One of the airport bums told me about the accident. I asked what type he didn’t know. Said it was some kind of LSA he never heard of before.
Another thing to dry is an accelerated stall from a bank. I only did it in a Cherokee, which is not violent even with the old square wing. I keep meaning to do it in the Mooney, but honestly I don't have the balls to try it uncoordinated.
I visited the EAA 59 breakfast in Waco 3 weeks ago, flying the Carlson. Their hangar is at an end of a taxiway at right angles with a runway (airport has 2). A member departed with a pass over the breakfast area (in an RV-6, IIRC). I thought I'd do the same: take off, make 90-degree right turn at about half length of the runway. Takeoff roll of Carlson is very short usually. I started the takeoff and the performance was so-so, I was barely at 300 ft in time to turn at half-length. Maybe air was a little hot. When I banked 45 for the turn, the airplane started to overbank on me. It all happened very quickly, just like the video. I gave it a good dose of opposite rudder and that arrested the motion. Then, I reduced the pitch, completed the turn with a modest bank, and lined up my pass. A few members of the chapter probably laughed themselves silly if they saw it. I seriously was scared for a second. The altitude was relatively low.
I was there. Talking to Randy outside his shop. We thought something was wrong as soon as he took off. And my instructor later told me he was a very conscientious pilot who flew with an instructor often. And he had time in type before he bought the accident airplane.
You're right. I went back and watched it over several times. There may have been time to recover this assuming it was as simple as loss of control and there were no mechanical or medical factors. I think there was "enough" altitude had he added right rudder and pushed when it stalled. Chances are I would have spun it in too, so I am not throwing stones.
Most of the people that say you can't seem to be commenting on the video. Seemed like many of them were a bit confused, saying, "the spin has to be fully developed before you recover from it" and that it takes 1000 to 1500 feet. Wonder if someone had spin training or had read about spin training and they think you can't recover unless its fully developed as if you were in training and told not to recover until it had fully developed.
So you built it? If not, how closely did the builder follow the plans? What kind of engine did he put in it? Were there any alterations affect its stall/spin characteristics?
I'm not blaming the airframe one bit. But anyone blithely saying "oh, all he had to do is X", is ignoring the fact that the accident aircraft could have had dramatically different responses to control inputs. Just the nature of experimental airplanes. Doesn't mean there's anything wrong with any of them, just that they can be unpredictable.
My Mooney also made it through all that stuff, but I wouldn't put it into a spin on a dare. It will recover from a spin, but it takes its dear sweet time to do so. You simply don't know about the accident airplane. There are folks who treat the Phase I testing as an excuse to go fly around their local area. Not everyone does it right. And you don't know what happened to the accident airplane. In 26 years a number of owners had the opportunity to do whatever they liked to the airplane. You don't know what was done, or how it affected the aircraft's flight regimen. Again, you just don't know. And all these declarations to the contrary won't change that.
I bet cash money there would be about one built by me.