1-g roll
Alex Ly
Has anyone attempted a 1-g roll in a Cessna 172? It is my knowledge that
this maneuver is perfectly safe if executed properly. I reckon I shouldn't
try to attempt that myself....or should I?
Alex Ly (feeling a little daring tonight)
Gordon Clark
Have you ever been inverted in an airplane? Have you ever done a roll?
If you want to do aerobatics find a school or qualified person to show you
how.
Please don't try it on your own.
Gord Clark
Larry Fransson
wrote:
> Has anyone attempted a 1-g roll in a Cessna 172?
152 Aerobat and Citabria, yes. 172, no.
> It is my knowledge that
> this maneuver is perfectly safe if executed properly.
It is.
> I reckon I shouldn't
> try to attempt that myself....or should I?
You should not.
Larry
Gary L. Drescher
chandelles, lazy eights, steep turns, spins, and stalls (except whip
stalls).
Aside from that, a student pilot shouldn't even attempt any unfamiliar
NON-aerobatic maneuver without trying it first with an instructor.
Aerobatic maneuvers are out of the question for any pilot, except after
aerobatic instruction in an approved aircraft.
On the other hand, doing aerobatics in a flight simulator can be fun. :)
Regards,
Gary
"Alex Ly" <koo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9n4da5$92u$1...@news.tamu.edu...
Stefan
> this maneuver is perfectly safe if executed properly
A 1-g-roll, also called aileron roll, is just that: A roll done with
only the ailerons which maintains a load of +1g throughout the entire
roll. Therefore it can be done with *any* airplane, the plane doesn't
even know it is doing a roll. (And your passengers can happily drink
their coffees during the roll.)
But there's a very big but: Aerobatic maneuvres can get dangerous very
quickly when they are screwed up. And that's the reason why the aileron
roll is not allowed in the POH: If you screw up, Cessna doesn't
guarantee that you can recover safely. This is also the main reason why
you should, no, must! get serious aerobatic instructins before
attempting such things. (It's definitely worth the effort, though, but
this wasn't your question.)
Stefan
Rick Durden
Alex,
With all due respect, I strongly suggest you not do it. First of all,
any airplane, other than those from early World War I and before that
used wing warping for roll control, will do a roll. There is no such
thing as a "1 g roll" because either entering or exiting the manuever
it is necessary at some point to pull more than 1 g. That's because,
when you are inverted, the nose drops, so you either have to pull the
nose way up prior to rolling or after you finish. I suspect that
every airplane type ever built has been rolled. Big deal. In most
cases it merely was a reflection of the immaturity and crummy judgment
of the pilot.
The maneuver you describe is called an aileron roll. If and it's a
big "if" it is done correctly, the airplane experiences about 2 g's in
the initial pull up to establish a nose high attitude and then 1 g
during the roll. The airplane is built to withstand all of that if
done at or below maneuvering speed for the weight at which you are
flying. The huge problem is that there is no margin for error. When
I teach akro most students "dish" out of their first several rolls,
and we generate as much as 5 Gs getting things back to level flight.
The 172 is certificated to a standard of 3.8 Gs positive. Sure
there's a margin, but, how lucky do you feel?
It's been about 15 years now, but a friend of mine "dished" out of an
aileron roll. He hit the ground. It was caught on film. His body
flew some 40 feet past the rest of the airplane.
On top of all of that, you WILL damage the gyros. No, they probably
won't roll over and die on the first roll, although, if the airplane
is old, it's not unusual. Thus, your exercise gets expensive.
I think you might like aerobatics. I cannot reccommend against using
a conventionally certificated airplane strongly enough. The problem
is lack of any margin for a mistake, and everyone makes mistakes.
Yes, people have died breaking up airplanes from screwed up rolls. I
suggest you go to www.aerobaticsource.com for more information. In
addition, you might want to go to AVweb, click on "columns" and read
the piece on learning to fly aerobatics.
All the best,
Rick
Jim Fisher
Excellent post, Rick.
>I suggest you go to www.aerobaticsource.com for more information.
Whoa! Patty's a blonde now! Very impressive!
--
Jim Fisher
North Alabama - Where the only close Aerobatic school is book for a solid
YEAR!
Cherokee 180
Mr. Toad
"Alex Ly" <koo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Good Morning all,
>
> Has anyone attempted a 1-g roll in a Cessna 172? It is my knowledge that
> this maneuver is perfectly safe if executed properly.
Boeing's chief test pilot performed a 1g roll in the 707 prototype, at
Seattle's SeaFair back in the 1950's (1956, I believe).
Jim Fisher
"Mr. Toad" <sp...@nothanks.org> wrote in message
"Mr. Toad" sounds familiar from somewhere. Have you ever done any Oracle
stuff under that name?
If you don't know what this means, then you aren't who I think you are.
Just wunnering,
Jim Fisher
Billy Beck
"Alex Ly" <koo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Good Morning all,
>
>Has anyone attempted a 1-g roll in a Cessna 172? It is my knowledge that
>this maneuver is perfectly safe if executed properly. I reckon I shouldn't
>try to attempt that myself....or should I?
A damned good way to get killed. I once went out with in the
Citabria with my instructor's husband, who's USAF retired. F-4's,
A-10's, that sort of thing. Definitely able to handle the Citabria.
We has the 'chutes on, and, after some demo stuff, he asked me if
I wanted to try rolling the airplane.
I was happy he was in the back seat when I fell out of the top.
Very quickly, I was looking at a windscreen full of lake, and he was
the one who had sense enough to pull power before Vne came up, while I
was flailing like a quail.
It told me that I just enough to end my life and wreck a
perfectly innocent airplane. Dunno about you, but I'd rather not go
out like that.
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/
Billy Beck
rdu...@compuserve.com (Rick Durden) wrote:
>There is no such
>thing as a "1 g roll" because either entering or exiting the manuever
>it is necessary at some point to pull more than 1 g.
There most certainly is. Have you ever seen the video of Bob
Hoover pouring a glass of water in the cockpit through a roll?
Tim Duckworth
"Jim Fisher" <PA2...@HiWAAY.NOSPAMnet> wrote in message
news:tpcs1ga...@corp.supernews.com...
Marco L
attitude. The attitude should be changed more than his choice whether or not
to do this maneuver. OK, so Alex says to himself "Aaaalright, I won't do
it...shucks." When will he encounter the next situation where he is unsure
of his ability and push his luck? Will it be when he does not have the
luxury of getting feedback from guys like Rick in the newsgroups? Will it be
when he is looking at a cloud base that he THINKS is clear on the other
side? Will it be on an arrival to a short runway where he THINKS he can do
it even though he's never landed on one that short before? We can go on and
on.
The point is Alex is wondering about his and/or the plane's ability in a
particular situation and that should be where it stops. If the C172 can
actually do it is an interesting topic but don't ask yourself "...or should
I?" That line of reasoning will get someone into trouble more than any
single maneuver. Be safe.
Marco L.
"Rick Durden" <rdu...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:d9fecbe.01090...@posting.google.com...
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Rick Durden
Stefan,
I must respectfully disagree only slightly with you. An aileron roll
is done primarily with the ailerons (full deflection is generally
used), however, some rudder in the direction of the roll (not much,
just to help overcome adverse aileron yaw) is used in the first 3/4 of
the roll. The rudder goes to the stop in the direction of the roll in
the last 1/4 of the maneuver to help hold the nose up.
