Chandelle, speaking of tight turns

[[email protected]]

I had thought a chandelle was really half a loop followed by a half
roll to get right side up, but most describe it as a climbing turn
(almost like a wing over?).

It was a long time ago, but I seem to remember being in an Aerobat and
started a loop by diving and getting to maybe 140 kts before the pilot
pulled back. The question nagging at me is, if in something like an
Arrrow or a Mooney, if you were in a cruise at 140 knots would you
have enough speed to pull back into a half loop to make a fast 180
degree change in turn in a tight space?

I suppose I could calculate if one maintained 2 gs worth of
backpressure what would happen (it would be a funny half loop, turn
radius would get tighter and tighter as speed decreases and gravity
started pulling at the tail instead of at the wheels, but real life
experience is better than calculations, if anyone has such experience.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> I had thought a chandelle was really half a loop followed by a half
> roll to get right side up, but most describe it as a climbing turn
> (almost like a wing over?).
>

You're describing an Immelmann.

[[email protected]]

Thanks!

On Jun 29, 3:19 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
> > I had thought a chandelle was really half a loop followed by a half
> > roll to get right side up, but most describe it as a climbing turn
> > (almost like a wing over?).
>
> You're describing an Immelmann.

[Watson[_2_]]

What you describe is an Immeleman. Front half loop followed by half roll to
upright. The opposite (half roll to inverted, followed by back half of
loop) is a split S.

Chandelle (a commercial maneuver, in the CPL PTS) is a climbing 180 deg
turn. First 90 deg of turn, establish 30 deg AOB, and begin pitching,
Second 90 deg of turn is slowly rolling wings level and increasing pitch
such that the a/c goes into stall warning. Recovery is accelerate straight
ahead (180 from initial heading) without losing altitude gained in the
maneuver.

Watson
> wrote in message
ups.com...
>I had thought a chandelle was really half a loop followed by a half
> roll to get right side up, but most describe it as a climbing turn
> (almost like a wing over?).
>
> It was a long time ago, but I seem to remember being in an Aerobat and
> started a loop by diving and getting to maybe 140 kts before the pilot
> pulled back. The question nagging at me is, if in something like an
> Arrrow or a Mooney, if you were in a cruise at 140 knots would you
> have enough speed to pull back into a half loop to make a fast 180
> degree change in turn in a tight space?
>
> I suppose I could calculate if one maintained 2 gs worth of
> backpressure what would happen (it would be a funny half loop, turn
> radius would get tighter and tighter as speed decreases and gravity
> started pulling at the tail instead of at the wheels, but real life
> experience is better than calculations, if anyone has such experience.
>

[The Visitor]

I thought of it as a maximum performance climbing turn.



wrote:
> I had thought a chandelle was really half a loop followed by a half
> roll to get right side up, but most describe it as a climbing turn
> (almost like a wing over?).
>
> It was a long time ago, but I seem to remember being in an Aerobat and
> started a loop by diving and getting to maybe 140 kts before the pilot
> pulled back. The question nagging at me is, if in something like an
> Arrrow or a Mooney, if you were in a cruise at 140 knots would you
> have enough speed to pull back into a half loop to make a fast 180
> degree change in turn in a tight space?
>
> I suppose I could calculate if one maintained 2 gs worth of
> backpressure what would happen (it would be a funny half loop, turn
> radius would get tighter and tighter as speed decreases and gravity
> started pulling at the tail instead of at the wheels, but real life
> experience is better than calculations, if anyone has such experience.
>

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

The Visitor wrote:
> I thought of it as a maximum performance climbing turn.


And it is.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Kyle Boatright]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>I had thought a chandelle was really half a loop followed by a half
> roll to get right side up, but most describe it as a climbing turn
> (almost like a wing over?).
>
> It was a long time ago, but I seem to remember being in an Aerobat and
> started a loop by diving and getting to maybe 140 kts before the pilot
> pulled back. The question nagging at me is, if in something like an
> Arrrow or a Mooney, if you were in a cruise at 140 knots would you
> have enough speed to pull back into a half loop to make a fast 180
> degree change in turn in a tight space?

