Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net> (Marvin Kaye)
To: lml
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 19:48:26 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-1295015@logan.com>
From: Dan O'Brien <danobrien@cox.net>
Subject: Stall/Spin in the ES
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="=====================_4700630==_.ALT"

--=====================_4700630==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Gary Casey wrote...
 >>>One reason I opted for an ES is that it has a sister ship that is 
certified and
anything really bad would presumably be corrected on both. Then I learned
that the certified version has a completely different airfoil, making stall
and spin information non-transferable. Further I learned that the IV and ES
(and the 320/360?) share the same airfoil - the ES just has a lot more of
it.>>>

Two stories that convinced me that I will use a lot of altitude and work 
hard to keep the ball centered when it comes time to calibrate the AOA 
indicator in my ES.

1. Around the time of purchase, I asked a company rep how certification 
(leading to the Columbia) was going.  He mentioned that they had decided to 
redesign much of the plane, including the wing.  When I asked why they 
changed the wing, he said something like "on spin number 17 we lost a lot 
of altitude."  I inferred from the discussion that they were having trouble 
with spin certification.  As I understand it, they chose to redesign the 
wing for the Columbia so that it is spin resistant.  The Columbia 
apparently does nothing but mush on stall, like the well-coordinated stall 
in the factory ES described on this list the other day.

2. A member of my local EAA chapter was at 10,000 feet conducting power-off 
stall testing in his 320.    The pilot was a former airline captain with 
over 20,000 hours, an FAA examiner, and lots of time in lots of small 
planes.  As they approached the stall, a wing dropped with very little 
warning and they found themselves in a spin.  It took them more than 4000 
feet to recover.

My conclusions from these and other stories: i) a spin in these planes can 
cause a large altitude loss, and recovery is not guaranteed (this is 
emphasized in the ES manual); ii) an uncoordinated stall in these planes 
can develop into a spin pretty quickly, or at least quicker than we Cessna 
flyers are used to; iii) absent stall strips and/or an AOA indicator or 
some other stall-warning device, these planes tend to provide little 
warning of an impending stall.

How to practice given these stories is a personal decision.  I know that 
when I finish my ES,I personally won't practice stalls at 3000 feet like I 
do in a Cessna.  And I imagine I'll have a heightened sense of awareness 
about keeping things coordinated.  Perhaps the personal minimums will fall 
some over time with experience.  
--=====================_4700630==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
Gary Casey wrote...<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;One reason I opted for an ES is that it has a sister ship
that is certified and <br>
anything really bad would presumably be corrected on both. Then I learned
<br>
that the certified version has a completely different airfoil, making
stall <br>
and spin information non-transferable. Further I learned that the IV and
ES <br>
(and the 320/360?) share the same airfoil - the ES just has a lot more of
<br>
it.&gt;&gt;&gt;<br><br>
Two stories that convinced me that I will use a lot of altitude and work
hard to keep the ball centered when it comes time to calibrate the AOA
indicator in my ES.<br><br>
1. Around the time of purchase, I asked a company rep how certification
(leading to the Columbia) was going.&nbsp; He mentioned that they had
decided to redesign much of the plane, including the wing.&nbsp; When I
asked why they changed the wing, he said something like &quot;on spin
number 17 we lost a lot of altitude.&quot;&nbsp; I inferred from the
discussion that they were having trouble with spin certification.&nbsp;
As I understand it, they chose to redesign the wing for the Columbia so
that it is spin resistant.&nbsp; The Columbia apparently does nothing but
mush on stall, like the <i>well-coordinated</i> stall in the factory ES
described on this list the other day.&nbsp; <br><br>
2. A member of my local EAA chapter was at 10,000 feet conducting
power-off stall testing in his 320.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The pilot was a
former airline captain with over 20,000 hours, an FAA examiner, and lots
of time in lots of small planes.&nbsp; As they approached the stall, a
wing dropped with very little warning and they found themselves in a
spin.&nbsp; It took them more than 4000 feet to recover.<br><br>
My conclusions from these and other stories: i) a spin in these planes
can cause a large altitude loss, and recovery is not guaranteed (this is
emphasized in the ES manual); ii) an uncoordinated stall in these planes
can develop into a spin pretty quickly, or at least quicker than we
Cessna flyers are used to; iii) absent stall strips and/or an AOA
indicator or some other stall-warning device, these planes tend to
provide little warning of an impending stall.<br><br>
How to practice given these stories is a personal decision.&nbsp; I know
that when I finish my ES,I personally won't practice stalls at 3000 feet
like I do in a Cessna.&nbsp; And I imagine I'll have a heightened sense
of awareness about keeping things coordinated.&nbsp; Perhaps the personal
minimums will fall some over time with experience.&nbsp; </html>

--=====================_4700630==_.ALT--