A newbies impression of the 109 and spit

[Crumpp]

Weren't the FAA set up in 1958?

You guys would have a better understanding of what you are reading in these documents and manuals if you learned a little about Aviation Law and Legislation. It would really help you to understand how to fit them into context. Testing standards and certification of airframes, engines, fuels, pilots manuals are all part of the airworthiness of the design. They were all done on the same principles with very little variation by the convention signers.

The FAA was created by merging the two aviation authorities in the United States under one roof. Before the FAA, aircraft were administered by both the Department of Commerce and the Department of Transportation.

It relocated everyone under one roof like the Air Ministry but the rules established by convention still applied and remained in place!

The FAA is based on British Aviation Law. The same law the Air Ministry still followed in 1940.

At the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 the Aeronautical Commission (a legal subcommittee) drafted the first set of international aviation laws, The International Air Navigation Convention. The laws were patterned after British aviation laws and dealt with both concrete and abstract principles.

The United Kingdom pioneered Aviation Law and was a major player in helping to establish an international standard for all convention signers.

Great Britain, in 1909, was the first nation to address the possibility of government control of aviation manufacturing and aviation transportation. British laws became a reality when the first successful cross-channel flight in 1909 jeopardized Britain’s national security. That year, under British encouragement, the first International Conference in Paris was held. During the conference a host of aviation problems, from the sovereignty of airspace to the spread of contagious diseases, were debated. While no laws were enacted, it was apparent that aviation law was soon to become a reality.

Then in 1917 Great Britain formed the Civil Aerial Transportation Committee to organize growing civil and commercial air traffic trade. The Committee suggested that the government regulate all forms of British aviation, both nationally and internationally. The creation of the committee was an important gesture; it signaled Britain’s intent to transform its military strength from naval to air power, and instigate European aviation reform. The European community of nations was not far behind the British, for it was realized that aviation had become a force to be reckoned with in the final phase of World War I.

Even though the United States was a world power, its government had no impact on the code drafted by Aviation Mission; apparently the United States did not desire to be involved in any law-making other than its own.

http://specialcollections.wichita.ed...8/92-18-A.HTML

[Glider]

There we have our ongoing difference between the practical and experience vs theory.

Logic - how can you train someone to spin a combat aircraft without putting it in an intentional spin, plus experience - someone who has actually done it.
vs
Theory - the paper says you cannot do it therefore you didn't do it

Logic - if the fuel is installed at a station and we have pilots combat reports that says they used the fuel therefore a) the fuel was in use in those stations and squadrons and b) the aircraft had to be modified to use it
vs
Theory - I haven't got the right paperwork therefore it didn't happen

I havn't been able to find a T8 Pilots notes but the T7 was basically the same aircraft and the F6 was also exactly the same apart from the cockpit so I would expect them to have the same notes re spinning if that helps

[bongodriver]

I've got to step in to defend Crumpp on something......partially, let's be fair, you can't just nonsense everything someone says just because you are arguing with them.

spin training absolutely is done on aircraft 'cleared' for spinning, if an aircraft is not cleared for spinning it has been deemed so beause of some form of complexity in its recovery behaviour 'OR' it never went through spin trials for certification, as for the issue of spinning a hunter I hold my hands up and say 'I just can't comment', my belief is that the aircraft cannot be willfuly spun if it is placarded not to because those placards form a legal base that would be crazy to ignore, imagine the investigators sifting through a wreckage of a spin accident and finding the placard, insurers will just walk away and lawyers will be rubbing their hands together.

RAF pilots would have received spin training in the Tiger Moth, because spin recovery 'technique' is universal and it is a skill that can be applied to all aircraft.

But I am quite frankly amazed crumpp claims the Spitfire would 'break up' in a spin, if he really knows anything about this subject he would know a spin is 'not' a high stress manouvre, if an aircraft is going to break up in a spin it would break up in normal flight too, more than likely the Spitfire was found to have an undesireably long recovery time due to it's small rudder and/or it's neutral static stability, there really aren't many aircraft that can't actually be spun and recovered but they all have different behaviour, the clearance to spin would be granted on the basis of wether an 'average' pilot using standard recovery techniques can recover in a specified amount of time/altitude, if an aircraft can't do this it's just easier to not clear it than bring in a specialised spin training course for the aircraft.

some of my aerobatic experience is on the Military variant of the Slingsby T-67 Firefly both 160hp and 260hp(USAF T-3) variant, this aircraft was banned from spinning by the USAF and ultimately withdrawn from service after the loss of some aircraft and sadly some students and instructors too, the USAF said it was 'dangerous' and didn't recover........but I'm still alive despite having spun it countless times, the issue with the firefly is the spin recovery 'must' be done by the book but it is still just the standard technique and it will recover very predictably, get it wrong or be complacent and you beter hope you remembered the parachute if you didn't start with enough altitude, it is still cleared for spinning by the british military and civil aviation authority.