1-26E Aerobatics

[[email protected]]

Does anyone know if it is safe, assuming you are properly trained in aerobatics,
to perform loops, rolls and inverted flying in a 1-26E?
Glider is rated at +5.3 -3.3 Gs

[Tony[_5_]]

Schweizer Aircraft Service Bulletin SA-003 is clear. "Schweizer Aircraft Corporation DOES NOT APPROVE OR RECOMMEND that aerobatics of any kind be performed in any of the Schweizer sailplane models affected by this Service Bulletin..."

http://klsoaring.com/index.php/downloads/category/4-service-letters

[Tony Verhulst[_2_]]

On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 1:45:20 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Does anyone know if it is safe, assuming you are properly trained in aerobatics,
> to perform loops, rolls and inverted flying in a 1-26E?
> Glider is rated at +5.3 -3.3 Gs

Loops are fine but it takes a lot of time (and altitude) to build up sufficient speed. I would not do inverted flight because you don't know what's going to come up from below the floor boards. When I did an acro course, everything in your pockets was locked away before the flight. If anything was ever dropped in the aircraft, you did not fly until it was found.

Tony

[AS]

On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 2:21:29 PM UTC-4, Tony Verhulst wrote:
> On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 1:45:20 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > Does anyone know if it is safe, assuming you are properly trained in aerobatics,
> > to perform loops, rolls and inverted flying in a 1-26E?
> > Glider is rated at +5.3 -3.3 Gs
>
> Loops are fine but it takes a lot of time (and altitude) to build up sufficient speed. I would not do inverted flight because you don't know what's going to come up from below the floor boards. When I did an acro course, everything in your pockets was locked away before the flight. If anything was ever dropped in the aircraft, you did not fly until it was found.
>
> Tony

>> When I did an acro course, everything in your pockets was locked away before the flight. If anything was ever dropped in the aircraft, you did not fly until it was found. <<
My home-field was frequently visited by an aerobatic pilot in his Zlin aerobatic aircraft. He had a zippered bag with 'street-shoes' and a door mat in a locked compartment behind the seat. Before getting out of his plane at the parking position, he would place the door mat on the wing and - sitting on the wing - change from 'flight-shoes' to 'street-shoes'. When getting back into the cockpit, he would wipe off his street-shoes thoroughly, change back to flight shoes, shake out the door mat and place it all back into the bag.
Call it anal but his cockpit was immaculate and he was not at risk getting a hand-full of dirt in his eyes during his performances!

Uli
'AS'

[son_of_flubber]

On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 9:54:38 PM UTC-4, AS wrote:

....
> Call it anal but his cockpit was immaculate and he was not at risk getting a hand-full of dirt in his eyes during his performances!
>

At the other end of the casualness scale, one of my early introductions to glider flight was in a Blanik L-13. The instructor offered to fly a loop. What turned out to be an open end wrench clanked in the fuselage. The very next day L-13s were grounded in the USA, so maybe this was the last L-13 loop flown in the USA.

[Duster[_2_]]

On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 1:12:48 PM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
> Schweizer Aircraft Service Bulletin SA-003 is clear. "Schweizer Aircraft Corporation DOES NOT APPROVE OR RECOMMEND that aerobatics of any kind be performed in any of the Schweizer sailplane models affected by this Service Bulletin..."
>
> http://klsoaring.com/index.php/downloads/category/4-service-letters

Helpful link. That's what it says, presumably "Dawn Flight" was made a decade or so before this SB and the aerobatics in the film were pre-CGI? Was there also an AD that forbade aerobatics and required it be placarded as with some other aircraft? I have a 1-35 and will not do aerobatics w/ or w/o an AD. Thanks.

[[email protected]]

Service Bulletins are not mandatory. Original 1-26 flight manual states the 1-26 is fully aerobatic. Yes 1-26s are old, and many of them have lived colorful lives. Decide for yourself, but don't put off by a nanny letter from a former manufacturer's lawyers.

[Tony[_5_]]

Yes Dawn Flight pre-dates this Service Bulletin by about a decade. No CGI either. There is a great article in Soaring about the production of that film, and also a new version includes an interview with the Director that is pretty interesting.

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 12:45:20 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Does anyone know if it is safe, assuming you are properly trained in aerobatics,
> to perform loops, rolls and inverted flying in a 1-26E?
> Glider is rated at +5.3 -3.3 Gs

I have seen people perform loops in them and it is legally a fully aerobatic glider but the service bulleton says that you cannot but I do believe that that was due to people not being trained for how fast the glider accelerates so they would go past Vne and rip a wing off.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 11:25:27 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 12:45:20 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> > Does anyone know if it is safe, assuming you are properly trained in aerobatics,
> > to perform loops, rolls and inverted flying in a 1-26E?
> > Glider is rated at +5.3 -3.3 Gs
>
> I have seen people perform loops in them and it is legally a fully aerobatic glider but the service bulleton says that you cannot but I do believe that that was due to people not being trained for how fast the glider accelerates so they would go past Vne and rip a wing off.

The service bulletin was done for liability reasons.
It does fine for moderate aerobatics. Loops, rolls, inverted flight, etc all are within the capability of the ship with a properly trained pilot.
Big terminal velocity dive brakes are a benefit.
It does not snap well.
I have a video someplace of aerobatics shot from the nose back(art student school project).
FWIW
UH

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

Correct....many airplane mfr's issued, "thou shall NOT do aerobatics in our planes" many years ago.....regardless of what the original cert or operating manual stated.
That whole, "poop happens, sue everybody" many Americans think they can sue peeps, so mfr's across the board sorta did the same thing, over ride whatever was issued decades ago and the aircraft are capable if maintained and done right...
If....

