Inverted roll with C-172????
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't go Emma, we need someone to help shoot daft ideas down in flames!!
Again, I can't believe this has come up again and that some people think it is acceptable to do things that are not prescribed in the POH.
Anyone who thinks of aerobatting an non aerobatic tourer like a 172 is an idiot. Plain and simple.
You are a fool who will either kill yourself (no great loss) or someone else who is unlucky enough to fly the machine after you.
As I've said before, if I caught a member at one of our clubs doing this, then they'd be booted out faster than you cn imagine. I would also follow this up by calling all the other local schools and clubs and explaining that they really don't want this person in their membership.
That isn't an over-reaction as I believe anyone who does this sort of thing hasn't got the common sense required to keep themselves and their passengers alive for long.
It aint big, clever or impressive. If you want to turn an aircraft upside down, go and fly something suitable. It's not difficult to find a machine to do it in.
Again, I can't believe this has come up again and that some people think it is acceptable to do things that are not prescribed in the POH.
Anyone who thinks of aerobatting an non aerobatic tourer like a 172 is an idiot. Plain and simple.
You are a fool who will either kill yourself (no great loss) or someone else who is unlucky enough to fly the machine after you.
As I've said before, if I caught a member at one of our clubs doing this, then they'd be booted out faster than you cn imagine. I would also follow this up by calling all the other local schools and clubs and explaining that they really don't want this person in their membership.
That isn't an over-reaction as I believe anyone who does this sort of thing hasn't got the common sense required to keep themselves and their passengers alive for long.
It aint big, clever or impressive. If you want to turn an aircraft upside down, go and fly something suitable. It's not difficult to find a machine to do it in.
Moderator
An over stressed airframe has the potential to be unsafe (though Cessnas in particular seem extra safe it this respect). Skillfully executed maneuvers, which might include aerobatics, can be conducted well within the stated stress limits.
Stress not exceeded, so strain not exceeded, and no fatigue cycle life limits (on a 172 anyway), means no harm done, no matter how many times done, means fly with confidence.
I have had inflight structural failures in aircraft, but they were most certanly not the type caused by previous pilot inflight operating techniques.
I fly with confidence, and I would (and have) willingly fly a previously rolled 172, if the pilot who rolled it left it for me to fly. I've flown much worse!
Pilot DAR
Stress not exceeded, so strain not exceeded, and no fatigue cycle life limits (on a 172 anyway), means no harm done, no matter how many times done, means fly with confidence.
I have had inflight structural failures in aircraft, but they were most certanly not the type caused by previous pilot inflight operating techniques.
I fly with confidence, and I would (and have) willingly fly a previously rolled 172, if the pilot who rolled it left it for me to fly. I've flown much worse!
Pilot DAR
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No it doesn't.
I would suspect that anyone stupid enough to do these sort of manouevers in a 172 isn't an experienced aero's pilot.
So the likelihood of a stuff up is that much greater. If you are stupid enough to do it then you are unlikely to have the brains to have had proper training.
The next step in the argument will be something like "Bob Hoover does it blah blah blah..." the difference being that Bob Hoover is one of the most skillful and experienced pilots to have ever flown and he understands it fully and cut his teeth on aerobatic machines. I reckon he might think an inexperienced showoff PPL would be a d*ck for trying it.
Whilst the 172 aerobatting idiot might like to think he has Bob's skill, I'll tell you right now that he doesn't.
It's funny, but as 2112 has already mentioned, of all the posters here, all of those with good aero's experience such as Stik and Edd who probably could be trusted to pull off a safe manouevre in a 172, have said what an stupid idea it is.
That for me sums up the argument. Just don't do it and if you suspect it has been done, then ground the aircraft until it is properly inspected. The lives you save could be your own and your family's.
It just isn't worth it.
I would suspect that anyone stupid enough to do these sort of manouevers in a 172 isn't an experienced aero's pilot.
So the likelihood of a stuff up is that much greater. If you are stupid enough to do it then you are unlikely to have the brains to have had proper training.
The next step in the argument will be something like "Bob Hoover does it blah blah blah..." the difference being that Bob Hoover is one of the most skillful and experienced pilots to have ever flown and he understands it fully and cut his teeth on aerobatic machines. I reckon he might think an inexperienced showoff PPL would be a d*ck for trying it.
