Hey Dudley, detailed analysis of these?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4_iJfRDI-4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN1lCJlHIUk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9txDhi5wC2A

Have my own notions, but would be interested from a pros viewpoint.

I'm assuming that mechanical was not a factor in any of these, BTW.Might
have been, but it appears that in each case the pilot went in with no
commital gates and no escape route.

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4_iJfRDI-4&feature=related
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN1lCJlHIUk&feature=related
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9txDhi5wC2A
>
> Have my own notions, but would be interested from a pros viewpoint.
>
> I'm assuming that mechanical was not a factor in any of these, BTW.Might
> have been, but it appears that in each case the pilot went in with no
> commital gates and no escape route.
>
> Bertie

Can't say much about the Extra (at least it looked like an Extra) but
the Hurricane and the King Cobra are accidents I've been involved in
with safety discussions within the war bird demonstration community.

To me, the KC accident looked like the result of a way too low energy
state going through the top gate. He should have had at least 150
indicated inverted on top but it looked like he lost his energy to drag
going up the up line by pulling too much g. He was practically dead in
the water on top but apparently at fairly high power. This looked like
it torqued him in roll pretty good and he lost it coming through the
gate. He recovered as the angle of attack narrowed back into the work
range but by then he was committed way too nose low and had no radial g
available to affect the recovery.

The Hurricane looks like it will come down to a simple brain fart. The
guy was very qualified and had experience. So far it looks like he
simply committed to a Split S below his minimum AGL parameter for the
Hurricane. This one is very similar to the Thunderbird F16 accident at
Mountain Home AFB where the team lost a Viper. Brain fart!


--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4_iJfRDI-4&feature=related
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN1lCJlHIUk&feature=related
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9txDhi5wC2A
>>
>> Have my own notions, but would be interested from a pros viewpoint.
>>
>> I'm assuming that mechanical was not a factor in any of these,
>> BTW.Might have been, but it appears that in each case the pilot went
>> in with no commital gates and no escape route.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Can't say much about the Extra (at least it looked like an Extra) but
> the Hurricane and the King Cobra are accidents I've been involved in
> with safety discussions within the war bird demonstration community.


OK, the first one should have been the T6 slow roll where he dished out
in the end.(orange one in south america?)
Looks like he had nothing even beginning the roll and had completely
lost the plot by the time he reached even 45 degrees and should have
just thrown it away at that point.
>
> To me, the KC accident looked like the result of a way too low energy
> state going through the top gate. He should have had at least 150
> indicated inverted on top but it looked like he lost his energy to
> drag going up the up line by pulling too much g. He was practically
> dead in the water on top but apparently at fairly high power. This
> looked like it torqued him in roll pretty good and he lost it coming
> through the gate. He recovered as the angle of attack narrowed back
> into the work range but by then he was committed way too nose low and
> had no radial g available to affect the recovery.


OK, pretty much as I saw it as well (though I ould never have put it so
well!) But it seems to me he should have been formulating some sort of
plan to get out as he neared the top of the first loop and saw it all
going wrong. Never flown anything as powerful, fast and heavy as that
doing aerobatics, of course, but it seems to me he had only two options
after he passed 90deg; a hammerhead might have been a bit ropey at that
altitude in that airplane, and I don't know if they're even on the menu
in that thing. A hammerhead being ruled out for whatever reason, I'd
just pitch over forward hard and bump my way out if the airspeed was
that far gone. The bottom of the list would be to pull hard and then
roll out, which is what he did, intetionally or otherwise, but if he had
pulled a bit harder a bit earlier, he'd at least have exited the torque
roll a bit more nose down which might have avoided the secondary
problem.
Did it have fuel injection? Was he having to think about avoiding
negative G?
>
> The Hurricane looks like it will come down to a simple brain fart. The
> guy was very qualified and had experience. So far it looks like he
> simply committed to a Split S below his minimum AGL parameter for the
> Hurricane. This one is very similar to the Thunderbird F16 accident at
> Mountain Home AFB where the team lost a Viper. Brain fart!
>

Again, exactly as I saw it. He was screwed the second he rolled over.
Reason I ask is I was just wondering how good my eye was after so long
away from aerobatics.