It is not a coordinated maneuver, so your passengers will tend to slop
their coffee. The barrel roll is the one where the ball stays in the
center and pax can drink coffee, although it is more complicated and
often requires a bit more than 1 G (although not a heck of a lot).
There is a very good discussion of the manuevers in Duane Cole's book,
_Conquest of Lines and Symmetry_.
All the best,
Rick
highflyer
I wouldn't recommend it without a fair amount of aerobatic dual. Most
new pilots, when they do "self instructed aerobatics" will try a 1 G
roll. This is a "barrell roll" and has quite a high entry speed.
For a 172 the entry speed is around 125 mph. They generally, for some
as yet understood reason, take the aileron out when they get inverted.
The airplane then, all on its own, will execute a split ess.
Unfortunately
they will commence this split ess from about 125 mph, instead of sixty
or so which is more appropriate. The airspeed will build very rapidly
in the early stages of a split ess, usually bending the airspeed needle
around the pit at the top of its travel and breaking the airspeed
indicator!
Needless to say, this puts you well beyond Vne pointed pretty much at
the ground. Be VERY careful with the pull back to horizontal or you
WILL pull wings off the airplane! :-)
I repeat, I do NOT recommend this for "do it yourself aerobatic
instruction."
--
HighFlyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Stefan
>
> I must respectfully disagree only slightly with you. An aileron roll
> is done primarily with the ailerons (full deflection is generally
> used), however, some rudder in the direction of the roll (not much,
> just to help overcome adverse aileron yaw) is used
Of course. And some pitch up at the beginning to prevent the nose to
drop too low during the maneuvre.
> It is not a coordinated maneuver, so your passengers will tend to slop
> their coffee.
Granted it's not "coordinated". But it's +1g throughout, no spilling. I
have ot admit, though, that I've never tried it.
> The barrel roll is the one where the ball stays in the
> center and pax can drink coffee,
Again, of course. But a barrel roll tends to be a 2-g-maneuvre. (Which
is still within the envelope of any aircraft, but with even less room
for error.)
Stefan
Dudley Henriques
"highflyer" <high...@alt.net> wrote in message
news:3B9677C5...@alt.net...
There's little need to elaborate on what has already been said, but being
me, I'll of course do it anyway! :-))
The real danger involved in this discussion isn't easy to see on the
surface. Inexperienced pilots can easily get the idea that akro can be
performed in non aerobatic airplanes after watching pilots like Bob Hoover.
It doesn't take long for someone around the flight office to point out that
these maneuvers can be done well within the g envelope of a normal category
airplane. The inexperienced pilot then visualizes putting this airplane in a
utility category "just for safety", and the result can be a question like
this one. It's PARAMOUNT that questions like this be thoroughly discussed,
so that there can be no doubt at all about the REAL reasons aerobatics
shouldn't be done in non rated airplanes.
Aside from the obvious, such as a snap maneuver entered above Va, the
dangers don't necessarily involve the maneuver itself, but rather what can
happen if the maneuver goes wrong; and THAT'S what we should be discussing
here.
It goes without saying that to conform with existing regulations, one should
never do aerobatics in airplanes like a 172, but this explanation alone
might not deter someone from trying it anyway.
In explaining the circumstances that surround this issue, I always make note
of the fact that although aerobatics are possible in these airplanes, and
aside from the obvious regulation considerations, the skill level required
to perform akro in these airplanes WITHOUT EXCEEDING LIMITS is
considerable!!!!!!
The real danger lies not in regulations or even necessarily in the maneuver
itself, but rather in what can happen if the maneuver goes sour, and in
these airplanes, because of the extremely slow roll rates and control
authority, this can happen very easily.
A perfect example is the roll you people are discussing right now.
Taking the 172 as an example, and placing it into an aileron roll scenario;
the Ps or specific energy bleed from roll onset in this airplane even at
cruise or better is terrific. It just isn't designed for a rate of roll that
will sustain a reasonable nose arc through the roll and back to level flight
without horrific energy bleed. This transitions into a nose down attitude as
the roll progresses through the first 90 knife edge through inverted at 180
degrees.
All this is just a fancy way of saying that unless you pull the nose up to a
roll set at least 45 degrees above the horizon before initiating the roll in
a 172, you are destined to begin a power on split S upon passing the first
knife edge. Assuming cruise or better airspeed at roll onset, EVEN IF YOU
PULL THE POWER,
you are now facing either a straight pull, or even worse, a rolling pullout
[ which places even more g on the airplane].
So the bottom line on this issue is quite simple. Although akro is possible
in these airplanes, because they are not designed for aerobatics, their LACK
of performance during aerobatic flight can easily place an inexperienced
pilot into a coffin corner with respect to a Vg envelope that is already
well below aerobatic standards. In short.......the safety net isn't
there!!!!!
There are only two kinds of pilots who fly akro in normal category
airplanes; highly experienced professionals doing demonstration work........
and complete idiots!!!!
And please don't ask me which one I am......a guy asked me that one
yesterday!!! :-)))))
--
Dudley A. Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI/Retired
Jim Fisher
news:jnul7.63$HX6.43322614@IConNet...
> Tool for Oracle Application Development ?
There you go. I seem to recall the author was called Toad or Mr. Toad or
some such.
--
Jim Fisher
North Alabama
Cherokee 180
mike regish
be done with a parachute on. I think I read that any bank beyond 60 deg
and any pitch beyond 30 deg is considered aerobatic.
So not only could you get dead...you could get busted.
--
mike regish
1953 TriPacer
N3428A
mike regish
--
Bob Moore
>Which brings up another point. Any aerobatic maneuvers are required to
>be done with a parachute on
Not if there is no other person (other than a crewmember) in the
airplane.
Bob Moore
Mr. Toad
"Jim Fisher" <PA2...@HiWAAY.NOSPAMnet> wrote:
> "Mr. Toad" sounds familiar from somewhere. Have you ever done any Oracle
> stuff under that name?
Sorry. Wrong amphibian.
Mr. Toad
"mike regish" <mre...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> Which brings up another point. Any aerobatic maneuvers are required to
> be done with a parachute on. I think I read that any bank beyond 60 deg
> and any pitch beyond 30 deg is considered aerobatic.
I wonder what are the odds of a successful bailout from a C172 in an
unrecoverable attitude?
William W. Plummer
that s/he was unsure of without an instructor? --Bill
"Alex Ly" <koo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9n4da5$92u$1...@news.tamu.edu...
wilburfor...@repentyoursins.net
wrote:
>Which brings up another point. Any aerobatic maneuvers are required to
>be done with a parachute on. I think I read that any bank beyond 60 deg
>and any pitch beyond 30 deg is considered aerobatic.
>
>So not only could you get dead...you could get busted.
>
>--
>mike regish
>1953 TriPacer
>N3428A
>
Is this not true only if you are carrying passengers?
Jack
>
> I agree with Rick. However, what I think should be pointed out is Alex's
> attitude. The attitude should be changed more than his choice whether or not
> to do this maneuver. OK, so Alex says to himself "Aaaalright, I won't do
> it...shucks." When will he encounter the next situation where he is unsure
> of his ability and push his luck?