Whilst the 172 aerobatting idiot might like to think he has Bob's skill, I'll tell you right now that he doesn't.
It's funny, but as 2112 has already mentioned, of all the posters here, all of those with good aero's experience such as Stik and Edd who probably could be trusted to pull off a safe manouevre in a 172, have said what an stupid idea it is.
That for me sums up the argument. Just don't do it and if you suspect it has been done, then ground the aircraft until it is properly inspected. The lives you save could be your own and your family's.
It just isn't worth it.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeeze you guys just crack me up. Slim Slag - airframe failure is rare?
What I said was that it is very uncommon, and that you have more important things to worry about. I stand by that. The figures back me up.
In 2003, in the GA fleet, there were 16 fatal accidents in the US where the first thing to go wrong was identified as the airframe. Thats out of a total of 352 fatal accidents, or less than 5%. Approx 26 million hours were said to have been flown that year, with 1.34 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours. 5% were airframe, that means an airframe failed and caused a fatal accident on average approximately every 1,500,000 hours.
To me, that is very uncommon. And yes, you do have more important things to worry about. I suspect that the UK figures would be similar, though I suspect the sample size is smaller so might not be as valid.
Ah fair enough slim-slag, you've completely changed my mind.
Send your sister around tomorrow, and I'll take her up for some loops and flick rolls in my Piper Cub. Probably nothing will go wrong, and you can sleep well knowing that you are indeed wise.
Stick, I was just being sarcastic...you know that right?
Send your sister around tomorrow, and I'll take her up for some loops and flick rolls in my Piper Cub. Probably nothing will go wrong, and you can sleep well knowing that you are indeed wise.
Stick, I was just being sarcastic...you know that right?
Last edited by Runaway Gun; 27th Sep 2007 at 23:16. Reason: Just in case some thought I supported this lunacy....
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS,
I fear that you are wasting your breath, slim_slag, pilok-DOAH are just too good for us. I'm happy to fly with 2112 a foot away from my wingtip. (We have photos from August, I believe). I'm sure after a brief, coffee and 14 doughnuts Ed would be just as comfy there, too.
I shan't post again on this subject, my parting words (in simple Merikun) : if it ain't cleared and you ain't trained - don't do it. You might kill somebody else.
Fekwits
Stik
editted cos the other guy phoned me to say he was being sarcastic and my sister is too ugly to have sent 'round.
I fear that you are wasting your breath, slim_slag, pilok-DOAH are just too good for us. I'm happy to fly with 2112 a foot away from my wingtip. (We have photos from August, I believe). I'm sure after a brief, coffee and 14 doughnuts Ed would be just as comfy there, too.
I shan't post again on this subject, my parting words (in simple Merikun) : if it ain't cleared and you ain't trained - don't do it. You might kill somebody else.
Fekwits
Stik
editted cos the other guy phoned me to say he was being sarcastic and my sister is too ugly to have sent 'round.
Last edited by stiknruda; 27th Sep 2007 at 23:31.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, if I'm going to be called a fekwit for simply pointing out that airframe failures are v uncommon (and having the temerity to back my claim up with real figures) I may as well throw my toys out of the pram like the rest of them and refuse to post any more either. lol
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airframe failures may not happen everyday, but they do happen.
Why knowingly increase the chances of it happening? How much of a plonker do you have to be to push 20,000 hour airframe that may have a dubious history.
The basic principles of airmanship dictate that actions like this are stupid. It doesn't matter if only one accident or death could be attributed to overstressing an airframe. It is still too many.
However, I suspect the numbers are a lot higher than just 1.
Stik, you are probably right, but I'll bang on until some sense prevails. I haven't got a lot else to do at the moment since I can't fly!
Why knowingly increase the chances of it happening? How much of a plonker do you have to be to push 20,000 hour airframe that may have a dubious history.
The basic principles of airmanship dictate that actions like this are stupid. It doesn't matter if only one accident or death could be attributed to overstressing an airframe. It is still too many.
However, I suspect the numbers are a lot higher than just 1.
Stik, you are probably right, but I'll bang on until some sense prevails. I haven't got a lot else to do at the moment since I can't fly!
