Loopy in a Tommie?

[FlyingKiwi_73]

Has anyone on the forum looped a PA38? Barrel rolled? etc.. in fact how LEGALLY aerobatic are they?

CAVEAT : no I'm not planning to go off and try this.. its idle curiousty,.... I'm far to much of a wimp to do this with out thorough instruction.

I recall tell of a mate doing some loops in a C150 (which nearly ended badly) anybody done any aerobatic manourvers in a standard GA spam can?

closest i got was a badly exectued wing drop stall that put me on my back that nearly put me off for life...

FK

[Pilot DAR]

"owners" permission not good enough [as above post demonstrates]

Indeed. It was not my intention to suggest that the owner could give permission for aerobatics in a non aerobatic aircraft, but rather that a pilot should not be doing things in an aircraft which are not agreeable to the owner - even if it is an aerobatic aircraft!

One of the local flying clubs had a 152 Aerobat. It could only be taken solo in the circuit, so they could see that you weren't sneaking out of sight to experiment!

[Pilot DAR]

Hmmm, Anyone know why my original and subsequent posts appear out of chronological order?

[Pilot DAR]

To say that I had done such things, could incite someone else, which I should not do. To say I had not, would be untruthful. I have extensive experience flying Tomahawks and quite like them.

I have never done aerobatics in an aircraft, which the owner had not approved of in advance. I received many hours of competent training in aerobatics in an Aerobat 150, from it's owner. He also demonstrated two very fine rolls to me, while I was a passenger in his C 185 amphibian.

I can say that I do occasionally loop and roll a standard C 150M, which I own, and is equipped with a G meter. I do this to maintain my proficiancy in handling unusual attitudes (necessary skill in my work). I have only once come close to exceeding a limitation (speed) while flying my 150, and I learned from it, and will never again.

During certification flight testing, and in accordance with the flight test plan, I spun a Lake Amphibian, with power. This, done to the right, results in more of a roll, than a spin. Though it worked fine, I consider this to not have an adequate margin of safety, and am unlikely to repeat it.

Competent aerobatic instruction is very worthwhile, and in appropriate aircraft, should be sought out by pilots. Casual/experimental aerobatics, particularly in aircraft for which such maneuvers are prohibited, are very high risk, and very unwise. Attempting to teach one's self aerobatics is very unwise.

With great care, and in accordance with an approved flight test plan, limitations are exceeded during testing, to assure margins of safety for careless pilots:

http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/oo252/PilotDAR/Jims%20DAR%20Testing/172Divetest.jpg

[Tankengine]

Beware: Aerobatics should only be done when both the aircraft and pilot are certified for them!:ugh:

No placard, no "loopies"!! :=

"owners" permission not good enough [as above post demonstrates]

If you ever looked inside the structure of a PA38 you would see that it is NOT an aerobatic design! :rolleyes:

[Pilot DAR]

Backpacker has it right, particularly with respect to the roll, botching that is what's going to put you at extreme risk. Though the required limitations for Utility category do accommodate the basic aerobatic maneuvers when properly executed, some aircraft build up speed faster than others when you point them down.

The problem comes when you treat a "normal" category like a utility. Some of those types build up speed very quickly, and a Tomahawk for sure, when they are pointed down. The roll is extra dangerous this way, because unlike a loop, you are inverted at a much higher speed already, and you're accelerating from there.

A part of the certification is the test pilot's assessment of the margin available for recovery from an upset before you exceed a limitation. The following photo shows the "G" I pulled while recovering test spins in a Cessna Grand Caravan, at gross weight, forward C of G. (Aft C of G spins were very different!). Though the 3.8 G limit for the aircraft was not reached, (I only took it to 2.8 G during the recovery), that 2.8 G was reached at just about Vne, so there was very little left to play with before something was exceeded, and very little time to get it right. Without a G meter, that maneuver would have been extremely dangerous, as most pilots cannot sense G accurately, and blasting right past Vne while trying to not overstress would be the certain outcome. That is why the Caravan, like nearly all normal category aircraft is not spin approved. Not 'cause it won't recover form them, but because there is little margin for error.

This is the reason to not fool around with experimental aerobatics.

http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/oo252/PilotDAR/Jims%20DAR%20Testing/Spintestinginstrumentation.jpg

[Pilot DAR]

Yup PPRuNe is getting things out of order still, and the photo in the wrong size! My second photo (Caravan) was saved to a very small file size before posting, but PPRuNe seems to be remembering the large file size I errantly posted first, and then edited to be smaller...

[treadigraph]

Pilot Dar, there's been a problem with this all over PPRuNe... er, posting sequence issues I mean, not people looping Tomahawks!

[foxmoth]

Hmmm, Anyone know why my original and subsequent posts appear out of chronological order?

Had this myself on another forum, only thing I could think of was that I had earlier posted then deleted that post where my later one appeared.

