Printable View
I have a question about spins in the AT-6 or SNJ-4. I have seen some aircraft placarded against spins and others not. In my SNJ manual, all it says about spins is to not do them if on the left tank. Are some OK to spin and others not? If so, how do we know? I have avoided doing any spins more than 1 turn because I wasn't sure.
Thanks
T-6s, Harvards, and SNJs were full advanced military trainers and made good pilots. You may believe they did spins and spin training.I have not spun one myself, but thousands have.
This placard against spins is a recent one , put in by the FAA. I am not sure why, if it is there is a real danger or if it is just a change in bureacracy and some overhanded paperwork.
I would be very careful , and find out more about a particular plane, and if I did spin one, I'd be real high, perhaps 10,000AGL, with lot's of air under me and room to recover.
Note, it only prohibits "intentional spins", so I guess if you fall out of a loop by accident into a spin and recover, that is approved.
I'm no expert on the T-6/SNJ, but I've had a little dual in an SNJ and I was told that the plane recovers spins without issue, but does not recover quickly enough once fully-developed to meet FAA spin testing criteria. For this reason, we did only incipient spin recovery, which was positive, but still lost a surprising amount of altitude compared to your typical light utility/acro plane.
My understanding is the FAA requirement is that in the worst CG loading (usually aft CG), an aircraft must be able to do a two turn spin (in the worst direction, again usually left for US airplanes), and with "normal" spin recovery control inputs, stop rotating in no more than one additional rotation. If the airplane takes longer to recover, it must be placarded "Intentional Spins Prohibited." I believe that some variants of the T-6 have been placarded for many years. Some have more fuel than others, and there is other equipment that will affect spin behavior. Perhaps someone who is more familiar with the history will post some info.
Regards,
Wes
N78PS
The pilot manual for T-34 A allows spins, but as I remember if says to recover within 2 turns. The FAA was doing a seminar on spins at EAA one year and emphasized that the first part of a spin, ( I think it was 2 turns), is only the entry to a spin or the incipient stage. Many planes, if not most,will recover easily if recovery is started in this incipient phase.However, some like the T-34 get more resistant to recovery after 2 turns when the plane enters the full established phase of the spin. Then it may take longer to recover, if at all once the anti-spin corrections are put in. A P-51, for instance is reported to take a couple of turns to recover from a full spin.
Note, that only T-34A is approved for acro. The B model can do it mostly as well, but near aft cg it will not recover from the spin. That was what the Beech factory found in their testing back in the 50's. Some T-34 B owners did not want this restriction, and about back in the 90's hired a test pilot to repeat the spin tests. All was well , starting at forward cg, and moving back, but just as the factory said, once you got near the aft limit it would not recover.
Being near the aft limit of cg can be dangerous in any plane, and you should be extra careful when doing acro to be in the middle or forward part of the loading envelope.
Everyone who wants to be a complete pilot should do spin training and practice recognizing the start of a spin, ( ie an uncoordinated stall) and how to recover.
Spins can be complicated, not room to go into all here.
BUT, KNOWING A QUICK SIMPLE STALL RECOVERY PROCEDURE IS VITAL.
1. Power all the way off. (note in some planes like Pitts or P-51 even a little throttle open may prevent recovery. You have to get power off to get the nose down to get airflow over the controls.
2. Release the stick or yoke, just let go of it. ( note you need to have neutral ailerons and neutral or down elevator for recovery from an upright spin). If you just quit pulling on the control that got you into the stall/spin in the first place, the elevator will release the back pressure.
3 Push and hold full opposite rudder to the direction of the spin. Hold until the spin stops, then release the rudder.
The plane should come out of the spin nose down and accelerating and you can smoothly regain control and level flight, if you have altitude to spare. That is one reason not to do vertical acro like loops down low.
My first spin and recovery lesson was with my first flight instructor was in a Piper Tomahawk. I was too new to know we should have worn chutes, but I was smart enough to make sure we were up high and he assured me he knew how to recover.
We did a couple ok, it did recover ok. The thing that really hit me was unlike most stall practice , once the spin started it was pretty abrupt. It didn't just yaw, it also rolled into the entry and really dropped the nose.I have done spins in Piper J3 Cub, T-34, and a fighter. The fighter also rolls going into the spin and comes out nose down also.
Some planes are said to recover from the spin entry, like a 172, if you just release the controls.
