We talked about that one. It seems to be clear that the system was never released by the pilot but that the rocket activated on impact.
RobertL18C wrote:
As said in other threads the more spin resistant an aircraft is, the more difficult it might be to recover from a fully developed stable autorotation spin
I don’t understand this. Some aircraft simply will not spin in certain configurations, even when trying. This may be due to CG being FWD and/or deflections are “too small”. Others are too light, the mass/surface area is too low to enter a spin in the normal sense, like most microlights. A stall and a flick is not the same as a developed spin.
RobertL18C wrote:
The Cirrus safety package combining CAPS and a spin resistant design seems to be a natural advance in safety engineering
Well, for the worse in that case. A safe plane will spin when you want it to, and will exit a spin when centering the stick and rudder. Being able to easily obtain control of the plane is infinitely better than to pull a chute.
LeSving wrote:
Well, for the worse in that case. A safe plane will spin when you want it to, and will exit a spin when centering the stick and rudder. Being able to easily obtain control of the plane is infinitely better than to pull a chute.
I disagree with that statement. A safe plane is a plane that refuses to spin unless provoked. If an aircraft is so easy to exit from a spin, then it stands to reason that it will be significantly easier to spin in it, inadvertently, for example, on the base to final turn.
Here is a video of a microlight undergoing spin certification exercises, don’t know how official this video might be, but the aircraft is spun from various attitudes to check it will recover in less than one turn from a three second erect spin.
Here is a BMAA document on spinning in a microlight, with a discussion of what is required to be evidenced.
http://www.bmaa.org/files/025_spin_testing.pdf [ local copy ]
We talked about that one. It seems to be clear that the system was never released by the pilot but that the rocket activated on impact.
Was the cockpit ceiling (with the handle mechanism) recovered?
Should the rocket detonate on impact? Pyrotechnic release mechanisms are normally rock solid, for obvious reasons.
I have no idea! I think that condition of the chute parts makes it pretty clear … Have to read the full report
There have been a couple where the rocket was activated on impact. Until the G5 model it was mechanical activation
Steve6443 wrote:
If an aircraft is so easy to exit from a spin, then it stands to reason that it will be significantly easier to spin in it
Why do you think that?
RobertL18C wrote:
Here is a BMAA document on spinning in a microlight, with a discussion of what is required to be evidenced.
Interesting reading and video.
LeSving wrote:
If an aircraft is so easy to exit from a spin, then it stands to reason that it will be significantly easier to spin in it
The reasoning I’ve heard is that if you have sufficient tail to exit a spin, you have sufficient authority to enter one. The corollary being that if you don’t have enough tail to enter a spin, you don’t have enough to exit one.
kwlf wrote:
The corollary being that if you don’t have enough tail to enter a spin, you don’t have enough to exit one.
There is something very wrong with the basic principles of causality and the basic principles of stability in that reasoning. How can you keep a sustained and developed spin if you don’t have enough elevator/rudder authority to even enter one.
