RV-6A spins

[albertaflyer]

Hi all, using my rv6a to get my private pilots license. Things are going really good! I have about ten hours and up to this point have covered slow flight as well as power on/off stalls. It says that spins are not recommended but I am required to do some as part of my training. Just wondering if you guys have some recommendations for spinning a 6? Btw would just like to add that I am extremely happy with my purchase of an rv6a.

 

[Ironflight]

Best way to spin a -6? Spin it into a nice tie-down spot and go get a Citabria for your spin training....

I'll be honest though - I am passing on here say, as I have never spun one - I have spun a lot of other airplanes however. My thoughts on the -6 come from very well respected -6 pilots who have spun them and decided that they didn't want to do it anymore.

Paul

 

[AltonD]

A legacy -6 has a small rudder. That is why the -7, -8, and -9 all have bigger rudders. I transition trained in a -6A. The instructor said he did it once and would not do it again. I would follow his and Paul's advice.

 

[Bavafa]

A short while back I decided to get some spin training in my RV7A so I went with my IFR instructor who I have much respect for his knowledge and ability and we tried it 10-15 times. I had not had any spin training other then what is taught for PPL which is actually spin awareness and you don't get into fully developed spin. The training went well and I am very happy to have done it but will not try it on my own intentionally, even though I practiced it at least 10-12 times.

Comparing the behavior of a 7A was not that much different then the Cessna 152 (the only other plane that I have been in a fully developed spin).

Anyway, I hope this helps but I would caution you to be very careful and as Paul suggest, try it with a competent instructor in a plane that he is comfortable with.

Good luck with your instuctions.

 

[n5lp]

Not the best

I have spun my RV-6 quite a few times but only solo and only through 2 turns, as Van's recommends.

After Van spun the aircraft he had a flight test professional evaluate the spin characteristics.

From my manual "The prototype RV-6 exhibited good spin resistance in the forceful pro-spin (full up elevator and full rudder) control pressures were necessary to induce a fully established spin. Good spin recovery was evident during the first two rotations. Simply releasing the controls during the 1st rotation stopped the spin, and opposite rudder and forward stick caused a quick recovery during the second rotation. After two turns, the rotation rate increased and stabilized between 3 and 4 turns with a high rate of rotation of about 180 degrees/second. Once the spin had stabilized, the RV-6 would continue spinning until anti-rotation control inputs were applied. This consisted of applying full opposite rudder, centering the ailerons and moving the stick toward elevator center. In the stabilized spin, the elevators remained in the up position and pressure was needed to move the stick forward. Moving the stick full forward caused the nose to lower and the spin rate to further increase. The best recovery procedure was full opposite rudder, center the ailerons and move the stick forward from the full up position. As the stick was moved forward, the rotation rate decreased and stopped, after which a pull-out was accomplished. After anti-spin control was applied, between 1 1/4 and 1 3/4 turns were required to stop rotation."

So, in my opinion, not too alarming for someone familiar with spins who only wants to recover from a botched manuveur, but not a very suitable airplane for really exploring spins and it will not necessarily recover by simply releasing the controls.

Like Paul says, a Citabria would be good, or even a Cessna 150.

 

[Neal@F14]

Like Paul says, a Citabria would be good, or even a Cessna 150.

Or if you're really apprehensive about spins, but must do some anyway just to be able to log some spins, a Cherokee 140 is very docile in its spins... or at least mine was. It took full yoke back against the stop, and full left rudder to the floor to get it to enter the spin, and just simply letting up on the rudder pedal would exit the spin and then you'd pull out of the resulting dive to keep from overspeeding the plane.

However, I can't really recommend using a Cherokee for proper spin training itself, because it's way too docile and if you get accustomed to those slow graceful Cherokee spins (but the plane still falls down from the sky like a rock) and then think the next kind of plane you spin will be similarly tame, you may be in for a frightfully rude awakening.

I haven't spun an RV yet. I'm too chicken.

 

[sandifer]

I guess it depends on what your definition of "spin training" is...it's not all created equal. This can range from immediate recovery from the incipient spin, to recovery after 1 or 2 turns, to full-blown flat/accelerated/crossover spins in both upright and inverted modes. The latter obviously will not be practical in most RV's due to the need for inverted systems.

Most spin training involves plain-vanilla upright spins in Citabria/Cessna types. For this limited type of spin training, spinning past 2 turns serves little purpose other than to get your inner ear in a potentially vertigo-inducing state after the spin has been stopped. This can be valuable in and of itself, but it's not typically the point of your average spin training...and it's rare for an instructor to have the student perform the number of revolutions needed to really get your inner ear going anyway. Try a 12-turn spin sometime and you'll see what I mean. So if all you're doing is basic upright spins, going past 2 turns will not affect how the proper spin recovery inputs get imprinted into your brain.

So for "typical" spin training, I don't see why an RV-6 could not be used, as long as your instructor is familiar and comfortable in type, and turns are limited to 2-turns or so (only to prevent unnecessary stress for the student, and to more closely replicate more "normal" spin characteristics). I have never spun a -6, but know experienced aerobatic pilots who have, and they all say that there's nothing funny about them other than the fact that they rotate quicker than many other planes once fully developed, and take a little longer (once developed) to recover than the FAA requirements for TC'd airplanes that are approved for spins.

