skf1 wrote:
I think the basic problem here is one of marketing and sales driving design in the wrong direction, at probably more worying as an issue, clubs perhaps buying inappropriate equipment for their "real needs".I remember a similar round of debate about the Piper Tomahawk (PA38) when it was first on the market in the late 70s.
This little baby spun unlike the other small training types on the market at the time. Some declared this was dangerous etc etc. Piper marketing said that they had built this into the aircraft to make it an effective trainer, implying that other types could not fully prepare student pilots.
Opinions do and will continue to vary, in my opinion depending on how spin
adverse the commentators are, but I do not like to see a great aircraft, in
this case the Puch get a poor reputation because some people do not
appreciate or understand its qualities.
SDF
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Giddy Sent: Friday, 10 December 2004 10:33 AM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Spinning and type certification
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 09:53:51 +1030, you wrote:
competentJust remind me.
Are glider types supposed to be spin recoverable (i.e. using standard spin recovery techniques) before being certified for flight in Australia? Who does the flight testing?
People have oft quoted the JAR's that cover this (isn't it limited to a certain number of complete rotations in spin?).
If the Puchacz is such a worry, why isn't it retested in spin by a
kinetictest pilot to try and put the issue of its danger to bed? (For that case, why aren't all the other twin seater training aircraft in Australia (obviously apart from the expense of it all)).
Also, as the number of rotations in a spin increases, the rotational
energy will build up and the spin will flatten, i.e. recovery may take aused.
couple of rotations to be acheived so long as correct spin recovery is
Aeronautical engineering types please comment.
Once the spin has stabilised, i.e. spin rate constant, there will be no further increase in kinetic energy. How many turns are needed to reach this condition will probably be dependant on many variables. Whether the spin will gradually flatten after numerous rotations, I don't know, but suspect it will also depend on many variables, including actual C of G position and the aerodynamics of the particular aircraft. Cheers, John G. _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Looking at the website, the manufacturer makes much of the Puchacz multi roles of being a primary, intermediate, and aerobatic trainer. Good marketing stuff. Sounds too slanted to the latter to me, not a docile basic/primary trainer at all in my opinion, though I have never flown one. Moreover, how many clubs buy one before anyone in the club has flown one ? I wonder. I think the "purchasing decision" is usually driven MORE by the desire for soaring performance, than the "ab-inito" need. If you read the flight test reports at http://www.ssa.org/Johnson/70-1994-04.pdf and http://www.ssa.org/Johnson/72-1994-06.pdf I think that it is pretty obvious to come to the conclusion that any aircraft requiring non-standard handling procedures (as the Puchacz does) COULD NOT be classed as a BASIC / PRIMARY trainer at all, regardless of what the manufacturer wants to call it.
Of course, clubs want a "multi-capable" two seater, for economic reasons, most bang for the buck, and that is understandable, but is that realistic, and supportable ? In this case, I think not. If you need an ab-inito trainer, then get a Blanik, or similar. If you want to train people for aerobatics (which are popular in Poland, but I note - not here) then perhaps a Puchacz as an advanced trainer for experienced solo pilots moving into aero's is ideal. Australian clubs aren't into aeros anyway, so why do they buy Puchacz ? Simple, for it's better than Blanik cross country performance dual. How many Blaniks make cross country trips in Aus, except people doing their Silver C 50k ? Very few, and probaly not as many as in times gone by. Even I never did. I was off the Blanik and on to the Pilatus B-4 by the time I got to a summer camp to try a cross country (was at Camden then, back in the 70's). I think a better mix for most clubs would be L-13/B-4 (or similar types) than buying a couple of Puchacz.
I think gliding clubs might have to re-learn the same lesson some air forces had to re-learn a while back. Remeber when they all wanted to go for "all jet training" to cut costs, greater efficiency, and all that ? The policy only lasted a few years in most services. It got too expensive, and noisy. Today, the RAAF does it's screening and REAL BASIC training at a civilian contractor using piston stuff, before a trainee even lays eyes on a PC-9, let alone a Macchi now Hawk.
There is a lesson in there. Food for thought.
_______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