Lighten up, Marco. Rick did the right thing and he got the right answers.
Anybody that never asks himself those questions has no balls at all. Now
it only remains to be seen whether he has good judgment and a modicum of
stick and rudder skills. If not, I'm sure we'll read about him soon.
Jack
--
"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball.
I'll tell you what I do: I stare out the window and wait for spring."
-- Rogers Hornsby
Jack
> Inexperienced pilots can easily get the idea that akro
> can be performed in non aerobatic airplanes after
> watching pilots like Bob Hoover.
> It's PARAMOUNT that questions like this be thoroughly discussed,
> so that there can be no doubt at all about the REAL reasons
> aerobatics shouldn't be done in non rated airplanes.
> ...although aerobatics are possible in these airplanes...the skill
> level required to perform akro in these airplanes WITHOUT EXCEEDING
> LIMITS is considerable!!!!!!
Leave it to Dudley to tell you _exactly_ what you need to know, and to
tell it well.
Read and heed, Grasshopper.
Mr. Toad
"highflyer" <high...@alt.net> wrote:
> Needless to say, this puts you well beyond Vne pointed pretty much at
> the ground. Be VERY careful with the pull back to horizontal or you
> WILL pull wings off the airplane! :-)
My instructor told me that in such a (hopefully hypothetical) situation, one
way to avoid overstressing the airframe on recovery is to use the trim wheel
to apply the up elevator to bring the aircraft back to level flight.
Thoughts?
Jack
> "highflyer" <high...@alt.net> wrote:
> > Be VERY careful with the pull back to horizontal
> > or you WILL pull wings off the airplane!
> My instructor told me that in such a...situation, one way to avoid
> overstressing the airframe on recovery is to use the trim wheel to
> apply the up elevator to bring the aircraft back to level flight.
Have you tried it?
The greater danger is with a delayed recovery. Learn to recognize the
trap before you get into it.
Why not enroll in an acro course and learn what 3-4 gs actually feel
like? By the time you know, you'll also not have to worry any longer
about dishing out of a roll.
Get your brain connected to the flight controls through all your senses.
There seems to be no end to the number of CFIs who won't involve
themselves in insuring that their students actually can _do_ those
maneuvers whose poisonous little seeds those CFIs plant and then fail to tend.
--
Jack
-----
Mr. Toad
"Jack" <bar...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Mr. Toad" wrote:
> > My instructor told me that in such a...situation, one way to avoid
> > overstressing the airframe on recovery is to use the trim wheel to
> > apply the up elevator to bring the aircraft back to level flight.
>
>
> Have you tried it?
No way in hell would I try it. I don't recall how the topic came up, but it
certainly wasn't brought up by me expressing any intent to perform
aerobatics in a C172. I don't even like doing the required stall maneuvers.
>
> The greater danger is with a delayed recovery. Learn to recognize the
> trap before you get into it.
>
> Why not enroll in an acro course and learn what 3-4 gs actually feel
> like? By the time you know, you'll also not have to worry any longer
> about dishing out of a roll.
I'm considering taking a spin recovery course.
> Get your brain connected to the flight controls through all your senses.
> There seems to be no end to the number of CFIs who won't involve
> themselves in insuring that their students actually can _do_ those
> maneuvers whose poisonous little seeds those CFIs plant and then fail to
tend.
If my instructor planted any "poisonous little seeds" (and I don't concede
that he has), then they certainly won't germinate in my 39-year-old,
safety-oriented brain.
Dudley Henriques
> My instructor told me that in such a (hopefully hypothetical) situation,
one
> way to avoid overstressing the airframe on recovery is to use the trim
wheel
> to apply the up elevator to bring the aircraft back to level flight.
>
> Thoughts?
Never forget what I'm about to tell you....please!
Trim is a powerful pitch control at high airspeed. In any situation that
puts the airplane at, over, or near Vne, the key word is "SMOOTH ". This
means a positive hand on the elevators to keep the pitch under control. In
this scenario, under certain conditions,this can even mean some forward
pressure to aleviate g loading. Assuming you have the room, level the wings
and THEN apply a very gentle
pitch input with the elevators, not the trim. Use altitude if you have it to
flatten out the recovery. It's far better to exceed the redline and apply a
low g profile recovery, than it is to apply more g at a high airspeed in an
effort to keep the airspeed down. Remember, it's not the airspeed that kills
you, it's the g!!!!
FWIW!!!!!
I once had a P51D in a high mach dive at about .75. I was critical on
several points of the aircraft and from the sound the tips were super. I had
a walking stick, porpoising and mach tuck. The elevator tabs on the Mustang
are so sensitive at this speed that had I used them to aid in the dive
recovery, I most likely wouldn't be writing this now! :-)
Best fix for this is avoidance!!!!!!! :-)
Dudley Henriques
"William W. Plummer" <wplu...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:kZwl7.20988$zj5.5...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> This thread amazes me. WHY would any pilot even consider trying
something
> that s/he was unsure of without an instructor? --Bill
Happens every day.........it's called human nature! It's best handled with a
well thought out and intelligent answer. Perhaps one can't cure the world's
problems, but giving people the information they need to stay alive is a
good start anyway! :-)
RT
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:jGyl7.10834$IP6.9...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> I once had a P51D in a high mach dive at about .75. I was critical on
> several points of the aircraft and from the sound the tips were super. I
had
> a walking stick, porpoising and mach tuck. The elevator tabs on the
Mustang
> are so sensitive at this speed that had I used them to aid in the dive
> recovery, I most likely wouldn't be writing this now! :-)
Well, you can't just leave it there! :-)
Assuming a P51 would not get to that sort of speed without a lot of power
(or would it?) and assuming the throttle wasn't stuck wide open, it sounds
as though you had a reason to be somewhere else in a helluva hurry... ??
Mr. Toad
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> It's far better to exceed the redline and apply a
> low g profile recovery, than it is to apply more g at a high airspeed in
an
> effort to keep the airspeed down. Remember, it's not the airspeed that
kills
> you, it's the g!!!!
Assuming you keep the g-loading down as you suggest, what are the likely
consequences of exceeding Vne in a C172? Do parts start to peel off? If so,
which ones?
mike regish
either 303 or 307.
Rich Carr wrote:
>
> mike regish (mre...@mediaone.net) wrote:
> : Which brings up another point. Any aerobatic maneuvers are required to
> : be done with a parachute on. I think I read that any bank beyond 60 deg
> : and any pitch beyond 30 deg is considered aerobatic.
>
> Pedantic aside: Aerobatic flight is defined in FAR 303. Parachute use is
> defined in FAR 307. The definitions are not particularly related.
>
> - Rich Carr
Greg Kainz
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:jGyl7.10834$IP6.9...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> I once had a P51D in a high mach dive at about .75. I was critical on
> several points of the aircraft and from the sound the tips were super. I
had
> a walking stick, porpoising and mach tuck. The elevator tabs on the
Mustang
Hi Dudley;
Could you explain the above terms, walking stick, porpoising and mach
tuck,
what they mean, the impact of these conditions and how to correct?
Thanks.
