Aerobatics in non aero aircraft.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: sydney
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I once saw the late Blackjack Walker barrel roll a Bonanza at an airshow at Moruya, the late sixties if I remember correctly,
Bart
Bart
Last edited by Bart Ifonly; 16th May 2003 at 12:19.
I've been following this thread for some time, aerobatics being my favourite subject. There are really two separate subjects here.
1. Aerobatics for special purposes, pretty much following the book and adhering to appropriate aircraft limitations.
eg
when Stuart Pearce looped and rolled the Nomad at Paris and other airshows in the '70's the aeroplane was in utility category and those manoeuvres were approved.
Neville Duke more recently at Farnborough in the Optica.
2. Aerobatics by cowboys with little regard for airframe limitations, effect on fatigue life and safety of passengers. Hearing about Skytoad roll a 172 recently didn't impress me - I advised the witness to tell the operator but I've heard no more.
1. Aerobatics for special purposes, pretty much following the book and adhering to appropriate aircraft limitations.
eg
when Stuart Pearce looped and rolled the Nomad at Paris and other airshows in the '70's the aeroplane was in utility category and those manoeuvres were approved.
Neville Duke more recently at Farnborough in the Optica.
2. Aerobatics by cowboys with little regard for airframe limitations, effect on fatigue life and safety of passengers. Hearing about Skytoad roll a 172 recently didn't impress me - I advised the witness to tell the operator but I've heard no more.
I once saw the late Blackjack Walker barrel roll a Bonanza at an airshow at Moruya, the late sixties if I remember correctly,
Bob Hoover
From AOPA Conference with Bob Hoover
There is another interview with BH on the net where he states that his routine started out with fewer than 3 G's and now its back to about 2 G's. He also advised that people do not try to replicate his aerobatic displays in non aerobatic aircraft For the record a Shrike has a Max positive load factor of 4.4G. Two full length wing spars help this.
As for VH-UJM serial # 3117 used in the displays, apparently BH owned that very aircraft in the US years ago before its export. I thoroughly enjoyed flying that a/c (amongst others).
I can't answer the question reference the unfeathering accumulators, but ring GAM in Melbourne - they will be able to answer your question.
CS
I developed the routine I'm doing with the Shrike with the P38. When Rockwell and North American merged, I was invited back to see if I could do something to give people confidence in the Commander....
if I could do that, it would help sales. Sales went from one a month to eight a month as a result of that demonstration.
if I could do that, it would help sales. Sales went from one a month to eight a month as a result of that demonstration.
There is another interview with BH on the net where he states that his routine started out with fewer than 3 G's and now its back to about 2 G's. He also advised that people do not try to replicate his aerobatic displays in non aerobatic aircraft For the record a Shrike has a Max positive load factor of 4.4G. Two full length wing spars help this.
As for VH-UJM serial # 3117 used in the displays, apparently BH owned that very aircraft in the US years ago before its export. I thoroughly enjoyed flying that a/c (amongst others).
I can't answer the question reference the unfeathering accumulators, but ring GAM in Melbourne - they will be able to answer your question.
CS
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: QLD, Australia
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WAKE UP FOOLS
A very good friend of mine who used to own a C-206, had the elevator trim tab break loose from the elevator whilst on a descent at 140 kts. Apparently unheard of at the time. This caused the elevator to oscillate up and down at full control deflection at a high frequency (imagine the G's). The pilot (of average male strength) was not able to physically control it, until the aircraft slowed down after he pulled out the throttle. The aircraft landed safely and was grounded pending a die test of all structural components, not fool proof of course, and $25,000 later it was back in the air.
Now the other pilot who flew the aircraft was aerobatic endorsed (and had done some competition flying), and it was rumoured that he was doing a bit in the said 206, and that was before the accident. All rumours of course and almost impossible to prove. But if true somebody else was almost killed by somebody doing aeros in the wrong aircraft.
It doesn't take much to stuff them up and over stress the aircraft. Doing aeros in a non rated aircraft should be a criminal offence with a jail term, that is how serious it is. When ever I hear of pilots doing this type of sh1t, I dob them in to who ever will listen.
Now the other pilot who flew the aircraft was aerobatic endorsed (and had done some competition flying), and it was rumoured that he was doing a bit in the said 206, and that was before the accident. All rumours of course and almost impossible to prove. But if true somebody else was almost killed by somebody doing aeros in the wrong aircraft.
It doesn't take much to stuff them up and over stress the aircraft. Doing aeros in a non rated aircraft should be a criminal offence with a jail term, that is how serious it is. When ever I hear of pilots doing this type of sh1t, I dob them in to who ever will listen.
Well said Spinnerhead!
And while you're at it do you also dob in pilots who enter turbulence past the recommended Va? Or others who set recommended power settings without regard to engine instruments indicating overtemp? If you don't, perhaps you should consider it, because these things have the potential to cause as much damage as well.
The fact is that there are a lot of silly things done by pilots and even engineers (the spanner turning types) mostly out of ignorance.
Personally, I don't believe one should perform aero's in a non aerobatic aircraft either. However, I am sure we're both also mature enough to accept that it can be done quite safely by a competent individual.
I don't think that the hell and damnation approach is really the best way to stop people from doing it, however, I would also admit that some people should never be put in command of any machine more complicated than a tricycle.
Depends on the individual really.
And while you're at it do you also dob in pilots who enter turbulence past the recommended Va? Or others who set recommended power settings without regard to engine instruments indicating overtemp? If you don't, perhaps you should consider it, because these things have the potential to cause as much damage as well.
