Educate me on L-2M stall/spin accidents

[SteveR]

I'm going to read all of the L-2/DCO65 accident reports soon to learn what not to do, but would like to hear everyone's opinions. I'm buying an L-2M this weekend, and very soon I will go up to do stalls, get an instructor and do some spins, just to learn the characteristics, feel and airspeed. What tips does everyone have? Thanks!

[PA1195]

Re: Educate me on L-2M stall/spin accidents

http://lbirds.forumotion.com/t66-l-2-stall-spin-characteristics

For accident summaries you can start here but not all details are available in the early years: https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wikisearch.php Choose aircraft type (like Taylorcraft or L-2 or DCO-65 or whatever).

If you depend on airspeed make sure the system is air tight and readable. Make sure your plane is properly rigged before testing. Have a skid-slip indicator in line of sight. Note pre-stall behavior and what controls to use and not over use in slow flight. Note loss of altitude during stall or spin recovery.

I have no experience with that model of Taylorcraft but Chet Peek's Taylorcraft book discusses them.

Have some safe fun,

Gary

[warbugdriver]

Re: Educate me on L-2M stall/spin accidents

Properly rigged, you shouldn't experience any surprises.

Approaching the stall, mine gets very quiet inside -- ie the usual wind noise becoming noticeably less.

Compared to a Cessna, the break is quite crisp. Power-off mine will fall off to either side depending on how centered the ball is. Power-on stalls are a little more pronounced with a sharper break.

The L-2 spins up nicely in either direction. Recovery is straight forward.

I've had zero scares or close calls (that I remember, anyway) with my plane so I'm not sure what all the fuss about the low-altitude spins is about. You can't be honking the stick over making steep/tight turns (the classic base-to-final overshoot scenario) if you're going slow.

Slow flight, at altitude, will give you a feel where your particular plane stops flying. Pay attention to how it behaves in turns at slow speeds. The L-2 is generally pretty benign. Just not as benign as a Cub

[PA1195]

Re: Educate me on L-2M stall/spin accidents

VG's do help soften the Taylorcraft wing's behavior during a stall event but might not be currently approved for the L-2's. I'd call the change crisp to mush with better aileron control at slow speeds.

Gary

[astjp2]

Re: Educate me on L-2M stall/spin accidents

Mine has more aileron, rudder and elevator authority at slow speeds, they really didn't reduce stall speed by more than 2 mph, but control in slow flight is amazing now.

[PA1195]

Re: Educate me on L-2M stall/spin accidents

Mine has more aileron, rudder and elevator authority at slow speeds, they really didn't reduce stall speed by more than 2 mph, but control in slow flight is amazing now.

I agree Tim...at least for my plane it's a marginal decrease in stall but an improvement in slow speed behavior. I noticed it on floats the most like when a takeoff before them might be an iffy event, now was soon as I can lift a wing with an aileron it's ready to elevate positively.

Gary

[Ragwing nut]

Re: Educate me on L-2M stall/spin accidents

Alot of the problem early on was pulling spoilers base to final on landing. DON"T DO IT. Straight and level the buffet the ailerons, work great, and recovery is immediate upon retracting them. THe L2 has no bad spin characteristics.

[warbugdriver]

Re: Educate me on L-2M stall/spin accidents

From what I've read, the L-2's 'vicious' reputation seems a combination of wartime training with very low time pilots along with using the L-2/3/4 interchangeably. While there aren't a lot of wartime era photos of L-2s, several I've seen show L-2s sharing ramp space with L-3's and L-4's. Low time trainee bouncing between the different types would certainly increase the prospects of bad things happening -- eg an L-2 behaves differently than an L-4 at low speeds and most definitely stalls differently

[PA1195]

Re: Educate me on L-2M stall/spin accidents

From what I've read, the L-2's 'vicious' reputation seems a combination of wartime training with very low time pilots along with using the L-2/3/4 interchangeably. While there aren't a lot of wartime era photos of L-2s, several I've seen show L-2s sharing ramp space with L-3's and L-4's. Low time trainee bouncing between the different types would certainly increase the prospects of bad things happening -- eg an L-2 behaves differently than an L-4 at low speeds and most definitely stalls differently

This is interesting info. Maybe you could elaborate some on how the various "L's" perform and behave? Is there some link to that or tests? Might make for a good read.

Gary

[warbugdriver]

Re: Educate me on L-2M stall/spin accidents

Not aware of any published, period side-by-side tests but a review of the liaison types was conducted in late 1943 (OC&R Division) resulting in the L-2 and L-3 being deemed limited standard and the L-4 becoming standard for Army Ground Forces and L-5 becoming standard for Army Air forces.

Insofar as the airplanes go, I have some time in the L-2, -3 (only a couple hrs) and -4/Cub. IMO not a whole lot of difference between them. My perceptions:
- the L-4 is the best behaved at slow speeds. Stalls are little more than mushes. Easy to understand why the Army settled on it. Slowest of the three. Front seat solo on later models
- the L-2 is about 10-15 mph faster at the expense of a slightly higher stall speed and a bit less well behaved stall. Front seat solo
- with only brief time in an L-3, I only recall it feeling like a slightly more sluggish Champ

From what i've read on L-bird pilot training, it really sounds like a course on bush flying. Whether the flying schools operated a mix of the three types simultaneously? Not really sure. I would think that 65hp airplanes operating in OK summer heat probably didnt help things much.

[PA1195]

Re: Educate me on L-2M stall/spin accidents

Thanks for taking the time to discuss the L-birds.

Gary

[M Towsley]

Re: Educate me on L-2M stall/spin accidents

The L-2 has a 'faster' wing than an L-4 or L-3 and is less forgiving than the flat-bottom wing of the L-4 and L-3. Stall/spin accidents were becoming too much of a problem and after five crashes the L-2 was grounded pending investigation at Fort Sill during WWII. Here is a photo of a photo in a book I have on liaison aircraft in WWII.

[PA1195]

Re: Educate me on L-2M stall/spin accidents

It's unfortunate Taylorcraft didn't pursue anti-stall and spin design beyond washout. The technology of leading edge wing slots and slats was developing as early as the 1920's in Europe and was later applied to the Auster and then later the Helio Courier that share the Taylorcraft wing platform. All history and without today's instantly available info it would have taken a dedicated engineering effort and adequate funding back when that was probably scarce.

Gary

[M Towsley]

Re: Educate me on L-2M stall/spin accidents

All the small aircraft manufacturers worried about back then was somehow staying in business and building liaison aircraft, (for government money), was the way to do it, along with building parts for other manufacturers' aircraft. No need for R&D, they were just trying to keep their heads above water.

[PA1195]

Re: Educate me on L-2M stall/spin accidents

I have come away with the same impression Marty regarding the post Depression aircraft industry. Chet Peek discusses the bleak economics at length. Today there's bidding and research that never would have happened pre WWII.

I've been working my way through this link to some historic aeronautical research: http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk

If you follow the time trends in research it's obvious stall/spins were a concern and the engineers sought a means to determine their cause and develop a means to avoid. Plus there was technical progress to build transport (land and sea) and pre-war ships via improved aerodynamics.

Merry Christmas all,

Gary