Greg
Pete Zaitcev
> > several points of the aircraft and from the sound the tips were super. I had
> > a walking stick, porpoising and mach tuck. The elevator tabs on the Mustang
> > are so sensitive at this speed that had I used them to aid in the dive
> > recovery, I most likely wouldn't be writing this now! :-)
>
> Well, you can't just leave it there! :-)
>
> Assuming a P51 would not get to that sort of speed without a lot of power
> (or would it?) and assuming the throttle wasn't stuck wide open, it sounds
> as though you had a reason to be somewhere else in a helluva hurry... ??
Quoting John Godfrey, flying P-51B, by the way of Shaw:
"Never turn your back on an enemy" was a byword with us, but I had no
choice. Turning the plane over on its back I yanked the the stick to
my gut. My throttle was wide open and I left it there as I dove.
The needle stopped at 600 miles per--that was as far as it could go
on the dial. Pulling out I expected at any minute to have the wings
rip off, the plane was buckling so much.
Don't do it in your Mooney.
-- Pete
Bob Moore
Mike, It doesn't take too much grey matter to understand that he was
refering to Part 91 of the FARs. 91.303 and 91.307.
Bob Moore
mike regish
is no FAR 303 *OR* FAR 307. Aerobatics are any abrupt maneuver and you
can't bank over 60 degrees or pitch more than 30 with pax unless they
are wearing chutes.
Rich Carr wrote:
>
> mike regish (mre...@mediaone.net) wrote:
> : Which brings up another point. Any aerobatic maneuvers are required to
> : be done with a parachute on. I think I read that any bank beyond 60 deg
> : and any pitch beyond 30 deg is considered aerobatic.
>
> Pedantic aside: Aerobatic flight is defined in FAR 303. Parachute use is
> defined in FAR 307. The definitions are not particularly related.
>
> - Rich Carr
mike regish
--
Steve Dold
> Mike, It doesn't take too much grey matter to understand that he was
> refering to Part 91 of the FARs. 91.303 and 91.307.
>
> Bob Moore
>
Jeez. Nice guy.
----------------------------------
Steve Dold CFI, W6KCS
sdold at compudigital dot com
Real men ride plates!
----------------------------------
Jim Smolen
>A perfect example is the roll you people are discussing right now.
>Taking the 172 as an example, and placing it into an aileron roll scenario;
>the Ps or specific energy bleed from roll onset in this airplane even at
>cruise or better is terrific. It just isn't designed for a rate of roll that
>will sustain a reasonable nose arc through the roll and back to level flight
>without horrific energy bleed. This transitions into a nose down attitude as
>the roll progresses through the first 90 knife edge through inverted at 180
>degrees.
>All this is just a fancy way of saying that unless you pull the nose up to a
>roll set at least 45 degrees above the horizon before initiating the roll in
>a 172, you are destined to begin a power on split S upon passing the first
>knife edge. Assuming cruise or better airspeed at roll onset, EVEN IF YOU
>PULL THE POWER,
>you are now facing either a straight pull, or even worse, a rolling pullout
>[ which places even more g on the airplane].
>So the bottom line on this issue is quite simple. Although akro is possible
>in these airplanes, because they are not designed for aerobatics, their LACK
>of performance during aerobatic flight can easily place an inexperienced
>pilot into a coffin corner with respect to a Vg envelope that is already
>well below aerobatic standards.
And this can happen even in aircraft that are certified for acro. One
of my early learning experiences in the pitfalls of an aileron roll
came in a 7KCAB Citabria. I was still a relative novice at acro, but I
had done aileron rolls in Great Lakes and Decathlons and so I knew the
usual problems. So I pulled the nose of the Citabria up the required
(!!) 20 degrees, unloaded the stick, and put in full aileron.
Now those other planes I had flown had decent roll rates. The Citabria
didn't even have spades. I found myself in the situation Dudley
described above. I spent some effort eyeing the emergency door release
as things got bad, finished the maneuver well nose-down and still
below red-line, having pulled the power early on.
The thought of anyone, particularly someone with no acro experience,
trying this in a C172 just makes me shudder. Dudley's scenario will
often come to pass. Also, the unintiated or unbriefed (like one of the
responders above - "hey, just go try a roll!") will likely keep in
back pressure as they become inverted -- SPLIT-S becomes almost
inevitable.
What I learned from this is that every plane is different. The
Citabria, fair performer that it was in many ways, simply didn't have
the roll rate to cleanly do aileron rolls. From then on, every roll I
did in that plane was a slow roll or a barrel roll. There was enough
roll authority to do lazy barrels and slow rolls were SLOW, but then
other controls were being used to keep the nose up.
RT
"Jim Smolen" <jsm...@SPAMBEGONE.bcm.tmc.edu> wrote in message
news:f5ndptobn7it25bgv...@4ax.com...
Hang on fellas - the topic is (well, it was :-) "1-g roll".
That's a *barrel* roll, not an aileron roll, right?
(But I agree with you completely about not even THINKING about an aileron
roll in a 172! :-)
Jack
> I don't even like doing the required stall maneuvers.
I can relate. Having spent the first ten years of my flying career being
as comfortable upside-down as right-side-up, I thought that I could go
back to doing acro and be at ease with it, even though I have been doing
only the straight-and-level point A to point B thing for the last 20+
years: wrong!
When I got into the Decathlon a couple of years ago, it was a rude shock
to find that I was not any longer comfortable upside down and/or pointed
straight up or straight down. But, with practice, my confidence returned.
...
> I'm considering taking a spin recovery course.
Sounds like a good idea.
Have you done all those max-performance maneuvers for which the 172 is
certified until you are completely at home with taking the airplane to
those limits?
JerryK
than the crap Oracle provides.
"Jim Fisher" <PA2...@HiWAAY.NOSPAMnet> wrote in message
news:tpd2is9...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Tim Duckworth" <t...@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:jnul7.63$HX6.43322614@IConNet...
> > Tool for Oracle Application Development ?
>
> There you go. I seem to recall the author was called Toad or Mr. Toad or
> some such.
> --
> Jim Fisher
> North Alabama
> Cherokee 180
>
>
JerryK
akro planes I have been in have pullable pins replacing the door hinges.
You pull the pins and kick to door away.
"Mr. Toad" <sp...@nothanks.org> wrote in message
news:tpd6568...@corp.supernews.com...
Dudley Henriques
"RT" <r.th...@cqu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:9n6pph$fe7$1...@spider.cqu.edu.au...
Try to keep from falling into a mindset that 1g relates to either a barrel
or an aileron roll. You can do both a barrel roll and an aileron roll at any
positive g you desire. You can even, after initiating an aileron roll,
unload the airplane to 0 g to increase the roll rate.[ Little trick we do in
fighters to maximize the roll speed]In fighters, we do vector ;aspect ; and
lag rolls at much higher g than 1, and these can easily be classified as
aileron rolls. A barrel roll can be performed as well, above 1 g. The way to
visualize this is that in primary aerobatic trainers, an aileron roll is
usually done with a pull to a roll set at some g above 1, then the airplane
is rolled from that neutral set at about 1 g all the way around until
recovery, when the nose is again raised to level flight at some g above 1.
As you gain experience with aileron rolls, you can gently feed in some
elevator going around to make it nicer if you like.In other words, it's just
a minimum g roll!
Barrel rolls can be done many different ways. The easiest way is a rolling
pull again at some g value above 1, then as aileron is applied with back
stick, the elevator can be played anywhere from 1 positive g all the way to
a much higher g by tightening the roll with coordinated control inputs. The
recovery again requires some g above 1 to level flight.