<<snip>>

I don't fly a Mooney or Arrow, but the answer is probably yes, assuming
we're talking about indicated airspeed, as opposed to true airspeed. I fly
loops beginning at 140-150 knots IAS in my RV-6 (fixed pitch) fairly often.
They require a 3.5 G initial pull, tapering off as the airspeed declines.
With full power the loop results in an 800' altitude gain at the apex with
about 80 knots of airspeed over the top of the loop.

The Mooney or Arrow's constant speed props would have advantages over my
RV's fixed pitch setup, although the RV has a higher power to weight ratio.
Those two factors probably net out as a wash...

By the way, this is a purely hypothetical answer. Don't try to prove or
disprove it with the real hardware.

KB

[Maxwell]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> It was a long time ago, but I seem to remember being in an Aerobat and
> started a loop by diving and getting to maybe 140 kts before the pilot
> pulled back. The question nagging at me is, if in something like an
> Arrrow or a Mooney, if you were in a cruise at 140 knots would you
> have enough speed to pull back into a half loop to make a fast 180
> degree change in turn in a tight space?
>
> I suppose I could calculate if one maintained 2 gs worth of
> backpressure what would happen (it would be a funny half loop, turn
> radius would get tighter and tighter as speed decreases and gravity
> started pulling at the tail instead of at the wheels, but real life
> experience is better than calculations, if anyone has such experience.
>

Assuming 140 knots and full power, I think most 4 place singles could
complete an eliptical loop. Your right, maintaining back pressure and
tighting the radius around the top would be necessary, but it could save
your butt in a box canyon or downtown NY.

I have actually done it in a 150, 172 and 182, no problem. But don't try it
without a real emergency or the proper training and equipment. It can also
kill some gyros.

[[email protected]]

when you did it, did you wait until manovering speed before pulling
all the way back? I'd worry, in the Mooney, if the pilot in command
(he loves being called that) pulled back to the stops at cruise. If
you kept your wits about you, I'd guess firm back until I think 130
knots, then to the aft limit in that airplane, would probably only
break a gyro or two, and not the backbone of the airplane. I don't
know if its gyros are rated for more than 60 degrees back or pitch.

I think the numbers would work out that we'd be well above stall at
the top still pulling positive gees, then a roll to upright, with
altitude in the bank. Be fun to try it in a simulator, but my personal
PIC would not do it in the airplane unless there was building in front
of him.

[Maxwell]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> when you did it, did you wait until manovering speed before pulling
> all the way back? I'd worry, in the Mooney, if the pilot in command
> (he loves being called that) pulled back to the stops at cruise. If
> you kept your wits about you, I'd guess firm back until I think 130
> knots, then to the aft limit in that airplane, would probably only
> break a gyro or two, and not the backbone of the airplane. I don't
> know if its gyros are rated for more than 60 degrees back or pitch.

First things first, don't over stress the aircraft under any circumstances,
it shouldn't be necessary. You shouldn't need more than 2.5 Gs max, if that
much. But keep the Gs on. As the aircraft slows, maintaining those Gs
assures you the tightest possible loop radius, and is the quickest way over
the top. In this case, unlike demonstration aerobatics, you want an
elliptical loop. You shouldn't hit the stops until you get very near the
top, and very slow, if even then. Nine times out of ten these days, you
won't hurt the gyros, but there is no guarantee unless they are designed for
such duty or can be caged.

>
> I think the numbers would work out that we'd be well above stall at
> the top still pulling positive gees, then a roll to upright, with
> altitude in the bank. Be fun to try it in a simulator, but my personal
> PIC would not do it in the airplane unless there was building in front
> of him.
>

I'd recommend some fundamental aerobatic training to ALL pilots. Just make
sure you have the proper equipment, and a good instructor. Nothing can
prepare you more for the unexpected, and make you feel more at easy during
your routine piloting. And an Immelmann as you describe, is a good move to
practice often.

[[email protected]]

The issue would be knowing the required airspeed in level flight to
have enough energy to get to the top of the loop without having the
airplane fall out of the sky. It seems to me, based on no experience,
I'd want to see the yoke pulled back as far and as fast as the
airframe can tolerate m-- that's why I suggested a couple or 3 gees
until manouvering speed, then all the way back. It would keep the
loop's quasi diameter as small as possible, it would be egg shaped
with lot tighter radius near the top, but I think it would be better
to have airspeed, not altitude, when you're almost topping out and
want to roll upright.