Unfortunately, it seems this Vans recommendation to avoid spins in the -6 leads to apprehension about using a -6 for aerobatics, especially competition, given that a spin is required in the most basic category. But competition spins never exceed 1 1/2 turns, so this fully-developed state would never be experienced. But then if you are inexperienced or uncomfortable with spins in your airplane, it's not a good idea to be doing aerobatics in the first place. There's a lot of fear to begin with on the subject of spins, and given that most pilots are not comfortable with, nor have extensive experience with spins, Van's recommendation is probably a good one for the average pilot, on their own, not in a structured training environment with an experienced and qualified instructor.

That being said, since there's nothing unsafe about spinning a -6, to avoid them is to acknowledge that there's a gap in your experience/comfort level in your airplane throughout its performance envelope. This alone would motivate me to get the training needed to become comfortable and competant enough to explore the full flight envelope. For the aerobatic pilot, advanced spin training as first mentioned above (inverted, etc.) is extremely valuable. After this type of training, it's highly unlikely you'd bat an eye at spinning your -6 any number of revolutions.

 

[n5lp]

...Unfortunately, it seems this Vans recommendation to avoid spins in the -6 leads to apprehension about using a -6 for aerobatics...

I realize that some of these recommendations change over time but will note that my mid-1990s RV-6 builder's manual recommends against spins of more than 2 turns but does not recommend to avoid spins.

 

[jrs14855]

spins

The quotes that Larry posted sound very standard. The accelerated spin description is just as I would expect. One interesting thing about the accelerated spin(right rudder entry), after the stick is moved well forward to accelerate the spin, if you let go of the stick while still holding full right rudder, the stick will move back all by itself. The rate of rotation will slow, but will still remain faster than the rate in the first couple turns. As full left rudder is applied, the stick will move forward on its own to about neutral elevator.
The question with the RV6- worst case scenario- 0 320 with wood prop, two 220# occupants with lightweight chutes, where is the cg????
The Cessna 150/152 will not always do a hands off spin recovery.
Many many years ago my then mentor said "Tyrone will be here to fly with you tomorrow in the Sukhoi. He is a very experienced aerobatic pilot but he is self taught. I've found that self taught aerobatic pilots really don't know much about spins". Bullseye!!!

 

[ChiefPilot]

I've wondered about this as well, especially since my -6A has the later vertical stab / rudder from the -8 instead of the shorter flavor found on the classic -6/6A.

 

[albertaflyer]

I believe I just have to be able to induce the spin and recover after one full rotation. I will have to talk to my instructor to know for sure. Ive read that some people claim a docile stall. When I was doing my power on they weren't too bad but power off were very abrupt to the point that we had to do up our shoulder harnesses so our heads wouldn't hit the canopy. It would always drop the left wing a little not too bad.

 

[lorne green]

Spinnin' in Canada

Hey Tony,
My recommendation would be to get checked out in C152. Your Canadian spin training will consist of initial spin training (dual) then after you solo,
you'll be doing upper air work which will include continued training in spins both insipient and spins to 2 turns and their subsequent recoveries.
Then, for your flight test your examiner will expect you to be albe to recover from a 2 turn spin (from both the left and right). This is at least my experience.
So, getting checked out in a C152 is not going to be a waste of money....a lot less fun, but not a waste.
Regards.

 

[David Z]

Cessna Spins

How does everybody get a 150/152 into a fully developed spin? I've never been able to get past about 1 1/2 rotations before the airplane "auto-recovers" into a spiral dive. I've tried it in several different 150s and a 152, so it's not a rigging or airframe irregularity.

Of course, you can always beat it with a stick and add some power, but that's another story.

Most of my spin experience is in an aerobatic airplane, so I find Cessna spins boring.

 

[Rob Erdos]

Risk Management in Spin Training

Guys,

I want to add my 2 cents on the matter of spinning RV's for training. My perspective comes from my professional role as a test pilot and DAR who has done spin certification testing.

When a Type Certificated airplane is approved for spinning, that implies that the aircraft has undergone a test matrix of roughly 800 spins, conducted at every point in the W&B envelope, with an without flaps, and using every combination of flight controls (e.g. power ON, with counter-spin aileron and forward elevator). The effects of ususual control inputs during a spin can be...well, unusual, and those sorts of inputs can conceivably occur when a pilot is surprised, confused or not proficient. The outcomes of the tests must be robust and consistent recovery characteristics. furthermore, the certification requirements demand that every example of a particular type conform to the approved configuration, so that the flight characteristics remain consistent between aircraft.

Now what about homebuilts? I know that Van has done his homework to ensure that his designs are safe, and that some spin testing was done. Nevertheless, I believe that he has stopped short of claiming that they are approved for spinning. Nevertheless, our homebuilts are subject to wider variation in finish, loading and configuration than certified aircraft, and can be expected to have less consistent flying qualities between aircraft. Reports of spins from your buddy's RV may not be applicable to yours.

For what it's worth, I'm building an RV-6 and I have no intention of deliberately spinning my airplane. There are too many unknowns, and finding them can be too expensive.

Rob

 

[steve91t]

So, you are saying that it's possible to get into a situation that you can't recover from?

 

[luddite42]

So, you are saying that it's possible to get into a situation that you can't recover from?

I guess...IF there is some major airframe error, and you are attempting spins outside the W & B limitations stated by Vans. If you build your airplane per the plans, respect its operating limitations, and deem it to fly normal after flight testing, I don't understand deliberately avoiding spins because of "unknowns"...in probably THE most reputable and proven experimental design in existence. In this case, avoid acro as well. So I guess what you end up with is a capable airplane that is flown like a (fast) 172, in which you're always unnecessarily treading cautiously around the edges of the envelope. To each his own. Heck if nobody ever spun or did aerobatics in an experimental airplane, the sport of aerobatics itself would be practically non-existent.

