Inverted roll with C-172????
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
From: Nottingham
8.3G Terrible
That video's awful, luckilly I'm at work and haven't watched with the sound on, just the images made my stomach turn!
A chilling lesson to those who push beyond their own and their aircrafts limits!
Spru!
A chilling lesson to those who push beyond their own and their aircrafts limits!
Spru!
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
From: The Front of Beyond
Backpacker wrote:
In fact, at our club the barrel roll is considered an advanced aerobatic manoeuvre and is not taught in the basic aerobatics course.
In fact, at our club the barrel roll is considered an advanced aerobatic manoeuvre and is not taught in the basic aerobatics course.
There was a similar thread on the Flyer forums a week or two ago about aerobatting a PA-28, with similar conclusions: DON'T DO IT
Brooklands
Joined: Aug 2002
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 1,033
Likes: 0
From: South of France
<Indeed. In an article in Flyer magazine a few months ago Brain Lecomber described it an exceedingly dangerous manoeuver - its killed a few very experienced pilots>
He was right...for the sort of people he mixed with. They were the types who'd consider 50ft a touch high for entry....
He was right...for the sort of people he mixed with. They were the types who'd consider 50ft a touch high for entry....
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
From: Pittsburgh, PA
It's enough to put you off ever using a club aircraft again, as you never know what the person before you did in it 
And if looking to puchase an aircraft, how can you check if the airframe has been overstressed previously? (or for an aircraft approved for such manouvers is still within its limits?) Is something that would be picked up when checked by an engineer?
And if looking to puchase an aircraft, how can you check if the airframe has been overstressed previously? (or for an aircraft approved for such manouvers is still within its limits?) Is something that would be picked up when checked by an engineer?
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
From: He's on the limb to nowhere
Airframe failures are very uncommon. Most always due to pilot error of the pilot flying the thing at the time. Big problems are flight into thunderstorms, and inadvertent flight into IMC -> spiral dive -> Vne. Also flying into the ground due to dumb manouvers at 50ft. I cannot see any evidence that the pilot before you stressing the airframe is much to worry about, I'd be more worried about me doing something stupid.
I wouldn't have the nerve to roll a C172. The roll rate is atrocious, expecially once you have rolled something a little sexier, and the sexy beasts aren't much more expensive to fly anyway. Some of them are even cheaper
I wouldn't have the nerve to roll a C172. The roll rate is atrocious, expecially once you have rolled something a little sexier, and the sexy beasts aren't much more expensive to fly anyway. Some of them are even cheaper
Fleet Manager
Joined: Aug 2006
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 7,090
Likes: 2,952
From: Ontario, Canada
Yes, I concede that an 8 point roll might not be perfect if the maps on the back seat did not move, but the ease and grace of the maneuver was so gentle and smooth that it seemed very pleasing to me.
As for the lists of registrations, do you really do feel that your privilege to know outweighs the privacy of the respective aircraft owners?
Were I to consider issuing such a list however, for it to have the value you apparently seek, I would also have to include all of the aircraft which I am aware have encountered severe turbulence, rough runways, prolonged pounding on the water as a float plane, abusive landings as flight trainers, mismanaged unusual attitude training recoveries, prolonged low level flights as a patrol or sightseeing aircraft, and on and on…. I can assert that a well flown roll is much less strenuous on the airframe than a lot of the aforementioned, and probably happens much less frequently!
Skillful flying of aircraft within their operating limitations is not damaging to aircraft, either immediately, or in the long term. That’s why the limitations are there! I know of light aircraft with total times nearing 20,000 hours, still in service, and they still conform to their design standards, or how do they continue to pass inspections?
This thread reminds me of a previous one in which contributors asserted the dangers of zero G flight in a Piper Cherokee. And by the way, maintaining maneuvering speed or less during maneuvering only protects the aircraft from damage in the pitch axis, not roll and yaw.
A Cessna 172, can be easily rolled by a skilled pilot, well within it’s structural limitations. An untrained pilot would very likely risk both his, and the aircraft’s safety attempting such a maneuver, and should not do so at all.
Pilot DAR
As for the lists of registrations, do you really do feel that your privilege to know outweighs the privacy of the respective aircraft owners?
Were I to consider issuing such a list however, for it to have the value you apparently seek, I would also have to include all of the aircraft which I am aware have encountered severe turbulence, rough runways, prolonged pounding on the water as a float plane, abusive landings as flight trainers, mismanaged unusual attitude training recoveries, prolonged low level flights as a patrol or sightseeing aircraft, and on and on…. I can assert that a well flown roll is much less strenuous on the airframe than a lot of the aforementioned, and probably happens much less frequently!
Skillful flying of aircraft within their operating limitations is not damaging to aircraft, either immediately, or in the long term. That’s why the limitations are there! I know of light aircraft with total times nearing 20,000 hours, still in service, and they still conform to their design standards, or how do they continue to pass inspections?
This thread reminds me of a previous one in which contributors asserted the dangers of zero G flight in a Piper Cherokee. And by the way, maintaining maneuvering speed or less during maneuvering only protects the aircraft from damage in the pitch axis, not roll and yaw.
A Cessna 172, can be easily rolled by a skilled pilot, well within it’s structural limitations. An untrained pilot would very likely risk both his, and the aircraft’s safety attempting such a maneuver, and should not do so at all.
Pilot DAR
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,818
Likes: 64
From: these mist covered mountains are a home now for me.
Slim-slag says "I cannot see any evidence that the pilot before you stressing the airframe is much to worry about, I'd be more worried about me doing something stupid."