I'll offer to buy he who likes to be my personal pic some time in a
rated airplane with an instructor to have some fun with this. It's
been 20 years since he's been upside down in an airplane.

His flying habit, in real life, is to go everywhere under instrument
flight rules, which pretty much keeps him (and me) out of canyons. As
his personal SIC I can tell you I know what a sectional looks like,
but like enroute charts a lot better, and sure like to fly uncoupled
ILS approaches from the right seat. I do wonder what it would be like
to have the airspeed, GS and LOC needles in front of you, rather than
way over to the left. If I was in the left seat it would take a while
before I'd stop including the left wing in my scan ("Yes, the red nav
light is on, dammit!").

Thanks for your insights. I suppose thinking about these things is
worth doing, even for experienced pilots.

Tina

[Peter Dohm]

>
> Chandelle (a commercial maneuver, in the CPL PTS) is a climbing 180 deg
> turn. First 90 deg of turn, establish 30 deg AOB, and begin pitching,
> Second 90 deg of turn is slowly rolling wings level and increasing pitch
> such that the a/c goes into stall warning. Recovery is accelerate
straight
> ahead (180 from initial heading) without losing altitude gained in the
> maneuver.
>
> Watson

This is exactly as the Chandele was explained to me, except that it is
usually entered following a shallow dive to reach the approved entry speed.
I don't recall the specification for the roll-in, except that it is quite
specific. It is a a demonstration of proficiency in energy management in a
particular aircraft type (as currently loaded) and will not produce an
ususually tight turn.

[Maxwell]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> The issue would be knowing the required airspeed in level flight to
> have enough energy to get to the top of the loop without having the
> airplane fall out of the sky. It seems to me, based on no experience,
> I'd want to see the yoke pulled back as far and as fast as the
> airframe can tolerate m-- that's why I suggested a couple or 3 gees
> until manouvering speed, then all the way back. It would keep the
> loop's quasi diameter as small as possible, it would be egg shaped
> with lot tighter radius near the top, but I think it would be better
> to have airspeed, not altitude, when you're almost topping out and
> want to roll upright.

The slower and closer you get to the top, the faster you can bring the nose
over. That's what elliptical is all about. And for the purpose we're
discussing, you really don't need to do your roll at the top. You have
already changed directions 180 degrees, you could do your roll on the
vertical down line.

>
> I'll offer to buy he who likes to be my personal pic some time in a
> rated airplane with an instructor to have some fun with this. It's
> been 20 years since he's been upside down in an airplane.

I would recommend it for BOTH of you. With good equipment, and quality
instruction, it's a good experience for any pilot, and a lot of fun as well.

>
> His flying habit, in real life, is to go everywhere under instrument
> flight rules, which pretty much keeps him (and me) out of canyons. As
> his personal SIC I can tell you I know what a sectional looks like,
> but like enroute charts a lot better, and sure like to fly uncoupled
> ILS approaches from the right seat. I do wonder what it would be like
> to have the airspeed, GS and LOC needles in front of you, rather than
> way over to the left. If I was in the left seat it would take a while
> before I'd stop including the left wing in my scan ("Yes, the red nav
> light is on, dammit!").
>
> Thanks for your insights. I suppose thinking about these things is
> worth doing, even for experienced pilots.
>
> Tina
>
>

[vincent norris]

> I had thought a chandelle was really half a loop followed by a half
> roll to get right side up....

No, that's an Immelman, aka Immelman turn.

> but most describe it as a climbing turn

A climbing 180 degree turn.

> The question nagging at me is, if in something like an
> Arrrow or a Mooney, if you were in a cruise at 140 knots would you
> have enough speed to pull back into a half loop to make a fast 180
> degree change in turn in a tight space?

Having flown Cherokees for 30 years, and before that having done many
Immelmans and loops in military aircraft, I would say no. BTW, Cherokees
don't cruise at 140 knots.

>
> I suppose I could calculate ....... but real life
> experience is better than calculations....

Except that one can be sure of being alive after a calculation.

vince norris

[Jay Honeck]

> Having flown Cherokees for 30 years, and before that having done many
> Immelmans and loops in military aircraft, I would say no. BTW, Cherokees
> don't cruise at 140 knots.