Guest
Posts: n/a
G-EMMA, Stik & SAS
I think you are being a little unfair on Slag (who is normally an opponent of mine in some interesting debates.)
He isn't condoning rolls in Cessnas nor recommending them, but only pointing out that in flight break ups are a low probability for accidents and not perhaps the foremost thing to worry about when renting an aircraft.
And I agree with him.
However, some of the other posts on this thread, amongst them a number by someone who probably also likes to hunt grizzlies with a hand gun have truly amazed me.
Unlike Ed Harding, Stik and Pitts 2112, I don't fly aeros.
But I read what these guys write and respect their skills/views and all of them are saying that it is not wise to perform aerobatic manouevres in an aircraft not cleared for these.
Despite Slim Slag's stats based conclusion, it is simply unconscionable to perform unauthorised manouevres, even in one's own aircraft, since the resulting aerial junk make take out some non consenting adult on the ground on the way down.
I think you are being a little unfair on Slag (who is normally an opponent of mine in some interesting debates.)
He isn't condoning rolls in Cessnas nor recommending them, but only pointing out that in flight break ups are a low probability for accidents and not perhaps the foremost thing to worry about when renting an aircraft.
And I agree with him.
However, some of the other posts on this thread, amongst them a number by someone who probably also likes to hunt grizzlies with a hand gun have truly amazed me.
Unlike Ed Harding, Stik and Pitts 2112, I don't fly aeros.
But I read what these guys write and respect their skills/views and all of them are saying that it is not wise to perform aerobatic manouevres in an aircraft not cleared for these.
Despite Slim Slag's stats based conclusion, it is simply unconscionable to perform unauthorised manouevres, even in one's own aircraft, since the resulting aerial junk make take out some non consenting adult on the ground on the way down.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot DAR stated:
"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?"
You sir are a hypocrite.
You state skillfully flying an aircraft within its operating limitations is not damaging anything. Well I have flown a shed load (hangar load?) of C-172's and I am yet top see one with its POH in the limitations section which says anything other than acrobatics (sic) prohibited. To the way I have been trained this means no aerobatics and yet you say doing aerobatics is within its operating limitations.
I know what you are getting at; you are simply referring to g loadings. Well you say above you won't list tail numbers for privacy reasons and if you did you would have to list all those who have encountered severe turbulence etc. Well it may come as a surprise to you but aircraft are stressed for turbulence, hard landings etc. The designers know that this will happen to the aircraft and as such are designed for it. Take a look at the relevant FAR's and you will see various gust design loads listed.
What the aircraft has not been designed for and tested for is aerobatics. They are prohibited for a reason. You think G loading is the ONLY force an aerobatic aircraft experiences? You REALLY need to go out and get some aerobatic instruction in an appropriate aircraft to learn a little more about it.
And if you are an aerobatic pilot then you are a fool hardy one, who as I said previously, is only feeding your own ego and nothing else.
Let me put it another way. A VFR pilot continues into IMC and subsequently dies from loss of control. Why did he continue, well probably a case of press-on-itis. At least he has an excuse (not a good one but one is there anyway) There is NO excuse for doing aero's in a non rated aircraft. NONE!!!!
And you keep coming back and saying they can be done by a skillful pilot. I agree with you but this is NOT THE POINT!!!!!!!!
The aircraft is not rated for them so IT SHOULD NOT BE DONE. You really don't have a clue... I hope for your sake that no one is injured or worse if or when an aircraft falls apart that you and your mates have aerobatted.
As to being able to detect overstressors, well there isn’t too many outwards signs. You can look for ripples on the skins, popped rivets and black aluminium oxides coming back from lose rivets, but most of our 20-40 year old training fleet has these anyway!
But don't let this worry you too much, as has been said structural failure in light aircraft is rare by comparison to other failures statistically, but I would hate to be the poor sod that flies in one of Pilot DAR's aircraft and has a structural failure. Accident report would probably read pilot failed to maintain control and overstressed aircraft when in fact Pilot DAR or his mates were the ones who did the real damage. Just some other poor soul pulled a 2G steep turn at the wrong time. Let me put it another way. The odds of winning lotto are 35M+ to 1; essentially you will never win it. But alas, someone each (most) week does...
