Quoting Anthony Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > To answer Mike's question on spinning Macchi's: From my conversations with > the ARDU test pilots in the very early 90's. The Macchi span like a top and > had an exceptionally high descent rate in the spin. Once wound up it took > some time to unwind too. Under some circumstances it tended to go flat > (Sounds like a Pooch doesn't it!) and took even longer to recover. > > At the time of my flight in a Macchi the doctrine was to start very high and > recover by 10,000 ft. If you passed thru 10,000' and still spinning you > were supposed to eject. The 'legend' was that if you hadn't recovered as > you went thru 10k, you weren't going to recover before the ground got in the > way. > > Anthony
I was at Laverton mid 80s where the post Macchi life extension mods test flying was done, in part by Chris Hussey who was just sitting next to me. He confirms the Macchi experienced spin problems as a result of skin warping during the performance of that work. The profile had changed and there were many test flights after a type of araldite had been applied to get back to the original profile. Think they re-skinned them in the end. There was a clapping of wings and resulting fatality in a Macchi, observed from a formating pilot, at Williamtown as a result of some new but perhaps very rough assembly techniques in putting the ACFT together after those mods. This grounded the fleet while they developed some non destructive testing. I think this problem was akin to forcing the main pin into holes that didn�t align so a sledge hammer was produced. Perhaps that was loose talk amongst some unhappy pilots at the time. The 10,000ft break off height shouldn't be considered excessive in an ACFT that routinely flew at 15-20000ft during general flying practice. It was a comfortable height to pick and didn't restrict operations. But as Cath said in an earlier post, if you have the height and you need to get down........you may as well enjoy it. The ARDU test pilots weren't re-inventing the wheel. Perhaps they were later ACFT coming out of the LEX mod or they must have been proving these ACFT in new configurations and making sure they performed as advertised. If they didn�t then flight manual amendments or further mods were called for. I wasn�t around then. Perhaps the flight manual I had said to recover after x turns like you should with the gliders flown today? I remember thinking at the time it was just another ACFT, a bit like a Blanik only heavier. Best regards, Daryl _____________________________________________ This email (including all attachments) is confidential. It may contain personal information and is intended solely for the named addressee. Confidentiality is not waived or lost because this email has been sent to you by mistake. If you have received it in error, please let me know by reply email, delete it from your system and destroy any copies. This email is also subject to copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted, or published without my written consent, as the copyright owner, or communicated or forwarded to anyone other than me. Any personal information in this email must be handled in accordance with the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/157/0/PA002090.htm _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
