DIY aeros - was I nuts?
High Flying Bird
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Old Sarum ish
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, I'm not. I'm just doing chippie training. Main purpose is to get a tailwheel signoff, and then to learn to fly it properly, including aeros. The two loops we did were confidence-builders. Sorry... But I will ask my instructor why the Buggs-Melter recovery thingy doesn't work with a chippie.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,617
Received 484 Likes
on
256 Posts
As quite a lot of these ex military aircraft have now been sold to the civvy market and are aerobatic: For those with Bulldog aircraft - my advice is DON'T try anything other than the recommended spin recovery.
Even as RAF QFIs on type we were required to make a recovery from a high rotational spin every month. We flew this sortie 2 QFIs up and briefed the other how we were going to enter and how we were going to recover and what we were going to do if it didn't recover.
Even for those of us who were very used to spinning and teaching same, the Hi-rot made your eyes water. My preferred entry was to enter a normal spin and then move the stick one inch forward off the back stop. That's all it takes for the aircraft to rapidly achieve about 720 degrees/ second in roll/yaw.
The point here is that if doing ad-hoc aeros in an unfamiliar aircraft and it departs from controlled flight, you may end up in another situation that you have no experience of.
One of my scariest few moments was during my RAF jet training when I inadvertantly spun a JP3A during aeros as a solo student, (having previously passed my spin / aeros check). By the time I had it flying again, I realised I had lost almost 11,000 feet and was below the minimum height for ejection. Lucky for me it came out.
I also once saw an accidental inverted spin in a C150, with the prop stopped. On my pre-ride before my GFT.
Even as RAF QFIs on type we were required to make a recovery from a high rotational spin every month. We flew this sortie 2 QFIs up and briefed the other how we were going to enter and how we were going to recover and what we were going to do if it didn't recover.
Even for those of us who were very used to spinning and teaching same, the Hi-rot made your eyes water. My preferred entry was to enter a normal spin and then move the stick one inch forward off the back stop. That's all it takes for the aircraft to rapidly achieve about 720 degrees/ second in roll/yaw.
The point here is that if doing ad-hoc aeros in an unfamiliar aircraft and it departs from controlled flight, you may end up in another situation that you have no experience of.
One of my scariest few moments was during my RAF jet training when I inadvertantly spun a JP3A during aeros as a solo student, (having previously passed my spin / aeros check). By the time I had it flying again, I realised I had lost almost 11,000 feet and was below the minimum height for ejection. Lucky for me it came out.
I also once saw an accidental inverted spin in a C150, with the prop stopped. On my pre-ride before my GFT.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd echo the advice not to rely on a generic technique.
does not work from a fully developed spin in a Pup 150 and I suspect would have problems in a fully developed spin in other types.
The version I was taught was
Centre the stick
Full opposite rudder
Stick progressively forward until the spin stops
Take off the rudder and recover from the dive.
In a spin that is not fully developed there is still some airflow over the rudder and you may well get out with full opposite rudder. However a fully developed spin leaves little airflow over the rudder, which then becomes ineffective. Progressive forward movement of the stick allows the airflow to build up to the point where the rudder becomes effective again and you come out of the spin. The progressive part allows you to recover before going into a bunt, overspeeding, and possibly overstressing during the subsequent pull out.
During training an instructor and I managed to get the Pup into a very flat spin, from which it would not recover, even with the stick fully forward. Fortunately a short burst of power put enough propwash over the tail to make the elevator effective and we recovered OK.
Higher rotational speeds lead to flatter spins, and from my limited experience you can vary the severity of the spin by the entry technique (as well as aircraft loading).
I suspect that this might have led to the some of the fatalities during spin training. A firmer entry can lead to a much more severe spin than the pilot is used to. He then finds himself in a situation where not only is the sensation very different to what he is used to, but his normal recovery tehnique does not produce the expected result.
He is used to applying control inputs and the aircraft responding. When it doesn't respond he thinks he did it wrong, centralises the controls and tries again. He carries on trying again and again until he hits the ground.