Rant Off
CB
"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?"
You sir are a hypocrite.
You state skillfully flying an aircraft within its operating limitations is not damaging anything. Well I have flown a shed load (hangar load?) of C-172's and I am yet top see one with its POH in the limitations section which says anything other than acrobatics (sic) prohibited. To the way I have been trained this means no aerobatics and yet you say doing aerobatics is within its operating limitations.
I know what you are getting at; you are simply referring to g loadings. Well you say above you won't list tail numbers for privacy reasons and if you did you would have to list all those who have encountered severe turbulence etc. Well it may come as a surprise to you but aircraft are stressed for turbulence, hard landings etc. The designers know that this will happen to the aircraft and as such are designed for it. Take a look at the relevant FAR's and you will see various gust design loads listed.
What the aircraft has not been designed for and tested for is aerobatics. They are prohibited for a reason. You think G loading is the ONLY force an aerobatic aircraft experiences? You REALLY need to go out and get some aerobatic instruction in an appropriate aircraft to learn a little more about it.
And if you are an aerobatic pilot then you are a fool hardy one, who as I said previously, is only feeding your own ego and nothing else.
Let me put it another way. A VFR pilot continues into IMC and subsequently dies from loss of control. Why did he continue, well probably a case of press-on-itis. At least he has an excuse (not a good one but one is there anyway) There is NO excuse for doing aero's in a non rated aircraft. NONE!!!!
And you keep coming back and saying they can be done by a skillful pilot. I agree with you but this is NOT THE POINT!!!!!!!!
The aircraft is not rated for them so IT SHOULD NOT BE DONE. You really don't have a clue... I hope for your sake that no one is injured or worse if or when an aircraft falls apart that you and your mates have aerobatted.
As to being able to detect overstressors, well there isn’t too many outwards signs. You can look for ripples on the skins, popped rivets and black aluminium oxides coming back from lose rivets, but most of our 20-40 year old training fleet has these anyway!
But don't let this worry you too much, as has been said structural failure in light aircraft is rare by comparison to other failures statistically, but I would hate to be the poor sod that flies in one of Pilot DAR's aircraft and has a structural failure. Accident report would probably read pilot failed to maintain control and overstressed aircraft when in fact Pilot DAR or his mates were the ones who did the real damage. Just some other poor soul pulled a 2G steep turn at the wrong time. Let me put it another way. The odds of winning lotto are 35M+ to 1; essentially you will never win it. But alas, someone each (most) week does...
Rant Off
CB
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G limitations.....
Something I didn't know (or think about) before I did some aerobatics with an instructor and read some books is G limitations.....The ones quoted in the POH ONLY apply to inputs on one axis only. So if I pull hard back on the stick in the Bulldog, I can go to 6 G. However, during a rolling manoeuvre, for example a barrel roll, when you have back stick and aieleron then the G limitations drop to half....so the 6G bulldog now becomes 3G.
Now apply the same to a 4.5G C172 in the utility cat. 2.25G? Hmm, it'd be easy to exceed that during a botched recovery of a barrel roll.
I may be wrong, not being very experienced in aero's, but to me it looks like the margins are pretty tight for a "normal" aeroplane (we have all probably pulled 2g during PPL training).
Something I didn't know (or think about) before I did some aerobatics with an instructor and read some books is G limitations.....The ones quoted in the POH ONLY apply to inputs on one axis only. So if I pull hard back on the stick in the Bulldog, I can go to 6 G. However, during a rolling manoeuvre, for example a barrel roll, when you have back stick and aieleron then the G limitations drop to half....so the 6G bulldog now becomes 3G.
Now apply the same to a 4.5G C172 in the utility cat. 2.25G? Hmm, it'd be easy to exceed that during a botched recovery of a barrel roll.
I may be wrong, not being very experienced in aero's, but to me it looks like the margins are pretty tight for a "normal" aeroplane (we have all probably pulled 2g during PPL training).
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G-EMMA, Stik & SAS
I think you are being a little unfair on Slag (who is normally an opponent of mine in some interesting debates.)
