Low-level aerobatics
Moderator
Not so survivable...
To put the photo in context, you must first observe that there are no skid/slide marks around the aircraft. It did contact at a 10 degree nose down attitude, but it was moving vertically, not horizontally (in which case slide marks would be visible) when it contacted the ground. I remember watching. The aircraft is facing east, on the east side of the runway, in the photo, he had been flying south in the spin recovery when he crashed. We were taxiing north. He turned from south to east in the final moment before he contacted. The sod on the wing suggests he had a little forward speed, but not as much as the vertical digging force! The tail boom can be seen to be wrinkled down from the crash forces.
I don't know a lot about the seat energy absorbtion characteristics of the SF260, but I'm thinking they're not great. With nothing collapsable (I think he more or less sits on the spar) to absorb the crash forces between the pilot's body, and the ground, the G force would have been very high.
A friend of mine crashed his C150 doing low level foolishness many years ago. We got him out, but the coroner later told me that his deceleration had exceeded 200 G's, and he had done more of a "landing" than the SF 260 pilot. At least my friend had some slide marks!
To put the photo in context, you must first observe that there are no skid/slide marks around the aircraft. It did contact at a 10 degree nose down attitude, but it was moving vertically, not horizontally (in which case slide marks would be visible) when it contacted the ground. I remember watching. The aircraft is facing east, on the east side of the runway, in the photo, he had been flying south in the spin recovery when he crashed. We were taxiing north. He turned from south to east in the final moment before he contacted. The sod on the wing suggests he had a little forward speed, but not as much as the vertical digging force! The tail boom can be seen to be wrinkled down from the crash forces.
I don't know a lot about the seat energy absorbtion characteristics of the SF260, but I'm thinking they're not great. With nothing collapsable (I think he more or less sits on the spar) to absorb the crash forces between the pilot's body, and the ground, the G force would have been very high.
A friend of mine crashed his C150 doing low level foolishness many years ago. We got him out, but the coroner later told me that his deceleration had exceeded 200 G's, and he had done more of a "landing" than the SF 260 pilot. At least my friend had some slide marks!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bury St. Edmunds
Age: 64
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the RAF we were taught this about the ground.....
When being taught to fly low safely (well for most of the time) I remember also being taught about the "kill probability" of the various weapons that we we trying to avoid by flying low, eg SAM's and radar laid AAA (guns like the ZSU34-4 
) etc.
The weapons might have say, a 30-40% PK - but the PK of flying into the ground is almost always 100%......
I think the link was "know your enemy"....and respect the ground.
MB
) etc.The weapons might have say, a 30-40% PK - but the PK of flying into the ground is almost always 100%......
I think the link was "know your enemy"....and respect the ground.
MB
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Londonish
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for the C-27, Tex Johnson barrel rolled the 707 prototype without anything falling off. Just keep positive g and don't pull beyond the limits.
Mind you, being a pedant, I don't know why everyone (including Tex in the video) claims the 707 as a barrel roll. It's clearly an aileron roll of the 'heave the nose up, reduce back pressure and put the stick on one side' variety. Barrel rolls require a significant heading change.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back in the ‘70s I was asked to contribute to an article that had quotes from many display pilots on how to stay safe. There were lots of detailed comments relating to specific manoeuvres seen as ‘secrets’ to safety by their authors. I felt something more general was called for so I said:
“Never use all of the aircraft’s performance, never use all of your own performance and if you don’t understand why these two things are the basis of safety then don’t fly low level demos.”
“Never use all of the aircraft’s performance, never use all of your own performance and if you don’t understand why these two things are the basis of safety then don’t fly low level demos.”
Moderator
Yes, I agree. John's quote is even more effective, when considered with the last three words removed...
'sounds hash, but so is the ground...
'sounds hash, but so is the ground...
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
treadigraph & JEM60
Jem60 – Interesting comment. Several display pilots had expressed concerns about the T34 display over the weekend.
FL
Small world. I too saw the T34 crash at Mildenhall in 1983. The first crash I’d seen and I’ll be pleased if it’s the only one. I saw the wreckage close up from the back of Stephen Grey’s P51 Mustang (flown by Stef Karwowski) as we taxiied out - the emergency services were still there – a strange sensation to say the least. What made it even worse was that the two Beech test pilots who were killed were on the same table as us at dinner the night before and had been very enjoyable and interesting company. Both were older than most of the other pilots, one late 50s and the other mid 50s.
Jem60 – Interesting comment. Several display pilots had expressed concerns about the T34 display over the weekend.
