The International Cessna^® 170 Association

bsdunek wrote:I'm not an aeronautical engineer (just plain old mechanical), but I don't understand why, at this time, they can't design in the spin and other characteristics quite accurately. Just IMHO.

It's because the answers are hidden in very complex fluid dynamic calculations that require supercomputers to resolve even to an approximation. You can do wind-tunnel simulations on supercomputers, but the simulation algorithms still have to be tweaked to match the results of real wind-tunnel tests. A spin is too complex an event to do in a wind tunnel OR a computer simulation, I would think.

This has been quite a few years ago--Talking with Corky Fornoff in Houma, La. He had been done much spin testing for Uncle Sam and told a friend and I he would NEVER spin another airplane. His comment was that every airplane has a situation (for lack of a better word--meaning loading or weight or ???), that would make the spin unrecoverable. Being half fuel an a fat guy on one side or full fuel and a skinny pilot or whatever. He had had to punch out of a couple, cause he did not have the time/altitude /?? to recover. He and his father were a well know F-8-F aerobatic team until his father was killed during an airshow due to wing failure. He also flew the little BD-5 thru the hanger in the James Bond movie. That was another interesting little story. This goes along with Johns answer that there are to many variables. Ron

I work for the Navy in flight test, and I know first hand that there is a very methodical, well thought out, and BUILD-UP to spin testing...I hope that Cessna is approaching the testing the same way and not rushing through it or going right to the end point to prove out a FAA airworthiness certification. I can't believe they would do the later...

When I was in USN Test Pilot School, we did a spin evaluation in which the buildup points consisted of timed control inputs (i.e., rudder inputs for 1 sec, then a 2 sec input, etc) and we evaluated the aircrafts characteristics at each test point. It was a three phase approach. Of course the instructors new how the aircraft would react in each phase but imagine my suprise when I found myself on my back in a spin thinking "d#@m, I got here fast!"

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I'm a bit suprised that Cessna has lost TWO test birds doing spin qualification. One doesn't suprise me a whole lot, but two sure does.

v/r,
Jud

Maybe because that in the FAAs prescient wisdom about the need for spin training for pilots, the new young engineers working for Cessna are not
really sure how to design an airplane to be able to recover.

Cessna put out news today that they are going to continue as planned with the Skycatcher. I agree with George's suggestion that Cessna should scrap the 162 Skycatcher and introduce a new lightened version of the 150/152. They could still call it Skycatcher and have a proven design.

Harold

Here's a guy who I think would have made a safe landing if he hadn't had the BRS chute in the plane. Instead, he's safe, but the airplane is destroyed: http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2 ... 326md.html

The Cirrus parachute gets credit for saving a number of lives, and you can't knock that. But the record is mixed, and I think whether it's a good idea or not is something about which reasonable people can disagree.

But I also think from the manufacturer's point of view, it's a complete win, and one of the smartest things they've done.

He must have been a pretty non-proficient pilot if he was going to have to rely on the auto pilot in order to fly straight and level in vfr conditions under the layer IMHO.

Harold

jrenwick wrote:...something about which reasonable people can disagree...

I disagree that reasonable people can disagree....er...or sumpin'...

As a matter of curiousity, I wonder how many members and other pilots would be willing to spend, or be interested in spending, approximately $110,000 to buy a Chinese built Cessna airplane that was limited to day VFR in uncontrolled airspace below 10,000 ft. ASL, depending on pilot qualifications.
Can you immagne what you could do to any of the old light sport qualifing two place airplanes with about half of that money? And most of those old airplanes will spin and quickly recover.

blueldr wrote:As a matter of curiousity, I wonder how many members and other pilots would be willing to spend, or be interested in spending, approximately $110,000 to buy a Chinese built Cessna airplane that was limited to day VFR in uncontrolled airspace below 10,000 ft. ASL, depending on pilot qualifications.
Can you immagne what you could do to any of the old light sport qualifing two place airplanes with about half of that money? And most of those old airplanes will spin and quickly recover.

That's a really good point, but there are actually a large number of people out there who wouldn't have anything to do with an aircraft as old as a J3. They want the latest thing!

Technical nit: it's the Sport Pilot (or other licensed pilot operating without a medical certificate) who's limited to day VFR, with visibility of at least 3 miles. There's no prohibition from controlled airspace. Flown by a properly rated Private Pilot or better, these aircraft can fly IFR or at night, just like any other, if they have the required equipment.

John

Cessnas trying to reinvent the wheel Skycatcher is an octagon.

They should take a c120, lighten it up for the LSA community, give it a few more ponies up front and fuel injection.

Bill

Back up to Renwick's link about the guy who pulled the chute in his nearly new Cirrus, I am wondering (parenthetically of course) does hull insurance pay off in a deal like that??

jrenwick wrote:...Technical nit: it's the Sport Pilot (or other licensed pilot operating without a medical certificate) who's limited to day VFR, with visibility of at least 3 miles. ...

Reality nit with the Technical nit: Have you ever seen a ramp-check by an FAA inspector occur at night? If I were a Sport Pilot and wanted to fly at night, I don't think I'd be too worried.

gahorn wrote:Have you ever seen a ramp-check by an FAA inspector occur at night? If I were a Sport Pilot and wanted to fly at night, I don't think I'd be too worried.

Scofflaw!!!!

flat country pilot wrote:They should take a c120, lighten it up for the LSA community, give it a few more ponies up front and fuel injection. Bill

I think the 120 is very close to coming in under the weight limit for LSA as well as some Luscombs (sans electrical), some of the old (little) Piper ragwings, Taylorcrafts and some Ercoupes. The problem is "Tail Draggers", not the weight or mechanical superiority - it is the ominousness (*) of conventional gear that scares away pilot wannabees. Also the age and short supply of the airplanes presents potential maintenance problems

(* Bruce put that in your diXshonary of seldomenessly used words)