It's not the actual movement of the controls that gets you out of the spin, it's their effect when they are moved to and held in the correct position. In a very well developed spin this effect takes much longer to manifest itself. Centralising the controls and trying again just uses up a lot more of your precious height.
If you've got full opposite rudder, the stick fully forward and you are still getting nowhere you are likely to have done something the test pilot did not do when the aircraft was certified. Probably a much more violent entry.
All the manufacturers have to do is demonstrate recovery from a spin. They are not required to get the aircraft in the worst possible situation that they can and see if they can get out of it. Ther danger is that when practising spins we use an entry tehnique that takes the aircraft outside its certification envelope.
My two penn'orth, for what it's worth
Mike
POWER OFF
LET GO STICK
PRESS ANTI YAW PEDAL
RECOVER FROM THE DIVE
LET GO STICK
PRESS ANTI YAW PEDAL
RECOVER FROM THE DIVE
The version I was taught was
Centre the stick
Full opposite rudder
Stick progressively forward until the spin stops
Take off the rudder and recover from the dive.
In a spin that is not fully developed there is still some airflow over the rudder and you may well get out with full opposite rudder. However a fully developed spin leaves little airflow over the rudder, which then becomes ineffective. Progressive forward movement of the stick allows the airflow to build up to the point where the rudder becomes effective again and you come out of the spin. The progressive part allows you to recover before going into a bunt, overspeeding, and possibly overstressing during the subsequent pull out.
During training an instructor and I managed to get the Pup into a very flat spin, from which it would not recover, even with the stick fully forward. Fortunately a short burst of power put enough propwash over the tail to make the elevator effective and we recovered OK.
Higher rotational speeds lead to flatter spins, and from my limited experience you can vary the severity of the spin by the entry technique (as well as aircraft loading).
I suspect that this might have led to the some of the fatalities during spin training. A firmer entry can lead to a much more severe spin than the pilot is used to. He then finds himself in a situation where not only is the sensation very different to what he is used to, but his normal recovery tehnique does not produce the expected result.
He is used to applying control inputs and the aircraft responding. When it doesn't respond he thinks he did it wrong, centralises the controls and tries again. He carries on trying again and again until he hits the ground.
It's not the actual movement of the controls that gets you out of the spin, it's their effect when they are moved to and held in the correct position. In a very well developed spin this effect takes much longer to manifest itself. Centralising the controls and trying again just uses up a lot more of your precious height.
If you've got full opposite rudder, the stick fully forward and you are still getting nowhere you are likely to have done something the test pilot did not do when the aircraft was certified. Probably a much more violent entry.
All the manufacturers have to do is demonstrate recovery from a spin. They are not required to get the aircraft in the worst possible situation that they can and see if they can get out of it. Ther danger is that when practising spins we use an entry tehnique that takes the aircraft outside its certification envelope.
My two penn'orth, for what it's worth
Mike
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Heart
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This spin recovery debate is quite dull.
The standard and Muller spin recovery techniques work for the majority of types. If you fly a type which doesn't, then you should know about it or you shouldn't be flying it.
If you find yourself in a situation where the recommended technique fails then it's time to try something else. Otherwise your epitaph will read, "The book said it would recover!"
Then the the only rule is do whatever it takes!
As Alan Cassidy has opened the debate, this may include a burst of power.
Of more pressing importance is why so many people die from spinning in when they are not engaged in aerobatics.
Any takers?
The standard and Muller spin recovery techniques work for the majority of types. If you fly a type which doesn't, then you should know about it or you shouldn't be flying it.
If you find yourself in a situation where the recommended technique fails then it's time to try something else. Otherwise your epitaph will read, "The book said it would recover!"
Then the the only rule is do whatever it takes!
As Alan Cassidy has opened the debate, this may include a burst of power.
Of more pressing importance is why so many people die from spinning in when they are not engaged in aerobatics.
Any takers?
Well-I'll say it as no-one else has......
You were exceptionally irresponsible to attempt to teach yourself aerobatics. You were lucky not to damage yourself, the aeroplane and/or an innocent third party with your actions. NEVER NEVER be tempted to do something as downright stupid ever again....