Bertie
>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4_iJfRDI-4&feature=related
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN1lCJlHIUk&feature=related
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9txDhi5wC2A
>>>
>>> Have my own notions, but would be interested from a pros viewpoint.
>>>
>>> I'm assuming that mechanical was not a factor in any of these,
>>> BTW.Might have been, but it appears that in each case the pilot went
>>> in with no commital gates and no escape route.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> Can't say much about the Extra (at least it looked like an Extra) but
>> the Hurricane and the King Cobra are accidents I've been involved in
>> with safety discussions within the war bird demonstration community.
>
>
> OK, the first one should have been the T6 slow roll where he dished out
> in the end.(orange one in south america?)
> Looks like he had nothing even beginning the roll and had completely
> lost the plot by the time he reached even 45 degrees and should have
> just thrown it away at that point.
>> To me, the KC accident looked like the result of a way too low energy
>> state going through the top gate. He should have had at least 150
>> indicated inverted on top but it looked like he lost his energy to
>> drag going up the up line by pulling too much g. He was practically
>> dead in the water on top but apparently at fairly high power. This
>> looked like it torqued him in roll pretty good and he lost it coming
>> through the gate. He recovered as the angle of attack narrowed back
>> into the work range but by then he was committed way too nose low and
>> had no radial g available to affect the recovery.
>
>
> OK, pretty much as I saw it as well (though I ould never have put it so
> well!) But it seems to me he should have been formulating some sort of
> plan to get out as he neared the top of the first loop and saw it all
> going wrong. Never flown anything as powerful, fast and heavy as that
> doing aerobatics, of course, but it seems to me he had only two options
> after he passed 90deg; a hammerhead might have been a bit ropey at that
> altitude in that airplane, and I don't know if they're even on the menu
> in that thing. A hammerhead being ruled out for whatever reason, I'd
> just pitch over forward hard and bump my way out if the airspeed was
> that far gone. The bottom of the list would be to pull hard and then
> roll out, which is what he did, intetionally or otherwise, but if he had
> pulled a bit harder a bit earlier, he'd at least have exited the torque
> roll a bit more nose down which might have avoided the secondary
> problem.
> Did it have fuel injection? Was he having to think about avoiding
> negative G?
>> The Hurricane looks like it will come down to a simple brain fart. The
>> guy was very qualified and had experience. So far it looks like he
>> simply committed to a Split S below his minimum AGL parameter for the
>> Hurricane. This one is very similar to the Thunderbird F16 accident at
>> Mountain Home AFB where the team lost a Viper. Brain fart!
>>
>
> Again, exactly as I saw it. He was screwed the second he rolled over.
> Reason I ask is I was just wondering how good my eye was after so long
> away from aerobatics.
>
>
> Bertie
>
Didn't see the T6 roll on these links, but I think I remember the crash.
The 6 has a lousy roll rate and loses energy like a brick when rolling
and doing 2 in a row while down in the weeds can bite you in the butt
dishing out. More than one guy's lost a T6 this way.

The Cobra; his best chance would have been to anticipate the torque roll
carrying all that MP and throttle back to idle before it torqued out on
him, then rolling to the nearest horizon after a mistake like he made on
the way up. In certain conditions you just don't get a second chance in
prop fighters.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:


>>
> Didn't see the T6 roll on these links, but I think I remember the
> crash. The 6 has a lousy roll rate and loses energy like a brick when
> rolling and doing 2 in a row while down in the weeds can bite you in
> the butt dishing out. More than one guy's lost a T6 this way.

Yeah, gave you the wrong one the sifrst time and couldn't get it when I
replied. Youtube seemed to be down or something. Still is. He just did a
single roll. It's pretty obvious from the get go that he hasn't got a
chance. By the time he's 90 deg left the nose is well down on the
horizon and he's commited to some major thrashinbg around on the
elevators and rudder to keep the thing goin which degenerates into
dishing out of the bottom in a big way towards the end. I am surprised
about your comments on it losing energy, though..
>
> The Cobra; his best chance would have been to anticipate the torque
> roll carrying all that MP and throttle back to idle before it torqued
> out on him, then rolling to the nearest horizon after a mistake like
> he made on the way up. In certain conditions you just don't get a
> second chance in prop fighters.
>

OK, that makes sense. I get the feeling he was a bit surprised by the
time he reached the 3/8ths point of the loop and had no real plan out.
They do teach this nowadays, right? I was quizzed mercilessly about
escape routes from all sorts of fjukkups (all of which I had a good
answer for) by the FAA inspector that signed my waiver. Do inspectors
even do those anymore? Evrythng else seems to be done by someone else
these days.





Bertie

[Kyle Boatright]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4_iJfRDI-4&feature=related
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN1lCJlHIUk&feature=related
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9txDhi5wC2A
>>
>> Have my own notions, but would be interested from a pros viewpoint. I'm
>> assuming that mechanical was not a factor in any of these, BTW.Might have
>> been, but it appears that in each case the pilot went in with no commital
>> gates and no escape route. Bertie
>
> Can't say much about the Extra (at least it looked like an Extra) but the
> Hurricane and the King Cobra are accidents I've been involved in with
> safety discussions within the war bird demonstration community.
>
> To me, the KC accident looked like the result of a way too low energy
> state going through the top gate. He should have had at least 150
> indicated inverted on top but it looked like he lost his energy to drag
> going up the up line by pulling too much g. He was practically dead in the
> water on top but apparently at fairly high power. This looked like it
> torqued him in roll pretty good and he lost it coming through the gate. He
> recovered as the angle of attack narrowed back into the work range but by
> then he was committed way too nose low and had no radial g available to
> affect the recovery.

What was his "out" once he was inverted and slow?

