Here is a link to John and Martha King's website, where they point out that the Skycathcher has been spin-tested, and that ASTM standards do not require S-LSA to undergo spin testing:
http://johnandmartha.kingschools.com/20 ... r-cessnas/
I wonder how many other S-LSA, if any, have been spin tested?
How many S-LSA have been spin tested?
Moderator: drseti
SeaRey LSX has also been spin tested. Like the Tecnam P92s, it will not hold a spin a recovers itself nicely.
Helen
Helen
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Helen Woods
Chesapeake Sport Pilot
Quality Flight Training, Rentals, and Service
Factory Authorized RV-12 Training and Service Center
http://www.chesapeakesportpilot.com
Helen Woods
Chesapeake Sport Pilot
Quality Flight Training, Rentals, and Service
Factory Authorized RV-12 Training and Service Center
http://www.chesapeakesportpilot.com
Tecnam Spinning
My Bravo is placarded against intentional spins, but I guess unintentional ones are O.K.
-
CharlieTango
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:04 am
- Location: Mammoth Lakes, California
Re: Tecnam Spinning
same with the ctsw.slsaowner wrote:My Bravo is placarded against intentional spins, but I guess unintentional ones are O.K.
it is important to me to recognize an incipient spin but to practice / learn that you need to get into the unintentional spin area.
i think spin testing should be part of the astm standard.
Spinning a Tecnam
I agree, and I bet that old guy who test flies every Tecnam airplane has done plenty of spins in his company's products. Maybe that's why they prohibit intentional spins. Maybe he scared himself a few times.
Tecnam only prohibits spins on the Bravos and Sierras. P92s are legal. P92s are actually acrobatic certified in Europe. Check out YouTube and you'll see some of the video of a professional acrobatics team that they have over there that uses P92s.
The Sierra and Bravo have a different wing than the P92. The P92 wing resists entering a spin and will not hold it. While I haven't actually spun our Sierras, I've had plenty of students put me into cross controlled stalls in them and I'm convinced that that wing design would spin nicely. I think that's the reason that Tecnam chose to only spin certify the P92s in the States. They only needed one plane in their line that was spin certified to use as a CFI trainer and the P92 has the more student proof wing design that is guaranteed to to recover the pilot no matter how bad he screws up the recovery procedures.
Helen
The Sierra and Bravo have a different wing than the P92. The P92 wing resists entering a spin and will not hold it. While I haven't actually spun our Sierras, I've had plenty of students put me into cross controlled stalls in them and I'm convinced that that wing design would spin nicely. I think that's the reason that Tecnam chose to only spin certify the P92s in the States. They only needed one plane in their line that was spin certified to use as a CFI trainer and the P92 has the more student proof wing design that is guaranteed to to recover the pilot no matter how bad he screws up the recovery procedures.
Helen
You've no idea how much better I feel about practicing stalls after reading this!Helen wrote:Tecnam only prohibits spins on the Bravos and Sierras. P92s are legal. P92s are actually acrobatic certified in Europe. Check out YouTube and you'll see some of the video of a professional acrobatics team that they have over there that uses P92s.
The Sierra and Bravo have a different wing than the P92. The P92 wing resists entering a spin and will not hold it. While I haven't actually spun our Sierras, I've had plenty of students put me into cross controlled stalls in them and I'm convinced that that wing design would spin nicely. I think that's the reason that Tecnam chose to only spin certify the P92s in the States. They only needed one plane in their line that was spin certified to use as a CFI trainer and the P92 has the more student proof wing design that is guaranteed to to recover the pilot no matter how bad he screws up the recovery procedures.
Helen
There was a series of articles in one of the mags a few months back about the ASTM standards. Apparently while spin testing isn't required, it is required a spin be recoverable, and by aileron input if the spin isn't fully developed. I've no idea how you could prove this without spin testing.