..and have a nice day. We're all huggy-fluffy in the 21st Century but sometimes someone has to tell the brutal truth!
You were exceptionally irresponsible to attempt to teach yourself aerobatics. You were lucky not to damage yourself, the aeroplane and/or an innocent third party with your actions. NEVER NEVER be tempted to do something as downright stupid ever again....
..and have a nice day. We're all huggy-fluffy in the 21st Century but sometimes someone has to tell the brutal truth!
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,617
Received 484 Likes
on
256 Posts
Miserlou,
Sorry to hear you find the spin recovery debate quite dull.
I lost a mate who didn't recover from an inadvertant one during an aerobatic flight which also seriously burned his girlfriend and traumatised her for life. I was the immediately previous occupant of the seat he burned and died in on the aircraft's next flight.
I also came very close to having hit the headlines myself in the same type that killed another mate (JP3A, he was a very experienced ex-RAF Harrier display pilot).
I actually think it is quite non-dull and actually rather important. Perhaps the types you have flown are the rather non-exciting ones.
The usual reason people get into trouble in the spin is because they are insufficiently trained to recognise the incipient spin. Hence the RAF's policy of a spin / aeros check as mutually complementary.
Sorry to hear you find the spin recovery debate quite dull.
I lost a mate who didn't recover from an inadvertant one during an aerobatic flight which also seriously burned his girlfriend and traumatised her for life. I was the immediately previous occupant of the seat he burned and died in on the aircraft's next flight.
I also came very close to having hit the headlines myself in the same type that killed another mate (JP3A, he was a very experienced ex-RAF Harrier display pilot).
I actually think it is quite non-dull and actually rather important. Perhaps the types you have flown are the rather non-exciting ones.
The usual reason people get into trouble in the spin is because they are insufficiently trained to recognise the incipient spin. Hence the RAF's policy of a spin / aeros check as mutually complementary.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 528
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geoffrey de Havilland always looked down on pilots who had not taught themselves to fly; a refreshing thought at a time when nannies are so sedulously attempting to stop us hurting ourselves.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Heart
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shy Torque.
I think you may have misunderstood. I meant the Muller recovery debate. I know it works but not as well as doing it myself.
The anecdotes don't have sufficient detail for our analysis for this debate unless you'd like to link to the AAIB reports and describe more fully the incident you experienced.
One of the techniques which can help when things go wrong with a manouevre is to close the throttle, hold the stick back and give full rudder. The result is, instead of not knowing what the aircraft is doing, you know exactly what the aircraft is doing and how to recover from that.
The reason for the dullness of the debate is illustrated by your friend's case. From the scant detail it would seem that he may not have recognized the stall/spin, may not have taken recovery action soon enough or was just plain too low to recover.
Which recovery technique is used is totally irrelevant when the ground gets in the way!
We do agree though, that the cure lies in sufficient training. Lots of spins, lots of recoveries (including adding power) and lots of variations in entries. It is also important to train inverted spins as they are easy to get into, for example from a push over from vertical up to down or from a simple stall turn.
For your information the types which I have aerobatted-Tiger Moth, Stampe, Slingsby T-67a and -200M Firefly, Pitts S-2b, Extra 300, Yak 52 and Bellanca Super Decathlon.
Happy spinning,
Miserlou.
I think you may have misunderstood. I meant the Muller recovery debate. I know it works but not as well as doing it myself.
The anecdotes don't have sufficient detail for our analysis for this debate unless you'd like to link to the AAIB reports and describe more fully the incident you experienced.
One of the techniques which can help when things go wrong with a manouevre is to close the throttle, hold the stick back and give full rudder. The result is, instead of not knowing what the aircraft is doing, you know exactly what the aircraft is doing and how to recover from that.
The reason for the dullness of the debate is illustrated by your friend's case. From the scant detail it would seem that he may not have recognized the stall/spin, may not have taken recovery action soon enough or was just plain too low to recover.
Which recovery technique is used is totally irrelevant when the ground gets in the way!
We do agree though, that the cure lies in sufficient training. Lots of spins, lots of recoveries (including adding power) and lots of variations in entries. It is also important to train inverted spins as they are easy to get into, for example from a push over from vertical up to down or from a simple stall turn.