FL
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: in the mist
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know, I've seen that very C27J rolled... Very badly!! The video looked too good! I've also seen that G222 at Fairford and personally flown head-to-head with a G222 going the wrong way round a circuit at a particular italian airfield. Never been less impressed with any airforce transport flying in my life before!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chedburgh, Bury St.Edmunds
Age: 81
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
5 Posts
Ah, Stefan Karwowski
There was a man who knew how to fly!!!! Lost his life in a Pitts that failed to recover from a spin.Greatest Bearcat display pilot ever.!!!
There was a man who knew how to fly!!!! Lost his life in a Pitts that failed to recover from a spin.Greatest Bearcat display pilot ever.!!!
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,634
Received 300 Likes
on
168 Posts
Greatest Bearcat display pilot ever
I don't recall much about the T-34 display; we'd just arrived and were walking towards the display line as he performed, then he reappeared taking off, climbing steeply as I remember. I recalled a stall turn, but the roll to inverted matches the accident report I think. Subsequently, a number of low level displays have made me feel uncomfortable; two ended in accidents, one one a few seconds later, the other, which seemed a particularly aggressive performance, on the runway a couple of Fridays later during practice - the airshow was cancelled.
On the other hand... Ray Hanna. Over thirty five years he only once gave me pause for thought, during a display in the Spitfire at Biggin. I was much closer to the southern end of the airfield than I realised and he was - of course - comfortably out over the valley!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have heard several people comment about how someones display flying was not safe.... and then later to hear there had been an accident. The comment then is always " I wish I'd said something".
Some time ago I read an article (I can't remember where) and the jist of it was that as display pilots we are our brothers keeper. We do have a responsibility to say something if a manouvre or display looks dangerous.
I have only had 1 person make a comment about my display and I was pleased he did and thanked him.
This doesn't seem to be the norm though and many pilots are too "polite" to make any constructive negative comment about a display. I wish it wasn't this way.
ZA
Some time ago I read an article (I can't remember where) and the jist of it was that as display pilots we are our brothers keeper. We do have a responsibility to say something if a manouvre or display looks dangerous.
I have only had 1 person make a comment about my display and I was pleased he did and thanked him.
This doesn't seem to be the norm though and many pilots are too "polite" to make any constructive negative comment about a display. I wish it wasn't this way.
ZA
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chedburgh, Bury St.Edmunds
Age: 81
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
5 Posts
Treadigraph.
It was the steep climb in such blustery conditions that prompted my remark about the passenger etc., It seemed foolhardy in such blustery conditions. The rolling inverted appeared to me to intentional, but accident report would not commit to this. Good job he just missed the line of parked KC135 tankers!!! Lot of old pilots, lot of bold pilots.. we all know the rest. Zulu Alpha and all the other display pilots who read this, and who give us so much pleasure, fly safe this coming season, we like nice artistic flying. Leave the dangerous flying to the USA. Regards, John.
It was the steep climb in such blustery conditions that prompted my remark about the passenger etc., It seemed foolhardy in such blustery conditions. The rolling inverted appeared to me to intentional, but accident report would not commit to this. Good job he just missed the line of parked KC135 tankers!!! Lot of old pilots, lot of bold pilots.. we all know the rest. Zulu Alpha and all the other display pilots who read this, and who give us so much pleasure, fly safe this coming season, we like nice artistic flying. Leave the dangerous flying to the USA. Regards, John.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,634
Received 300 Likes
on
168 Posts
Some time ago I read an article (I can't remember where)
Therein he suggested a buddy system (based on a US idea if I recall) where pairs of pilots keep an eye on each other and critique performance from the standpoint of safety.
May I echo JEM60's comment: stay safe guys! I'm looking forward to the upcoming season, may it be blessed with superb weather and delightful flying!
25F,
Can I just comment - since there seems to have been some (very interesting) thread drift here -
As a tyro (still) to aerobatics, I find another reason for not doing - or starting - aerobatics low is that it is astonishigly easy to burn off height while practicing and repeating maneouvres.
I have surprised myself a couple of times by getting so wrapped in trying to improve my rolls or loops that I've ended up much lower than I'd like to be. If you are flying something without a lot of excess power it's very easy to lose height steadily without noticing it.
No doubt the experts, like my old acquaintance Brian L will wince at the incompetence of this - but it surprised me my concentration could become so narrowly focussed.
I'd have said surprised and scared me except that it wasn't till well afterwards I had time to reflect and worry properly. At the time it was a fairly casual " Hmm - Those trees are surprisingly large" thought.
Also - it was these 'easy; maneouvres' that were the concern. I realised that maneouvres in which things were more apt to go wrong in 'interesting' ways, like flicks, got more care from me in checking height before start.
Hmm, again.
Can I just comment - since there seems to have been some (very interesting) thread drift here -
As a tyro (still) to aerobatics, I find another reason for not doing - or starting - aerobatics low is that it is astonishigly easy to burn off height while practicing and repeating maneouvres.