I assume the proper recovery is to pull back the power to a manageable
level, unload the airplane, and get the nose below the horizon in order to
build some airspeed. Once the airplane is flying again, feed in the power
while rolling level, then pull...


>
> The Hurricane looks like it will come down to a simple brain fart. The guy
> was very qualified and had experience. So far it looks like he simply
> committed to a Split S below his minimum AGL parameter for the Hurricane.
> This one is very similar to the Thunderbird F16 accident at Mountain Home
> AFB where the team lost a Viper. Brain fart!
>
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in
:

> Looking at the Extra, it looked like his tumbles were done pretty low.
> Most of the ones I've seen and tried are some variations of outside
> snap inputs, and you generally end up with zero airspeed at full
> power. If you watch the pros at an airshow, they tend to do snaps and
> tumbles at a reasonable altitude, and only rolling stuff at the bottom
> of looping figures down low.
>
> It looks like he kind of was in a position of low kinetic energy
> (airspeed), and low potential energy (low altitude). It's hard to
> recover from that combination.

Yeah, that one was pretty obvious. Not a lot of speed and I'd say he
probably didn't even have a handle on his altitude at that stage. Another
case of ignoring gates or letting the proceedings get too far ahead of you
to keep up.

By the way, WTF is a tumble? Is that what you call those tight little
barrel rolls that are all the rage these days or are you talking about a
lomcevok?


As someone pointed out to me earlier via e-mail, those you tube comments
make usenet look positively educational!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in
:



>
> What was his "out" once he was inverted and slow?
>
> I assume the proper recovery is to pull back the power to a manageable
> level, unload the airplane, and get the nose below the horizon in
> order to build some airspeed. Once the airplane is flying again, feed
> in the power while rolling level, then pull...
>


Yeah, exactly. Can't see any other way out at the top, but I would have
thought he should have recognised the mess a lot earlier, i.e., at or
before reaching 90deg.
Looks like he was braving it out for the benefit of the crowd.

A bit like this guy..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUzjLxqHy5g

The show must go on, huh?

Bertie

[Kyle Boatright]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in
> :
>
>
>
>>
>> What was his "out" once he was inverted and slow?
>>
>> I assume the proper recovery is to pull back the power to a manageable
>> level, unload the airplane, and get the nose below the horizon in
>> order to build some airspeed. Once the airplane is flying again, feed
>> in the power while rolling level, then pull...
>>
>
>
> Yeah, exactly. Can't see any other way out at the top, but I would have
> thought he should have recognised the mess a lot earlier, i.e., at or
> before reaching 90deg.
> Looks like he was braving it out for the benefit of the crowd.
>
> A bit like this guy..
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUzjLxqHy5g
>
> The show must go on, huh?
>
> Bertie

The strange thing about the Yak near-pancake is that the guy comes over the
top with plenty of airspeed, gets the nose down, and then doesn't pull
enough G's until very late when he's past the vertical. Another quarter or
half G after he'd gotten the nose down and he wouldn't have had a memorable
recovery.

KB

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> What was his "out" once he was inverted and slow?
>>>
>>> I assume the proper recovery is to pull back the power to a
>>> manageable level, unload the airplane, and get the nose below the
>>> horizon in order to build some airspeed. Once the airplane is flying
>>> again, feed in the power while rolling level, then pull...
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yeah, exactly. Can't see any other way out at the top, but I would
>> have thought he should have recognised the mess a lot earlier, i.e.,
>> at or before reaching 90deg.
>> Looks like he was braving it out for the benefit of the crowd.
>>
>> A bit like this guy..
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUzjLxqHy5g
>>
>> The show must go on, huh?
>>
>> Bertie
>
> The strange thing about the Yak near-pancake is that the guy comes
> over the top with plenty of airspeed, gets the nose down, and then
> doesn't pull enough G's until very late when he's past the vertical.
> Another quarter or half G after he'd gotten the nose down and he
> wouldn't have had a memorable recovery.
>


Yes, well that;'s all in the name of getting it close enough to make it
spectacular for the crowd of course.

This guy was less lucky..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifoHKZw_JQs



Bertie
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in
:

> Tumbles are the generic term for the gyroscopic maneuvers like
> lomcevaks. The ones I've seen are all variations on outside snaps, but
> the end tumble depends on the upline.
>

OK, I'm familiar with all of those, though I've never done one (tried in
Stearmans, but they never went over) I'd have called them all lomcevoks

> The ones I've tried are not violent or especially disorienting.
> However, my understanding is that it can be hard on a crankshaft, and
> best done with a composite prop rather than an aluminum one.


Yes, that's always been the idea. Wood props were supposedly preferred, but
there weren't many guys doing them there (the model airplanes like you fly
were mostly in the future then) I've gotten plenty of RC models to do them,
however. They're surprisingly just like full size in the way they respond.
I take it you're doing fairly close to the vertical and just going conical
then, eh?


