Unhappy end to a NASA spin test - Bonanza

alfadog

alfadog

Final Approach
Joined
May 3, 2010
Messages
5,057
Location
Miami
Display Name
Display name:
alfadog
NASA recently posted this video from, I believe, the late 1970's. The test pilot quickly realizes that the Bo ain't gonna recover and it's "See ya".

Scroll to about 12:00 to skip the earlier tests.

 
turbulence behind that mustache made the tail ineffective
 
Holy cow. What was that spraying all over the left side of the windshield after the pilot jumped?
 
ScottK said:
Was that a flat spin?
Click to expand...

He mentions that he is going to add aileron in this test for the first time. More dramatic lead-in if you back up a bit. In the earlier tests he might have been initiating the spin with only rudder. He is not letting the spins develop but quickly recovering. This one he must have added pro-spin aileron and tried to quickly recover. When that was not effective, he bailed.

So no, I do not think it was flat, just rapidly developed. IMO, FWIW.

Yeah, I caught that 'stache also. Awesome.
 
Duh, I listened a bit closer to the preflight where he tests those meters in front of him. Left meter is aileron deflection, right is rudder. The earlier tests were just rudder. At 12:42 in the sad one, you see full left aileron and full right rudder.
 
alfadog said:
Duh, I listened a bit closer to the preflight where he tests those meters in front of him. Left meter is aileron deflection, right is rudder. The earlier tests were just rudder. At 12:42 in the sad one, you see full left aileron and full right rudder.
Click to expand...

You can also see him try several different things which made absolutely no difference before he decides to call it quits.
 
Hope the camera survived, probably cost more then the plane at the time.:)
 
jesse said:
You can also see him try several different things which made absolutely no difference before he decides to call it quits.
Click to expand...

Yes, I also like that he held that recovery rudder in the entire time he prepped for leaving and only let it go when he climbed out of the seat. A true professional.
 
While this event is very rare, it makes having a whole plane parachute worth it, IMO.
 
Good illustration of how long a pilot and pax would be riding an aircraft on the way down in an unrecoverable spin. That's a long time to contemplate things.

I wonder if he closed his flight plan!!!
 
jmp470 said:
While this event is very rare, it makes having a whole plane parachute worth it, IMO.
Click to expand...

How? In a spin like that it would just wind up the cordage and the parachute would be worthless.
 
jmp470 said:
While this event is very rare, it makes having a whole plane parachute worth it, IMO.
Click to expand...
I would hope that an intentional spin followed by pro-spin aileron is very rare indeed.

The thing I find surprising is that they didn't have a drogue chute in the tail. My travel air started life as beech's engineering plane for baron engine testing in the late 50's, and it still had the trappings of the parachute mounting until i removed them last year.
 
JHW said:
I would hope that an intentional spin followed by pro-spin aileron is very rare indeed.

The thing I find surprising is that they didn't have a drogue chute in the tail. My travel air started life as beech's engineering plane for baron engine testing in the late 50's, and it still had the trappings of the parachute mounting until i removed them last year.
Click to expand...

Wondered that, also. Possible it did but was ineffective or did not deploy properly. You do see something fly by the window that I do not think is the pilot.
 
Interesting how the controls stay more or less centered after the pilot bails.
 
EdFred said:
How? In a spin like that it would just wind up the cordage and the parachute would be worthless.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Likely line twists, but they will sort themselves out.
 
DaleB said:
Duh! If he'd filed a flight plan it wouldn't have spun in. Right?
Click to expand...
Except his plan WAS to spin.:D


I think he also planned to bring the plane back in one piece and live too....ah well, 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

ClimbnSink said:
Not necessarily. Likely line twists, but they will sort themselves out.
Click to expand...
Haven't you ever twisted a swing as a child?
 
alfadog said:
Wondered that, also. Possible it did but was ineffective or did not deploy properly. You do see something fly by the window that I do not think is the pilot.
Click to expand...

I was thinking that could be a failed drogue. Several instances I saw cords or something outside the window
 
steingar said:
Why was NASA testing the stall behavior of a Beechcraft Bonanaza?
Click to expand...

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration does tons of research into basic aerodynamics. Not sure what they were looking at here, but I'm sure it wasn't just rudimentary stall testing of a certified plane. Probably looking to understand the aerodynamics of a stall better, or perhaps testing modifications that had been made to the plane.
 
Very interesting. Guess Bo's don't like flattened spins to the right. :) He tried the correct inputs to recover - in-spin (right) aileron, but nothing.
 
Impressive spin rate! I think I'll pass trying that in any of the Bo's I fly.
 