Some time after doing the spins in the Tomahawk, the FAA came out with an AD due to some fatal stall/spin accidents in Tomahawks. I can't recall if they prohibited spins, but they did require a stall strip on the wing leading edge.
We, of course did not know that at the time I did my initial training. Thankfully someone was watching over us.
I have to offer the advice that before you go and do any type of stall or spin maneuver in any aircraft please !READ THE FLIGHT MANUAL!
I say this because the generic spin recovery procedure offered above does not work in all aircraft. Some aircraft, the Zlin family for instance, will happily spin into the ground if you sit there hands off. The flight manual states a specific set of control inputs the pilot must do in order to stop the spin and recover to wings level flight. I know of at least one incident where some pilots almost crashed "trying out" spins. Once back on the ground reading the flight manual to find a clue as to where they went wrong, they found some very surprising info. They should have read the directions BEFORE they went flying, not after.
I will also note for the folks who might poke at acro that a very like place to spin is a hammerhead. NOT due to kicking for the turn late, but rather due to kicking early when the airplane still has plenty of energy to respond to incorrect control inputs. Before you try a hammer in a new airplane, please compare the control inputs for the turn at the top of a hammer with the control inputs for an outside snap roll. As an aerobatic competitor, I can report that unexpected inverted spins at a safe altitude are interesting. If you have never done an intentional inverted spin, the adjective that you apply to your hammer-spin might be more colorful, if you recover successfully.
Y'all be carefull out there.
Wes
N78PS
This is the Beggs-Mueller recovery technique. Gene Beggs writes in his book about certain spin modes in certain aircraft that do not recover using this technique. Highly valuable reading. There are many airplanes that may not have had extensive testing done using this technique. And it's not simply whether or not an airplane will recover a plain-vanilla upright spin. Spin characteristics can vary depending on whether they're left rudder, right rudder, inverted, upright, normal, flat, or accelerated. So there are a number of different spin modes, which most folks will likely never experience unless they seek advanced spin training in a suitable aerobatic aircraft.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood
Yes guys, I think that anyone should read the pilot manual before flying any airplane, especially doing acro or spins. Also ought to wear a seat belt and a few other basics that I didn't think to mention.
And if you are a big time acro pilot, you may not need any basic method of recovering from a spin. You may be accomplished enough to push the yoke or stick forward or pull it back as needed, rather than releasing the back pressure.
By the way , which way do you move the control if you are not sure if the spin is upright or inverted? Myself I have only done standard upright spins.
And since we are looking for the exceptions, how do you recover from a spin in a helicopter that has lost its tail rotor?
At the AOPA convention I heard a pilot talk about spin recovery and almost spinning a Pitts into the ground because he short cutted one of the basic steps. He is/was a 2 time nat acro champ.
I still think the basic method is good for most pilots to know, who may be flying most planes and get into an accidental spin.
I agree that for left handed lesbians from Latvia who drive a Lincoln and fly a Lancaster in Liberia , the basic method may not work, and they need something more than us mere mortals to recover form a spin.
If you're unsure about this, it likely means you're confused, not in control, and your stress level is rising...and time to invoke emergency recovery. I don't mean to discredit the Beggs-Mueller technique - it is likely to get the spin stopped in most airplanes and is a good technique to use in this situation....much better than randomly slamming the stick around hoping something works. If we're talking about positive (non-emergency) recovery inputs, which way you move the stick would depend on your spin mode. If you're in an inverted accelerated spin, you'd need to first move the stick forward before applying opposite rudder and finally moving the stick aft toward neutral after the rudder has had a chance to slow the rotation a bit. If you're in a normal inverted spin, you probably already have the stick forward and just need to move it aft a little after opposite rudder has been applied. Of course, if you're unsure if you're upright or inverted, it's probably best you don't move the stick at all, and use Beggs Mueller.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood
I assume he was too quick to unload the stick (before applying full opposite rudder) and accelerated (or crossed over) the spin? There's an emergency spin recovery technique that works in the Pitts 100% of the time, in any spin mode, as long as the airplane is within the weight & balance envelope. It is accomplished by simply pulling power off and visually neutralizing both the stick and rudder. The spin will stop a few moments later and you can pull out. The nice thing about this technique is that it does not require the pilot to recognize the correct anti-spin rudder to apply, as Beggs Mueller does. I'd imagine this technique works in many other airplanes, but there are no guarantees without completing the full spin testing matrix for each a/c type.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood
It's amazing how the subject can wander. Back to the AT-6. I flew them in pilot training and spun them left and right. Remember this was before civilians got their hands on them and did things like put the ELT in the tail cone and fill the baggage compartment before spinning. I found it to be an incredibly consistent airplane during spins and spin recovery. Once stabilized, recovery can seem scary, rotation speed increases during recovery. Given that, if the placard says intentional spins prohibited, don't do them. Are you being paid to be a test pilot? If your airplane does not prohibit them perhaps the placard is missing.
