UStik. I thought so. I agree on your other points also, especially about letting go of the controls. I used to demonstrate that to new CFIs in the C-150. You had to be sure to have altiitude because it wasn't unusual to lose over 800', also the airspeedrises quickly in the pull out. I doubt there are many planes that are spin proof. I learned many years ago mostly in a Citabria 7KCAB, inverted flight was tuff with that flat wing, the 8KCAB was much better. In my view, the method you describe is a very good one asinitiating it with rudder defines the direction of rotation. Plus you get a sharper, smoother yes, but sharper wing drop and entry into the rotation. Again, I like it simple so it's"rudder in and rudder out". Of course the other inputs apply and in general are combined at relatively the same time. I did get into a well developed spin once in a C-150, the prospective CFI froze on the controls. It took a hard elbow to the ribs before he let go, lost almost1800', and I won't say what the exit speed was...
I do agree on your rudder observations too, if it is blanketed it becomes less effective. I don't see how wind effects a spin (turbulence aside, other than how the plane moves in relation to the ground, which is our perception of movement). Also, both wings are stalled, it's just that one has a higher AoA than he other thus the yaw. I guess you can get into gyroscopic prop effects, tip mass,and inertia, etc., but then gravity could be considered too because it changes with altitude (minutely true) but... Now if you sand off material you reduce mass (weight) so that does effect theCG, either for or aft.Also, if the fuel tank is not on the CG but more forward, CG will shift as fuel burns, so one should try the spins with afulltank and say a third tank or less. I think you'll find the recovery a bit different than with a full tank. Good discussion topic Skylane, thanks UStik.
Hook