Message-ID: <36549D52.20E4@ibm.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 16:36:02 -0600
From: Snowbird <snbird@ibm.net>
Reply-To: snbird@ibm.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: Exercise
References: <72q7o4$833$1@supernews.com> <3652C1C3.121B@ibm.net> <72v8pm$dit$1@newshost.ihighway.net> <365352FD.6762@ibm.net> <7324di$ilo$1@newshost.ihighway.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.37.111.192
X-Trace: 19 Nov 1998 23:25:17 GMT, 129.37.111.192
Organization: IBM.NET
Lines: 50
X-Notice: Items posted that violate the IBM.NET Acceptable Use Policy
X-Notice: should be reported to postmaster@ibm.net
X-Complaints-To: postmaster@ibm.net
Path: news.jprc.com!newsfeed.sgi.net!news.shore.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsm.ibm.net!ibm.net!news1.ibm.net!129.37.111.192
Xref: news.jprc.com rec.aviation.student:39440

Hilton Goldstein wrote:

> Snowbird wrote:

> >"No yaw No spin" is not original with me, however; it's a quote
> >from Sammy Mason's excellent book "Stalls Spins and Safety",
> >from the chapter where he plays on the traditional "no stall no
> >spin" mantra to make the following points:
 
> If Sammy says "No yaw, no spin" then I humbly submit that Sammy is 
> wrong.

Sorry, I don't believe you (the "humbly submit" part I mean *vbg*)

As for the no yaw, no spin thing, I'll leave the aerodynamic
arguments to people better equipped to carry them out than myself
and the detailed discussion of technique to people like Rich Stowell,
who spend their lives teaching this stuff.

I know what I saw when I was trying it, which is that I could
spin quite easily out of quite a shallow banked turn if it was
skidded *at all*, and a perfectly coordinated 45 degree bank
just, well, stalled.  So I believe that coordination is the key
to spin avoidance.

Just one comment:
> Therefore everyone thinks and writes "No yaw, no spin"; i.e. if we 
> don't kick the rudder we ain't gonna spin.

I don't think the latter is a reasonable paraphrase of the former.
There are a number of ways to produce a yawing motion without kicking
the rudder.  Failing to apply sufficient right rudder to coordinate
during a climb, for example; that's a real nice spin entry too.

It also seems to me that if a wing drops, due to turbulence or
whatever, that produces a yawing motion, which can be seen by
watching the nose of the airplane even if the "ball" lags it; 
at least, one trick I learned for coping with turbulance smoothly 
is to keep the nose on track with my feet, before the wings have
a chance to get tossed around too much.  So it kind of seems like
quibbling with the definition of "yaw component"; I don't think 
Sammy meant "pilot-induced yaw component" and neither did I.

I guess the point of the thing (for me) is that maybe sometimes
pilots are scared of the wrong thing, scared of the stall which
should be a simple matter of dropping the nose a bit, rather than
lack of coordination, which is what makes the stall more complicated.

Snowbird