Ron
I tried to show a student a cross control stall in the PA-11 a few weeks ago. About 2000 RPM, Slowly added full up elevator and full right aileron, full left rudder. Nothing happened other than we went around and around in very flat tight circles.
If you stall it and kick rudder it will enter a spin normally but if you ease into the cross control stall the vertical fin blanks out enough elevator it won't stall.
Recovery from the initial rollover is instant at any time on releasing some up elevator.
I wonder if the large balance area on the rudder top helps keep it from rolling in also.
If you stall it and kick rudder it will enter a spin normally but if you ease into the cross control stall the vertical fin blanks out enough elevator it won't stall.
Recovery from the initial rollover is instant at any time on releasing some up elevator.
I wonder if the large balance area on the rudder top helps keep it from rolling in also.
"Perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add but when there is no longer anything to take away." Antoine de Saint Exupery
Evektor Spin Testing
As an EASA certified aircraft, the Evektor SportStar has undergone the full complement of required spin testing. You can look at a summary of the report on the Evektor USA website at
http://www.evektor-aircraft.com/wp-cont ... _spins.pdf
http://www.evektor-aircraft.com/wp-cont ... _spins.pdf
Jim Lee
Evektor Aircraft Inc.
Evektor Aircraft Inc.
Sorry I'm not picking on the Sportstar but I have had the same questions about several LSA designs.
If I read the link correctly did the 2001 testing go beyond demonstrating recovery after the first turn in various configurations? Also what happened to the test pilots head in the photos of the canopy jettison?
Were the tests repeated when the Eurostar EV-97 shown on the link became the Sportstar or after the Sportstar became the Sportstar MAX?
All different airplanes with a different fin, wheel pants, VG's, wing tanks replaced the fuselage tank, Split flaps replaced by plain flaps, larger canopy, different cowl, higher gross weight?
All these things can make a very big difference during spins.
Here's some interesting reading.
CAA/FAA used to require that an airplane recover after 2.5 turns fully developed within one turn after recovery was started.
http://luscombe.org/index.php?page=diff ... mbe-models
The Section S requirement is recovery after 1 turn. A pilot should be able to recover well before it gets that far in an accidental stall / spin entry. If you are spinning the airplane is just getting wound up in the first turn. Then next two are where things stabilize and odd things can happen depending on loading, aileron input, throttle and elevator position.
All things that may be screwed up by a unwary scared pilot in an inadvertent spin.
A lot of LSA's have had some radical changes since introduction and SLSA certification. The question should be has the manufacturer continued to test all configurations of the new models in all loading conditions.
If I read the link correctly did the 2001 testing go beyond demonstrating recovery after the first turn in various configurations? Also what happened to the test pilots head in the photos of the canopy jettison?
Were the tests repeated when the Eurostar EV-97 shown on the link became the Sportstar or after the Sportstar became the Sportstar MAX?
All different airplanes with a different fin, wheel pants, VG's, wing tanks replaced the fuselage tank, Split flaps replaced by plain flaps, larger canopy, different cowl, higher gross weight?
All these things can make a very big difference during spins.
Here's some interesting reading.
CAA/FAA used to require that an airplane recover after 2.5 turns fully developed within one turn after recovery was started.
http://luscombe.org/index.php?page=diff ... mbe-models
The Section S requirement is recovery after 1 turn. A pilot should be able to recover well before it gets that far in an accidental stall / spin entry. If you are spinning the airplane is just getting wound up in the first turn. Then next two are where things stabilize and odd things can happen depending on loading, aileron input, throttle and elevator position.
All things that may be screwed up by a unwary scared pilot in an inadvertent spin.
A lot of LSA's have had some radical changes since introduction and SLSA certification. The question should be has the manufacturer continued to test all configurations of the new models in all loading conditions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJ_50O8ubcQ
Look how he uses the controls trying to make it spin.
I thought the floats would destabilize things but I guess not
Look how he uses the controls trying to make it spin.
I thought the floats would destabilize things but I guess not