If I may respectfully offer a few more comments on this subject, this last time from the point of view of an airplane designer, rather than as a pilot. Though trained by the Navy I only flew 4 years there, and have much less experience than those pros I've been reading on this list.  My own primary interest has always been in designing better planes, starting with models in the late 1940s... and continuously as a hobby even to today, with but three years 'in the business' 1967-1971 getting a provisional TC for my Model W... where I did a lot of research on stalls and spins. ..though only testing of stalls, not spins per se. 

So here are a few opinion-comments about current airplane design for stability and stalls and spins.

Most GeNav and experimental planes are heavily influenced by the designer's marketing concerns, some of which are not 'form follows function'.  I.e., the swept vertical tail-rudder is poor for high AOA airflow and spin recovery.  At high AOAs most of the airflow goes ineffectively right up the rudder hinge line... which is why the NACA and NASA and tests on spin recovery all refer to TDPF, for the airflow trapped under the horizontal tail and directed usefully back against the bottom of the rudder.  Exception  is Walt Mooney's forward-angle rudder, and the Ercoupe's twin tails. In my TC attempt I made the rudder hinged to angle forward for rudder control, though it's leading edge was swept back --for looks. On the Magnum I made the whole vertical tail into a stabilator which angled forward is deflected... for possible spin recovery force.

In developed spins, critical is yaw angle.  The yaw  depends on both area distribution and mass distribution both fore and aft (long fuselages, i.e. engines in the tail or out on the wing), and on the CG range, and on the shape of the fuselage and tail.  Also critical is what AOA will develop, This also depends on CG range, fuselage shape, h-tail area  ... rounded bottom aft fuselages (like the Howard GDA) let smooth high AOA airflow get to the vertical tail for more yaw-correcting power by the rudder, if not blanketed by the horizontal tail. I think the CAA had the Howard recover from a 6 turn spin, at aft CG.  Mass distributed out from the CG tends to make the spin go flat (high AOA), nice and slow turning, but not good. The flywheel effect can cause a high AOA, and popular h-tail design would be better for unstalling at high AOAs if the h-tail's aspect ratios were low, instead of high... because low ARs develop 3D flow vortices which can keep energy air available to the vertical tail-rudder... to stop the rotation.  Step on the ball; then stop the turn (with aileron), and then reduce the AOA to unstall... if the h-tail isn't stalled.

Our Lancairs are beautiful. When building ours I researched accidents and tech reports, which concerned me re pitch moments at deep stalls.  I didn't want to redesign the vertical and horizontal tail, so I finally decided to go with a band-aid partial mod to try to preserve the de-pitching power of the elevator to a higher AOA, and keep the h-tail unstalled perhaps another 10 ro so degrees, to give me more time to unstall the wing before the h-tail would stall.  I think and hope tan unstalled h-tail will also preserve smooth airflow over the rudder at wing-stalled AOAs ... as I said in the Kitplanes article. 

I just mention these things so you can see where I'm coming from.  When my trusting soul-mate climbs into our Lancair kit #11 with me, and I drive us up into the beautiful clouds, and swiftly across the midwest to visit our kids in Colorado, I seriously want us to be safe, if some unforseen attitude happens, because our six kids would never forgive me if I was the cause of harm to their Mom. I'm sure many you share these concerns.

Perhaps some of you may agree with my opinions on airplane stall-spin design, and I hope that if they make sense, they'll help others understand what's going on in their birds as they fly at high AOAs.

terrence