Thanks for all the input. I read the SNJ manual several times. It says spins are prohibited with the fuel selector on the left tank. In my SNJ-4, there is nothing in the tail that would move the CG aft. With two normal FAA sized people on board we are well with in limits.
Speaking of scary spins........the first time I spun the Monocoupe, it wound up tight and fast. When I applied opposite rudder nothing happened for almost two turns. It seemed to take forever for something to happen and I began to wonder............ Later I learned that Monocoupes can be like that since they have a tendancy to be aft CG, even lightly loaded.
I did spins in an SNJ a few years ago, they were 1 to 1 1/2 turns and recovery was a sinch.
A further note. Out of curiosity I looked up the Type Certificate Data Sheet for the AT-6/SNJ. It's held by Boeing, the number is A-2-575. Note 2 (c) says Placard both cockpits "Intentional Spinning Prohibited"... If some AT-6s don't have the placard, they should. Legally if you want to perform intentional spins you should find a different airplane than the AT-6/SNJ.
eXFTRPLT,
Is Boeing the ultimate authority on spinning or not a T-6? SNJ/ Harvard?
To my knowledge Boeing never built a single one of either of the 3 variants, and am don't know of any test flying they ever did in any T-6 or variant.
As for not spinning a T-6, that would come as a huge surprise to thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of military pilots who trained on the US Army Aircorps, including Navy, Marines, RAF, RCAF, and other allies. That was back in the old days when flight training was more about flying the plane and less about computers.
Have you ever read Len Morgen's excellent books, both on flying the T-6 and on the P-51?
My copy of the T-6 manual says as for as spins and recovery, "Normal spin entry is accomplished in the conventional manner" and "Recovery is effected by full opposite rudder followed by stick movement slightly forward of neutral for normal spins, and slightly aft for inverted spins.
It also says not to practice spins below 10,00o feet AGL.
As for as spinning on the left tank, that is not in this manual I have, but the left tank has the high standpipe intake, so that only 35 gal is avialble with a 20 gal reserve and I'd guess that a spin might unport the left intake for fuel and the engine quit, I am not sure.
The FAA current spin requirement may be for the plane to come out with little or no input by the pilot, or to come out faster than a T-6 does, after anti spin controls are applied.
I just spoke to a current and experienced T-6 owner, who has done recent spin training in his 6 with a flight school which I won't name. He said the entry can be sudden , but the 6 recovers just fine, once you put the controls right. He also said that if you have an ex military T-6, perhaps like the ones that came out of South Africa, and you want to have it in normal category, then it has to have the "no intenional spin" sticker.
I think it says something good about my friend that he has years and many hours as a T-6 pilot, but seeks out the spin training to expand his experience and become a better pilot.
I would have sure hated to have gone into air combat in the big war without ever having spun or recovered from a spin . I can just imagine sitting in a P-40 pulling a hard turn and looking back over my shoulder at the Zero pilot and saying please get off my tail, I' m not allowed to go any further. Or looking out of a P-38 at a Me 109, with the same idea.
And you can bet the opposition, both German and Japs knew how to fly, at least until they lost a lot of the vet pilots.
Bill,
I wasn't going to reply but changed my mind. I assume Boeing acquired the TCDS from North American when they acquired the company. First, Boeing is probably not the organization that placed the restriction against spins. I presume it was the FAA. Second,nothing that I posted should be taken as recommending against spin training. Third, if you want to perform maneuvers in an airplane that are prohibited by the FAA, that is your decision.
Exftrplt, for the T-6, ( the real one, not the airconditined modern replica) You have an airplane that was famous as an advance military trainer that was used in many Allied nations to train real pilots. it sounds like you were one of these guys yourself, at one time.