Bertie
>
>
>

[Big John]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 21:37:03 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4_iJfRDI-4&feature=related
>>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN1lCJlHIUk&feature=related
>>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9txDhi5wC2A
>>>>
>>>> Have my own notions, but would be interested from a pros viewpoint.
>>>>
>>>> I'm assuming that mechanical was not a factor in any of these,
>>>> BTW.Might have been, but it appears that in each case the pilot went
>>>> in with no commital gates and no escape route.
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> Can't say much about the Extra (at least it looked like an Extra) but
>>> the Hurricane and the King Cobra are accidents I've been involved in
>>> with safety discussions within the war bird demonstration community.
>>
>>
>> OK, the first one should have been the T6 slow roll where he dished out
>> in the end.(orange one in south america?)
>> Looks like he had nothing even beginning the roll and had completely
>> lost the plot by the time he reached even 45 degrees and should have
>> just thrown it away at that point.
>>> To me, the KC accident looked like the result of a way too low energy
>>> state going through the top gate. He should have had at least 150
>>> indicated inverted on top but it looked like he lost his energy to
>>> drag going up the up line by pulling too much g. He was practically
>>> dead in the water on top but apparently at fairly high power. This
>>> looked like it torqued him in roll pretty good and he lost it coming
>>> through the gate. He recovered as the angle of attack narrowed back
>>> into the work range but by then he was committed way too nose low and
>>> had no radial g available to affect the recovery.
>>
>>
>> OK, pretty much as I saw it as well (though I ould never have put it so
>> well!) But it seems to me he should have been formulating some sort of
>> plan to get out as he neared the top of the first loop and saw it all
>> going wrong. Never flown anything as powerful, fast and heavy as that
>> doing aerobatics, of course, but it seems to me he had only two options
>> after he passed 90deg; a hammerhead might have been a bit ropey at that
>> altitude in that airplane, and I don't know if they're even on the menu
>> in that thing. A hammerhead being ruled out for whatever reason, I'd
>> just pitch over forward hard and bump my way out if the airspeed was
>> that far gone. The bottom of the list would be to pull hard and then
>> roll out, which is what he did, intetionally or otherwise, but if he had
>> pulled a bit harder a bit earlier, he'd at least have exited the torque
>> roll a bit more nose down which might have avoided the secondary
>> problem.
>> Did it have fuel injection? Was he having to think about avoiding
>> negative G?
>>> The Hurricane looks like it will come down to a simple brain fart. The
>>> guy was very qualified and had experience. So far it looks like he
>>> simply committed to a Split S below his minimum AGL parameter for the
>>> Hurricane. This one is very similar to the Thunderbird F16 accident at
>>> Mountain Home AFB where the team lost a Viper. Brain fart!
>>>
>>
>> Again, exactly as I saw it. He was screwed the second he rolled over.
>> Reason I ask is I was just wondering how good my eye was after so long
>> away from aerobatics.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>Didn't see the T6 roll on these links, but I think I remember the crash.
>The 6 has a lousy roll rate and loses energy like a brick when rolling
>and doing 2 in a row while down in the weeds can bite you in the butt
>dishing out. More than one guy's lost a T6 this way.
>
>The Cobra; his best chance would have been to anticipate the torque roll
>carrying all that MP and throttle back to idle before it torqued out on
>him, then rolling to the nearest horizon after a mistake like he made on
>the way up. In certain conditions you just don't get a second chance in
>prop fighters.


I didn't see any T-6 video and roll accident but:

I have lots of time in T-6. If you slow roll the bird the engine will
flood out inverted (with the negative G on the float type carburetor)
and this loss of power will almost always cause you to dish out unless
you immediately apply very large control inputs in all three axis. If
you are on the deck when doing the slow roll then you will probably
buy the farm before you can reestablish control of bird.

The bird can be slow rolled and engine not cut out by turning off the
fuel a few seconds before you start the roll and the engine will
continue to run on fuel in carburetor through out the roll and you
will have normal control authority to do a good roll. Then turning the
fuel back on.

I never had the engine quit when I turned off the fuel to demo a slow
roll to a student but doing it on the deck might be the one time the
fuel flow to the engine did not immediately return to normal as soon
as you were back straight and level :o( Of course if you were back
straight and level and engine went dead, and you could not get
restarted, you would have the opportunity to belly bird in and survive
vs cart wheeling if you dished out of roll.

Big John

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

The ones I've done are on about 60 deg upline, then left knife edge, and
then full forward stick, right aileron, and full left rudder. It'll go
around and do three tumbles, each at right angles. It usually ends in a
level attitude at right angles to the original line of flight, with the prop
howling at full RPM, and zero indicated airspeed. It's actually not violent
at all, with little g load.