He isn't condoning rolls in Cessnas nor recommending them, but only pointing out that in flight break ups are a low probability for accidents and not perhaps the foremost thing to worry about when renting an aircraft.
And I agree with him.
I think you are being a little unfair on Slag (who is normally an opponent of mine in some interesting debates.)
He isn't condoning rolls in Cessnas nor recommending them, but only pointing out that in flight break ups are a low probability for accidents and not perhaps the foremost thing to worry about when renting an aircraft.
And I agree with him.
In fact, I made no comment on the guy/gal who rolled the 172, all I said is that I wouldn't have the nerve to do it myself. I would like a little more info before I judge, though I am definitely leaning to the opinion that he is a fekwit.
EvilKitty said "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"
Student pilot G-EMMA (MEng - Here to learn not to inform) has jumped on me before and got it wrong, but when she said "Probably the scariest thread I've read on PPrune so far.."
I thought I would just say a little to perhaps reassure them.
And that is
Airframe failures are very uncommon
i.e even if you rent an airplane that has been rolled before, the chances of you coming a cropper is low. Not zero, but low. When you walk up to that rental aircraft, make sure you do a preflight, but the chances of you being killed by it falling apart because of some fekwit before you is lower than the chances of you being killed because you did something wrong yourself. Statistically, you have more important things to worry about
Well. I slept on it, and my mummy put all my toys back into the pram during the night, but I don't care - I'm throwing them out again. Cocky student pilots I can handle, seen loads of them, don't bother me. But if somebody with the calibre of stik starts having a go it's time to realise that it's time to move on. This place ain't what it used to be. I ain't posting again!
After a fatal accident involving a PA 28, the AAIB recommended as follows:
Safety Recommendation 2003-98
The CAA should review the current training syllabus for the Private Pilot's Licence and the literature available to pilots generally, with respect to raising the awareness of the significance of manoeuvre speed, and clearly make it known that flying at or below manoeuvre speed does not provide protection for the aircraft structure from damaging stresses for all possible combinations, and reversals of, control inputs.
That doesn't seem to have happened yet. So, for those simpletons who have yet to accept it:
Aerobatics conducted by untrained fools in non-aerobatic aircraft are likely to cause death.
Anyone stating that it is in any way 'safe' to conduct barrel rolls in spamcans such as the C172 should cease flying forthwith.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S_S, I wasn't having a go at you, so I don't mind helping you clear up the teddies!
Whilst structural failures are rare, they do happen. What does happen on a more regular basis, is that aircraft owners find unknown damage that has to be put right, usually at massive cost to them.
However, flying is risk management and we should do all we can to minimise the chances of killing ourselves or others.
Doing impromptu Aero's in an unsuitable machine doesn't exactly follow that philosophy.
Even experienced pilot's in aerobatic machines make mistakes and that is what can damage a machine fatally if it isn't built to take it.
Yes, pilot error and things like CFIT kill more people than structural failure, but it doesn't mean to say we should ignore it and try to wipe out the mentality that says that this sort of thing is acceptable.
Whilst structural failures are rare, they do happen. What does happen on a more regular basis, is that aircraft owners find unknown damage that has to be put right, usually at massive cost to them.
However, flying is risk management and we should do all we can to minimise the chances of killing ourselves or others.
Doing impromptu Aero's in an unsuitable machine doesn't exactly follow that philosophy.
Even experienced pilot's in aerobatic machines make mistakes and that is what can damage a machine fatally if it isn't built to take it.
Yes, pilot error and things like CFIT kill more people than structural failure, but it doesn't mean to say we should ignore it and try to wipe out the mentality that says that this sort of thing is acceptable.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"This place ain't what it used to be. I ain't posting again!"
I agree that this place is not what it used to be, previously threads like this would not have reached so many pages of tripe, before it became obvious that aerobatting aircraft not designed for aeros by the untrained was plain stupid, dangerous and irresponsible. Statistics never killed anyone, bad airmanship has killed numerous people, the promotion of bad airmanship will continue to increase the death toll.
So S-S, whether you post again or not, I could not care a fig. I post far less here than I used to because I believe the quality/tenor has fallen. However on threads like these, I do become motivated to type as I really hope that I can positively influence people NOT to try looping and swooping in a C172/PA28.
