Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Received: from [65.33.162.117] (account <marv@lancaironline.net>)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro WebUser 4.0b6)
  with HTTP id 1688103 for <lml@lancaironline.net>; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 19:44:57 -0400
From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: aerobatics
To: lml
X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro Web Mailer v.4.0b6
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 19:44:57 -0400
Message-ID: <web-1688103@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <006d01c243d5$37b9be50$372f6bc6@COLORADO>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit



Posted for "David Lowry" <dave@edt.com>:
I am not an expert so I have a dumb  question.
I had always assumed that an aircraft with a forward cg
would be more able to recover from a spin since it
would be less likely to spin flat and with the nose
down could get the airspeed to recover.
   Why is the heavier engine bad since the cg
   is "more likely" to be forward?
   David Lowry

> I explored spins in both the factory 235 and my 320. I determined that 
> with wing fuel spins might not be recoverable after one turn. also the 
> heavier the engine the worse this would be. Check out the dream catcher