JHW said:
I would hope that an intentional spin followed by pro-spin aileron is very rare indeed.
Click to expand...
I heard "ailerons against" which to me would suggest that he turned the yoke to the left as he spun to the right. That is also consistent with how you get into the accelerated spin he was in. And, is what a pilot just might do in an attempt to pick up the wing.
 
whifferdill said:
Very interesting. Guess Bo's don't like flattened spins to the right. :) He tried the correct inputs to recover - in-spin (right) aileron, but nothing.
Click to expand...
I doubt the profile was the standard spin entry inside the CG with the certified airplane.
 
jesse said:
I doubt the profile was the standard spin entry inside the CG with the certified airplane.
Click to expand...

Is that because you've done a right rudder spin entry in a Bo with full out-spin aileron and let that develop? This tends to flatten the spin, and lots of airplanes have quirky characteristics when that is done, that you wouldn't observe if a normal spin without out-spin aileron was entered.

Even in the Clipped Cub I fly, if you apply out-spin aileron, the spin will flatten, and when you apply opposite rudder, the rudder almost feels disconnected it has so little pressure, and recovery takes almost a full turn (with full in-spin aileron applied). Compare that with a neutral aileron spin (or even one with in-spin aileron) where recovery takes no more than 1/4 turn, and you immediately feel positive rudder pressure. And the Cub is a light airplane with lots of rudder.

Once a spin flattens, there is more angular momentum, and the airflow becomes more from below the rudder than across it, which reduces effectiveness. Combine this with an airplane that has significant mass, and maybe not the most effective rudder, or some aerodynamic blanking quirk, and I can totally see this happening in some non-aerobatic types, even if within CG limits. How many people do you know who have done the entire upright spin matrix in a Bonanza across the entire allowable CG range?
 
Last edited:
whifferdill said:
Is that because you've done a right rudder spin entry in a Bo with full out-spin aileron and let that develop?
Click to expand...

No it's because the Bonanza would have never been certified if it reacted to that entry within CG using the stock certified airplane.

What I see in that video very much isn't in compliance with CAR 3 which is what a bonanza of that vintage would have been certified under.

CAR 3 states:
§ 3.124 Spinning—(a) Category N. All airplanes of 4,000 pounds or less maximum weight shall recover from a one-turn spin with controls assisted to the extent necessary to overcome friction in not more than one and one-half additional turns and without exceeding either the limiting air speed or the limit positive maneuvering load factor for the airplane. It shall not be possible to obtain uncontrollable spins by means of any possible use of the controls. Compliance with the above shall be demonstrated at any permissible combination of weight and center of gravity positions obtainable with all or part of the design useful load
Click to expand...

NASA was likely experimenting outside the envelope. Or with something different then certified.
 
There is a Bonanza crash in instrument conditions recorded on Live ATC (or at least there was a few years ago.) Makes me wonder if maybe the guy went into a spin before he died. Kind of chilling listening.
 
jesse said:
No it's because the Bonanza would have never been certified if it reacted to that entry within CG using the stock certified airplane.

What I see in that video very much isn't in compliance with CAR 3 which is what a bonanza of that vintage would have been certified under.


NASA was likely experimenting outside the envelope. Or with something different then certified.
Click to expand...

Ding Ding Ding We have a winner. Found it:

NTSB Identification: LAX88DUM03.
The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 36505.
Accident occurred Thursday, February 25, 1988 in RAMONA, CA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 07/10/1989
Aircraft: BEECH A36, registration: N23536
Injuries: 1 Minor.
DURING A TEST FLIGHT FOR CERTIFICATION OF WING TIP TANKS, WHILE PERFORMING SPINS, THE AIRCRAFT ENTERED A FLAT SPIN. THE PILOT WAS UNABLE TO REGAIN CONTROL AND EXITED THE AIRCRAFT AND PARACHUTED TO SAFETY. THE AIRCRAFT COLLIDED WITH THE TERRAIN SHORTLY THEREAFTER. THERE WERE NO MECHANICAL FAILURES OR MALFUNCTIONS REPORTED AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:

STALL/SPIN..INTENTIONAL..PILOT IN COMMAND

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:

REMEDIAL ACTION..INADEQUATE

Contributing Factors

MAINTENANCE,MODIFICATION..INTENTIONAL..COMPANY/OPERATOR MANAGEMEN
 
jesse said:
No it's because the Bonanza would have never been certified if it reacted to that entry within CG using the stock certified airplane.

What I see in that video very much isn't in compliance with CAR 3 which is what a bonanza of that vintage would have been certified under.

CAR 3 states:


NASA was likely experimenting outside the envelope. Or with something different then certified.
Click to expand...

Dat boi's purty darn smart.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top