Posted on 03/23/2009 6:51:03 AM PDT by pabianice
A Cessna spokesman says the company may have to reconsider the delivery schedule for the 162 Skycatcher after the second crash of a prototype Thursday. The pilot, who was doing unspecified flight test maneuvers, pulled the ballistic parachute, which deployed and he was uninjured in the incident. Photos show the aircraft ended up inverted, likely because the parachute pulled it along the ground. The crash aircraft was the only flying example of the 162 after September crash destroyed the first prototype. Deliveries were to begin later this year, but Bob Stangarone, Cessna's vice president of corporate communications, told the Wichita Eagle, that schedule will have to be adjusted.
Stangarone told the Eagle that spin testing the 162 "was the last big thing we had" in completing the Light Sport certification testing of the design...
(Excerpt) Read more at avweb.com ...
Sounds like a ground catcher.
“Deliveries were to begin later this year, but Bob Stangarone, Cessna’s vice president of corporate communications, told the Wichita Eagle, that schedule will have to be adjusted.”
LOL, yeah, might want to adjust the delivery schedule just a little.
Spiral flight maintains control surface function of an aircraft. Otherwise there would be a LOT of dead stunt pilots out there.
Spin testing purposely defeats control surface function through low speed and high angles of flight path; the aircraft is almost literally falling out of the sky.
Spin testing is an exceedingly dangerous business so don't go out and do it. You'll most likely end up dead and as an ex-crash investigator, you'll just get guys like me shaking their heads at your shear stupidity.
All aircraft will have a flight environment that can be excited where the aircraft is non-recoverable; including aircraft like the Long-Ez which are “Spin Resistant”.
Spin testing purposely tries to find these lurking monsters and document them so that the allowable flight envelope can be identified.
As can be seen by this incident, it can be very hard to pin down and is very unforgiving once entry is made.
Good review, but it leaves the big question unanswered: in this era of computer design, CAD/CAM, and well-known aerodynamics, how could Cessna have produced a light airplane that cannot recover from a spin? I demonstrate spins in a Cessna 150 — first produced in 1959 and the direct descendant of the 1946 140.
I am no pilot but from what I have heard other pilots say about other Cessna aircraft is that they are self recover from a stall. Just let go of the yoke and the plane will correct itself. Now with that kind of background in aircraft building, you would think that the 162 would be a no brainer.
They used to be called tailspins in the long ago. Recovery from spins were part of flight training.
Since Cessna decided to build this plane in China, I lost interest immediately.
Scariest part of my training:
Instructor:
“OK, look down” (places AC in spin or other “unusual” configuration)
Followed by:
“Recover”
Spin practice is still the norm in Canada. The spin was removed from the PPL flight test in 1999 but they still teach recognition, avoidance and recovery.
“Scariest part of my training:
Instructor:
“OK, look down” (places AC in spin or other “unusual” configuration)
Followed by:
“Recover”
I remember that. The second time he said “just take your hand off the yoke”. I did and the 172 straightened right out. A wonderful stable aircraft.
I got knocked out once by turbulence while crossing the Tennessee River because I didn’t have my belt tight enough. When I recovered a few seconds later the plane was flying straight and level. Scared the living c**p out of me but taught me a really good lesson.
Good thing you were trimmed up properly.
Spin recovery was mandatory when I went to flight school.
That's still the problem: Aerodynamics. for all our tools and understanding it still drives us, aerospace engineers, crazy.
Especially unsteady, non-linear aerodynamics; the type that drives unrecoverable spin phenomena.
There has been quite a lot of information generated on what small changes to a bodies geometry can due to it's aerodynamic performance in stall departure and spin entry that it's unbelievable that a few thousands of an inch her and there, a bug strike there or a bird "spot" there can mean the difference between recovery and continued uncontrolled flight. It's mind boggling.
There is no closed form solution to date, so that's why it's test, test, test.
What I believe you are refereeing to is recovery from a controlled tight spiral, not an uncontrolled spin. Controlled in this instance refers to no loss of control surface function. Uncontrolled spin is “Where’s the ejection handle time...”.
Unless that is, you are a military test pilot, I suspect the former rather than the latter.
No. Uncontrolled spin and recovery. You set up slow flight MCA, pull back on the yoke, ignore the stall warning, and fall out of the sky.
To recover, yoke to neutral, throttle out, kick the rudder hard, when the world stops going around, neutral rudder and pull up.
Standard flight school training.
...and watch the world invert left...
“Scariest part of my training:”
I thought that was the fun part of instrument training!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.