Aviation mistakes tend to be costly. Three brave men died whilst I was at Reno, earlier this month. My chum died in a Hurricane at Shoreham the same week.
If you want to try aeros, go find somebody to teach you in something cleared for aerobatics. Please, please please don't teach yourself in a rented 172.
Stik
I agree that this place is not what it used to be, previously threads like this would not have reached so many pages of tripe, before it became obvious that aerobatting aircraft not designed for aeros by the untrained was plain stupid, dangerous and irresponsible. Statistics never killed anyone, bad airmanship has killed numerous people, the promotion of bad airmanship will continue to increase the death toll.
So S-S, whether you post again or not, I could not care a fig. I post far less here than I used to because I believe the quality/tenor has fallen. However on threads like these, I do become motivated to type as I really hope that I can positively influence people NOT to try looping and swooping in a C172/PA28.
Aviation mistakes tend to be costly. Three brave men died whilst I was at Reno, earlier this month. My chum died in a Hurricane at Shoreham the same week.
If you want to try aeros, go find somebody to teach you in something cleared for aerobatics. Please, please please don't teach yourself in a rented 172.
Stik
Moderator
Well Beaver Diver,
It appears to me that your original question has probably been very thoroughly answered here. Though there has obviously been some disagreement, it is clear to me that all of the contributors agree that competent aerobatic training is vital before aerobatics are attempted in any aircraft. That training will have to be appropriate to the aircraft type in which the training is conducted. I completely agree that a pilot could receive competent training in a Cessna Aerobat, but not yet have anywhere near the skill to fly a purpose built aerobatic aircraft. I have never flown such an aircraft, and would never attempt it without training.
I am by no means a skilled aerobatic pilot, and as such, would always defer to those who are, in discussions on aerobatics in "aerobatic" aircraft. I am, however, a competent general aviation pilot with enough skill to gently enter unusual attitudes, and gently recover, without reaching any of the limiting values for the aircraft. As suggested, doing so, places me at the edge of my skill set, not in the middle. So like flying in poor VFR weather, when IFR is not possible (neither I or the aircraft are properly equipped), when we fly at the edge of our skill set, we do it with great caution, after suitable training.
After competent basic aerobatic training on a privately owned 150 Aerobat more than 20 years ago, I have regularly flown loops and rolls in my privately owned, G meter equipped, 150 ever since. I feel that not doing so would allow my skills to slip away somewhat. Like spins, or crosswind landings, I don’t really enjoy it, but it must be done. I have never "aerobatted" a plane I did not own, (and I've only owned the one), and I have never been "aerobatted" in a plane, other than by that plane's owner.
I can tell you that the flying that I am required to do during design approval test flying is often much more stressful on the aircraft than even the sloppiest aerobatics I have experienced. A spin in a fully loaded, float equipped Cessna 185, with external equipment fitted, will get you a lot closer to the G limit and Vne than a skillfully executed roll in the same aircraft. This I can say with certainty! I took off with two paddles firmly in place, and landed with one! And before the outcry about spinning the 185, it was required by Transport Canada Flight Test Department, over my objections of being a valueless exercise, which needlessly endangered the aircraft.
Fly after training, fly with caution, and fly with skill (if you’ve managed all of that, try for fly with grace too!). But know that the “flying with skill”, is really only happening if you also practice at the edges of your skill, at safe and appropriate times. I once test flew a 172 with it’s owner as my passenger. When I told him I was going to spin it (required by TC again, for no good reason), he was shocked, and asked when I’d last spun a plane… “Last week” I replied. “Oh, I have not spun since I learned to fly 5 years ago”. Would I send the aforementioned sister flying with him? I’m not so sure…
I hope that the many answers to your question have helped you take aviation very seriously,
Pilot DAR
It appears to me that your original question has probably been very thoroughly answered here. Though there has obviously been some disagreement, it is clear to me that all of the contributors agree that competent aerobatic training is vital before aerobatics are attempted in any aircraft. That training will have to be appropriate to the aircraft type in which the training is conducted. I completely agree that a pilot could receive competent training in a Cessna Aerobat, but not yet have anywhere near the skill to fly a purpose built aerobatic aircraft. I have never flown such an aircraft, and would never attempt it without training.