I have surprised myself a couple of times by getting so wrapped in trying to improve my rolls or loops that I've ended up much lower than I'd like to be. If you are flying something without a lot of excess power it's very easy to lose height steadily without noticing it.
No doubt the experts, like my old acquaintance Brian L will wince at the incompetence of this - but it surprised me my concentration could become so narrowly focussed.
I'd have said surprised and scared me except that it wasn't till well afterwards I had time to reflect and worry properly. At the time it was a fairly casual " Hmm - Those trees are surprisingly large" thought.
Also - it was these 'easy; maneouvres' that were the concern. I realised that maneouvres in which things were more apt to go wrong in 'interesting' ways, like flicks, got more care from me in checking height before start.
Hmm, again.
Thread Starter
biscuit74,
I've been following the thread and its drift with a great deal of interest, and I'm pleased to have contributed in a very small way to Pprune. (I used to help out a bit in the computers & internet forum but every time I go there now, there seems to be a bunch of competent and well-informed regulars taking care of things).
As a side-comment, the "two mistakes high" rule can be usefully applied to many non-flying situations as well.
Thanks to all.
I've been following the thread and its drift with a great deal of interest, and I'm pleased to have contributed in a very small way to Pprune. (I used to help out a bit in the computers & internet forum but every time I go there now, there seems to be a bunch of competent and well-informed regulars taking care of things).
As a side-comment, the "two mistakes high" rule can be usefully applied to many non-flying situations as well.
Thanks to all.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Massachusetts Bay Colony
Age: 57
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biscuit had a good point about altitude awareness when trying new maneuvers and there's a related point about knowing what your maneuver is likely to do. I remember the time I decided to try a snap roll on a downline for the first time. I'd seen it done, knew the inputs and what to expect from the maneuver...except for the altitude loss!! Holy sh&t!
Later, in the clubhouse, I mentioned to Barry Tempest that I'd tried one for the first time. Before I'd even told him my impression he said
"Ah, yes, you have to be careful with those. The altitude loss is PROOO-digous!"
I couldn't have come up with a better word myself!
Then there was the experienced Pitts pilot who told me about the time he decided to use his mini digital camera to get a shot of the clubhouse from the vertical...and the surprise he got when, after getting the shot he wanted, he shifted from viewfinder to real-world view out the windscreen. Somehow the viewfinder seemed to add a couple hundred feet. The camera may have sustained minor damage in the "Oh, sh&t!"-accompanied pull-out!
Later, in the clubhouse, I mentioned to Barry Tempest that I'd tried one for the first time. Before I'd even told him my impression he said
"Ah, yes, you have to be careful with those. The altitude loss is PROOO-digous!"
I couldn't have come up with a better word myself!
Then there was the experienced Pitts pilot who told me about the time he decided to use his mini digital camera to get a shot of the clubhouse from the vertical...and the surprise he got when, after getting the shot he wanted, he shifted from viewfinder to real-world view out the windscreen. Somehow the viewfinder seemed to add a couple hundred feet. The camera may have sustained minor damage in the "Oh, sh&t!"-accompanied pull-out!
Last edited by Pitts2112; 4th Mar 2010 at 02:26. Reason: Took care of the things I thought the censor would do for me. Oops!
Duane Cole checked me out in a Citabria, and, in a very understated fashion, made most of the observations you all are making a priori (insofar as I was concerned).
He further taught me how to do a real barrel roll. (though I am still fairly convinced I never did one up to his standard). He insisted that this maneuver is not, in any way rate-dependent, and may be subject to arrest and inspection at any point during the rotation. Should such inspection be demanded when one is in an inappropriate power and control configuration (as, surprisingly, was invariably the case), the resulting flight condition changes are demonstrative of poor airmanship and, for the student, fairly embarrassing (to say the least).
He further taught me how to do a real barrel roll. (though I am still fairly convinced I never did one up to his standard). He insisted that this maneuver is not, in any way rate-dependent, and may be subject to arrest and inspection at any point during the rotation. Should such inspection be demanded when one is in an inappropriate power and control configuration (as, surprisingly, was invariably the case), the resulting flight condition changes are demonstrative of poor airmanship and, for the student, fairly embarrassing (to say the least).
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: in the mist
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biscuit,
I agree, height is your life insurance. What else are you likely to collide with if the ground did not exist? Sadly the ground is also your reference for flying aerobatics, it also happens to be the best place for folk to watch you, and for you to take-off and land.
Double edged sword really. I still think it's better than dying in bed with some horrible, nasty disease.
I agree, height is your life insurance. What else are you likely to collide with if the ground did not exist? Sadly the ground is also your reference for flying aerobatics, it also happens to be the best place for folk to watch you, and for you to take-off and land.
Double edged sword really. I still think it's better than dying in bed with some horrible, nasty disease.