This was training to possibly fly combat, not some nosewheel Cessna to fly 30 degree banks.
And spins were part of it. Spins were not only allowed, but in many cases required. It was part of the flight checkout to become a RAF pilot, read FIRST LIGHT, Geof Wellums great book.
Now our govt agency, FAA comes along and puts a note in the plane that says "no intentional spins". Has the plane changed, or it's spin and recovery behavior?No, if at all, the civilan ones might be a little lighter, due to less equipment like heavy old style military avionics.So as a pilot and one who doesn't own a T-6, but who does fly them when I am loaned or rent one, and who flies other vintage type airplanes and who does acrobatics; I would like to know as much as possible about the plane and flying them.
I am sure the FAA is expert in many things like airline certification and safety, but I don't want to just blindly accept everything the FAA says on matters that they probably are not expert at. I am not a T-6 expert, but I would bet that very few FAA guys are even rated in T-6s or even have much flight time , if any in one.
I give the FAA all the respect they are due, but I also look at some other sources.
One of these is/was David Fain who taught advanced students in T-6s in WWII. You may see one in airshow photos like at SuN N Fun with the serial no of C-150 on the side; that was the scheme of one he flew in the service and later owned.
David used to live here and I flew with and beside him many times, even flew his plane solo once or twice.
He also had lived in Chicago and flew out of Palwaukee. Once there was some incident or accident with a T-6 there, not his, but the FAA called and asked if David would meet their inspector there to help investigate.
So bright and early the next morning David is out at the FBO, and here comes the nice guy who introduces himself as the FAA man, and they walk out to the flgiht line.
The FAA expert asks. "Which ones are the T-6s?
So I give the FAA all credit they are due, which means a lot on some subjects and less on others.
Bill,
I spend more time working with the FAA than your average pilot. I agree with Exftrplt's comment that you have the priviledge of losing your pilot certificate in any manner that you choose. I appreciate your argument, but the FAA required placards says Intentional Spins Prohibited. The airplane is technically not airworthy without that placard and you are technically in violation if you willfully fly that maneuver. But you probably know that.
I will also suggest that advocating the willful violation of the FARs is probably not appropriate for a public forum.
Fly safe.
Wes
Wes, I have not advocated the violation of any FARs, to my knowledge. If you think so please show me the quote of my exact words, not just your interpretation of them.
I have also done a number of presentations at both Oshkosh and Sun N Fun about flight safety, specifically warbirds and mountain flying, and don't recall ever advocating anything unsafe or violating FARs. I will admit to being more concerned with the real dangers of flying, the laws of gravity and hard mountains, more with weather than whether a certain sticker is on a panel.
I have not spun a T-6, however if I have flown a Harvard in Canada and hope to fly one in England. If I do spins in them, am, I in violation of any FAA FAR? Since I am not a T-6 owner, I am not an expert on what the requirements are for a placuard on every airplane. Are you? Are you sure that every T-6, every SNJ, every Harvard has to have that placard.
By the way, since you seem to think the FAA is infalable, how do you feel about the Bob Hoover case?
Years ago, before the FAA attack on Bob Hoover, did you think that he was one of the smartest and most skilled pilots ever? Would you gladly have flown with him or have your family members fly with him? Or did you think he was dangerous and unsafe to fly?
And did your opinion of Bob change overnight when the FAA declared him unsafe to fly? So was the FAA right then, two FAA guys who had had it in for a combat vet who was well know as a nice guy? Or virtually the entire acro community of experts, of Bob's peers along with the aviation regulatory agencies of England, Canada, Australia, etc. who fully cleared Bob to fly?
And if you did side with the FAA back then; as I am sure you must have, because you would not want to advocate anything else, particlarly on a public site; what did you do years later when a new head of the FAA came in and reinstated Bob fully and was honest enough to openly and publicly apologize to Bob?
Did your opinion change back overnight, and now Bob was a legal and safe pilot again. because the govt agency, the same one that had singled him out to attack in the first place, now said he was ok.
Did your opinion change overnight again?
Bill,
The FAA is the FAA. They issue our pilot certificates and N registered airplane's airworthiness certificates. They can also take them away. What goes on in other countries is the purview of the governmental aviation authorities there.