I am by no means a skilled aerobatic pilot, and as such, would always defer to those who are, in discussions on aerobatics in "aerobatic" aircraft. I am, however, a competent general aviation pilot with enough skill to gently enter unusual attitudes, and gently recover, without reaching any of the limiting values for the aircraft. As suggested, doing so, places me at the edge of my skill set, not in the middle. So like flying in poor VFR weather, when IFR is not possible (neither I or the aircraft are properly equipped), when we fly at the edge of our skill set, we do it with great caution, after suitable training.
After competent basic aerobatic training on a privately owned 150 Aerobat more than 20 years ago, I have regularly flown loops and rolls in my privately owned, G meter equipped, 150 ever since. I feel that not doing so would allow my skills to slip away somewhat. Like spins, or crosswind landings, I don’t really enjoy it, but it must be done. I have never "aerobatted" a plane I did not own, (and I've only owned the one), and I have never been "aerobatted" in a plane, other than by that plane's owner.
I can tell you that the flying that I am required to do during design approval test flying is often much more stressful on the aircraft than even the sloppiest aerobatics I have experienced. A spin in a fully loaded, float equipped Cessna 185, with external equipment fitted, will get you a lot closer to the G limit and Vne than a skillfully executed roll in the same aircraft. This I can say with certainty! I took off with two paddles firmly in place, and landed with one! And before the outcry about spinning the 185, it was required by Transport Canada Flight Test Department, over my objections of being a valueless exercise, which needlessly endangered the aircraft.
Fly after training, fly with caution, and fly with skill (if you’ve managed all of that, try for fly with grace too!). But know that the “flying with skill”, is really only happening if you also practice at the edges of your skill, at safe and appropriate times. I once test flew a 172 with it’s owner as my passenger. When I told him I was going to spin it (required by TC again, for no good reason), he was shocked, and asked when I’d last spun a plane… “Last week” I replied. “Oh, I have not spun since I learned to fly 5 years ago”. Would I send the aforementioned sister flying with him? I’m not so sure…
I hope that the many answers to your question have helped you take aviation very seriously,
Pilot DAR
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"This place ain't what it used to be. I ain't posting again!"
From my fairly short memory of pprune, it used to be a lot worse.
I think that pprune has grown up a bit in the last few years, with quite a lot of people bothering to write more than 1 or 2 lines - more than one can say about other pilot forums.
The # of posts has gone down but that's not a bad thing if it drives the one-liners out.
The best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them.
From my fairly short memory of pprune, it used to be a lot worse.
I think that pprune has grown up a bit in the last few years, with quite a lot of people bothering to write more than 1 or 2 lines - more than one can say about other pilot forums.
The # of posts has gone down but that's not a bad thing if it drives the one-liners out.
The best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm all for aerobatics as long as the aircraft is certified for it. There may be many reasons why an aircraft isn't certified for specific manoeuvers. Overstressing may be one, but inability to recover from a ham-fisted manoeuver may be another. Try spinning a Grumman AA1 to see what I mean.
That said: I have spun every aircraft I have ever owned which include: C150, PA28-140, Beech 77 (Skipper) and my current Beech C-23 (Sundowner 180). However, they were all cleared for, and placarded for spinning in the Utility Category. The worst of the lot was the Skipper; standard recovery resulted in an incipient spin in the other direction. Something good to know though. My current plane simply doesn't spin very easily and it has a tendency to degrade into a spiral dive, quickly building up to Vne.
I have also looped my Beech C23...and before the outcries, I have one of the rare ones that has the aerobatic kit installed and is cleared for spins, aileron, barrel and snap rolls, loops, Immelmans and split-S. It must be in the acrobatic category: all-up weight cannot exceed 2030 lbs (normal gross is 2450 lbs), no passengers in the rear seats, and no negative-G manoeuvers (no inverted oil/fuel systems). In acrobatic category, it is stressed to +6/-2 g's. It is specially equipped for aerobatics: quick-release doors, g-meter, extra ventral fin on the tail, increased stabilator surface, and nose strakes, in addition to some strategic structural reinforcements.
