early years and found them a handful then,
probably wouldn't find them so much of a handful now, but thye do keep
your attentin on the ground.
The problem with them doing rolls in particualr is all you really have
to do to do a passable roll is slap the sick to the side and it will go
around. Doing them in a Citabria requires you to do everything right or
it's a bi tof a mess. Bipes are better becasue they're stringer and
draggier and if you **** up you have a far greater margin than you would
in a Citabria or Decathlon. That's why I suggested the Great Lakes.



Bertie

Good to know Aurora has a 150 that they'll allow spins in. As soon as
the pocketbook allows I'll get my BFR over there.
I heard they also have a new generation 172 (not a glass cockpit, just
new).

Ricky

I met Keith briefly once recently.

Hmm. Well, I don't know if they allow spins without instructor -- UFC
does.

I was thinking of Travis, who told me he sometimes goes and does a
spin or two in the 150 "to blow off steam". But I didn't ask if they
allow spins as a rule. That was my checkride plane, by the way.
Switched from AUS to PWG at the last minute. Not a recommended
procedure, a last minute type switch-a-roo, by-the-by!

Glass 172 is pricey, compared to my club.

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
"Peter Dohm" wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
"JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote in
news:7ec1fcb50fea9@uwe:

Ricky wrote:


I also remember being warned "no spin is exactly the same or
predictable, so DON'T do them solo! Was this just a warning from my
school so we wouldn't screw up their gyros or are spins indeed
possibly very dangerous inherently for some reason?


Sounds like the school didn't have a whole lot of confidence in
the spin
training they provided. Assuming you're within the proper weight
and CG envelope, spins should be quite predictable. Particularly in
something like a 152.

A local FBO will only allow spins in their Great Lakes aerobatic
trainers
(they also have Supercubs and Huskies) because the have cageable
gyros. I've often wondered if this isn't an Old Wives Tale. I've
been spinning my Cherokee on a fairly regular basis since 1994. The
gyros often tumble during spins, but that's never caused a
maintenance problem. I've still got the same gyros in the panel
that were there when I bought the plane 14 yrs. ago. They've never
been removed for OH and they're still working fine.


Holy Crap! That's amazing!

It definitely wrecks gyros. The one place I worked that had no non
gyro airplanes had one airplane ( cherokee) for spins and it's gyros
barely showed any interest at all.
I suppose it depends on the quality, but it is defnitely not an old
wives tale.


Bertie

My recollection is that a "normal" spin entry would tumble the gyros
in a 150M, but not in a 152. Apparently, if my recollection of the
gimbal limits is correct, the 150 dipped through 80 degrees nose down
on the entry and the 152 did not.

Well, that seems kinda strange! The airframes are essentially the
same.The CG would probably be a bit different and maybe they've riggd
the airplane differently ( decalage) I haven't got a lot of time in a
152 and in fact I don't think I've ever taught in one. I can't even
remember what a Cherokee spins like..


There seems to be a wide variation in the spin entry for various
aircraft, even when the entry is not from an accelerated stall, and
there are also a variety of non-tumbling gyros (in addition to
gageable viarieties) in the GA fleet. All of the cageable gyros that
I have personally seen were the old fashioned varieties (gull-wing
horizons and those old DGs that looked like the whiskey compass in the
windshield) which would tumble on any excursion through 60 degrees of
pitch or roll if not gaged.


True enough. sounds plausible, allright. I don't know though. Most of
the airplanes I used to spin had wrecked gyros in no time, though.

I have never personally seen any of the newer type gyros which were
cageable, although I presume that they exist. In any case, the newer
types (which can now be close to 40 years old) are certainly more
rugged than their predecessors.

I've seen them for sale OK. New ones. They're megabucks.

A friend was showing around a couple of copies of Aviation Consumer at a
meeting earlier today. One of them did indeed have pictures of two brands
of cageable artificial horizons, but circumstances did not permit me to find
the price, and both of the gyros shown were electric. A quick web search
was not informative as to the cost of TSO'd vacuum powered gyros with the
cageable feature,as would be used as a replacement part for a typical
trainer, but it does appear that you are correct--they are expensive and the
DGs would be similar.

Please treat this as a request for information and comment.


I'm not that scary!


That didn't apply to any one person, and someone might know something that
the rest of us have missed.

Peter

"Peter Dohm" wrote in
:

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
"Peter Dohm" wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
"JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote in
news:7ec1fcb50fea9@uwe:

Ricky wrote:


I also remember being warned "no spin is exactly the same or
predictable, so DON'T do them solo! Was this just a warning from
my school so we wouldn't screw up their gyros or are spins indeed
possibly very dangerous inherently for some reason?


Sounds like the school didn't have a whole lot of confidence in
the spin
training they provided. Assuming you're within the proper weight
and CG envelope, spins should be quite predictable. Particularly
in something like a 152.

A local FBO will only allow spins in their Great Lakes aerobatic
trainers
(they also have Supercubs and Huskies) because the have cageable
gyros. I've often wondered if this isn't an Old Wives Tale.
I've been spinning my Cherokee on a fairly regular basis since
1994. The gyros often tumble during spins, but that's never
caused a maintenance problem. I've still got the same gyros in
the panel that were there when I bought the plane 14 yrs. ago.
They've never been removed for OH and they're still working fine.