Sooo.... If the airplane is a Normal Category airplane, and the Type Certificate Data Sheet says that a specific placard must be in place, then you leave the placard off or operate contrary to it at the risk of the loss of your pilot certificate and the grounding of your airplane. We all know that. If the airplane has an Experimental Exhibition airworthiness certificate, like I am sure some T-6's do, the operating limitations say what you you can do. These are typically more liberal. I am sure that T-6's spin well enough for the Department of Defense who originally procured them, but apparently the FAA has different standards for some. So the conversation about what they can do according to the laws of physics is different from the conversation about what you can legally do. Reading back along this thread it appears that you might be having the first conversation and other folks reading your words get the impression that you are having the second conversation.
I met Bob Hoover when I was in the airshow business. Great guy. I am very happy that he "won" in the end. Proof that there are more good buys out there than bad guys.
Wes
Wes, you have dodged my question about Bob Hoover. It was not if he is a nice guy, it is how your opinion of his flying safety changed when the FAA, who had the legal power to suspend him ( Right or Wrong) took away his license. Did he overnight become unsafe? After all the FAA had that legal power( and apparently no sense of moral or legal fairness to restrain the use and abuse of that power, at least for a number of years.)
So when the FAA declared him unsafe, ( to be more exact, that he might become unsafe) even without any evidence, did you believe the FAA or did you side with Bob, not because he was a good guy and a patriot, but because he was an expert and safe pilot.
And how did you opinion change when years later the new head of the FAA finally did the right thing? Did the same Bob Hoover, except now older, suddenly become a safe and legal pilot again overnight because he had the legal blessing?
You are of course free to disagree with me, but don't twist my words. Nowhere did I ever advocate leaving any required placard off of a T-6. And your idea that you should dictate what I or someone else can or should write on this or any other site is to me way off base.
As pilots we operate under both the federal laws and the laws of physics, and hopefully we are on the correct side of both. But the legal side of it can be factual or not, logical or not, correct or not and can change overnight. Physical laws like gravity don't change and are absolute.
I went to instrument school at Flightsafety at Vero Beach. Two instructors went up to practice in a normal category Piper trainer. They spun it in from about 8500 feet. The had time to talk on the radio, thus we know exactly what happened. The had no chutes, the FAA did not require them because after all these were instructors. They had all the required placards on the panel. They were as legal as can be all the way down, for whatever comfort that was to them.
A pilot can go up and fly acro in many planes such as a T-6. No requirement to ever have done a spin or recovery in them, just got to have all the placards in place. I know men who are flying single seat fighters who have never even done a stall and recovery in them. All legal, but not very smart.
So what should the FAA do? The placard should say perhaps no intentional spins below 10,000 feet AGL, and perhaps another placard could briefly outline the recovery procedure. Perhaps pilots of acro capable planes like a T-6 should have training in spins and recoveries.
Simply said, the T-6 is placarded against spins because it does not meet the FAA requirement to recover in 3 turns hands off. That's part 23 coming into play when applying for a TCDS. I've had students and riders both muff up stalls and loops putting me in positions that I normally wouldn't go in to. It's a very honest spinner both inverted and upright. If its inverted it quickly returns to a normal spin (in about 3/4 turn) then its standard recovery (power, rudder and stick simultaneously, wait, and recover). The biggest issue I've seen is the engine sputtering a little at lower power settings due to it being a float carb.
Scott, do you know if any T-6, SNJ or Harvards are legal without the "no spin, placard? Perhaps one in experimental or limited category or race plane, or in Canada, or maybe grandfathered in? Can a CFI or check pilot legally teach or demonstrate spins in a 6?
I flew my friend David Fain's T-6 at least once solo and several times dual, and I don't recall it having any such placard. His was ex South African AF, proved to be a good sound airplane. This has been more than 15 years ago, I may just not remember the details. I know that back in 1983-84 when I got my T-6 instrcution and sign off, we did not do any spins, but I don't recall any such placard then either.
I recently talked to an experienced and well know veteran warbird pilot about his spin training when he was in the navy, He also said the 6 recovers just fine, but once in civilian life he accidently spun the 6 while simulated dogfighgting down low and scared himself pretty badly.
The manual that I have strangley enough doesn't even mention power or power off in the spin recovery, it just says opposite rudder, then stick forward of neutral.
Bill, I do know of one pilot that uses a T-6 in an aerobatic act including a roll on take off. The airplane is a normal category aircraft and is placarded "intentional spins prohibited" in both cockpits. The pilot does not know of any T-6 that doesn't have the spin restriction.