On the subject of aeros in non cleared aircraft - DONT DO IT when I first learnt to fly I arrived at the club as they were returning from the funeral of a guy who had done aeros in a standard C150 and lost the wings. If you must practice loops and rolls for Unusual Attitudes practice(neither of which actually give you practice in this unless you get it wrong) you really should be doing it in an aeros aircraft.

If you have been put off aeros by a bad manouver come up to Ultimate High and we will be happy to give you a gentle intro and show you SAFELY how much fun they can be.:ok:

[foxmoth]

and when I tried to post this had a message telling me "unable to post as the token has expired" anyone know what THAT is about?

[BackPacker]

To add to the above posts:

I think it's possible to aerobat any aircraft that has a "U" category certification, since the majority of aerobatics maneuvers, up to standard level, can be done between -1 and +4G, with speeds well below Va.

HOWEVER

Sooner or later you will botch a maneuver and you will need to exceed "U" category limitations (either G-load, or speed), to recover. And then you'll find yourself with no safety margin whatsoever ("U" category limits, from memory, is 4.4G) and no G-meter to find out how close to the limit you actually are.

The most insidious of these is actually the barrel roll. A proper one can be executed with less than 2G and no height loss but if you don't balance roll and pitch against each other properly, you may find yourself inverted, nose down and building speed fast. In that situation it's very easy to exceed both speed and G limits simultaneously. Not to mention the 1000 feet or so you may need to recover.

So once again: Only perform aeros in an aircraft that's cleared for aeros, and fly the maneuvers according to the POH (particularly entry speeds). If you have no experience, get proper instruction.

[rogcal]

In the film Iron Eagle a Tomahawk was shown rolling.

Piper Tomahawk Barrel Roll (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=381018339419395735).

Never fancied it myself when I owned my Tommy and watching the fin move significantly during a spin was enough for me!

[Captain Smithy]

Interesting topic, the one that always comes to mind is Tex Whatshisface barrelling the 707 prototype. Fascinating but not for the average pilot to attempt. Also more than a little illegal.

The Tommys I fly have a big red placard in clear view stating "ALL AEROBATIC MANOEVERS STRICTLY PROHIBITED". Fair enough, I can take a hint when I'm given one... :uhoh:

Smithy

[Human Factor]

Once you've looped it, would you mind posting the registration so the rest of us can avoid that particular machine. Thanks in advance.

:E

[FlyingKiwi_73]

Ok i knew this may have incited a few responses like this, i was not trolling at all!

The Tommie is not placarded for anything other than flaps up spins, hence my question.

I would never-ever-ever perform any aerobatic maneuver in an aircraft unless it was in the right category and i had been instructed thoroughly in the maneuver.

I have chandelled and looped gliders before and i'm aware of what can go wrong with the maneuvers, i imagine the energy which could build up in a powered aircraft would be substantial enough to be structurally unwise :-)

I have flown the tommie as my primary aircraft in training and after my PPL and i know how quickly it can pick up speed!

Sincerely chaps i was not seeking advice for sneaky loops in a club aircraft

As usual some very helpful and informative replies- and if you watch that Iron Eagle Vid you'll see the tommie nearly falls out of the sky at the bottom of the roll!

[Big Pistons Forever]

Ok i knew this may have incited a few responses like this, i was not trolling at all!

The Tommie is not placarded for anything other than flaps up spins, hence my question.

I would never-ever-ever perform any aerobatic maneuver in an aircraft unless it was in the right category and i had been instructed thoroughly in the maneuver.

I have chandelled and looped gliders before and i'm aware of what can go wrong with the maneuvers, i imagine the energy which could build up in a powered aircraft would be substantial enough to be structurally unwise :-)

I have flown the tommie as my primary aircraft in training and after my PPL and i know how quickly it can pick up speed!

Sincerely chaps i was not seeking advice for sneaky loops in a club aircraft

As usual some very helpful and informative replies- and if you watch that Iron Eagle Vid you'll see the tommie nearly falls out of the sky at the bottom of the roll!

In your original post you are basically asking "was anyone stupid enough to disregard the clearly articulated restrictions in the limitations sections of the POH as well as having so little common sense that they performed an aerobatic manoever in an aircraft that would potentially suffer catastrophic airframe failure if they got it wrong"

Have people done loops and rolls in a Tommie, YES. Did it prove anything other than they were stupid, NO.......so what is the point of the question ?

[mad_jock]

The likely hood is it won't even kill the person that did loop it.

It will be some poor sod in the future that things may fail when they least expect them.

And I am sure someone has looped a tommy and lived to tell the tale

[Roff]

Can it even be done?
I can't understand why you would even ask the question.
Looking on youtube there is nothing so why ask?

Has somebody claimed to of done this???????????????????????
:ugh:

[foxmoth]

Can it even be done?

Yes I am sure it can - but it would not be an aircraft that would be fun to do it in and if you got it wrong the consequences could be fatal so anyone trying it has to have a screw or two loose!