I haven't rolled it because I haven't been taught that manoeuver. I have since stopped doing aerobatics in it because it is no longer legal in that category: I had to replace the door hinges and rather than going through the trouble and expense of fitting quick-release hinges, I went the "cheap" route and got regular hinges; I primarily use the plane as a touring aircraft. That it also happened to be aerobatic was just luck.
Hat's off to you for having the guts to spin a 185 on floats. TC can be weird some times. I recall hearing a story about when the DC-10 was certified in Canada, TC wanted a fully developed stall on it. Douglas said "but it has a stick shaker and stick pusher". TC insisted, Douglas had a big order from CP Air so had no choice. They ended up with structural damage in the tail.
That said: I have spun every aircraft I have ever owned which include: C150, PA28-140, Beech 77 (Skipper) and my current Beech C-23 (Sundowner 180). However, they were all cleared for, and placarded for spinning in the Utility Category. The worst of the lot was the Skipper; standard recovery resulted in an incipient spin in the other direction. Something good to know though. My current plane simply doesn't spin very easily and it has a tendency to degrade into a spiral dive, quickly building up to Vne.
I have also looped my Beech C23...and before the outcries, I have one of the rare ones that has the aerobatic kit installed and is cleared for spins, aileron, barrel and snap rolls, loops, Immelmans and split-S. It must be in the acrobatic category: all-up weight cannot exceed 2030 lbs (normal gross is 2450 lbs), no passengers in the rear seats, and no negative-G manoeuvers (no inverted oil/fuel systems). In acrobatic category, it is stressed to +6/-2 g's. It is specially equipped for aerobatics: quick-release doors, g-meter, extra ventral fin on the tail, increased stabilator surface, and nose strakes, in addition to some strategic structural reinforcements.
I haven't rolled it because I haven't been taught that manoeuver. I have since stopped doing aerobatics in it because it is no longer legal in that category: I had to replace the door hinges and rather than going through the trouble and expense of fitting quick-release hinges, I went the "cheap" route and got regular hinges; I primarily use the plane as a touring aircraft. That it also happened to be aerobatic was just luck.
Hat's off to you for having the guts to spin a 185 on floats. TC can be weird some times. I recall hearing a story about when the DC-10 was certified in Canada, TC wanted a fully developed stall on it. Douglas said "but it has a stick shaker and stick pusher". TC insisted, Douglas had a big order from CP Air so had no choice. They ended up with structural damage in the tail.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just because you "own" an aircraft, doesn't make it any more acceptable to go against the POH.
Aerobatting a bog standard 150 isn't sensible. I don't care if you learnt to Aerobat in an 150 Aerobat (!!!!!) the simple fact is that you are operating your own a/c contrary to the POH.
What part of that's a stupid idea don't you get.
Spinning an aircraft doesn't put as much stress on a machine as badly flown aerobatics. It is the recovery that loads an aircraft, not the spin itself.
As has already been mentioned, recoveries from badly executed aero's is likely to put all sorts of stresses in lots of different directions, rolling loads etc. Something that your average spam can isn't able to take. Even Aero's a/c and military jets have restrictions on rolling loads compared to "straight G".
Normally flown Spin recoveries don't have a rolling load, but loads in the directions where an aircraft is strongest.
So trying to compare spin recoveries in a/c cleared for spinning and recovered using the correct techniques cannot be compared to even basic aerobatics, let alone badly flown ones with fudged recoveries.
Aerobatting a bog standard 150 isn't sensible. I don't care if you learnt to Aerobat in an 150 Aerobat (!!!!!) the simple fact is that you are operating your own a/c contrary to the POH.
What part of that's a stupid idea don't you get.
Spinning an aircraft doesn't put as much stress on a machine as badly flown aerobatics. It is the recovery that loads an aircraft, not the spin itself.
As has already been mentioned, recoveries from badly executed aero's is likely to put all sorts of stresses in lots of different directions, rolling loads etc. Something that your average spam can isn't able to take. Even Aero's a/c and military jets have restrictions on rolling loads compared to "straight G".
Normally flown Spin recoveries don't have a rolling load, but loads in the directions where an aircraft is strongest.
So trying to compare spin recoveries in a/c cleared for spinning and recovered using the correct techniques cannot be compared to even basic aerobatics, let alone badly flown ones with fudged recoveries.