So in the proper aerobatic sense, neither an aileron or a barrel roll should
be called a 1 g roll. That's just a way of expressing that these rolls can
be done at 1 g if desired.
Dudley Henriques
It happened as the result of an O2 malfunction at 25K. .The airplane was set
up at cruise power with the blower in auto. The description that follows
probably took place in a few seconds of real time. It seems funny even today
writing it all out on paper. :-)
I was mentally at 0 before I realized what was happening.[ my wife says I
might still be in this condition at least part of the time :-)]. I woke up
with the airplane in a flat out dive indicating a .74 mach number. [We had a
meter.] The red line indicated airspeed is variable on the Mustang's ASI,
and the two needles were almost at co-speed. Ordinarily this would indicate
a .70 mach number, but the meter said .74. I was breaking 20 thousand. The
airplane was beginning to perform a pitching oscillation that I couldn't
correct without PIO problems, and the stick was "wandering" a bit in my
hand. I instinctively knew through my foggy brain that this was
compressibility onset. I wish I could say it was a super human effort to
save both myself and the airplane, but it actually wasn't all that difficult
to recover. For some reason known only to the Lord, I was apparently getting
oxygen again at 20K when I got through the brain fog enough to realize what
had happened. I cut the power and decreased the prop setting a bit. I
figured instinctively from the ungodly howl and the bang I had felt that the
tangential velocity on the tips HAD to be super. The real kicker of the
whole thing was the dive angle. I was almost inverted at about 80 degrees
nose down and rolling when I hit 20K. It took some fancy hand and footwork
to get things under control again. I somehow got the stick settled down as
the power came back and I just held on. I managed to get the nose up some as
the airplane decelerated and at about 15K, I felt positive control on the
elevators. The recovery was a controlled pitch input that finally got me
stable in level flight at about 4 thousand. I guessed the recovery g at
about 5.
We had the engineers from North American, and a friend of mine from Hamilton
Standard look the airplane over pretty well after the incident. The g meter
had registered +7.5 [actually...not too bad really. I had a half a g left!!!
:-) We took a picture of it for posterity. All in all there was no engine
or prop overspeed. We had lucked out all the way around! :-)
But I don't think I want to do it again!!!!! :-)
Shawn D. Gahring
>
> Good Morning all,
>
> Has anyone attempted a 1-g roll in a Cessna 172? It is my knowledge that
> this maneuver is perfectly safe if executed properly. I reckon I shouldn't
> try to attempt that myself....or should I?
In joining the chorus of those who replied "no", I'll pass on a little
cautionary tale. While I was in college, one of the students in the
professional pilot program decided to teach himself how to do a
barrel roll in one of the school's fleet of -152s. Solo. Without any
aerobatic training. At night. Now, when properly performed, a barrel
roll should be a smooth, 1g maneuver. Improperly performed, it can
frequently end up in a barrel dive. The student got approximately
halfway through the roll when he got disoriented by the lights on
the ground (kind of a "sky-ground effect"). He decided to pull up
because he was building up speed. Unfortunately, he was performing
a split s. As the airspeed wound up, the altimeter wound down, and
he pulled enough g's that the flap handle was pulled fully down by
its own weight. Oddly enough, he heared a strange pinging noise as
he pulled through to the bottom of his split s. Deciding that he'd
had enough fun for the night, he returned to the field and, because
he felt a little foolish, he didn't tell anyone what he'd done. The
next day, another student went out to preflight the plane and found
a number of rivets popped on the plane. That would explain the pinging
noises he'd heard. He also ended up cracking the wing spar on the
plane.
So, while Tex Houston did roll a 707, it's probably under the category
of "bad things" for Joe Bag-O-Donuts to try rolling a plane not
rated for aerobatics.
S. Gahring
Dudley Henriques
"Greg Kainz" <greg...@home.com> wrote in message
news:_%zl7.63683$c8.31...@news1.denver1.co.home.com...
Well Greg, I sure hope you won't be dealing with these things in the 172.
:-))))))
Actually, it's nothing really exotic! These terms are usually related to
high speed flight. They directly relate to what can happen to controls when
an airplane enters the area of compressibility at or above the aircraft's
critical mach number. Actually, Mcr will occur at different points on the
airplane as the airflow reaches transonic at that point. Walking stick is a
definite sign that you are experiencing velocity and flow problems on the
control surfaces of the airplane. Proposing is a pitch problem both ways
that can get out of control to the point where PIO [pilot induced
oscillation] will result if you attempt to correct it. In the T38 for
example, it's possible to set up a PIO that's unrecoverable unless you let
go of the stick. In the Mustang, it's a sure sign that you are entering
compressibility. The exact frequency of this oscillation will depend on your
cg configuration and other factors. Mach tuck will occur at high mach
numbers as an airplane enters the transonic range. The airplane has a
tendency to go nose down. The 51 will get very nose heavy at about .70.
RT
> :-) We took a picture of it for posterity. All in all there was no engine
> or prop overspeed. We had lucked out all the way around! :-)
> But I don't think I want to do it again!!!!! :-)
Thanks for the details :-)
(Hmmm - be nice to feed that lot into a full motion simulator, if there was
one :-)
RT
Fair enuff! I guess I was slewed by considering only a C172 :-)
Bob Moore
>Barrel rolls can be done many different ways. The easiest way is a rolling
>pull again at some g value above 1, then as aileron is applied with back
>stick, the elevator can be played anywhere from 1 positive g all the way to
>a much higher g by tightening the roll with coordinated control inputs. The
>recovery again requires some g above 1 to level flight.
>So in the proper aerobatic sense, neither an aileron or a barrel roll should
>be called a 1 g roll. That's just a way of expressing that these rolls can
>be done at 1 g if desired.
Dudley....I defy you to do a "barrel roll" at "1g". An airplane in
straight and level flight is experiencing "1g". A "barrel roll" is a
combination of a roll and a loop. As taught in the US Navy, it is a
precision maneuver as opposed to most other rolls that have no defined
"heading-attitude" points through-out the execution.
On a given heading, both elevator and aileron inputs are used to start
the nose up and a roll in one direction. This normally requires at
least 2 1/2 to 3 "g's". Continue the control inputs so that the
airplane becomes inverted at the same time as the heading has changed
90 degrees. Continue the inputs and the airplane returns to the
original heading at the same time as it returns to upright- wings
level flight.
Bob Moore
Dudley Henriques
"Bob Moore" <rmoo...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mhLl7.54162$8c3.11...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Well, I'll assume your "defying me" is a friendly gesture, and attempt to
straighten you out a bit Bob :-), since I've been both teaching Barrel Rolls
and flying them professionally for the better part of fifty years now.
:-))))
Your description of a Barrel Roll is simply one way to perform the maneuver.
It's what we call a "classic" barrel roll. Most aerobatic instructors
including me have used this method to teach barrel rolls for years. You are
absolutely correct that a barrel roll can be flown as a precision maneuver
with respect to heading change, and you are also correct in saying that when
taught this way, the 90 degree point is at the inverted. You are incorrect
however in saying that the roll can't be flown at 1 g.
I'm sure you either misread or misinterpreted what I wrote about barrel
rolls and the g profile, so I've copied it again here.