When I first got the Extra, now seven years ago, I promised my wife that I
would never do airshows, and never charge anyone for a ride (not that I
would anyway). It's been a great ride and lots of fun.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Big John > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 21:37:03 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>>Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4_iJfRDI-4&feature=related
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN1lCJlHIUk&feature=related
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9txDhi5wC2A
>>>>>
>>>>> Have my own notions, but would be interested from a pros
>>>>> viewpoint.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm assuming that mechanical was not a factor in any of these,
>>>>> BTW.Might have been, but it appears that in each case the pilot
>>>>> went in with no commital gates and no escape route.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> Can't say much about the Extra (at least it looked like an Extra)
>>>> but the Hurricane and the King Cobra are accidents I've been
>>>> involved in with safety discussions within the war bird
>>>> demonstration community.
>>>
>>>
>>> OK, the first one should have been the T6 slow roll where he dished
>>> out in the end.(orange one in south america?)
>>> Looks like he had nothing even beginning the roll and had completely
>>> lost the plot by the time he reached even 45 degrees and should have
>>> just thrown it away at that point.
>>>> To me, the KC accident looked like the result of a way too low
>>>> energy state going through the top gate. He should have had at
>>>> least 150 indicated inverted on top but it looked like he lost his
>>>> energy to drag going up the up line by pulling too much g. He was
>>>> practically dead in the water on top but apparently at fairly high
>>>> power. This looked like it torqued him in roll pretty good and he
>>>> lost it coming through the gate. He recovered as the angle of
>>>> attack narrowed back into the work range but by then he was
>>>> committed way too nose low and had no radial g available to affect
>>>> the recovery.
>>>
>>>
>>> OK, pretty much as I saw it as well (though I ould never have put it
>>> so well!) But it seems to me he should have been formulating some
>>> sort of plan to get out as he neared the top of the first loop and
>>> saw it all going wrong. Never flown anything as powerful, fast and
>>> heavy as that doing aerobatics, of course, but it seems to me he had
>>> only two options after he passed 90deg; a hammerhead might have been
>>> a bit ropey at that altitude in that airplane, and I don't know if
>>> they're even on the menu in that thing. A hammerhead being ruled out
>>> for whatever reason, I'd just pitch over forward hard and bump my
>>> way out if the airspeed was that far gone. The bottom of the list
>>> would be to pull hard and then roll out, which is what he did,
>>> intetionally or otherwise, but if he had pulled a bit harder a bit
>>> earlier, he'd at least have exited the torque roll a bit more nose
>>> down which might have avoided the secondary problem.
>>> Did it have fuel injection? Was he having to think about avoiding
>>> negative G?
>>>> The Hurricane looks like it will come down to a simple brain fart.
>>>> The guy was very qualified and had experience. So far it looks like
>>>> he simply committed to a Split S below his minimum AGL parameter
>>>> for the Hurricane. This one is very similar to the Thunderbird F16
>>>> accident at Mountain Home AFB where the team lost a Viper. Brain
>>>> fart!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Again, exactly as I saw it. He was screwed the second he rolled
>>> over. Reason I ask is I was just wondering how good my eye was after
>>> so long away from aerobatics.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>>Didn't see the T6 roll on these links, but I think I remember the
>>crash. The 6 has a lousy roll rate and loses energy like a brick when
>>rolling and doing 2 in a row while down in the weeds can bite you in
>>the butt dishing out. More than one guy's lost a T6 this way.
>>
>>The Cobra; his best chance would have been to anticipate the torque
>>roll carrying all that MP and throttle back to idle before it torqued
>>out on him, then rolling to the nearest horizon after a mistake like
>>he made on the way up. In certain conditions you just don't get a
>>second chance in prop fighters.
>
>
> I didn't see any T-6 video and roll accident but:
>
> I have lots of time in T-6. If you slow roll the bird the engine will
> flood out inverted (with the negative G on the float type carburetor)
> and this loss of power will almost always cause you to dish out unless
> you immediately apply very large control inputs in all three axis. If
> you are on the deck when doing the slow roll then you will probably
> buy the farm before you can reestablish control of bird.
>
> The bird can be slow rolled and engine not cut out by turning off the
> fuel a few seconds before you start the roll and the engine will
> continue to run on fuel in carburetor through out the roll and you
> will have normal control authority to do a good roll. Then turning the
> fuel back on.
>
> I never had the engine quit when I turned off the fuel to demo a slow
> roll to a student but doing it on the deck might be the one time the
> fuel flow to the engine did not immediately return to normal as soon
> as you were back straight and level :o( Of course if you were back
> straight and level and engine went dead, and you could not get
> restarted, you would have the opportunity to belly bird in and survive
> vs cart wheeling if you dished out of roll.
>


Here it is John,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7eYhlm9FJ8

Doesn't look like he lost power. Maybe the airplane has been modded.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in
et:

> The ones I've done are on about 60 deg upline, then left knife edge,
> and then full forward stick, right aileron, and full left rudder.
> It'll go around and do three tumbles, each at right angles. It usually
> ends in a level attitude at right angles to the original line of
> flight, with the prop howling at full RPM, and zero indicated
> airspeed. It's actually not violent at all, with little g load.
>
> When I first got the Extra, now seven years ago, I promised my wife
> that I would never do airshows, and never charge anyone for a ride
> (not that I would anyway). It's been a great ride and lots of fun.
>
>

Nice machine OK. Wildest thing I've ever flown was a a Pitts and didn't get
up to much inthe short time I had in them.