 

[Neal@F14]

How does everybody get a 150/152 into a fully developed spin? I've never been able to get past about 1 1/2 rotations before the airplane "auto-recovers" into a spiral dive. I've tried it in several different 150s and a 152, so it's not a rigging or airframe irregularity.

The C150 I trained in would drop the left wing in a hurry with the yoke full aft and the ball out of center. As long as the yoke was kept back, she'd spin and take some right rudder, to break the spin and relax the backpressure off the yoke to break the stall.... almost textbook recovery. It was a 1959 straight-tail C150.

 

[Fred.Stucklen]

Spins in an RV-6A

I spin testedMy first RV-6A at both the forward and rear most aerobatic CG limits. I always allowed the spins to be fully established: i.e., at least 4 turns before rying to recover and always starting from a very high altitude (6000' AGL) and over an airpoort. With forward CG's recovery was within 2 turns. Aft CG's resulted in VERY slow recoveries, sometimes up to 6 turns. Very scary, and probably why Van doesn't recommend spins in the RV6. The RV-6 just doesn't have enough rudder...
NEVER get into a spin at a CG aft of the aerobatic limit. It probably will go so flat that you will not be able to recover.

 

[ChiefPilot]

The RV-6 just doesn't have enough rudder...
NEVER get into a spin at a CG aft of the aerobatic limit. It probably will go so flat that you will not be able to recover.

Was this in a classic "short tail" -6 or a later variant with the larger -8 fin/rudder?

 

[AZtailwind]

Spinning both 6A verticle tails

I've wondered about this as well, especially since my -6A has the later vertical stab / rudder from the -8 instead of the shorter flavor found on the classic -6/6A.

I have spun both the original and -8 verticals. Both tail designs are much different than the docile charicteristics of the Cessna Aerobat(c-150) and Citabria.
The rotaiton rates will get your attention-read Vans RVatorr for more info...

I would not recommend the 6A (both verticals) for Primary spin training.

 

[Ifly12]

6a spins

I just bought a 6A. The aerobatic weight is listed at 1375. This pretty much makes mine a single pilot aerobatic plane. If you are planning spin training with
an instructor you may be too heavy, also possibly an aft cg. Just a thought.

Regards,

John

 

[Snowflake]

How does everybody get a 150/152 into a fully developed spin? I've never been able to get past about 1 1/2 rotations before the airplane "auto-recovers" into a spiral dive. I've tried it in several different 150s and a 152, so it's not a rigging or airframe irregularity.

I found that holding crossed ailerons was enough to keep the spin going for 3-4 turns, but that was in a 152 Aerobat. That technique is handy for demonstrating a spin to the right, too, which is harder to get into in a Cessna.

 

[Snowflake]

I just bought a 6A. The aerobatic weight is listed at 1375. This pretty much makes mine a single pilot aerobatic plane. If you are planning spin training with
an instructor you may be too heavy, also possibly an aft cg. Just a thought.

Keep in mind that the limit is 1375lb at 6G. Spins will rarely exceed 2G, even in the recovery, unless you're being really agressive.

 

[jrs14855]

aerobatic weight

aerobatic weight of 1375 times 6 g's equals 8250 total load on the airplane at 6 g's. Add 200# for second seat with chute equals 1575. Divide 8250 by 1575 equals 5.2 new g limit at 1575. I can do any loop roll combinations and spins in anything from the Piper J3 to the Pitts to a T34 at NO MORE than 3 g, maybe closer to 2.5. No reason the RV's should be any different. The big issue is CG for a 6 with 0 320 and wood prop.

 

[Kiwi]

Guys,

I want to add my 2 cents on the matter of spinning RV's for training. My perspective comes from my professional role as a test pilot and DAR who has done spin certification testing.

When a Type Certificated airplane is approved for spinning, that implies that the aircraft has undergone a test matrix of roughly 800 spins, conducted at every point in the W&B envelope, with an without flaps, and using every combination of flight controls (e.g. power ON, with counter-spin aileron and forward elevator). The effects of ususual control inputs during a spin can be...well, unusual, and those sorts of inputs can conceivably occur when a pilot is surprised, confused or not proficient. The outcomes of the tests must be robust and consistent recovery characteristics. furthermore, the certification requirements demand that every example of a particular type conform to the approved configuration, so that the flight characteristics remain consistent between aircraft.

Now what about homebuilts? I know that Van has done his homework to ensure that his designs are safe, and that some spin testing was done. Nevertheless, I believe that he has stopped short of claiming that they are approved for spinning. Nevertheless, our homebuilts are subject to wider variation in finish, loading and configuration than certified aircraft, and can be expected to have less consistent flying qualities between aircraft. Reports of spins from your buddy's RV may not be applicable to yours.

For what it's worth, I'm building an RV-6 and I have no intention of deliberately spinning my airplane. There are too many unknowns, and finding them can be too expensive.

Rob

Assuming for a moment this is a very reasonable position, and it is consistent with the one Van's promote for their own design, why is it acceptable to go out and do aerobatics in an aircraft that should not be spun?

I'd appreciate some opinions.

Thanks in advance,
Andrew.