DAH wrote;
"Barrel rolls can be done many different ways. The easiest way is a rolling
pull again at some g value above 1, then as aileron is applied with back
stick, the elevator can be played anywhere from 1 positive g all the way to
a much higher g by tightening the roll with coordinated control inputs. The
recovery again requires some g above 1 to level flight".
You will note that I specified "the easiest way". I simply chose this
projection for the roll instead of the "classic" because the context of the
question was about g, not about barrel rolls per se'.
You will also note that I said about the entry, "at some g value above 1".
This takes care of your statement that "this usually requires 2 1/2 to 3
g's", which is a correct statement.
Barrel Rolls are unique in aerobatics because they are a three dimensional
maneuver through three dimensional space. You are absolutely correct about
how they are taught in the Navy....the other flying services as well! But
that's where the "precision" ends...right there. If you go multi, you may
never do a barrel roll in any other way again but the classic version you
were taught. End up at fighter lead in however, and things change quite a
bit.
Remember the basics Bob, a barrel roll is a 3 dimensional maneuver executed
through 3 dimensions. There's no set rule on how much g you use to
accomplish this.
Now we get to the meat of what you were saying about not being able to do a
barrel roll at 1 g. In high performance airplanes like fighters or aerobatic
aircraft designed for the purpose, we consider barrel rolls in two parts;
the roll setup and the roll itself.
Naturally, you will use g above 1 as you initiate; your figure of 2.5 to 3.0
is about right for most aircraft. Now, UNLESS you are flying the classic
roll profile, where g is determined by the entry airspeed and what's
required to put the airplane exactly where you need it to be for the heading
change at 90 degrees at the inverted apex, and again on heading at the
recovery point, you are free to execute the roll at any g you choose from +1
to the max radial g available for the airplane, from the point where you
transition from the set to the point where back pressure must be increased
to the recovery point at level flight. In ACM, we execute loaded barrel
rolls all the time to decrease angle off; decrease closure rate; and avoid
an overshoot in the plane of the target's turn.
You can execute barrel rolls any way you want to, as long as the maneuver is
positive all the way around. So the bottom line on what you said is this; if
you include the roll set; yes, you are doing the roll above 1 g. If you
separate the roll set and unload the airplane during the roll, you can go
easily down to 1 g in the roll. If you do this however, you will need that
set g again at the recovery. Your explanation is entirely acceptable with
the roll executed above 1 g all the way around. Just remember, a barrel roll
can be executed "out of the classic" at any g from +1 up to max radial
available if the pilot leaves the classic profile after the roll set and
"adjusts" the g as he desires. You do this all the time in ACM work, and you
will do it all the time in demonstration flying.
If it makes you feel any better......I initially teach Barrel rolls exactly
the way you have described them...as a precision maneuver......THEN we start
having REAL fun!!!!!!! :-)))))
Dudley
highflyer
> Granted it's not "coordinated". But it's +1g throughout, no spilling. I
> have ot admit, though, that I've never tried it.
>
Clearly you have never done one. Spilling is not related to 1G.
Spilling
is related to coordination. Hold a full cup of hot coffee in your lap
sometime while sitting a the front seat of a Pickup Truck motoring down
a bumpy gravel road at sixty miles an hour. I bet you spill. Only 1G
though! :-)
A barrell roll is a coordinated maneuver. No spilling. Will probably
pull over 1 G.
An aileron roll is an uncoordinated maneuver. Will probably spill lots.
Will probably pull over 1 G.
A certified aircraft is required to meet a specification of slightly
less
than 4 G's before taking a permanent set! :-) Loops, rolls, spins, snap
rolls, immelman turns, cuban eights, barrel rolls, wingovers,
hammerheads,
and a whole host of other positive G maneuvers can be flown without ever
exceeding 3.5 G's. If, and it is a BIG if, they are perfectly flown!
You don't usually pull a lot of G's doing the maneuver. You are VERY
likely to pull lots of G's recovering from a botched maneuver. If you
haven't done the maneuver more than a few times I promise you, you WILL
botch the maneuver. You will stand a very good chance of breaking your
airplane and your body.
Aerobatics is fun. I love flying it, once in a while, even though I AM
an old man and don't do the outside stuff any more! However, it is NOT
a place for "self instruction" and there is a reason that aerobatic
aircraft are stressed for much higher loadings than you common everyday
Cessna 172.
If you should EVER find yourself in an airplane with the green in the
wrong half of the windshield, do NOT pull on the controls to get out.
Put in FULL aileron and wait until the green and blue are in the
usual places. Then very gently recover to level flight. It is always
safer to roll back to right side up from inverted and it is to pull
through into a split ess, which is virtually the same as the back side
of a loop.
In the Pitts S2S the normal loop entry is a four G pull up. The same
on the pull out at the end of the maneuver. It is not at all unusual
to see over 5 G's positive and 3 G's negative on the G meter after a
flight where you don't make any obvious mistakes! Do not do this in
your Cessna 172, even loaded in Utility Category! :-)
--
HighFlyer
Highflight Aviation Services
highflyer
>
> rdu...@compuserve.com (Rick Durden) wrote:
>
> >There is no such
> >thing as a "1 g roll" because either entering or exiting the manuever
> >it is necessary at some point to pull more than 1 g.
>
> There most certainly is. Have you ever seen the video of Bob
> Hoover pouring a glass of water in the cockpit through a roll?
>
>
That is a barrel roll and he did indeed pull more than 1 G. However,
Bob was merely pointing out that the airplane was perfectly coordinated.
Coordinated, no spilling. G's don't spill things. Uncoordination does.
highflyer
>
> "highflyer" <high...@alt.net> wrote:
> > Needless to say, this puts you well beyond Vne pointed pretty much at
> > the ground. Be VERY careful with the pull back to horizontal or you
> > WILL pull wings off the airplane! :-)
>
> My instructor told me that in such a (hopefully hypothetical) situation, one
> way to avoid overstressing the airframe on recovery is to use the trim wheel
> to apply the up elevator to bring the aircraft back to level flight.
>
> Thoughts?
If he can do that without busting Vne and bending the needle on the
airspeed indicator around the stop pin at the end of travel he is
really quick on the trim wheel! :-) I recommend just pulling between
two and three G's and hoping that you don't get too fast.
Of course, you shouldn't let yourself GET into that situation! :-)
highflyer
A friend of mine did a very similiar thing in a P-47 over France in
1945.
He was at 25,000 and went to bounce a target. He rolled into a split
ess. The compressibility locked the stick solid for him. He actually
bent the stick he pulled so hard. When he got below 15000 the
increasing
air density slowly returned some control and he started to pull out.
He came level at about 4000 feet! It sure doesn't take long to dump
20,000 feet of altitude when you do it that way! :-) He also had
absolutely no inclination to repeat the maneuver!
highflyer
The windshield would most likely go first. After that, your guess is
as
good as mine.
Excessive speed can be as dangerous as excessive G's. We suspect there
is some airspeed, probably not far above Vne, where control flutter can
become a problem. A bit of flutter can disassemble an airplane in
seconds!