Be careful -- "Cherokee" covers a lot of different models.

My Cherokee Pathfinder cruises at 142 knots, at 23 squared.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Kyle Boatright]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> when you did it, did you wait until manovering speed before pulling
>> all the way back? I'd worry, in the Mooney, if the pilot in command
>> (he loves being called that) pulled back to the stops at cruise. If
>> you kept your wits about you, I'd guess firm back until I think 130
>> knots, then to the aft limit in that airplane, would probably only
>> break a gyro or two, and not the backbone of the airplane. I don't
>> know if its gyros are rated for more than 60 degrees back or pitch.
>
> First things first, don't over stress the aircraft under any
> circumstances, it shouldn't be necessary. You shouldn't need more than 2.5
> Gs max, if that much. But keep the Gs on. As the aircraft slows,
> maintaining those Gs assures you the tightest possible loop radius, and is
> the quickest way over the top. In this case, unlike demonstration
> aerobatics, you want an elliptical loop. You shouldn't hit the stops
> until you get very near the top, and very slow, if even then. Nine times
> out of ten these days, you won't hurt the gyros, but there is no guarantee
> unless they are designed for such duty or can be caged.

I would offer a different opinion... My big fear with new acro pilots is the
inverted accelerated stall. A 140 knot loop in an Arrow or Mooney is going
to get slow on top. Probably very close to stall speed. The way to keep the
speed higher at the top of the loop is with a fairly aggressive pull at the
beginning of the loop - say 3.5 g's, easing off as airspeed slows. Trying to
use the elevator to tighten the loop at the top is likely to result in a
stall, and possible inverted spin.

For what it is worth, I often float over the top of a loop at 60 knots,
which is about 10 knots above stall speed. At that point, the elevator is
more or less neutral, and the airplane is performing a -2g arc. One of the
g's comes from aerodynamic lift and the other comes from gravity... That's
only a .5 G different arc than the beginning of the loop, which was a 2.5 g
arc: 3.5 aerodynamic g's in the "up" direction minus 1 g from gravity...

KB

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> "Maxwell" > wrote in message
> ...
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>> when you did it, did you wait until manovering speed before pulling
>>> all the way back? I'd worry, in the Mooney, if the pilot in command
>>> (he loves being called that) pulled back to the stops at cruise. If
>>> you kept your wits about you, I'd guess firm back until I think 130
>>> knots, then to the aft limit in that airplane, would probably only
>>> break a gyro or two, and not the backbone of the airplane. I don't
>>> know if its gyros are rated for more than 60 degrees back or pitch.
>> First things first, don't over stress the aircraft under any
>> circumstances, it shouldn't be necessary. You shouldn't need more than 2.5
>> Gs max, if that much. But keep the Gs on. As the aircraft slows,
>> maintaining those Gs assures you the tightest possible loop radius, and is
>> the quickest way over the top. In this case, unlike demonstration
>> aerobatics, you want an elliptical loop. You shouldn't hit the stops
>> until you get very near the top, and very slow, if even then. Nine times
>> out of ten these days, you won't hurt the gyros, but there is no guarantee
>> unless they are designed for such duty or can be caged.
>
> I would offer a different opinion... My big fear with new acro pilots is the
> inverted accelerated stall. A 140 knot loop in an Arrow or Mooney is going
> to get slow on top. Probably very close to stall speed. The way to keep the
> speed higher at the top of the loop is with a fairly aggressive pull at the
> beginning of the loop - say 3.5 g's, easing off as airspeed slows. Trying to
> use the elevator to tighten the loop at the top is likely to result in a
> stall, and possible inverted spin.
>
> For what it is worth, I often float over the top of a loop at 60 knots,
> which is about 10 knots above stall speed. At that point, the elevator is
> more or less neutral, and the airplane is performing a -2g arc. One of the
> g's comes from aerodynamic lift and the other comes from gravity... That's
> only a .5 G different arc than the beginning of the loop, which was a 2.5 g
> arc: 3.5 aerodynamic g's in the "up" direction minus 1 g from gravity...
>
> KB
>
>
I would agree with this as well. Pulling in tight at the apex of a loop
can easily result in a positive g snap roll, as the angle of attack is
increasing through the vertical line. Add to this that as the lift
vector passes below the horizon through the apex an additional positive
g is available, you can easily pull into a snap this way. The preferred
method would indeed be a brisk pull into the maneuver keeping the g down
so as to avoid a high induced drag index, then easing off the g past the
pure vertical line.
As for the inverted spin; it's possible if things get away from you at
the apex, but with the stall being produced by tighter positive g
instead of a push into a negative side snap, the result would most
likely be an erect spin entry if you botched the snap recovery.
Dudley Henriques