Holy Crap! That's amazing!

It definitely wrecks gyros. The one place I worked that had no non
gyro airplanes had one airplane ( cherokee) for spins and it's
gyros barely showed any interest at all.
I suppose it depends on the quality, but it is defnitely not an old
wives tale.


Bertie

My recollection is that a "normal" spin entry would tumble the gyros
in a 150M, but not in a 152. Apparently, if my recollection of the
gimbal limits is correct, the 150 dipped through 80 degrees nose
down on the entry and the 152 did not.

Well, that seems kinda strange! The airframes are essentially the
same.The CG would probably be a bit different and maybe they've riggd
the airplane differently ( decalage) I haven't got a lot of time in
a 152 and in fact I don't think I've ever taught in one. I can't even
remember what a Cherokee spins like..


There seems to be a wide variation in the spin entry for various
aircraft, even when the entry is not from an accelerated stall, and
there are also a variety of non-tumbling gyros (in addition to
gageable viarieties) in the GA fleet. All of the cageable gyros
that I have personally seen were the old fashioned varieties
(gull-wing horizons and those old DGs that looked like the whiskey
compass in the windshield) which would tumble on any excursion
through 60 degrees of pitch or roll if not gaged.


True enough. sounds plausible, allright. I don't know though. Most of
the airplanes I used to spin had wrecked gyros in no time, though.

I have never personally seen any of the newer type gyros which were
cageable, although I presume that they exist. In any case, the
newer types (which can now be close to 40 years old) are certainly
more rugged than their predecessors.

I've seen them for sale OK. New ones. They're megabucks.

A friend was showing around a couple of copies of Aviation Consumer at
a meeting earlier today. One of them did indeed have pictures of two
brands of cageable artificial horizons, but circumstances did not
permit me to find the price, and both of the gyros shown were
electric. A quick web search was not informative as to the cost of
TSO'd vacuum powered gyros with the cageable feature,as would be used
as a replacement part for a typical trainer, but it does appear that
you are correct--they are expensive and the DGs would be similar.

Yeah. A friend of mine has a Yak 52 and that has a 360 deg gyro ( that
reads backwards, ground above, sky below) It'd probably last forever. it
looks pretty hefty, though.

Please treat this as a request for information and comment.


I'm not that scary!


That didn't apply to any one person, and someone might know something
that the rest of us have missed.


Kay. now I'm disappointed that I'm not that scary.



Bertie


Bertie

Please treat this as a request for information and comment.


I'm not that scary!


That didn't apply to any one person, and someone might know something
that the rest of us have missed.


Kay. now I'm disappointed that I'm not that scary.



There's just no pleasin' some folks.

Peter

"Peter Dohm" wrote in news:WVPmj.49325$k27.34902
@bignews2.bellsouth.net:


Please treat this as a request for information and comment.


I'm not that scary!


That didn't apply to any one person, and someone might know something
that the rest of us have missed.


Kay. now I'm disappointed that I'm not that scary.



There's just no pleasin' some folks.


Now I'm unhappy that you think I'm a fussbudget.


Bertie

"Ricky" wrote in message
...

I was watching the 50-something spins done in a 152 on youtube and it
got me thinking;

I seem to remember being taught during commercial training that spins
do not greatly increase G forces on the airplane, is this true?

I also remember being warned "no spin is exactly the same or
predictable, so DON'T do them solo! Was this just a warning from my
school so we wouldn't screw up their gyros or are spins indeed
possibly very dangerous inherently for some reason?

I would like to try some solo next time I'm up just for fun but may
take a willing CFI along (or fellow pilot) just in case.

Would 50-something spins compromise a Cessna 150 or 152's structure?

Another thing I'd be concerned about was getting overly dizzy beyond a
handful of spins.

Ricky

I Spin my 150-M all the time solo it's fun do it in an area where a landing
can be made with out harm just incase.

"Jim Logajan" wrote

No one would reasonably demand (at least I wouldn't!) that civil
engineers,
or mechanical engineers must be proficient at welding, running a lathe,
running a milling machine, laying bricks, woodworking, plumbing,
electrical
wiring, and so on before they can be considered competent engineers.

I've run into civil engineers that didn't know what good wet concrete looked
like, or which end of a hammer was used to hit a nail, or how to use a
framing square to figure out how to figure out a roof pitch.

They drew plans that indicated their lack of grip on the subject.

I would not expect a civil engineer to have skills on the level of a
journeyman carpenter or mason.

They sure as hell should have a working knowledge of the skills they are
asking workers to employ, to build their plans. How else can they possibly
know how to engineer a job that gets the best bang for the buck? I've even
seen plans that could not be built as drawn. (many of them- I've always
thought that they should have 1 year of labor experience in their field, to
be able to walk for their diploma) If the engineer had ever done a little
building, they would have known that.

I wouldn't expect a software EE to be able to solder up, or repair a circuit
board. I would expect a hardware EE to be able to do some soldering, and
for sure, be able to examine a board and see if all of the solder joints and
traces look good.

Yes, I know that an EE is and EE, and they don't give two separate degrees.
They do specialize, and if they are hiring on as a software engineer, that
should be indicated by what experiences they have had on their resume and
transcripts.
--
Jim in NC