When you start exceeding the design limits like this you have a real
choice. Is it better to pull so hard the wings clap hands, or should
you let the speed build until flutter caused it to come apart all over
the place? I don't find either choice attractive! :-)
Charles K. Scott
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@earthlink.net> writes:
> Trim is a powerful pitch control at high airspeed. In any situation that
> puts the airplane at, over, or near Vne, the key word is "SMOOTH ". This
> means a positive hand on the elevators to keep the pitch under control. In
> this scenario, under certain conditions,this can even mean some forward
> pressure to aleviate g loading.
Got to be true. I recall reading the memoire of a B-17 pilot who
recalled being hit by a fighter on the way in to the target and lost
control of the bomber (the bomber got hit, not the pilot). It went
over on it's back and split essed out of formation. They semi
recovered but decided to head for the deck since they'd lost the
protection of the formation and were dead meat if caught by the
fighters. So they kept the nose down and dove for the deck. Keeping
the nose down turned out to be a big problem. Both pilots basically
had to brace their arms the push with all their might on the control
column to keep the nose pointed down at the speed they'd built up to.
Once low, they salvoed the bombs and headed home on the deck. Just
another day at the office. Don't know if the airplane ever flew again
though.
Corky Scott
Billy Beck
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Try to keep from falling into a mindset that 1g relates to either a barrel
>or an aileron roll. You can do both a barrel roll and an aileron roll at any
>positive g you desire. You can even, after initiating an aileron roll,
>unload the airplane to 0 g to increase the roll rate.[ Little trick we do in
>fighters to maximize the roll speed]In fighters,...
I dimly recall Cal, the guy I flew the aero demo with, explaining
that. Is draining off induced drag with zero-g a part of it?
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/
Billy Beck
Jim Smolen <jsm...@SPAMBEGONE.bcm.tmc.edu> wrote:
>What I learned from this is that every plane is different. The
>Citabria, fair performer that it was in many ways, simply didn't have
>the roll rate to cleanly do aileron rolls. From then on, every roll I
>did in that plane was a slow roll or a barrel roll. There was enough
>roll authority to do lazy barrels and slow rolls were SLOW, but then
>other controls were being used to keep the nose up.
Terri once described a checkout she did in her 7KCAB. (This one
has spades.) This guy was a retired Blue Angel (she didn't tell me
his name), and he popped a snap-roll at the top of a loop. (And then
wanted to go on and practice stalls. She laughed about that.)
That airplane will do it, but it takes a master's touch.
Dudley Henriques
"Billy Beck" <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3b97b094...@news.mindspring.com...
Not really Billy! An aileron roll can be done completely unloaded after the
roll set ,because it's simply a roll on the longitudinal axis, but a barrel
roll requires some positive g all the way around. In examining the g profile
for a barrel roll, you must consider above +1g for the initial roll entry,
but from there, the g can be applied all the way from +1 to the maximum
radial g available until past the second knife edge. At no time can the
airplane be allowed below 1g, as it's the positive g that is allowing you to
"fly" the airplane through the roll in three dimensions. To fly a barrel
roll at 1g, you have to use a fairly high entry speed, make the roll setup
at about 2 to 3 g's, then bleed off the back pressure and bleed in more
aileron; allowing the airplane to find it's own three dimensional path
through the roll at +1g. Needless to say, this will be a very wide barrel
roll, and it takes a great deal of skill to perform it properly; just
keeping the g where you want it to be without gaining g with excessive back
pressure or allowing the aircraft to unload below +1 takes a lot of
concentration.
If you put a glass of water on the instrument panel. It will stay there all
through the roll at +1 or above, but will spill immediately if you allow the
g to fall below+1. This of course assumes perfect coordination of all
controls through the roll!! :-))))
Dudley
Dudley Henriques
"highflyer" <high...@alt.net> wrote in message
news:3B97A96C...@alt.net...
> "Mr. Toad" wrote:
> >
> > "Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > It's far better to exceed the redline and apply a
> > > low g profile recovery, than it is to apply more g at a high airspeed
in
> > an
> > > effort to keep the airspeed down. Remember, it's not the airspeed that
> > kills
> > > you, it's the g!!!!
> >
> > Assuming you keep the g-loading down as you suggest, what are the likely
> > consequences of exceeding Vne in a C172? Do parts start to peel off? If
so,
> > which ones?
>
> The windshield would most likely go first. After that, your guess is
> as
> good as mine.
So true!!!!
>
> Excessive speed can be as dangerous as excessive G's. We suspect there
> is some airspeed, probably not far above Vne, where control flutter can
> become a problem. A bit of flutter can disassemble an airplane in
> seconds!
True as well!!!
>
> When you start exceeding the design limits like this you have a real
> choice. Is it better to pull so hard the wings clap hands, or should
> you let the speed build until flutter caused it to come apart all over
> the place? I don't find either choice attractive! :-)
Ah yes!!! But can we just say that and leave it there HF? :-))
Reality can replace preventive measures in split seconds in these
situations, and that's what we're really talking about here....
survival!!!
I think we have to assume that anyone in this scenario has already missed
the boat on prevention. The choice now is g or speed! The result of going to
g at Vne is obvious ; bad move!!!
It's far better to flatten the recovery busting the redline and keep the g
to a low roar. I agree about the flutter. It could be a real problem if the
airspeed went high enough. Hopefully, considering all that could go wrong in
this situation, the airspeed won't be allowed to reach this point.
Like all emergency measures in flying, it's always a trade off. There's neve
r a perfect way out. The element of risk for a Vne recovery is there no
matter which way you go. The g is a known killer at Vne. The airspeed is
bad, but can be worked by a skillful pilot. You work the airspeed
gently.........and as you do this you muse to yourself........"Damn...I wish
I'd listened to Highflyer's warning about not getting into this mess!!!!!!
". :-)))))))
Dudley
highflyer
> Ah yes!!! But can we just say that and leave it there HF? :-))
> Reality can replace preventive measures in split seconds in these
> situations, and that's what we're really talking about here....
> survival!!!
> I think we have to assume that anyone in this scenario has already missed
> the boat on prevention. The choice now is g or speed! The result of going to
> g at Vne is obvious ; bad move!!!
> It's far better to flatten the recovery busting the redline and keep the g
> to a low roar. I agree about the flutter. It could be a real problem if the
> airspeed went high enough. Hopefully, considering all that could go wrong in
> this situation, the airspeed won't be allowed to reach this point.
> Like all emergency measures in flying, it's always a trade off. There's neve
> r a perfect way out. The element of risk for a Vne recovery is there no
> matter which way you go. The g is a known killer at Vne. The airspeed is
> bad, but can be worked by a skillful pilot. You work the airspeed
> gently.........and as you do this you muse to yourself........"Damn...I wish
> I'd listened to Highflyer's warning about not getting into this mess!!!!!!
> ". :-)))))))
> Dudley
>
I must bow, Dudley. I can remember way back when, when I was young and
foolish instead of old and foolish, I decided to teach myself
aerobatics.
In a Taylorcraft. I had read the book. SURE you can teach yourself to
fly by reading a book! :-) I went out and tried the classic barrel
roll.
Dove a bit to get sufficient entry speed. Back stick and full aileron.
coming up and around nicely. Am I supposed to relax that stick about
here? What do you mean the entry speed wasn't high enough? How come
I am going down and not around? WOW, look at that airspeed. Pull back
on the stick, gently does it, you are going like a bat out of hell!