 

[n5lp]

Assuming for a moment this is a very reasonable position, and it is consistent with the one Van's promote for their own design, why is it acceptable to go out and do aerobatics in an aircraft that should not be spun?

I'd appreciate some opinions.

Thanks in advance,
Andrew.

Does anyone have a reference where Van's says the RV-6 should not be spun? I keep reading that but that is not what it says in my manual. Was there a change later?

 

[L.Adamson]

Does anyone have a reference where Van's says the RV-6 should not be spun? I keep reading that but that is not what it says in my manual. Was there a change later?

My manual does not either. As I remember, somewhere along the lines, when they were building the 7 from "8" (possibly 9 parts) parts...............the 6 tail was not sufficient for spins. Can't say if that was just the shorter six tail or the extended version.

But................I do not remember a 6 that should not be spun. I've kept up with all of this for 17 years. My memory just fails on specifics..

L.Adamson --- RV6A

 

[Flyfalcons]

From the -7 manual, page 15-18:

"Because of the high rotation rate and the positive (rather than automatic) spin recovery technique required, Van's Aircraft Inc. recommends that pilots of RV-6/6A and RV-7/7A aircraft limit their intentional spins to two turns or less, and that recovery from incipient accidental spins be initiated immediately upon recognition."

 

[n5lp]

From the -7 manual, page 15-18:

"Because of the high rotation rate and the positive (rather than automatic) spin recovery technique required, Van's Aircraft Inc. recommends that pilots of RV-6/6A and RV-7/7A aircraft limit their intentional spins to two turns or less, and that recovery from incipient accidental spins be initiated immediately upon recognition."

Yes, that is what my manual says. No recommendation against spins. More like a recommendation to recover promptly from any spins.

 

[Snowflake]

From the -7 manual, page 15-18:

"Because of the high rotation rate and the positive (rather than automatic) spin recovery technique required, Van's Aircraft Inc. recommends that pilots of RV-6/6A and RV-7/7A aircraft limit their intentional spins to two turns or less, and that recovery from incipient accidental spins be initiated immediately upon recognition."

My -6 manual, that I purchased in about July of last year (so I assume that it's about as current as you can get) has the same phrase on the same page. It's interesting to note that the next line after that is: "The RV-9/9A is not intended for spins at all" (and it's bolded in the manual, too). So here we have a very clear delineation between what spinning is, and is not, recommended in which aircraft.

 

[Kiwi]

Does anyone have a reference where Van's says the RV-6 should not be spun? I keep reading that but that is not what it says in my manual. Was there a change later?

My recollection is something along the lines of Vans do not recommend recreational spinning in the RV6........ maybe my recollection is incorrect.

There are sufficient words of caution in this thread to approach spinning with, well, a great deal of caution. This issue has come up time and time again with the RV6 and opinions do vary from everything to do not under any circumstances spin your RV6 - it is very scary, to what's the big deal? No smoke without fire........

I was taught that if you're going to do aerobatics you should be competent in spin recovery as that is when you are mostly likely to end up in a spin (yes, I know an over simplification). So..... if you are not going to practice spinning in your RV6, should you really be aerobating it?

Like I said, looking for opinions. The Vans manual is but one opinion. These are after all experimental aeroplanes.

You're saying it's alright to spin, but keep them to two turns or less?

Thanks.

 

[n5lp]

...

You're saying it's alright to spin, but keep them to two turns or less?

Thanks.

I'm not sure if this is addressed to me. If it is, I'm not saying what is alright or not alright. I just wish for accuracy in what Van's recommends or does not recommend. I have not seen any recommendation to not spin the RV-6 from Van's. They do recommend that spins in that model be limited to two turns.

In my own two turn spins in my RV-6 I have found them unremarkable. That does not mean I recommend spins to anyone else. As has been pointed out, spins can be pretty unpredictable.

As for recreational spins, I think I remember something about that too. Sort of a different issue.

 

[Flyfalcons]

Van's also touches on the "we don't recommend recreational spins in the -6" in the service bulletin addressing the larger rudder for the -7.

 

[B-Binns]

Relatively New Member - First time I've heard this non-spin stuff

Hey Gentlemen: my 2 cents. Guys, this is the first I've ever heard about this non-spin caution regarding the 6/6A - 7/7A. Admittedly, I have no intention of building, but I am saving money to buy: either an RV4 / 6/ 7 (No, A's - If I get an RV, I want the tail dragger). The big selling point for me regarding RV's has always been that Van's aircraft, if properly built and maintained, are fast, strong, agile aircraft that come with full aerobatic capability (+6 / -3 Gs), and if properly equipped can also be just as functional as any C182T, etc. in moderate IMC/IFR flight (as long as you stay clear of TS and Ice). But, if you have to be even moderately cautious about getting into spins with any of the RV 4-6-7 series, then I see no purpose or reason whatsoever to feel confident to do Sportsman Sequence level aerobatics or what you guys sometimes refer to as "Gentlemen" aerobatics in the A.C. I've also had an interest (if it turns out that I don't buy an RV) in possibly buying a Glasair II (which is full aero capable / don't know, haven't heard about spin limitations in the G II), but until now I've always leaned more to the RV, cause its got phenomenal bang for buck going for it. What about the HR-II or F-1? Do you have to be "careful" about spinning them also? - - Sorry about the long post, but I'm trying to learn as much as I can through you guys while I'm still saving to buy and I'm using the site to narrow my "Buy" focus. And if none of the RV's provide full aero capability along with solid cross-country/IFR capability, then I might shift my Buy focus more to an experimental and simply delivers just good, strong Cross-county/IFR flying capability. Your advice is greatly appreciated (I've learned alot from you guys so far - - Thanks.)

