anyone spun a da20-c1?

[Lil Jon]

i was wondering if any of you have spun a diamond eclipse/katana. what are the characteristics? anything unusual?

thanks

 

[Vladimir Lenin]

yea, it'll really get in it after about three turns,

that, and you'll need new gyros, too

 

[Gearmunky]

Done it a few times, after your in the spin, it'll fix it's self. Not much fun. Find someone with a Skybolt or a Pitts to do your spin training. If your gonna pay the money, might as well make it fun.

 

[Superpilot92]

I have done it. It is fun and seems like it spins faster than the C-152

 

[Lil Jon]

thanks for the info guys. i was thinking of showing my private students a spin since its certified for them. i should probly clear this with the boss if it would ruin the gyros. any idea how much they cost? that way i'll tell my students of the surcharge before they wanna spin

 

[Vladimir Lenin]

if it would ruin the gyros. any idea how much they cost? that way i'll tell my students of the surcharge before they wanna spin

about three hours in a Pitts, w/ an instructor

 

[puddlejumper]

Done it a few times, after your in the spin, it'll fix it's self. Not much fun. Find someone with a Skybolt or a Pitts to do your spin training. If your gonna pay the money, might as well make it fun.

The old Rotax-engine Katana will spin up pretty well. I'm not sure about the -C1. We had an instructor who scared the bejeezus out of himself and his student once because it took 2 or 3 turns to recover from a fully developed spin. The DV-20 definitely spins faster than the 150. Review the POH procedure and be sure to work out a weight and balance! Being outside the utility envelope/being tail-heavy is a no-no for spins. I'm thinking back now to my instructing days, and remember that the Katana was more abrupt and faster than a Tomahawk. Be sure to take a look back at the T-tail during the stall and break. It's enlightening.

Oh and wrt to the gyros, the electric ones can be caged. Better yet, have a mechanic loosen the screws, disconnect the power and take them out before screwing around. Also, if the actual spins aren't part of the pvt pilot training syllabus, you're required to wear parachutes.

Have fun, be safe.

-PJ

 

[Gearmunky]

I've only done it a coupla times, ours was a C1 with the Continental engine. It was alright for training, but after I got into a Skybolt and did spins the Katana was boring.

Don't get me wrong I wasn't trashing the Katana, I liked it really. I was just looking at it from a students perspective. The Katana we rented went for $85 an hour. The Pitts was $100 hour. So which would you rather do?

The flight school later had problems with students dragging ailerons in crosswinds and almost had to replace one. That's what I didn't like about it was that it was an overly expensive VFR only a/c. We also had problems with them going through engines, the mechanics were finding metal in the oil. Of three Katana a/c, two went through two engine changes each and the other one went through three. All covered under warranty, and not related to flight training. It would have saved me and a lot of other students lots of money had they just stuck with the C-150's at $58 an hour.
Fun airplane to fly, just not wallet friendly.

 

[Lead Sled]

...if the actual spins aren't part of the pvt pilot training syllabus, you're required to wear parachutes.

That's not the case. A CFI can perform spins with a student (seeking any grade certificate) without a parachute.

FWIW, Lil Jon, I heartily agree with the idea of giving spin training to primary students. I said this several time in previous posts...

If I were king of the world, I would require spin training (student demonstrated entries and recoveries in both directions). I feel that it's a shame that the FAA no longer requires this for all grades of airman certificates.

This hasn't always been so. Years ago, it was a requirement for student pilots to have spin training. Back then, stall/spins were one of the leading causes of aviation fatalities. The FAA (Oops, back then it was the CAA) recognized that, in most cases, if an aircraft is capable of stalling it is also capable of spinning therefore they required spin training. Later on the enlightened FAA decided that if they just ignored the problem it would go away. Hence the requirement for spin training was removed. The results? Stall/spins continued to be one of the leading causes aviation fatalities. Finally, the FAA decided that perhaps they had over done it and reinstated the requirement for spin training, but for CFI applicants only. The results? Stall/spins still continue to be one of the leading causes of fatalities in general aviation.

The problem with the current FAA approach is that it isn't working. Stall/Spins are still a contributing factor in a large percentage of aviation deaths. You can have a extensive "book" understanding of the factors involved, but the actual experience is so disorienting to one who has never experienced it before as to make verbal explanations virtually meaningless. Like I said in previous threads, it would be much better to have the student's first spin experience with a CFI at his side than hanging from the straps at pattern altitude, watching the world starting to spin around him with his wife sitting beside him and wondering what the hell just happened.