The fact is that there are a lot of silly things done by pilots and even engineers (the spanner turning types) mostly out of ignorance.
Personally, I don't believe one should perform aero's in a non aerobatic aircraft either. However, I am sure we're both also mature enough to accept that it can be done quite safely by a competent individual.
I don't think that the hell and damnation approach is really the best way to stop people from doing it, however, I would also admit that some people should never be put in command of any machine more complicated than a tricycle.
Depends on the individual really.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: CB, Aust.
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please desist
I fear that even the discussion on this thread will have the effect of encouraging pilots to try these illegal acts.
The aircraft flight manual (or these days POH) tells you what manoeuvers are permitted or forbidden. Stick to it.
Has anyone stopped to think about how the maintenance regime is designed on an aircraft? Just because an airframe has a design ultimate load of 'x' does not mean that you can fly to 'x' on an regular basis without wearing something out. The servicing schedule accounts for the types of flight operation which is 'normal' for that type of aircraft. By conducting aeros in a non aerobatic aircraft you are voiding the protection afforded by the maintenance schedule.
I cannot imagine that an aeros trained pilot would be foolish enough to conduct aeros in a non aero aircraft so shall address this to non rated pilots.
If you want to try aeros, hire an aerobatic aircraft and a properly endorsed instructor and do it in a professional manner.
Have some regard to what is covered before aerobatics endorsements are granted and think about why it is covered. Do you know how to instinctively recover from a UA? A real one not the wimpy ones you may do on your Command Instrument Rating. Do you know how to recover that aircraft from an incipient spin? developed spin? inverted spin? Indeed, is it possible to recover your aircraft type from one? What is the Va for the aircraft? What does it mean? What is 'g' stalling? What visibility would you have to see the nearest horizon? At what IAS will the engine reach its rev limit for a given throttle position?
Do you know how your seat is held in position? What happens to the stresses on the locking mechanism as you roll the seat on its side? What happens to your seat belt if you put a negative g pull on it. Without a four or five point harness how much will you slide sideways out of the seat? Will the doors stay locked? What about all the seat cushions, tie down chocks, control locks and fuel drains falling about the cockpit and cargo area? Will they jam the controls or the control cables, smash the perspex windows? Will oil come out the vent all over the windscreen? Will fuel slosh away from the inlets? What is the stick force per 'g' and displacement required in the different situations? Oh, and rolling 'g' is not just a theory it is a fact, as is turbulence gust factors.
Think about it and then decide NO NO NO!
Regards,
P.S. Do you know how many people have died doing unauthorised aeros? Do you really want to be amongst them?
The aircraft flight manual (or these days POH) tells you what manoeuvers are permitted or forbidden. Stick to it.
Has anyone stopped to think about how the maintenance regime is designed on an aircraft? Just because an airframe has a design ultimate load of 'x' does not mean that you can fly to 'x' on an regular basis without wearing something out. The servicing schedule accounts for the types of flight operation which is 'normal' for that type of aircraft. By conducting aeros in a non aerobatic aircraft you are voiding the protection afforded by the maintenance schedule.
I cannot imagine that an aeros trained pilot would be foolish enough to conduct aeros in a non aero aircraft so shall address this to non rated pilots.
If you want to try aeros, hire an aerobatic aircraft and a properly endorsed instructor and do it in a professional manner.
Have some regard to what is covered before aerobatics endorsements are granted and think about why it is covered. Do you know how to instinctively recover from a UA? A real one not the wimpy ones you may do on your Command Instrument Rating. Do you know how to recover that aircraft from an incipient spin? developed spin? inverted spin? Indeed, is it possible to recover your aircraft type from one? What is the Va for the aircraft? What does it mean? What is 'g' stalling? What visibility would you have to see the nearest horizon? At what IAS will the engine reach its rev limit for a given throttle position?
Do you know how your seat is held in position? What happens to the stresses on the locking mechanism as you roll the seat on its side? What happens to your seat belt if you put a negative g pull on it. Without a four or five point harness how much will you slide sideways out of the seat? Will the doors stay locked? What about all the seat cushions, tie down chocks, control locks and fuel drains falling about the cockpit and cargo area? Will they jam the controls or the control cables, smash the perspex windows? Will oil come out the vent all over the windscreen? Will fuel slosh away from the inlets? What is the stick force per 'g' and displacement required in the different situations? Oh, and rolling 'g' is not just a theory it is a fact, as is turbulence gust factors.
Think about it and then decide NO NO NO!
Regards,
P.S. Do you know how many people have died doing unauthorised aeros? Do you really want to be amongst them?
All,
The thought comes to mind:
"There are old pilots and bold pilots, there are no old bold pilots"
And for a piece of enlightenment, the 500 series Aero Commanders ( at least) were originally certified in the utility category, but that changed with an AD, due to a little matter of wings parting company with the aeroplane, ( as the FAA so succinctly puts it: Leading to loss of control of the aircraft) roughly because of spar fatigue problems.
Tootle pip!!!
The thought comes to mind:
"There are old pilots and bold pilots, there are no old bold pilots"
And for a piece of enlightenment, the 500 series Aero Commanders ( at least) were originally certified in the utility category, but that changed with an AD, due to a little matter of wings parting company with the aeroplane, ( as the FAA so succinctly puts it: Leading to loss of control of the aircraft) roughly because of spar fatigue problems.
Tootle pip!!!