EASE it back. That windshield is shaking pretty bad, don't let it blow
out now! How fast AM I going? I can't tell, the airspeed doesn't read
that high! Nose coming up now. Airspeed starting to come down. Hold
it there, keep the G's down, coming up. Level flight. What happened
to the two thousand feet of altitude I climbed first for safety sake?
I don't think I want to do that again!
I did let the airspeed build to keep the G's down between two and three.
Pitch control is critical. Gentle and smooth got the job done. It
worked, I am still here. But it was NOT skill. It was pure dumb luck!
:-)
John Gaquin
>
>....I can remember way back when, when I was young and
> foolish instead of old and foolish, I decided to teach myself
Ah, youth! I had a similar experience shortly after my private license, and
I had checked out in the Aero Club's T-34. Managed one roll. Then another.
Then got the brilliant idea to try and link two together. Got to about (I'm
guessing) 130 degrees of bank on the second roll, and went completely
disoriented. My next recognizable observation was that the windshield was
full of prairie, and my only thought was "....gee, it looks just like a map
from this angle...". Turns out I had enough altitude for a survivable
pullout, but it had naught to do with judgment, skill, or planning, I assure
you. Learned a few things that day.....
JG
Dudley Henriques
You don't even want to know the stupid stuff I've done HF!!! :-)
I remember one time; I was out playing some formation acro with a buddy of
mine out over the boonies. Both of us were flying Mustangs. I usually flew
the wing position when we did this.[ I never told John, but I had this
aversion to having that big Hamilton of his that close up my
butt...especially if we had been out the night before!! :-) ]
Anyway, I'm tucked in on his left wing back and down about twenty feet when
he calls for a 4 g loop. I slide back and inside just enough to get a 45
degree paint between my windshield bow mirror and his left well cover [the
position for a vertical maneuver that keeps me from slicing off his tail
section and bending my prop!! ] Well, I noticed the altimeter was a bit low
at the maneuver onset, but still within parameters for the loop. John calls
the maneuver and walks us up to 4g's. I'm glued on the paint ; holding
position. You get a peripheral view of the horizon holding a position paint
in formation acro. Without taking my eyes off John, I knew he was long over
the top. On the way down I felt we were long as well. The g didn't feel
right...it wasn't enough! Anyway, I'm beginning now to feel the g building
at a faster rate than I should be feeling......and this ain't good!! We're
past vertical and I can see the ground under his wing. You know that awful
feeling you get when you know you are in too deep? Well I had it right
there!!! You mentally do the math and geometry instantly in these
situations. I could see we were going to make it, but it was going to be
close....damn close!
I could "feel" that we had enough g available to make the recovery arc, but
being low and outside, I was committed lower than John was. He eased us out
with enough room under my airplane to maybe stuff a cow between me and the
ground. Then I notice we're "in" a field with trees at the end ahead of us.
I shouted "Break...Break up!!...Give me some room, quick!!! " John pulls up
just in time for me to go knife edge between two trees at the end of the
field. I swear, I flew between them left wing down, standing on the right
rudder! End of stupid Dudley story! Needless to say, we had a few beers that
night while we went over entry altitudes and g profiles for pilots who wish
to live longer lives! :-)))
Ah yes, the learning curve!!!!! Ain't it wonderful? Sometimes I don't know
how I ever made it this far in life. Somehow, if we're lucky, we sometimes
get another chance in this business, but you can't depend on it. As you have
so correctly said, and I reiterate, it's far better to stay out of trouble
in the first place! :-)
Dudley
Mac
>
>
> It happened as the result of an O2 malfunction at 25K. .The airplane was set
> up at cruise power with the blower in auto. The description that follows
> probably took place in a few seconds of real time.
snip
Dud, some of your posts just chill me to the bone... toooo scary;)
--
Mac.
highflyer
> Ah yes, the learning curve!!!!! Ain't it wonderful? Sometimes I don't know
> how I ever made it this far in life. Somehow, if we're lucky, we sometimes
> get another chance in this business, but you can't depend on it. As you have
> so correctly said, and I reiterate, it's far better to stay out of trouble
> in the first place! :-)
>
> Dudley
Talk about a couple of old blokes saying "Do as I say, not as I did!"
:-)
I just keep reminding the youngsters that noone lives long enough to
make
all of the mistakes themselves so please try to learn from mine! :-)
I think most older pilots have some really dedicated and overworked
guardian angels! :-)
Dudley Henriques
"Mac" <mac...@ntlworldTAKEOUT.com> wrote in message
news:3B97E0...@ntlworldTAKEOUT.com...
If they scare YOU,
how do you think they made ME feel???? :-)
DAH
Dudley Henriques
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
> > Ah yes, the learning curve!!!!! Ain't it wonderful? Sometimes I don't
know
> > how I ever made it this far in life. Somehow, if we're lucky, we
sometimes
> > get another chance in this business, but you can't depend on it. As you
have
> > so correctly said, and I reiterate, it's far better to stay out of
trouble
> > in the first place! :-)
> >
> > Dudley
>
> Talk about a couple of old blokes saying "Do as I say, not as I did!"
> :-)
>
> make
> all of the mistakes themselves so please try to learn from mine! :-)
>
> I think most older pilots have some really dedicated and overworked
> guardian angels! :-)
One of the very first things I learned as a flight instructor was this;
NEVER.....EVER......tell the student what the expected outcome is BEFORE you
do it!!! Do it first.....then however it comes out....tell the student that
what you did was a perfectly flown example of either the right way or the
wrong way to do what you just did!!! :-)))))))))))))
Dudley
Jim Smolen
The Citabria snap-rolls just fine and an avalanche (snap roll at top
of the loop) will be no problem. A Chinese roll (regular roll at top
of the loop) WILL be a problem without spades. BTW, spades will have
no primary effect upon a snap roll (there will be a secondary effect
since it is common, but not essential, to feed in aileron during an
avalanche).
Jim
Billy Beck
Jim Smolen <jsm...@SPAMBEGONE.bcm.tmc.edu> wrote:
>wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
Know what? I think, after reading your posts, that I'll just
shut the hell up about rolling airplanes.
(...well, except for the one that I botched with Cal. I guess I
can claim that much.)
diver.driver
> If you should EVER find yourself in an airplane with the green in the
> wrong half of the windshield, do NOT pull on the controls to get out.
> Put in FULL aileron and wait until the green and blue are in the
> usual places. Then very gently recover to level flight. It is always
> safer to roll back to right side up from inverted and it is to pull
> through into a split ess, which is virtually the same as the back side
> of a loop.
HF, with greatest respect.
I have been taught and practiced a PUSH AND ROLL for recovery from
inadvertent inverted.
Please comment.
diver driver
highflyer
When you look up to the green, a PUSH is always worthwhile. With a
carbureted GA aircraft the PUSH could well result in a temporary total
power reduction! :-) However, with the roll rate of most general
aviation aircraft you will lose a lot of altitude in even a half
roll and wind up in a quite nose down attitude. The PUSH will always
alleviate some of the altitude loss and minimize the nose down attitude
at recovery to wings level.
I recommend automatic forward stick as you approach inverted. There
are some maneuvers where this is NOT advisable, however. A 'snap roll'
comes to mind! :-) Most beginning acro pilots greatly underestimate
how high the nose has to be to maintain altitude inverted! :-)