[The Saw]

I rolled one in the early 90's but made it barrelly to avoid any negative g - not recommended as the T tail makes for difficult recovery from any problems plus its a bit fragile back there. Are there any left will be the next question as they're all time lifed if I remember correctly

[foxmoth]

With the ailerons on the Tommy I think rolling it is definitely not a manouvre I would want to try :eek:

[fireflybob]

There was a case in the UK many years ago where a private owner had a reputation for looping his own Piper Navajo.

Sadly he perished when both engines detached from the airframe at some stage on the way round a loop. I recall the engines were separate from wreckage of the rest of the aircraft. The AIB were able to compute the amount of "G" that was pulled which was well beyond the normal limits.

Piper Navajo break up in flight (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/7-1981%20G-LCCO.pdf)

NEVER do aerobatics in an aircraft which is not approved to do such maneuvers.

[B2N2]

Rolling a Pa38........:ouch:

THE ACFT WAS OBSERVED TO ENTER A SPIN FROM APRX 3000 FT AGL. THE ACFT CONTINUED THE SPIN TO GROUND CONTACT WHICH WITNESSES STATED OCCURRED AS THE ACFT SEEMED TO LEVEL OFF. WITNESSES ALSO REPORTED SEEING THE ACFT PERFORM AEROBATICS, WHICH INCLUDED LOOPS, PRIOR TO THE ACCIDENT

ASN Aircraft accident 05-MAY-1985 Piper PA-38-112 N2475L (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=39571)

[Pilot DAR]

owner had a reputation for looping his own Piper Navajo

Indeed, casual aerobatics in aircraft clearly not intended for aerobatic flight is very foolish. The lesson obviously is just don't.

In the case of the Navajo (and I know nothing of this event, other than the referenced report) though I agree that it would appear obvious that the aircraft was dramatically oversped, It is much more likely that this was a result of a botched roll than loop. (And this is intended as the warning part of the message here).

A botched roll or wingover is the fastest way to get in trouble with an aircraft which will build up speed quickly, and this would seem to prove that. A loop is a bit of a different maneuver, and actually a bit more resistant to overspeeding, but also not appropriate in a Navajo (if even possible).

It is a mixed blessing to our industry that amazingly skilled pilots like Bob Hoover demonstrate aerobatics in non aerobatic types. It's great to see the skill, but it creates an "I can do that too" attitude, which is very likely unfounded for everyone else.

There are a very few special pilots, who can achieve these maneuvers with a margin of safety and thus success. Everyone else should not try!

[A and C]

I agree with DAR A badly flown Barrel roll is a killer in terms of overspeed and altitude loss, one only has to look at the list of airshow crashes that have been a result of mishandeled rolls.

[treadigraph]

In the case of the Navajo, it was a company pilot who crashed the aeroplane rather than the owner (Colin Chapman/Lotus Cars).

Had he got away with it, another poor sod flying it with passengers might have discovered the hard way that it had been overstressed.

[Pilot DAR]

discovered the hard way that it had been overstressed.

Though "overstressed" could lead to structural failure, it is more likely to do so right away, not later on. It is certainly possible for an aircraft to be overstressed, damaged, and land safely. If this were the case, a maintenance inspection would turn this up right away. I recall the report saying that that Navajo had just come from maintenance. If so, I would expect any wrinkles would have been noticed.

On the other hand, fatigue will crete a risk of structural failure from very difficult to see damage. Fatigue, however, is not the product of a few irresponsible unusual maneuvers, it is the product of prolonged flight in rough conditions, which is very likely over the life of an aircraft which has been flown completely within it's "normal" flight regime.

I think it much more likely that irresponsible pilots crash aircraft from poorly executed aerobatics, than suffer a structural failure as a result of some other pilot's poorly executed maneuvers.

Once you've looped it, would you mind posting the registration so the rest of us can avoid that particular machine. Thanks in advance.

If, during a walk around, you see a wrinkle, or other defect, it's up to you to get an inspection done before you fly it - might be nothing, might be something. For semi monocoque aluminum GA aircraft, if it has no wrinkles, unlikely it's been damaged during unusual maneuvering, so as long as you don't. you're fine. On a walk around, the only evidence of fatigue which you might see would be a crack in structure (obviously warrants inspection!), but there's lots of structure you'll never be able to see which could have that crack.

So if you're intent on leaving the plane in top shape for the next occupants, certainly don't aerobat it, but equally important, minimize it's exposure to low level turbulence too! That's the more insidious risk over the very long term of normal operations.....

[n5296s]

I'm certainly not going to disagree with PilotDAR, who knows far more about these things than I ever will, but I will throw into the discussion an anecdote I heard. There was a certain Pitts pilot who regularly used to take his plane to 9G - the Pitts is rated for 6G which means that nothing important will fall off up to 9G, but you may do damage anyway (the 1.5 over-G tolerance is true for any certificated type, in the US anyway). The people who used to do his annuals said they would regularly find damaged ribs and so on.

And of course one day something important DID come off, and that was the end of him.