Bertie

[K l e i n]

On Nov 18, 11:03 am, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> The ones I've done are on about 60 deg upline, then left knife edge, and
> then full forward stick, right aileron, and full left rudder. It'll go
> around and do three tumbles, each at right angles. It usually ends in a
> level attitude at right angles to the original line of flight, with the prop
> howling at full RPM, and zero indicated airspeed. It's actually not violent
> at all, with little g load.
>
> When I first got the Extra, now seven years ago, I promised my wife that I
> would never do airshows, and never charge anyone for a ride (not that I
> would anyway). It's been a great ride and lots of fun.

Here's one I've been working on with my Extra.

Dive for middle of yellow arc speed, pull to vertical, gently put in
full right stick to start it rolling, then push the stick into right
front corner and full left rudder simultaneously, but reasonably
gently. Then watch it make a really flat, fast inverted spin while
the altimeter continues to indicate upward progress. Way fun! I'm
still playing with how to end it. If you just hold the controls, at
the top it sort of flops over and then begins spinning downward. What
I'd like for it to do is smoothly transition into a downgoing inverted
flat spin.

I've been doing tumbles like you describe but with right knife edge,
top (left) rudder and right front corner stick. Seems to stop on
original heading after three. I usually do them with gentle rudder
and stick pushes to keep from wacking my head on the canopy.

K l e i n

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>>> What was his "out" once he was inverted and slow?
>>>
>>> I assume the proper recovery is to pull back the power to a manageable
>>> level, unload the airplane, and get the nose below the horizon in
>>> order to build some airspeed. Once the airplane is flying again, feed
>>> in the power while rolling level, then pull...
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, exactly. Can't see any other way out at the top, but I would have
>> thought he should have recognised the mess a lot earlier, i.e., at or
>> before reaching 90deg.
>> Looks like he was braving it out for the benefit of the crowd.
>>
>> A bit like this guy..
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUzjLxqHy5g
>>
>> The show must go on, huh?
>>
>> Bertie
>
> The strange thing about the Yak near-pancake is that the guy comes over the
> top with plenty of airspeed, gets the nose down, and then doesn't pull
> enough G's until very late when he's past the vertical. Another quarter or
> half G after he'd gotten the nose down and he wouldn't have had a memorable
> recovery.
>
> KB
>
>
This is why the top gate is so important. You only have so much g you
can pull on the back side depending on the altitude and airspeed you
have when you initiate the down line. Pull too hard and you take the
airplane into drag rise then into high speed stall. Even into drag rise
you can have so much g on the airplane it denies you recovery room.
The Yak clip has been widely distributed in the Warbird community. The
truth is it just doesn't get any closer than this guy had it with a walk
away in your future.
DH

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:


> OK, the first one should have been the T6 slow roll where he dished out
> in the end.(orange one in south america?)
> Looks like he had nothing even beginning the roll and had completely
> lost the plot by the time he reached even 45 degrees and should have
> just thrown it away at that point.
>> To me, the KC accident looked like the result of a way too low energy
>> state going through the top gate. He should have had at least 150
>> indicated inverted on top but it looked like he lost his energy to
>> drag going up the up line by pulling too much g. He was practically
>> dead in the water on top but apparently at fairly high power. This
>> looked like it torqued him in roll pretty good and he lost it coming
>> through the gate. He recovered as the angle of attack narrowed back
>> into the work range but by then he was committed way too nose low and
>> had no radial g available to affect the recovery.

The guy in the T6, rolling right, judging from the clip, never made the
rudder switch from left to right rudder as he passed through inverted.
His held in left rudder became bottom rudder as he passed through
inverted then yawed him hard as he reached the second knife edge. Add to
this he didn't have enough forward stick in either as he went through
inverted. The combination of the two errors caused the nose to come down
as he rolled into the 3rd quarter.

You just don't do this in a low altitude roll and survive. To me it
looked like bad control coordination beginning at inverted and held
through impact . The first half of the roll looked good BTW. He just
blew it on the second half.
His airspeed looked fine for a T6 going into the roll set so energy
wasn't the issue here.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>
>> OK, the first one should have been the T6 slow roll where he dished
out
>> in the end.(orange one in south america?)
>> Looks like he had nothing even beginning the roll and had completely
>> lost the plot by the time he reached even 45 degrees and should have
>> just thrown it away at that point.
>>> To me, the KC accident looked like the result of a way too low
energy
>>> state going through the top gate. He should have had at least 150
>>> indicated inverted on top but it looked like he lost his energy to
>>> drag going up the up line by pulling too much g. He was practically
>>> dead in the water on top but apparently at fairly high power. This
>>> looked like it torqued him in roll pretty good and he lost it coming
>>> through the gate. He recovered as the angle of attack narrowed back
>>> into the work range but by then he was committed way too nose low
and
>>> had no radial g available to affect the recovery.
>
> The guy in the T6, rolling right, judging from the clip, never made
the
> rudder switch from left to right rudder as he passed through inverted.
> His held in left rudder became bottom rudder as he passed through
> inverted then yawed him hard as he reached the second knife edge. Add
to
> this he didn't have enough forward stick in either as he went through
> inverted. The combination of the two errors caused the nose to come
down
> as he rolled into the 3rd quarter.
>
> You just don't do this in a low altitude roll and survive. To me it
> looked like bad control coordination beginning at inverted and held
> through impact . The first half of the roll looked good BTW. He just
> blew it on the second half.
> His airspeed looked fine for a T6 going into the roll set so energy
> wasn't the issue here.
>