[Private]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> For what it is worth, I often float over the top of a loop at 60 knots,
> which is about 10 knots above stall speed. At that point, the elevator is
> more or less neutral, and the airplane is performing a -2g arc. One of the
> g's comes from aerodynamic lift and the other comes from gravity...
> That's only a .5 G different arc than the beginning of the loop, which was
> a 2.5 g arc: 3.5 aerodynamic g's in the "up" direction minus 1 g from
> gravity...
>
> KB

With respect, I am a little confused as to what you are saying here.

Please clarify what you mean by a -2g arc?

IIRC, I normally see 0g to -.5g when 'floating' over the top of a loop and
with this low g loading the aircraft will have a very much reduced stall
speed.

I see no reason to add (or subtract) extra gravity to the g meter reading
when calculating load or estimating resulting stall speed.

I do not mean to be argumentative here, but I seem to be missing something.
Are you talking about the resultant radius of the arc?

Happy landings,

[Kyle Boatright]

"Private" > wrote in message
news:C7Cii.84525$NV3.39360@pd7urf2no...
>
> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> For what it is worth, I often float over the top of a loop at 60 knots,
>> which is about 10 knots above stall speed. At that point, the elevator
>> is more or less neutral, and the airplane is performing a -2g arc. One of
>> the g's comes from aerodynamic lift and the other comes from gravity...
>> That's only a .5 G different arc than the beginning of the loop, which
>> was a 2.5 g arc: 3.5 aerodynamic g's in the "up" direction minus 1 g from
>> gravity...
>>
>> KB
>
> With respect, I am a little confused as to what you are saying here.
>
> Please clarify what you mean by a -2g arc?

When the airplane is inverted and the G meter reads 1, the airplane is
accelerating downward at 2 G's. I used the (-) sign to try and convey the
direction of acceleration relative to the starting point of the loop.

>
> IIRC, I normally see 0g to -.5g when 'floating' over the top of a loop and
> with this low g loading the aircraft will have a very much reduced stall
> speed.

No doubt about that.

>
> I see no reason to add (or subtract) extra gravity to the g meter reading
> when calculating load or estimating resulting stall speed.

And you're right about that too - stall speed and the G meter are directly
related, but a loop's arc is also influenced by gravity.

>
> I do not mean to be argumentative here, but I seem to be missing
> something. Are you talking about the resultant radius of the arc?

Yep. When you're upside down pulling 1 G towards the center of the loop,
mother nature adds another G due to gravity and you perform a 2 G arc in the
downward direction...

>
> Happy landings,

More like bouncy ones recently, but that's another story. ;-)

KB

[Dana M. Hague]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 00:38:38 -0000, wrote:

>when you did it, did you wait until manovering speed before pulling
>all the way back? I'd worry, in the Mooney, if the pilot in command
>(he loves being called that) pulled back to the stops at cruise. If
>you kept your wits about you, I'd guess firm back until I think 130
>knots...

Pull back too abruptly and (aside from the possibility of an
accelerated stall) you'll lose more energy, since induced drag goes up
with the square of lift, which follows AOA. The best is to find just
the right balance between getting it up and over fast enough to carry
some momentum all the way to the top, and creating enough drag to kill
that momentum.

>, then to the aft limit in that airplane, would probably only
>break a gyro or two, and not the backbone of the airplane. I don't
>know if its gyros are rated for more than 60 degrees back or pitch.

Usually in gyros not made to go all the way around, they'll just
tumble, and for the next half hour or so they'll show, say, a 45° bank
while you're in straight and level flight... but they settle down
eventually. A few times probably won't hurt 'em, but it's not good as
a regular practice.

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I just drank what?" (Socrates)