For your information the types which I have aerobatted-Tiger Moth, Stampe, Slingsby T-67a and -200M Firefly, Pitts S-2b, Extra 300, Yak 52 and Bellanca Super Decathlon.
Happy spinning,
Miserlou.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Reading
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I reckon discussing things like spin recovery in a thread about someone who performed aeros with no training is slightly irresponsible, as it may give those with less savvy the confidence to go and try it for themselves without considering the consequences of what technique to use for their particular aircraft.
I'm all for natural selection, but...........
I'm all for natural selection, but...........
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,617
Received 484 Likes
on
256 Posts
Miserlou,
Thanks for your reply, it does appear then that we are mainly singing off the same hymn sheet.
The incident that I experienced is already described but I lost control of the aircraft during a stall turn and in retrospect I believe it initially flicked into an inverted spin. Due to my own inexperience (almost 30 years ago) as an RAF BFT student I was slow to recognise this; it was beyond what I had been trained to expect although I had seen and recovered from an inverted spin in a C150 a couple of years earlier. After experiencing some very interesting gyrations, I finally recovered the aircraft to controlled flight from an erect spin, but only after losing an awful lot of height. There was no incident report for this, I had a heart to heart with my QFI and did some more dual stall turns to ensure I didn't ever cock it up again.
It wasn't until I was trained to teach aerobatics and spinning that I fully understood the finer points of the spin. The RAF syllabus by then put much more emphasis on recognising the incipient stage than I recall at the time of my basic jet training.
I cannot link to my friend's AAIB report, it doesn't appear to be available on the website as it happened in the late 1980s. However, it appears that he was doing something beyond his capabilities at too low an altitude and paid the price. The aircraft, a Steen Skybolt, hit the ground in an erect spin, bounced, cartwheeled, then burned although it was otherwise relatively intact. The pilot was rendered unconscious, his girlfriend tried unsuccessfully to pull him from the wreckage, getting badly burned herself in the process.
There is a common link between the two above. Don't fly any aircraft in a manner that is outside your training or it may turn round and bite you and if the bite is a spin, you need to be trained to have a realistic chance of recovery.
The other accident was a Strikemaster Mk83, G-BXFX and occurred on 9 Dec 2000. This one is on the AAIB website. You can draw your own conclusion from this one as the cause was not fully determined.
All the above were intended to illustrate my point that spin recognition and recovery technique is not dull and should be an integral part of training for anyone who wishes to fly aerobatics. This is even more important now that full spinning isn't an integral part of pre-PPL training.
The technique of releasing the controls is NOT recommended for all types and shouldn't be relied on, in any event, it may result in a lot of lost height, rather than a positive recovery technique which is aimed at an expeditious recovery.
Thanks for your reply, it does appear then that we are mainly singing off the same hymn sheet.
The incident that I experienced is already described but I lost control of the aircraft during a stall turn and in retrospect I believe it initially flicked into an inverted spin. Due to my own inexperience (almost 30 years ago) as an RAF BFT student I was slow to recognise this; it was beyond what I had been trained to expect although I had seen and recovered from an inverted spin in a C150 a couple of years earlier. After experiencing some very interesting gyrations, I finally recovered the aircraft to controlled flight from an erect spin, but only after losing an awful lot of height. There was no incident report for this, I had a heart to heart with my QFI and did some more dual stall turns to ensure I didn't ever cock it up again.
It wasn't until I was trained to teach aerobatics and spinning that I fully understood the finer points of the spin. The RAF syllabus by then put much more emphasis on recognising the incipient stage than I recall at the time of my basic jet training.
I cannot link to my friend's AAIB report, it doesn't appear to be available on the website as it happened in the late 1980s. However, it appears that he was doing something beyond his capabilities at too low an altitude and paid the price. The aircraft, a Steen Skybolt, hit the ground in an erect spin, bounced, cartwheeled, then burned although it was otherwise relatively intact. The pilot was rendered unconscious, his girlfriend tried unsuccessfully to pull him from the wreckage, getting badly burned herself in the process.