Hmm, yes, OK. Looked at it again a few times. I still think he's a bit
nose low at the first 90 point which would have exacerbated the nose
down inverted, though. I usually looked for the side of the cowl to be
resting on the horizon at the 90 before commiting to inverted.
I think you're right about the rudder coming through inverted, he got
so absorbed in that problem his rudder control went astray and it
degenerated into just panic thrashing and pulling and hoping for the
best.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>
>> Didn't see the T6 roll on these links, but I think I remember the
>> crash. The 6 has a lousy roll rate and loses energy like a brick when
>> rolling and doing 2 in a row while down in the weeds can bite you in
>> the butt dishing out. More than one guy's lost a T6 this way.
>
> Yeah, gave you the wrong one the sifrst time and couldn't get it when I
> replied. Youtube seemed to be down or something. Still is. He just did a
> single roll. It's pretty obvious from the get go that he hasn't got a
> chance. By the time he's 90 deg left the nose is well down on the
> horizon and he's commited to some major thrashinbg around on the
> elevators and rudder to keep the thing goin which degenerates into
> dishing out of the bottom in a big way towards the end. I am surprised
> about your comments on it losing energy, though..
>> The Cobra; his best chance would have been to anticipate the torque
>> roll carrying all that MP and throttle back to idle before it torqued
>> out on him, then rolling to the nearest horizon after a mistake like
>> he made on the way up. In certain conditions you just don't get a
>> second chance in prop fighters.
>>
>
> OK, that makes sense. I get the feeling he was a bit surprised by the
> time he reached the 3/8ths point of the loop and had no real plan out.
> They do teach this nowadays, right? I was quizzed mercilessly about
> escape routes from all sorts of fjukkups (all of which I had a good
> answer for) by the FAA inspector that signed my waiver. Do inspectors
> even do those anymore? Evrythng else seems to be done by someone else
> these days.
>
>
>
>
>
> Bertie
>
>
The Cobra was a perfect example of something every pilot who flies these
hot prop fighters in demonstrations should be told on the very first day
a check pilot works with them.
First thing you learn is that if you have to think about it, you
shouldn't be doing it...period! The second thing you learn is that money
and horsepower don't necessarily equate.
All of these guys have egos. If they didn't, they wouldn't be
demonstrating a prop fighter at low altitude. Ego is fine, but you leave
that on the ground or sooner or later it dies with you in these airplanes.
The first thing you do when you work with these pilots is take away that
ego and replace it with a deep respect for the airplane. Trust me, those
things can kill you quicker than a rattlesnake strike. Complacency will
kill you in prop fighters. The only way you can demonstrate a prop
fighter at low altitude and live to retire and talk about it is to
develop a keen respect for the airplane even more keen than any airplane
you have ever flown or ever will fly.
The next thing is consistency. Bob Hoover is alive today because of
consistency. Every maneuver he does is like it was cut out of a
template. His g profiles in his pulls and his top gate parameters are as
consistent as a finely tuned swiss watch. He seldom varies more than a
few feet in altitude and a few knots in airspeed, and his application of
g is totally predictable.
Predictability is the key to survival when demonstrating an airplane
like a Mustang, Spitfire, or a King Cobra.
There is a killer up there and it rides with you all the time. Neglect
it for only an instant and you're history. It's a game that has to be
played right the first time....every time....period!

You have an issue with these high powered prop fighters that you don't
have in any other kind of airplane when it comes to demonstration flying
at low altitude. This issue concerns what happens when these airplanes
get too slow, have too much angle of attack on the wing, and are
carrying high amounts of manifold pressure.
Just to give you some idea of exactly how powerful these airplanes are,
consider for a moment that a P51 will actually jump it's wheel chocks at
40 inches. You can't hold it!
Now, put one of the fighters on top approaching a critical low altitude
top gate after losing all your maneuvering airspeed to positive g on the
way up there; now throw in a high power setting and a mushing nose rate
as an 11 foot prop disk rotates through the air in pitch and what do you
get? You get a King Cobra severely being impacted by torque in roll,
severe P Factor with the prop sensing a relative wind; and as the prop
disk rotates; gyroscopic precession 90 degrees to the pitch axis. As if
all this wasn't enough, with the high power setting, he had spiraling
slipstream forces acting on the airplane in yaw as well.
As the man says, "this just ain't no place for a sane person to be"

The Cobra had all these things in play, and it really messed him up
badly from what I saw. He had all this mess going on at the same time.