May I suggest that you talk to an aeronautical engineer, particularly in regards to micro-fails etc (basically every successive G loading produces tiny failings in metal, on a logarythmic scale). Pull twice the G allowed, and you will easily expend ten times the amount that should have been. Wing spars and other rather important pieces of metal do have a finite fatigue life. Rolling G-forces - where the upgoing wing is pulling even more G than you are, also accentuates the problem.
Consequently, the wing might just stay attached during your last stupid Superman manouvre, only to be destroyed next time an innocent pilot pulls into a 45 degree turn, or hits moderate turbulence.
Bottom line is simple - Dont do it in a non-aerobatic aircraft.
May I suggest that you talk to an aeronautical engineer, particularly in regards to micro-fails etc (basically every successive G loading produces tiny failings in metal, on a logarythmic scale). Pull twice the G allowed, and you will easily expend ten times the amount that should have been. Wing spars and other rather important pieces of metal do have a finite fatigue life. Rolling G-forces - where the upgoing wing is pulling even more G than you are, also accentuates the problem.
Consequently, the wing might just stay attached during your last stupid Superman manouvre, only to be destroyed next time an innocent pilot pulls into a 45 degree turn, or hits moderate turbulence.
Bottom line is simple - Dont do it in a non-aerobatic aircraft.
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
From: He's on the limb to nowhere
How many light aircraft have had airframe failures when an "innocent pilot pulls into a 45 degree turn, or hits moderate turbulence"?
Inexperienced people are getting all worried about renting airplanes and what I said was addressed to them. I didn't say it cannot happen, I said I think there are far more important things to worry about.
Inexperienced people are getting all worried about renting airplanes and what I said was addressed to them. I didn't say it cannot happen, I said I think there are far more important things to worry about.
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,818
Likes: 64
From: these mist covered mountains are a home now for me.
I dunno - but I reckon that one is too many.
More important than the wings clapping? I doubt it very much.
I can handle most emergencies and failures - in fact have so far - but falling to earth like a broken dart is something well beyond my pilot capabilities to fix.
More important than the wings clapping? I doubt it very much.
I can handle most emergencies and failures - in fact have so far - but falling to earth like a broken dart is something well beyond my pilot capabilities to fix.
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
From: He's on the limb to nowhere
Every time you get into a light aircraft you trust people you have never met before. If you are going to worry about what happened last month you should stay on the ground. All you can do is your best. Also, I think one is not too many, there will always be deaths when people do things slightly interesting.
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,818
Likes: 64
From: these mist covered mountains are a home now for me.
Not to get into a debate about it, but that's not exactly my point. I'm more concerned with people glamorising it, saying it's a non-event piece of doddle to do, and even talking about their techniques.
It will kill entice somebody, and will kill them one day. Which one of your family (except perhaps for an ex-missus or mother-in-law) would you not be worried about if they were killed in such a way? No answer required - just making a point.
It will kill entice somebody, and will kill them one day. Which one of your family (except perhaps for an ex-missus or mother-in-law) would you not be worried about if they were killed in such a way? No answer required - just making a point.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
From: Amsterdam
Airframe overstress may not give any signs that would be picked up on a simple visual inspection. One reason why pilots need to report events that may have led to an overstress.
On our aerobatic R2160 we perform one additional check. Squat down about two meters behind the aircraft, exactly on the centerline. Look at the place where the top line of the elevator intersects the wings. This should be completely symmetrical. If it's not, somebody bent the plane, typically through torsional loads due to side loads on the rudder (eg. flick roll at too high a speed) or through the wing root bending effect: rolling while pulling serious g's, which increases the g loading of the wing going up, but is not reflected on the g meter in the panel.
I don't know of any other checks that you can use to visually check for overstress. It's very insiduous, as mentioned before.
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
From: Massachusetts Bay Colony
What I find most interesting in these posts (and you can find this same topic discussed ad naseum on an innumerable number of other threads) is that genuine aerobatic pilots don't ever brag about doing aerobatics in non-aerobatic airoplanes. They know the issues involved and they know what they should/can do in different types of aircraft. I take that to mean the people that actually know what they're talking about are not doing it. That ought to be reason enough for anyone else to do the same.
I always question the judgement of non-aerobatic pilots who claim you can do this or that in a C172 or PA-28. I think it's mostly ignorance and bravado talking and I'll leave it at that.
Pitts2112
I always question the judgement of non-aerobatic pilots who claim you can do this or that in a C172 or PA-28. I think it's mostly ignorance and bravado talking and I'll leave it at that.
Pitts2112
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
From: Norfolk
I'm v much with 2112.
I've been aerobatting Curtis Pitts' designs since '94. I've continually owned one since '99. I've competed and won medals. I display (legally).
In '07, I eventually got around to learning how to barrell-roll. This really is a figure fraught with danger. Go figure.
G-EMMA, pls don't abandon Pprune because of some of the ill-educated self-opinionated arses on here. You'll find that most of us post less with "hours on Pprune".
It doesn't take too long to work out who is not worth reading.
KZ8 - infrequently posts. One of the most qualified aeronautical engineers in the UK - his advice is priceless.
Stik
I've been aerobatting Curtis Pitts' designs since '94. I've continually owned one since '99. I've competed and won medals. I display (legally).
In '07, I eventually got around to learning how to barrell-roll. This really is a figure fraught with danger. Go figure.
G-EMMA, pls don't abandon Pprune because of some of the ill-educated self-opinionated arses on here. You'll find that most of us post less with "hours on Pprune".
It doesn't take too long to work out who is not worth reading.
KZ8 - infrequently posts. One of the most qualified aeronautical engineers in the UK - his advice is priceless.
Stik