 

[Ironflight]

B-Binns,

Don't take this discussion out of context - it is addressing the RV-6, not the -4 or the -7 directly. There are differnt tails on these different airplanes. You can read all of the posts in the thread to pretty much get the full story on the -6. (It's alos important to recognize that the original quesiton was from a student pilot with 10 hours total time asking if it was smart to have his instructor show/teach him spins in his -6A. Most of the answers from experiened pilots are answered in this context. )

 

[AZtailwind]

Does anyone have a reference where Van's says the RV-6 should not be spun? I keep reading that but that is not what it says in my manual. Was there a change later?

The spin discussion of the 6(A) model is expanded in the ?27 years of the RVator.? The discussion goes in depth to the rotational rate and positive spin recovery techniques required in the 6(A)model. This model will not self recover buy letting the controls go?.The pilot must at least act with elevator down force and natural centered rudder. Van did have a test pilot spin the 6 for additional aerodynamic confirmation tests...

 

[David-aviator]

Guys,

I want to add my 2 cents on the matter of spinning RV's for training. My perspective comes from my professional role as a test pilot and DAR who has done spin certification testing.

When a Type Certificated airplane is approved for spinning, that implies that the aircraft has undergone a test matrix of roughly 800 spins, conducted at every point in the W&B envelope, with an without flaps, and using every combination of flight controls (e.g. power ON, with counter-spin aileron and forward elevator). The effects of ususual control inputs during a spin can be...well, unusual, and those sorts of inputs can conceivably occur when a pilot is surprised, confused or not proficient. The outcomes of the tests must be robust and consistent recovery characteristics. furthermore, the certification requirements demand that every example of a particular type conform to the approved configuration, so that the flight characteristics remain consistent between aircraft.

Now what about homebuilts? I know that Van has done his homework to ensure that his designs are safe, and that some spin testing was done. Nevertheless, I believe that he has stopped short of claiming that they are approved for spinning. Nevertheless, our homebuilts are subject to wider variation in finish, loading and configuration than certified aircraft, and can be expected to have less consistent flying qualities between aircraft. Reports of spins from your buddy's RV may not be applicable to yours.

For what it's worth, I'm building an RV-6 and I have no intention of deliberately spinning my airplane. There are too many unknowns, and finding them can be too expensive.

Rob

There's a lot of wisdom in this post. More than likely most young pilots bent on recreational spinning will pay no heed.

My take on the spin is it is a good initial training maneuver in a properly built airplane for that purpose but not something you want to mess with just for fun. The feds figured out long ago spin training for civilians was not worth the risk (except for the CFI rating).

We had lots of spin training in the military but in airplanes meant to spin and always wearing a parachute. Once the training curriculum was completed, hardly anyone did it again on purpose, what for?

RV's are considered "total performance" flying machines. That means they will get up and go (and land) from most any flying surface and cruise along at a very respectable speed. It does not mean they are suited for regular aerobatic flight. Even the T-34, which was designed for such flight, eventually did itself in. High G load stress can be cumulative and is uncharted territory, especially with an RV. And for sure, there is no record as to how many times an airplane may have been over stressed in a high speed dive recovery. Such events do not get logged and there is no black box.

I know of one RV-4 that should have come apart in flight and would have in another flight or two had the cracked engine mount attachments not been detected due to a deformed firewall. The engine was already sagging, it was ready to depart the airplane.

There of course is an age factor. I much prefer a one G flight, maybe 2 in a real tight turn to check my six. But spin it? A well trained monkey can do it and will over and over, but what for?

 

[sandifer]

But, if you have to be even moderately cautious about getting into spins with any of the RV 4-6-7 series, then I see no purpose or reason whatsoever to feel confident to do Sportsman Sequence level aerobatics or what you guys sometimes refer to as "Gentlemen" aerobatics in the A.C.

Don't worry about it - it sounds like your lack of confidence is based on inexperience with aerobatics and spins in general. You can fix that. No need to be any more cautious in an RV-6 than in any other airplane. As has been mentioned, there's nothing dangerous about spinning a properly-built and loaded RV-6...but its spin characteristics are a just a little different.

If you haven't already, you will realize that it takes real effort and a bit of time to produce a developed spin in most airplanes, RVs included. With proper training, it'll be unlikely you EVER get into a true accidental developed spin, and even if you did, it would be much less likely that you would wait so late to make proper recovery inputs that you'd get into this developed stage (past 2 turns) in the RV-6. But don't worry about that either - knowing what to expect and not panicking is all that's needed. It's likely that if you have actually spun 1 or 2 turns without making proper recovery inputs, you are confused, panicked, and may not recover regardless of altitude or the airplane you're flying.

When doing aerobatics, it's all but impossible to get into a spin as long as you immediately pull power and neutralize the controls at the first indication of any sort of stall/departure. In all the acro I've done in my old RV and Pitts, I have screwed plenty of maneuvers, and snapped out a few times, but have never gotten into an inadvertent spin. All it takes is awareness, and a willingness to abandon a maneuver by unloading the stick and rudder as soon as the plane does something you didn't expect it to. This is the definition of "out of control", and you have to admit it right away when it happens.

