I'd like to echo Bob's "be careful out there". My concern over this topic
is that it might tempt one of you to start testing the spin characteristics
of your float equipped plane without proper precautions. As a bare minimum
I would recommend spin training, a parachute for the pilot, and lot's of
altitude. A properly designed tail chute would be nice. As a younger pilot
I decided to teach myself aerobatics in a Murphy Renegade Spirit and scared
myself pretty good. No parachute, but at least plenty of altitude. (No the
FEDs can't get me now for something I did years ago.) I decided to try an
immelman turn (I think that's what it's called). Dove for speed, pulled
into the first half of a loop, then, intending to do a half roll at the top,
did a full roll and ended up inverted, fully stalled, and entered an
inverted spin. Luckily, spins were still part of the training when I got my
Flight Instructor Certificate. I knew I needed to find opposite rudder and
lower the nose to get the wings flying again. Finding opposite rudder and
which way to move the stick to lower the nose when unexpectedly inverted is
tricky. I guessed right and the spin stopped, then I basically completed
the loop I originally started. Do you think maybe I should have had some
aerobatic training and a chute on?
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From:
mike.davis@dcsol.com [mailto:
mike.davis@dcsol.com] On Behalf Of Bob
Patterson
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 9:48 AM
To:
rebel-builders@dcsol.com
Subject: Re: Rebel Float spin test?
Hi Jesse !
As I said, I don't know of ANY aircraft that is certified as
approved for spins on floats. It is a known, risky situation,
and I doubt any manufacturer is going to encourage folks to venture
there. Maybe you could ask Cessna ... ;-)
Many aircraft specifically say "Intentional spins prohibited",
and one licencing condition for homebuilts is "Aerobatics Prohibited".
There is some debate as to spins being legal at all ... I understand
that spins have not been taught in US flight schools for many years,
and now only a 'demonstration' incipient recovery is required in Canada !
It's pretty silly to say that spins won't happen if we don't teach
people how to start them - but that's what governments have done !
I totally agree that it is good to know how to recover properly,
and would encourage anyone to get the needed instruction, in case they
ever get into one. Training will make it easier to avoid the problem
at the start ! Certainly, it would be nice to know that someone
has tested all possible flight situations you might encounter, and
documented how to survive them - but I've never seen spin recovery
on floats, or skis, in any Pilot Operating Handbook ! ;-)
For that matter, "how to recover from an inverted flat spin" is
not well documented either .... ;-^) (tongue firmly in cheek !) :-)
That said, I also don't know of ANY OTHER kit manufacturer who
have done as much structural and flight testing on their kits as
Murphy have done. I've certainly never heard of ANY other manufacturer
bringing in independent engineers to verify their calculations,
and certainly not to build test stands and actually load samples
of structure to design limits - and beyond. I've personally
witnessed that at Murphy's plant ! Dick Hiscock was a brilliant
engineer, with impressive credentials, and he was impressed with
Darryl's knack for making things "Simple, Light, and Strong".
Of course, nobody's perfect - but Murphy have certainly done
as much as they reasonably could to ensure customer safety.
One key point is that, AFAIK, there's NEVER been an in-flight
structural failure of any Murphy kitplane - and I know some folks have
really put them to the test !
Sorry - I'll get off the soap box now ! :-) Just wanted to
say that, while one <would expect> reasonable care in kit design,
there's many a kit out there that has never even had a stress limit
calculation done on it, never mind a spin test !!
It's still "Experimental Aviation" ! :-)
Be careful out there !
......bobp
-------------------------------orig.-------------------------
On Sunday 20 November 2005 12:26 pm, Jesse Jenks wrote:
Thanks Bob and everyone,
Please don't take this as a Murphy bash. I just want to know how much of
the
flight envelope has been explored before I end up a test pilot some day.
I suspected no spin test had been done by Murphy on foats. I don't know if
certified airplanes are required to be spin tested again when certified
for
floats, but it seems like a logical thing to do if a spin test is required
for certification on wheels (I don't know that it is required, but I
believe
it is). I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if Murphy went to all
the trouble to do thorough spin testing for the Rebel on wheels, then why
not do it again on floats, knowing that the spin characteristics for
floatplanes are not good? The whole point of a spin test is to make sure
the
average pilot will be able to recover from a spin, so it doesn't make
sense
that just because you bolted floats to your airplane you will NEVER get
into
a spin. I'm sure not many people go out and do spins on floats just for
fun,
but the point is that accidental spins have caused many airplanes to
crash,
so it would be nice to know that if you ever found yourself in an
accidental
spin you would know that you could actually recover using normal
techniques.
a
wing in the stall, which surprises me in view of the lack of wasjout.
Now,
-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at:
https://www.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Subscription services located at:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.htm
List administrator:
mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at:
https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe:
rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator:
mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
