View Full Version : Spins with VGs
I have helped a couple CFI candidates out recently by doing thier spin signoffs in the supercub. The local FBO does not want them to spin the 172s since they say the gyros will go bad. I believe this is a problem of the past, like flying over square in a CS prop machine, but that is a topic for another thread.
Anyway, what I find is that the cub still spins pretty good at first with the VGs, but then you get a STRAIGHT DOWN look at the ground (this is with two people) and airspeed increasing at an alarming rate. The last time I caught it just before red line. I don't remember it doing this without the VGs. You cannot get a full turn before it is nose straight down and diving like a banshee. I have "flown them in" with power, and without, we get a nice rollover the top (I have told the students that is what the skylight is for, to see the ground in the spin) to the right particularly, and then she builds up speed like a missle.
Any commentary would be helpful!
09-22-2002, 10:55 PM
Well here's my 2 cents....probably all it's worth LOL..........first off.........I believe intentional spins are prohibited in a Super Cub. except in the utility category, which is 1500lbs gross weight or less.........and to have two people.......student and flight instructor.....plus some fuel and oil................well........lets just say...they'd have to be awfully small people to be in the utility category and not in the normal, where spins are prohibited..............so a sharp eyed flight examiner......could possibly pick up on this and not accept the endorsment.......or possible might contact you and discuss it.......anyway.........I don't mean to be nick picking.......it's just an observation on my part. The other thing.........you say....is the airspeed picks up rapidly..........actually in a cub....or most light airplanes........in a spin........which as you know......is a stall....in fact.....it's an "aggravated stall with rotation"........the airspeed should stabilze at realitive mild airspeed. so I think what's happening......is that you're not remaining in a spin........but rather falling out of a spin (stall) and ending in a steep spiral., where airpseed will increase rapidly. Anyway...again......just my two cents........and I'd probably get change LOL......happy flying. "Brian"
With very little fuel, you can stay in the utility category quite easily, which we do. We don't have the lumber rack, antler hauler, heavy duty everything to make the plane that heavy.
The thing is, the VG's make the plane "unstall", which is when the airpeed jumps up - of course I realize that it is not spinning at that point, in fact, it appears to unspin itself with the vgs.
Thanks for the input... or output as it were... :)
09-23-2002, 06:30 PM
AHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.........ok.........I kinda know what you mean.......I use to instruct in an older (1964) Cessna 172 with a stol kit on it....I think it was a horton..but don't remember for sure..anyway.........that airplane did the same thing...........you'd enter into a spin.......but then she'd come right out of it...........by the way..........certainly enjoy the site.............I appreciate the time and effort you put into it....keep up the GREAT work.
10-03-2002, 05:26 PM
I realize it's a bit morbid to check out the Cub wrecks on the NTSB site but this one caught my eye as another example of the classic Moose Stall. Hey, fly coordinated when your that low and slow. Bites way too many people every year. :-? (or fly tail straked BLR's if you insist on skidding about with wreckless abandon in this flight regime - so some say)
NTSB Identification: LAX02FA285
Accident occurred Saturday, September 14, 2002 at Tucson, AZ
Aircraft:Piper PA-18A-150, registration: N8980D
Injuries: 2 Fatal.
On or about 0900 mountain standard time on September 14, 2002, a Piper PA-18A-150, N8980D, collided with the ground under undetermined circumstances in a flat desert area 19 miles south west of the Ryan Airport, Tucson, Arizona. The airplane was owned and operated by the pilot under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, and was destroyed in the impact sequence. The commercial pilot/airplane owner and a passenger, who also holds a private pilot certificate, sustained fatal injuries. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed for the presumed local area personal flight that departed from the Ryan Airport at 0800.
According to information from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Pima County Sheriff's investigators, and Officers from the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS), the passenger's family reported the airplane overdue on the morning of the 15th when the passenger failed to return home. The FAA issued an ALNOT for the missing airplane and it was found by (DPS) search helicopter at 1641 that afternoon. Information developed by Pima County Sheriff's investigators revealed that the pilot and passenger intended a short duration local area flight. Sheriff's investigators also interviewed persons at the Ryan airport who stated that the pilot liked to land in the desert.
Initial assessment of the accident site disclosed extensive longitudinal crush and collapse of the fuselage back to within 3 feet of the horizontal stabilizers. Ground scar impressions were noted about 15 feet from the wreckage that dimensionally and geometrically resembled the nose of the airplane and the left wing tip. No other ground disturbances were observed in the vicinity. The airplane was equipped with the large tundra tires. Approximately 15-gallons of fuel was found in each fuel tank and the cockpit throttle control was in the full open position.
About 1/2 mile further southwest of the wreckage, a large flat clear area was noted with multiple tire tracks crossing the field. The tire tracks were dimensionally similar to the main gear tires on the airplane and were approximately spaced about the wheel width of the PA-18 series airplanes. Two sets of tracks were found with a center track approximating the geometry and dimension of the airplane's tailwheel; these tracks started, proceeded for a distance estimated about 500 feet, where they turned around and proceeded back the opposite way until they disappeared. Two additional tracks were observed without the center track trace; these tracks were shorter in length at about 200 feet. No foot prints could be discerned around any of the tracks. The accident site was noted to be in a location consistent with the approximate traffic pattern distance from a landing point at either a base-to-final or crosswind-to-upwind turn point.
10-03-2002, 06:54 PM
One way we learn......is from others mistakes or misfortunes...........nothing wrong with reading NTSB reports as far as I'm concerned. Brian
10-06-2002, 05:14 PM
I agree with Brian. It's sad to read these things, but they sober us up, and allow us to realize that we can make mistakes.
This seems like a timely moment to mention that another less-known killer is flight into terrain caused by flying toward and passing an object on the ground, without shifting ones' gaze toward the direction of flight after passing the object...then you hit the ground, trees, hill, whatever, while your eyes are still on the moose, nudie-colony, etc....BEWARE
I used to break into a cold sweat when rethinking the last time I nearly left the world with the above scenario...I would've taken a new father with me on it too.
On another note. Steve, if your Cub is non-antler carrier equipped, check and see if the llift struts are still on it.
And yes, you've done a good job with this delightful website.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.