The manufactures have done their part - they have tried to design the "spin" right out of most of their designs. That's why it's so hard to get most (but not all) of the typical general aviation aircraft that we fly to spin. The problem is that nearly any airplane will spin if it's provoked enough and those that won't spin are more than willing to enter the infamous "graveyard spiral". (Any guesses why that name?) I feel that if an airplane is capable of spinning, then the student had dang well better be trained and proficient in spin entries and "textbook" recoveries (both directions) - regardless of what the FAA requires. (And not in an airplane that only requires you to relax pressure on the controls to recover. Believe me, there are many popular airplanes out there that require "aggressive" spin recovery techniques.) Remember, the FAA requirements are nothing more than the MINIMUM standards that need to be met.

It's not the spin training per se, but the knowledge of what's involved that has the potential to save lives. After all, the classic stall/spin accident occurs at low altitude while the aircraft is making the base-to-final turn. My personal opinion is that proper training demands more than simply a thorough explanation of the aerodynamics involved. While absolutely necessary, this explanation must also be accompanied by appropriate demonstrations by both the instructor and student. In my case, I set up spin entry demos with the classic "base-to-final" scenario. Personally, I'd rather let them experience both stall and spiral recoveries because that's what they're going to be doing if it ever happens to them. It's basically a new twist on the old concept of "See and Avoid". After all, I don't care how proficient you are with spin entries, if you allow yourself to get into one at pattern altitude, you and your passengers are most likely going to die! Certainly a thorough "academic" understanding of spins is essential, but actual spin demonstrations put the exclamation point at the end of the sentence - if you know what I mean.

'Sled

 

[Pugh]

Slightly off-topic, but how does everyone like the Eclipse compared to a 152? I'm going to start flying the C1 for the first time on Thursday.

 

[Lil Jon]

i think the c1 is much more fun. same power but cruise at 130+ try a no flap landing and see how long you can hold the nosewheel off at idle power, but make sure you have lots of runway. have fun!

 

[Goose Egg]

I have spun a C1, as well as a C-152 and a C-172. The C1 spins a lot faster than the Cessnas, and in my experience will not recover from the spin until commanded to do so. The Cessnas will recover on their own, sometimes even with full control deflection (watch the steep spiral and Vne though.) The most I've ever been able to get out of a C-172 is about 3 turns. The C1 I think we had about 6 turns and then an intentional recovery.

I have not yet had the chance to do a spin in an aerobatic airplane, so I have nothing to compare it to in that respect. But that will change sometime soon. Spins are a hoot.

-Goose

 

[Goose Egg]

Slightly off-topic, but how does everyone like the Eclipse compared to a 152? I'm going to start flying the C1 for the first time on Thursday.

Toss up. I like 'em both. (Well, I haven't ever flown an Eclipse, but the Evolution treated me well.) The C1 seems to thermal a lot better though

-Goose

 

[flywithi]

spining Cannuck

I got my private up in Canada where spin traing and profficiency is mandatory, and by chance I did it in the older 80hp rotax katana. The airplane spins beatifully and never really tightened up that quickly on us. Probably have done at leat 30 intentional spins just as prcatice for the checkride, the longest being 7 turns and it was still easy to break.
Also, like with mosts of his post, 'sled is right, spin trainig should be mandatory, and is in most ICAO complient contries, if you want proof compare the US and Canadian stall spin accident rates

 

[JAFI]

Transport Canada still requires spin training for their PVT. They did a study for a couple of years to determine if spin training is saving any lives. I will have to find the link for the study to post for you. But the short part of the story is the people killed in spin accidents were so low to the ground when they got into a stall/spin that none would of survived. Several had booze in the blood. There is no documented evidence of those who lived because of spin training because no one reported being saved by the training. The study is considering dropping the spin requirement for the PVT certificate.

I think any aerobatic training is a benifit to any pilot, but I am still not sold that spin training should be required for the private pilot.

JAFI

 

[JAFI]

I looked at the Transport Canada site and it looks like they have dropped the spin requirement from the PVT.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/SystemSafety/Newsletters/tp185/3-01/279.htm


http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/general/Flttrain/TP13747/menu.htm


The stall spin study was document TP13748, which I could not find on the TC site any more. I have a copy if any one is interested...

JAFI