Granted, most SGS are decades old, most sit outside, no clue on maintenance.
The bulletins were issued more as a hurdle "in case of an incident" by the mfr's.....in my opinion....in case of a lawsuit.

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 10:45:20 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> Does anyone know if it is safe, assuming you are properly trained in aerobatics,
> to perform loops, rolls and inverted flying in a 1-26E?
> Glider is rated at +5.3 -3.3 Gs

Walt Mooney (1925-1990) used to fly a great aerobatic routine in his 1-26, including some fairly extended periods of inverted flight, loops, spins, and rolls. I saw him fly his routine one time at the El Mirage Soaring Center back in the 1970s, when they put on a demonstration glider aerobatic meet.. Also participating were Ross Briegleb, and Pat Philbreck, if I recall correctly. He flew his 1-26 aerobatics on a TV show in 1973-74 called "The Thrill Seekers" hosted by Chuck Conners "The Rifleman". Walt's 1-26 was an earlier round tail model, with the fabric covered nose and fabric on the wings aft of the spar. I think it may have been an "A" model. Walt was an M.I..T. educated aeronautical engineer, glider pilot, power pilot, instructor, and designated pilot examiner, who lived in San Diego and worked for Convair, as well as some other companies over the years. He was an avid airplane modeler, and is probably better remembered today for his prolific collection of "peanut scale" rubber powered free flight model airplane plans, which are still used by the now probably somewhat dwindling number of aficionados of this sport. However, I think some of his airplane plans are being converted to use electric power these days. I couldn't find any old video of The Thrillseekers show, but there's a picture of him and his 1-26 in each of these articles:
https://rclibrary.co.uk/files_titles/1874/ModelBuilder_1973_07.pdf
http://www.cfiamerica.com/images/PDF/Motorgliding_october_1973.pdf
and a longer article about him in this link:
http://www.flyingacesclub.com/KAPA/ISSUE77.pdf

[BG[_4_]]

On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 10:45:20 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> Does anyone know if it is safe, assuming you are properly trained in aerobatics,
> to perform loops, rolls and inverted flying in a 1-26E?
> Glider is rated at +5.3 -3.3 Gs

As already mentioned the 1-26 was rated aerobatics and later that was probably removed for liability reasons. I could be wrong, but I have never heard of a catastrophic failure in flight. Some severely damage but it still flew. Many years back in the SSA archive is a picture of a 1-26A with fabric top section on the main wing was gone after some high G loops were preformed. Front section of the wing has a aluminum skin and that was all that was need for the plane to still fly. Pilot landed OK. There was a severely buckled spare near the root of a 1-36 after some one did the high speed barograph notch off tow. Plane remained flyable.

There might be better planes for aerobatics, but none as fun as a 1-26 with a sport canopy to get your blood flowing. There use to be one at Dillingham in Hawaii.

Soaring_June_1983.pdf page 22 1-36 spar bent

George Powell's "Wild Ride in a 1-26" page 8 Soaring_July_1991.pdf 1-26 lost fabric

BG

[Frank Whiteley]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 1:10:41 PM UTC-6, BG wrote:
> On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 10:45:20 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > Does anyone know if it is safe, assuming you are properly trained in aerobatics,
> > to perform loops, rolls and inverted flying in a 1-26E?
> > Glider is rated at +5.3 -3.3 Gs
>
> As already mentioned the 1-26 was rated aerobatics and later that was probably removed for liability reasons. I could be wrong, but I have never heard of a catastrophic failure in flight. Some severely damage but it still flew. Many years back in the SSA archive is a picture of a 1-26A with fabric top section on the main wing was gone after some high G loops were preformed. Front section of the wing has a aluminum skin and that was all that was need for the plane to still fly. Pilot landed OK. There was a severely buckled spare near the root of a 1-36 after some one did the high speed barograph notch off tow. Plane remained flyable.
>
> There might be better planes for aerobatics, but none as fun as a 1-26 with a sport canopy to get your blood flowing. There use to be one at Dillingham in Hawaii.
>
> Soaring_June_1983.pdf page 22 1-36 spar bent
>
> George Powell's "Wild Ride in a 1-26" page 8 Soaring_July_1991.pdf 1-26 lost fabric
>
> BG

The wing of a 1-26B departed in 'turbulence' in Florida. The remaining glider slipped into some trees and the pilot survived. A 1-36 (yeah, not a 1-26 but was included in the same SB IIRC) in Boulder was, against the instructions of the FBO owner, being looped by a rental pilot (sans parachute) and the wings folded up. Fatal. The widow attempted to sue the owner of the operation and his estate, after he passed away suddenly. If the SB protected Schweizer, it didn't do much to protect the operator. IIRC, the lawsuit was based on the absence of a specific placard against aerobatics.

Frank Whiteley

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 6:12:27 PM UTC-4, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
> Correct....many airplane mfr's issued, "thou shall NOT do aerobatics in our planes" many years ago.....regardless of what the original cert or operating manual stated.
> That whole, "poop happens, sue everybody" many Americans think they can sue peeps, so mfr's across the board sorta did the same thing, over ride whatever was issued decades ago and the aircraft are capable if maintained and done right...
> If....
>
> Granted, most SGS are decades old, most sit outside, no clue on maintenance.
> The bulletins were issued more as a hurdle "in case of an incident" by the mfr's.....in my opinion....in case of a lawsuit.

I suppose it has something to do with my aging brain, but when I saw
the term "mfr" I mentally pronounced it em-eff-ars, and the first
word that came to mind wasn't "manufacturers". Then again, it's not
a bad fit in the context. Maybe I've been spending too much time
around Bobby Templin.

Jim Beckman