UStik, you mean the droop leading edges on the Cessnas? Not sure what you mean by the droop noses; but agreed, they do not spin easily. The Aerobat was different; the C172 would spin easier if you started with 10 degrees of flap but be sure to raise the flaps as she starts to rotate. Never flew the Zlin, but the Cap 10, Citabria (8A), T-34, and Christen Eagle all were good spinners. I once coaxed a PA-28-140 into a spin, it was uuuuuggllyyy. I would think the easiest, or at least the least fussiest, would be to simply experiment with the CG. Aft will get your attention while forward will bore you. When I learned aerobatics (the spin), I was taught PARE, well actually PEAR then PARE: power off (idle), elevator aft, aileron nuetral, rudder to rotate (apply in the direction you want to spin). To recover, power off (idle), aileron nuetral, opposite rudder, elevator forward. Of course, you'd hoped to learn from someone who had experience with applying these methods in that particularaircraft, if not, just try to have lots of extra altitude (lots). In the case of my RV-6, I was the test pilot and it was an interesting exploit! With the models it is likely different, I'm not sure that when they are designed that the designers factor in spin criteria as much as certain stability factors, such as a constant or non-shifting CG. By that I alsomean thatone can design a spin resistant aircraft or, an aircraft that will spin quite readily. I think our pattern ships would mostly spin quite readily, i.e. high wing loading etc. As a whole it's much more complex, but as you mention, a heavy propellor (gyroscopic forces not withstanding) actually makes for a forward CG and should make for an easier or less difficult recover. In any case, interesting thoughts here, but I still think it's a matter of rudder, rudder, rudder (at least until I get a computerized Tx!)
hook