 

[sandifer]

My take on the spin is it is a good initial training maneuver in a properly built airplane for that purpose but not something **I** want to mess with just for fun.

Fixed that for ya. I'm afraid you're perpetuating fear of spins. Spins are no different than aerobatics or any other maneuver - don't do it unless you're qualified and in a suitable airplane. You can't admonish the stupid out of people...on any subject, spins or otherwise. We aerobatic pilots will continue to mess with them plenty...and safely.

The feds figured out long ago spin training for civilians was not worth the risk (except for the CFI rating).

I agree that across-the-board spin training would be too much of a risk. It's the same now as it was in the 40's - too few qualified instructors not only to teach spins, but more importantly to recover from the many ways students can make them go bad. But that's not to say that getting spin training with a qualified instructor in a suitable airplane is not valuable. But it's not practical to safely mandate. And don't think your typical CFI spin endorsement does much at all to prepare the CFI-to-be to conduct spin training. I know the FAA doesn't require it for this purpose, but many CFI's don't realize how woefully unprepared a couple of upright spins in a 172 leaves them with regard to giving "off the reservation" spin instruction.

We had lots of spin training in the military but in airplanes meant to spin and always wearing a parachute. Once the training curriculum was completed, hardly anyone did it again on purpose, what for?

Recurrent training.

RV's are considered "total performance" flying machines. That means they will get up and go (and land) from most any flying surface and cruise along at a very respectable speed. It does not mean they are suited for regular aerobatic flight. Even the T-34, which was designed for such flight, eventually did itself in. High G load stress can be cumulative and is uncharted territory, especially with an RV. And for sure, there is no record as to how many times an airplane may have been over stressed in a high speed dive recovery. Such events do not get logged and there is no black box.

Are you saying that just because an airplane contains metal in any part of its structure it should not be subjected to aerobatics...only because metal can fatigue? That would be all airplanes.

I much prefer a one G flight, maybe 2 in a real tight turn to check my six. But spin it? A well trained monkey can do it and will over and over, but what for?

You'll get lousy scores on your spins in aerobatic contests unless you practice them over and over.

 

[Rob Erdos]

Aerobatics and Spin "Approval"

...in a previous post I ventured the opinion that Vans' endorsement of 2-turn spins is not equivalent to spin certification of a factory-built airplane...

Assuming for a moment this is a very reasonable position, and it is consistent with the one Van's promote for their own design, why is it acceptable to go out and do aerobatics in an aircraft that should not be spun?

I'd appreciate some opinions.

Thanks in advance,
Andrew.

Andrew,

You ask a very good question. Personally, I wouldn't do aerobatics in any airplane which did not have satisfactory spin recovery characterstics. As your question infers, the rationale is that aerobatic maneuvers can potentially result in inadvertant spin or departure; the outcome of which must be within the airplane's (and the pilot's) ability to recover. In most cases that equates to an airplane being certified for spinning, but not necessarily. For aerobatic aircraft, the civil certification requirements require approval for intentional protracted spinning, typically up to six turns. The test matrix consists of up to 800 spins (you get a bit nauseous after a few days!) because you are looking very hard for unrecoverable spin modes. Spin certification is successfull if you are unable to find them. (Airplanes being expensive, that's why a spin recovery parachute system is typically installed on the aft fuselage.)

Another post quoted from the RV-7 Manual as follows:

"Because of the high rotation rate and the positive (rather than automatic) spin recovery technique required, Van's Aircraft Inc. recommends that pilots of RV-6/6A and RV-7/7A aircraft limit their intentional spins to two turns or less, and that recovery from incipient accidental spins be initiated immediately upon recognition."

I infer this to mean that the airplane has been tested and found suitable for prompt recovery from inadvertant spins. Van's reputation and our collective experience warrants this. With that restriction in mind, I find the RV-6 suitable for aerobatics, because I have confidence that it will recover from a botched maneuver. Further to my earlier post, I don't think that this means that it would be suitable for either spin training or protracted practice spins.

An interesting thread...

Rob

 

[Bill Dicus]

Spins (etc)

David Domeier notes correctly that it can be hard to know if a given airplane has been overstressed and if so how much. The new EFIS's do allow monitoring of g loads. If one wanted to take the trouble a continuous record of airspeed and g loads could be created for a new airframe. THis would be nice to have if the airframe is sold and could be reassuring to a potential buyer. I have seen a tendency for pilots to not mention an inadvertent overstress. Just be quiet and zero the g meter. This is why Neil Williams stressed (pun intended) leaving the g meter tell-tales for the next pilot to see, a good idea!

Bill

 

[LarryT]

Some good news/bad news on airframe overstress and metal fatigue

Aluminum and steel have very different fatigue properties. There are legitimate reasons to be concerned about airframe overstress.

There is a stress level, often referred to as the "endurance limit", where a steel part will have infinite fatigue life (assumes no other age/use related affects) when operated below that stress level. A rule of thumb is that the "endurance limit" is about 50% of the steel's yield strength. One significant overstress, e.g. approaching the yield strength, may alter the fatigue life of the steel part to a finite number.

The bad news.

There is no endurance limit for aluminum. Operated long enough at any fatigue cycle stress level, any aluminum part will eventually have a fatigue failure. Because it is necessary for airplanes to be made from aluminum in order to get off the ground, aircraft design engineers have to be especially clever and use (relatively) complicated designs to keep stress cycling low enough for long life. An example is the Piper Cherokee wing spar AD, which came out after two Cherokees used for pipeline patrol had inflight airframe failures. After much DER work, it was determined that in "normal" service, the wings didn't need an inspection until 60,000 airframe hours! That's right, even at Turbo's flight time rates (when does he sleep?), 150 years in service! If memory serves me correctly, the two pipeline planes had airframe hours in the 6,000 range, so the affect of the far greater stress cycling can be seen.