There is a common link between the two above. Don't fly any aircraft in a manner that is outside your training or it may turn round and bite you and if the bite is a spin, you need to be trained to have a realistic chance of recovery.
The other accident was a Strikemaster Mk83, G-BXFX and occurred on 9 Dec 2000. This one is on the AAIB website. You can draw your own conclusion from this one as the cause was not fully determined.
All the above were intended to illustrate my point that spin recognition and recovery technique is not dull and should be an integral part of training for anyone who wishes to fly aerobatics. This is even more important now that full spinning isn't an integral part of pre-PPL training.
The technique of releasing the controls is NOT recommended for all types and shouldn't be relied on, in any event, it may result in a lot of lost height, rather than a positive recovery technique which is aimed at an expeditious recovery.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone know much about spinning in the Robin 2160 series? I've done a fair few, always quite benign - never fully developed and recovered by releasing in spin rudder. I've never really pulled that hard*
The other day I saw one done with full aft stick - it went fully developed, did about 5 or 6 turns and 1000ft. Came out eventually.
*back is the 'correct' recovery in this type.
The other day I saw one done with full aft stick - it went fully developed, did about 5 or 6 turns and 1000ft. Came out eventually.
*back is the 'correct' recovery in this type.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Miserlou,
I suggest you try this recovery technique from an inverted spin some time... preferably at a nice high altitude 
As I understand, the advantage of the Beggs Muller technique is that there is no need to recognise whether the spin is upright or inverted, and there is no need to recognise which direction you're spinning (other than figuring out which rudder pedal offers most resistance). I don't know what your background is, I have no idea whether you would instantly recognise the difference between an upright and an inverted spin in a high-pressure situation such as finding yourself inadvertantly spinning. I know I wouldn't, and I suspect that all except for current, experienced aerobatic pilots wouldn't.
I think that, as long as it works in your type (and you really should know whether or not it works in any type you're going to be doing aeros in) Beggs Muller is a technique which every aeros pilot should be familiar with.
Since I'm neither current nor experienced at aeros, please ignore my advice on important matter like this and listen to those who know what they're talking about! But I don't think the subject is at all boring. If you find it boring, then ignore this thread and let the rest of us carry on the debate. I know I find many topics that are discussed on this forum boring, but I'd never suggest that this is a reason for others not to discuss these topics.
FFF
-----------
One of the techniques which can help when things go wrong with a manouevre is to close the throttle, hold the stick back and give full rudder
As I understand, the advantage of the Beggs Muller technique is that there is no need to recognise whether the spin is upright or inverted, and there is no need to recognise which direction you're spinning (other than figuring out which rudder pedal offers most resistance). I don't know what your background is, I have no idea whether you would instantly recognise the difference between an upright and an inverted spin in a high-pressure situation such as finding yourself inadvertantly spinning. I know I wouldn't, and I suspect that all except for current, experienced aerobatic pilots wouldn't.
I think that, as long as it works in your type (and you really should know whether or not it works in any type you're going to be doing aeros in) Beggs Muller is a technique which every aeros pilot should be familiar with.
Since I'm neither current nor experienced at aeros, please ignore my advice on important matter like this and listen to those who know what they're talking about! But I don't think the subject is at all boring. If you find it boring, then ignore this thread and let the rest of us carry on the debate. I know I find many topics that are discussed on this forum boring, but I'd never suggest that this is a reason for others not to discuss these topics.
FFF
-----------
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,617
Received 484 Likes
on
256 Posts
Paulo,
Your post illustrates very nicely that each aircraft might have its own differences in the spin entry, characteristics and recovery.
I am not familiar with your type of aircraft, but in a Bulldog / Pup aircraft, allowing anything other than FULL aft stick will probably result in a high rotational spin. The normal way of teaching the entry (to a fully developed spin) was to use both hands on the stick (easier to pull fully back as the control feedback forces are quite high and it's also easier to ensure that the ailerons are correctly neutral).
The other way of obtaining a high rot. spin from a "normal" developed spin is to apply opposite (anti-spin) rudder without subsequent forward control column movement.
