By:       Norm Goyer

Before I was allowed to solo a Piper J-3 I had to demonstrate that I could enter a spin and recover from a three turn spin on a predetermined heading. Of course there was a war on, and I was still a teen ager, but I learned very early that the best way to get out of spin is not to get into one in the first place. It has always been my opinion the more you know about any maneuver, and had felt the forces of that maneuver, it became far easier to avoid any unintentional trip around the merry go-round. I loved to spin the Cessna 150, Piper Cub, Aeronca Champ, Citabrias and the Taylorcraft, they were fun to spin and were predictable. I had no desire to spin my Cessna 195 or North American SNJs or even my Lake Amphibian. My eyeballs and the airspeed indicator had a very close relationship while flying these aircraft. While maneuvering close to the ground, I always added 10 knots for the “wife and kids.”

This is the  Cessna Sport prototype of the C-162 as shown at AirVenture 2007.

The CAA and then the FAA always kept a close watch on the spinning ability of any aircraft being tested for Certification. During the mid 1930s, an aircraft had to be able to recover from a spin, hands off and do so in a very limited number of turns. Rearwin had designed a very fast, highly maneuverable, tandem aircraft they called the Speedster. Pilots loved the narrow, very fast, sport aircraft. Many wanted to race them because they were fast. But, for some reason the Speedster would not recover by itself from a spin, the pilot had to move the controls, sounds pretty normal to me, but the CAA would not allow the aircraft to be certified. For several years aeronautical engineers, air racers and test pilots all tried to “fix” the Speedster. In doing so, they completely detuned the outstanding flight characteristics. When the Speedster finally hit the salesroom, it was too late, nobody wanted the dumbed down version of a once great aircraft. A short while after the Speedster was discontinued, the CAA had a change of heart, the pilot could now fly the plane out of a spin. Ah, bureaucrats, God love them, nobody else does.

The Cessna 162 Sky Catcher production model is shown with its different wing and tail structure.

It seems that Cessna also had  very similar problems with the prototype versions of  their new Cessna 162 LSA that was introduced at AirVenture this summer. The two prototypes of the 162 had spin recovery problems and crashed. It was a case of what goes around comes around, from 1936 to 2007. It seems the prototype Sky Catcher had difficulty recovering from a spin and one pilot had to “abandon ship.” The other rode the ballistic chute down to non-injury landing, the airplane didn’t make out as well.

The 2009 production model 162 clearly shows its 152 ancestry.

The National Transportation Safety Board stated on 18 September 2008 that the first prototype Cessna 162 was registered in the experimental category and was conducting a test flight when the accident occurred. The test sequence involved a series of stalls starting at 10,000 feet (3,000 m). The aircraft entered an unintentional flat spin and was not under control at 5,000 feet (1,500 m), at which point the test pilot bailed out of the aircraft. Cessna confirmed that the 162 entered a spin from cross-controlled, power-on stall, that the spin became flat and recovery was not possible. The company indicated that the testing was outside that required for LSA certification and that the accident will result in only small design changes. The aircraft was equipped with a Ballistic Recovery Systems parachute, but it failed to deploy when activated.

The 1937 Rearwin Speedster also suffered from spin recovery problems during certification.

The second C-162 prototype, N162CE, was involved in another spin accident during a test flight on 19 March 2009 near Wichita, Kansas. During aggressive spin testing, with power on and in a cross-controlled condition, the aircraft entered a “rapid and disorienting spin” and the test pilot was unable to recover control of the aircraft. The test pilot successfully deployed the aircraft’s ballistic recovery parachute, which stopped the spin, but, despite being designed to be jettisoned it could not be released from the aircraft. Since the airplane was too low for a bail-out, the pilot remained with the aircraft, which crash-landed sustaining damage to the gear, but leaving the pilot uninjured.

This ad appeared in 1937 urging the flying public to consider the Speedster 6000 for their next aircraft.

Cessna then redesigned the wing, including the airfoil, and changed the shape of the tail. The spin problems were finally solved. It now appears that Cessna’s latest two-place trainer is going to be another winner similar to their Cessna 140 and Cessna 150/152.

In my opinion, the FAA, if they haven’t all ready, should revert back to mandatory spin training before granting either an LSA or Private Pilot Certificate. The reason spin training was stopped originally was due to pressure from the aircraft companies claiming too many potential pilots and aircraft owners were afraid of spin training and might not learn to to fly or to “buy an aircraft”. I had many pilots of all ages refused to allow me to demonstrate a stall in an aircraft they were thinking of buying, they were terrified of a  stall and had no idea how to handle one. I hated to think of what would happen if they accidently found themselves in a stall-spin situation. Cry for their mommies? Or if trained, fly it out, and continue on.

If any readers have requests for special topics please let us know. Email us at theradar@acmp.com