The good news

Fatigue cracks start at the surface. Because airframes are overdesigned, it will take a crack some time to spread. This is the whole point of condition inspections and purchase inspections. There are removeable inspection panels on the aircraft. Use them. If an airframe has been significantly overstressed at some point, there are a number of features that could become evident - well ahead of an inflight failure. These include: rivets that are working; wrinkled skin; fatigue cracks starting to propagate. A crack has to travel a long way before the remaining crossectional area carrying the load is less than 50% (I am deliberately oversimplifying by ignoring notch affects, etc., etc.)

It would be a good sales point for someone, who flies aerobatically to download their EFIS and document the absence of airframe overstress. More realistically, vigilence at prepurchase inspections and condition inspections will help us all keep flying safely.

 

[zspivey]

About a year ago while trying to climb over a 9500 cloud deck, I allowed my 6A to enter an inadvertant spin. When I felt the stall burble, I thought it was an engine miss due to carb icing so my recovery started off slowly. It took about two turns to identify and start spin recovery. Once I started the correct control inputs, recovery was quick. Including the ensuing dive, I lost about 5,000 ft.
The information I took away from the experience:
1. When climbing, keep your airspeed up and insure the ball is centered
2. Spins at altitude are not frightning.
3. Spins at low altitude will be deadly

 

[luddite42]

About a year ago while trying to climb over a 9500 cloud deck, I allowed my 6A to enter an inadvertant spin. When I felt the stall burble, I thought it was an engine miss due to carb icing so my recovery started off slowly. It took about two turns to identify and start spin recovery. Once I started the correct control inputs, recovery was quick. Including the ensuing dive, I lost about 5,000 ft.
The information I took away from the experience:
1. When climbing, keep your airspeed up and insure the ball is centered
2. Spins at altitude are not frightning.
3. Spins at low altitude will be deadly

I'm curious about a few things - have you had significant spin training? Which way did you spin? It must have been to the right, because you're holding right rudder in a climb. I find it hard to believe that a true spin developed after a stall from the small amount of right rudder involved, unless you really monkey-footed the rudder somehow. My experience it that it takes practically full continusously held rudder before and after a stall to produce a spin. Also takes the stick held fully back in your gut. The ball being off a little won't do it. Did you just get into a high speed spiral after the stall and just take a while to recover and pull out?

I'm also surprised you could have actually let a "departure" stall happen. Given the 22,000' or so ceiling of an RV, how was a 9500' climb challenging your ability to avoid a the stall? Did the engine truly miss or cut out, because to do a full power stall in an RV even at altitude involves a ridiculous nose high attitude. Unless you had engine problems, it's hard to believe you could allow this to happen. Are you at risk of stalling and spinning at lower altitudes? Would you be dead if you ever accidentally stalled the airplane at 5,000'?

Also, if you were disoriented enough not to recognize the stall/spin for a bit, how could you have possibly kept track of how many turns you did before recovering? It takes some spin experience, good ground references, and deliberate attention to maintain situational awareness enough to precisely keep track of your rotations. Highly unlikely in the event of an accidental spin. To use up 5,000' ft, you must have done a lot more rotations than 2 or so. I noticed a two-turn spin for me in the RV used up 1000'. This was at lower altitude, but not enough lower to cause this much of a gap in altitude loss. Spins at low altitude (subjective) are not deadly...accidental spins at low (pattern) altitude are deadly...especially if you're inexperienced with spins.

 

[jrs14855]

spins

In 40 years+- of competetion aerobatic flying in the IAC era, I don't recall a single incident of anyone spinning into the ground during a sanctioned contest. Unlimited category routinely does 1 to 1 1/2 turn spins from 1200 feet.
the important thing to remember in contest flying is that there must be a visible vertical down line after the spin. This uses up a lot more altitude than a non competetion spin recovery.
I have to agree that there is no way a two turn spin is going to use up 5000 feet. A training type spin in the Pitts S2B uses 450 feet for a one turn spin. A Piper J3 uses at least 300 feet, so unless you get into heavier aircraft or aircraft with nasty stall characteristics, the above numbers are typical.

 

[Kiwi]

I'm curious about a few things - have you had significant spin training? Which way did you spin? It must have been to the right, because you're holding right rudder in a climb. I find it hard to believe that a true spin developed after a stall from the small amount of right rudder involved, unless you really monkey-footed the rudder somehow. My experience it that it takes practically full continusously held rudder before and after a stall to produce a spin. Also takes the stick held fully back in your gut. The ball being off a little won't do it. Did you just get into a high speed spiral after the stall and just take a while to recover and pull out?

I'm also surprised you could have actually let a "departure" stall happen. Given the 22,000' or so ceiling of an RV, how was a 9500' climb challenging your ability to avoid a the stall? Did the engine truly miss or cut out, because to do a full power stall in an RV even at altitude involves a ridiculous nose high attitude. Unless you had engine problems, it's hard to believe you could allow this to happen. Are you at risk of stalling and spinning at lower altitudes? Would you be dead if you ever accidentally stalled the airplane at 5,000'?