Bill,As far as I know if a T-6 is in normal category it is placarded against spins. As for experimental, since the manual says no intentional spins then it is still illegal. I've been told it is illegal to intentionally teach spins but I feel as a CFI that it is a necessity. Power off and high AOA it spins predictably and smoothly, it's when you have it loaded up, high power, high G, that that "snap stall characteristic" really shows its ugly face.
Scott. Thanks, the copy of the T=6 manual that I have , AN 01-60FFB-1 has NO PROHIBITION against spins, in fact it gives "normal spin entry", the modes, and how to recover( "vigorous full opposite rudder, followed by stick slightly forward of neutral" for normal spins or "slightly aft of neutral for inverted spins". Power is not mentioned, I guess it assumes that if you are doing a practice stall entry to a spin, it will be power off.
There is certainly no anti spin placard in the photos of these panels either.
It is obvious that these planes and manuals could not have had this prohibition when they were advanced military trainers, for U S and others and of course did many spins in training.
I wonder if when the South African ones came into civilian use in the U S , likely when the FAA required that placard, if they also required some " no spin" page added to the manual. I will do a little more checking.
In any event, the real danger in T-6 spins and recoveries, would be if the passenger was playing a word game on his I Pad.
Scott, by the way, I am no acro expert. Have a basic card, but no expert, though I have flown with some who are among our best. One thing they have told me sometimes overlooked, that you might want to remember if you ever fall out of a loop or such and get in an emergency spin situation it that it is critical to get the POWER ALL THE WAY OFF, throttle closed. This is said to be very true for Pitts and P-51 , can't vouch for all others.
And one thing Lefty Gardner told the man who taught me some of my basics was don't do hammerheads in a Mustang.
If you haven't read FIRST LIGHT by Gepffrey Wellum, available in paper, you would find it informative and really enjoyable to read. It shows pretty well the excellent RAF training these guys got and that it was no accident that they were so good.
I'd like to be that current, that well trained, maybe that young again, if I could leave out the parts about the 109 s on my tail. I can't imagine doing that a 18.
The horse is dead.
The FAA does not respect the manual that you cite. The FAA TCDS, now owned by Boeing as the result of corporate mergers and acquisition, requires a placard in both cockpits of the T-6 prohibiting intentional spins. That is FAA approved data. Its online for you to read. Normal Category T-6's are technically unairworthy if those placards are not in place. You choose to ignore the TCDS and the placards at the risk of losing your pilot certificate. That said, we all know that there are no FAA airplanes in the sky waiting to write a citation. But the NTSB report will cite that the pilot entered into a maneuver prohibited in the accident airplane and some insurance companies will take that into account when processing the claim submitted by the heirs.
Fly safe.
Wes
Wes., my last post was to Scott. And to put it politely, you are full of it when you write, "You choose to ignore the TCDS and the placards" . That is just wrong. I have never done a spin in a T-6, intentional or otherwise and you are absolutely false when you write something like that about me.I have never failed to install any such placard in any T-6 I owned, if I ever had owned one. Nor have I ignored any such placard, in the ones I flew.Nor have I had an accident in one. If you have some real evidence, how about presenting it?
And much as it seems that you would like the me to lose my pilot certificate over this, is hasn't happened.
As for "The horse is dead." comment by you, if you don't like this topic or any other of mine, you may certainly skip reading or commenting on them. I won't miss you.
It is not up to you, fortunately to decide when someone else's topic "is dead".
And you fly safe too, nice and level.
Bill,Believe it or not it depends on the manual you read! In My manual collection I have a T-6F manual that approves spins but in the next revision it "advises" it. It's confusing. Either way, whoever originally applied for the type certificate didn't go through the spin quals for part 23. I see it's that way for just about every military trainer (T-34 T-28 etc). The military did spin training although out the T-6 lifespan so I wouldn't expect to see a placard there either. As for the comment on the mustang, I couldn't imagine doing a hammerhead in a 51! For one the rudder is too small to start with, plus the way a mustang spins I wouldn't want to!Blue skies Bill!
I have done at least 50+ spins in the T-6.
Some were done under the hood.
Never had any problems.They taught us well in the
aviation cadet program in 1950-51 !
I don't know anything about the new regulations.http://eaaforums.org/images/icons/goggles.gif