If you think about this, entering an inadvertant spin from a bodged aerobatic manoeuvre is quite likely to result in a high rotational spin, because the controls are almost certain to be in the incorrect position for a "normal" spin.
This is why it is very important to receive correct training on type before solo aeros.
Your post illustrates very nicely that each aircraft might have its own differences in the spin entry, characteristics and recovery.
I am not familiar with your type of aircraft, but in a Bulldog / Pup aircraft, allowing anything other than FULL aft stick will probably result in a high rotational spin. The normal way of teaching the entry (to a fully developed spin) was to use both hands on the stick (easier to pull fully back as the control feedback forces are quite high and it's also easier to ensure that the ailerons are correctly neutral).
The other way of obtaining a high rot. spin from a "normal" developed spin is to apply opposite (anti-spin) rudder without subsequent forward control column movement.
If you think about this, entering an inadvertant spin from a bodged aerobatic manoeuvre is quite likely to result in a high rotational spin, because the controls are almost certain to be in the incorrect position for a "normal" spin.
This is why it is very important to receive correct training on type before solo aeros.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thinking back to the original question, I was flying with foxmoth yesterday and the main thing that surprised me about the aileron roll was how positive his control inputs were going in to the manoeuvre. It certainly didn't come naturally to me (and I bottled one of my attempts to emulate!) - not sure if a half-hearted attempt would be enough to get you in trouble or not though...
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, learn the official line, and yes, it's all variable blah blah*, but in the case of types where certain things aren't "permitted", there is no approved recovery, no training officially possible.
Inverted spins in the Robin, for example, aren't permitted. So, err, Beggs Muller then chaps? Or what? Phone Pierre in the 10 seconds or less? BM is a plan at least - when you hatch it is your call.
* No dis to ShyT - for the reason of my story, I'm with you 100%
Inverted spins in the Robin, for example, aren't permitted. So, err, Beggs Muller then chaps? Or what? Phone Pierre in the 10 seconds or less? BM is a plan at least - when you hatch it is your call.
* No dis to ShyT - for the reason of my story, I'm with you 100%
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Heart
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFF.
Please note that i wrote, "One of the techniques which can help when things go wrong with a manouevre..." That is to say I'm not advocating that one should always do this but when an aircraft departs controlled flight due to low speed it gives you the advantage of ending up in a situation which you know how to deal with. In fact just closing the throttle and centralizing the controls works for most bodged manouevres.
So if you were to try this from an inverted spin you would probably recover very quickly; conventional tails present more effective rudder area when inverted.
It's not the debate in itself which I felt was wrong, it's the context. The thread starts with some-one trying home-made rolls. The dangers of which, which have been totally ignored here, are high speeds and the recovery from bodged high speed situations and an appreciation of aileron stall due to washout(stalling the outer portions of the wing first) and so on.
Happy Aerobatting,
Miserlou.
The point which I, and I'm sure Shy Torque will back me up here, am trying to make is, stop talking about it and go and do it!(With an instructor until you are competant!)
Please note that i wrote, "One of the techniques which can help when things go wrong with a manouevre..." That is to say I'm not advocating that one should always do this but when an aircraft departs controlled flight due to low speed it gives you the advantage of ending up in a situation which you know how to deal with. In fact just closing the throttle and centralizing the controls works for most bodged manouevres.
So if you were to try this from an inverted spin you would probably recover very quickly; conventional tails present more effective rudder area when inverted.
It's not the debate in itself which I felt was wrong, it's the context. The thread starts with some-one trying home-made rolls. The dangers of which, which have been totally ignored here, are high speeds and the recovery from bodged high speed situations and an appreciation of aileron stall due to washout(stalling the outer portions of the wing first) and so on.
Happy Aerobatting,
Miserlou.
The point which I, and I'm sure Shy Torque will back me up here, am trying to make is, stop talking about it and go and do it!(With an instructor until you are competant!)
Last edited by Miserlou; 9th Aug 2003 at 19:46.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,617
Received 484 Likes
on
256 Posts
Miserlou,
AFFIRM!
AFFIRM!