Also, if you were disoriented enough not to recognize the stall/spin for a bit, how could you have possibly kept track of how many turns you did before recovering? It takes some spin experience, good ground references, and deliberate attention to maintain situational awareness enough to precisely keep track of your rotations. Highly unlikely in the event of an accidental spin. To use up 5,000' ft, you must have done a lot more rotations than 2 or so. I noticed a two-turn spin for me in the RV used up 1000'. This was at lower altitude, but not enough lower to cause this much of a gap in altitude loss. Spins at low altitude (subjective) are not deadly...accidental spins at low (pattern) altitude are deadly...especially if you're inexperienced with spins.

Valid questions and I do hope the original poster feels comfortable enough to answer. Such a discussion benefits everyone.

What I have noticed with spin accidents is that it is always like this. How did that happen? They actually seem unexplained. zspivey's experience seems typical.

Over the last few years we have had a number of fatal and serious injury spin accidents here in New Zealand. Being a small country you tend to sit up and pay attention when something happens, particularly as often you'll either know or know of the participants. The de Havilland Tiger Moth has been the most common aircraft. Because the pilots have either been dead or have no recollection of the events it has simply not been possible to figure out what happened, particularly when others have gone up and tried to replicate things at altitude and found the plane would not spin.

Over on supercub.org there have been discussions on this issue, and some very experienced pilots have reported the same experience. Against all odds and against all expectations the plane has spun on them.

Yes, an interesting thread.

Andrew.

 

[steve91t]

About a year ago while trying to climb over a 9500 cloud deck, I allowed my 6A to enter an inadvertant spin. When I felt the stall burble, I thought it was an engine miss due to carb icing so my recovery started off slowly. It took about two turns to identify and start spin recovery. Once I started the correct control inputs, recovery was quick. Including the ensuing dive, I lost about 5,000 ft.
The information I took away from the experience:
1. When climbing, keep your airspeed up and insure the ball is centered
2. Spins at altitude are not frightning.
3. Spins at low altitude will be deadly

Let me just say, I have so much respect for you. It's not easy to openly talk about your mistake.

What I like about this, is you are here to learn more about what happened and how to prevent it from happening again.

Honestly, I'm impressed that you came forward with your story. Not only will everyone here help you figure out how to keep yourself safe, but it could help someone reading this stay out of trouble.

Steve

 

[David Z]

Canadian Spin Training

In Canada, a spin is an item on the commercial flight test and must be demonstrated from entry to recovery. Examiner calls the recovery, typically around 1 rotation.
For the Private License, spins need to be performed by the student, but not demonstrated on the flight test. From what I've gathered, a Canadian Private Pilot has had the same spin training as an American CFI.

 

[zspivey]

Inadvertant Spin

I had spin training some 40 years ago. From my experience with spin training, you know you are going to spin and which way you will rotate. In aerobatic maneuvers, you know you are going to spin and which way you will rotate. In each of the previous cases, the pilot does not have to figure out what is happening; he put it into a spin and he or his instructor knows what to do to recover. That is not true for the poor soul who gets into one accidentally. Too many times it happens near the ground and the pilot doesn't live to tell of his experience. Fortunately, I was at altitude, knew enough to recover and my wife and I walked away from it. The good news is, she will still fly with me if we are going somewhere she wants to go.
I will admit, sometimes I have been sloppy and didn't hold enough right rudder in a climb. The incident seems to have cured that problem.
As for the 22,000 ft service ceiling, I suggest you try to get a 6 with a 160hp engine to that altitude; it ain't gonna happen.

 

[luddite42]

I had spin training some 40 years ago. From my experience with spin training, you know you are going to spin and which way you will rotate. In aerobatic maneuvers, you know you are going to spin and which way you will rotate. In each of the previous cases, the pilot does not have to figure out what is happening; he put it into a spin and he or his instructor knows what to do to recover. That is not true for the poor soul who gets into one accidentally. Too many times it happens near the ground and the pilot doesn't live to tell of his experience. Fortunately, I was at altitude, knew enough to recover and my wife and I walked away from it. The good news is, she will still fly with me if we are going somewhere she wants to go.
I will admit, sometimes I have been sloppy and didn't hold enough right rudder in a climb. The incident seems to have cured that problem.
As for the 22,000 ft service ceiling, I suggest you try to get a 6 with a 160hp engine to that altitude; it ain't gonna happen.

Vans specifications state the ceiling of the 6 with 160 hp is 21,500'.

For the benefit of others, I was hoping you could describe in more detail exactly what happened and how you got in the situation you did. You said you were not holding enough right rudder. I've never been able to get any airplane to enter and maintain a spin without nearly full pro-spin rudder held in...but then I never tried to spin the RV from a full power entry with no rudder. Which direction were you spinning? I assume left, if you say it was a result of not enough right rudder? So you were spinning at full power with no left rudder being held? You must have had the stick very far back to produce a stall. I assume you then reduced power and unloaded the stick at some point. Did you reduce power before or after you unloaded the stick? Or did you unload the stick before applying anti-spin rudder? If you unloaded the stick first before stopping the spin with power in (or off even), you'd have pretty much been in a continuous downward snap roll, possibly with airspeed and stress building if power was not pulled. Probably would have been very disconcerting if you didn't recognize what was happening. 5000' is a huge altitude loss for a plane like an RV. Just curious if you had any additional insights or understanding after the fact exactly what inputs caused this, and what inputs may have delayed the recovery to such an extent. Thanks