It looked like he tried to salvage it, but instead of cutting the power
and rolling to the nearest horizon throttled back as he should have
done, then repositioning, continuing his routine by recapturing the show
line and continuing, he tried to stay with it and ride it out. The
result was a rolling yawing motion almost surely behind the max CL curve
with a lot of mush on the airplane. Naturally this worked itself out for
him as the wing recovered some workable angle of attack but by then it
was way too late. He had no g available that would recover the airplane
on the front side of a high speed stall before impacting the ground; a
classic coffin corner vertical recovery failure.

So Important is the issue of vertical recovery for demonstration pilots
flying WW2 prop fighters that I have written extensively on the subject
for two publications.
The titles are supplied here for anyone interested in this area of
flight safety.

1. "Zero Error Margin", the definitive study on air show accidents and
demonstration flying by Gen Des Barker of the South African Air Force

2. "Precision Decision" Aeroplane Monthly Feburary 2004




--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>
>>> OK, the first one should have been the T6 slow roll where he dished
> out
>>> in the end.(orange one in south america?)
>>> Looks like he had nothing even beginning the roll and had completely
>>> lost the plot by the time he reached even 45 degrees and should have
>>> just thrown it away at that point.
>>>> To me, the KC accident looked like the result of a way too low
> energy
>>>> state going through the top gate. He should have had at least 150
>>>> indicated inverted on top but it looked like he lost his energy to
>>>> drag going up the up line by pulling too much g. He was practically
>>>> dead in the water on top but apparently at fairly high power. This
>>>> looked like it torqued him in roll pretty good and he lost it coming
>>>> through the gate. He recovered as the angle of attack narrowed back
>>>> into the work range but by then he was committed way too nose low
> and
>>>> had no radial g available to affect the recovery.
>> The guy in the T6, rolling right, judging from the clip, never made
> the
>> rudder switch from left to right rudder as he passed through inverted.
>> His held in left rudder became bottom rudder as he passed through
>> inverted then yawed him hard as he reached the second knife edge. Add
> to
>> this he didn't have enough forward stick in either as he went through
>> inverted. The combination of the two errors caused the nose to come
> down
>> as he rolled into the 3rd quarter.
>>
>> You just don't do this in a low altitude roll and survive. To me it
>> looked like bad control coordination beginning at inverted and held
>> through impact . The first half of the roll looked good BTW. He just
>> blew it on the second half.
>> His airspeed looked fine for a T6 going into the roll set so energy
>> wasn't the issue here.
>>
>
>
> Hmm, yes, OK. Looked at it again a few times. I still think he's a bit
> nose low at the first 90 point which would have exacerbated the nose
> down inverted, though. I usually looked for the side of the cowl to be
> resting on the horizon at the 90 before commiting to inverted.
> I think you're right about the rudder coming through inverted, he got
> so absorbed in that problem his rudder control went astray and it
> degenerated into just panic thrashing and pulling and hoping for the
> best.
>
>
> Bertie

The best technique to use in low altitude roll entries is to use adverse
yaw to your advantage as you enter the roll. You need top rudder anyway
and that's the way the nose will go if you don't use rolling rudder into
the roll to coordinate the entry. I just allow the yaw and follow it
closely with top rudder as the roll stabilizes.

A lot of these guys doing low altitude rolls will use inside rudder with
aileron entering the roll because it's the "natural" thing to do. If the
rudder isn't switched immediately to opposite rudder as the roll
initiates, this will naturally be bottom rudder and pull the nose down.
At low altitude, this can get you killed.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>> Didn't see the T6 roll on these links, but I think I remember the
>>> crash. The 6 has a lousy roll rate and loses energy like a brick
>>> when rolling and doing 2 in a row while down in the weeds can bite
>>> you in the butt dishing out. More than one guy's lost a T6 this way.
>>
>> Yeah, gave you the wrong one the sifrst time and couldn't get it when
>> I replied. Youtube seemed to be down or something. Still is. He just
>> did a single roll. It's pretty obvious from the get go that he hasn't
>> got a chance. By the time he's 90 deg left the nose is well down on
>> the horizon and he's commited to some major thrashinbg around on the
>> elevators and rudder to keep the thing goin which degenerates into
>> dishing out of the bottom in a big way towards the end. I am
>> surprised about your comments on it losing energy, though..
>>> The Cobra; his best chance would have been to anticipate the torque
>>> roll carrying all that MP and throttle back to idle before it
>>> torqued out on him, then rolling to the nearest horizon after a
>>> mistake like he made on the way up. In certain conditions you just
>>> don't get a second chance in prop fighters.
>>>
>>
>> OK, that makes sense. I get the feeling he was a bit surprised by the
>> time he reached the 3/8ths point of the loop and had no real plan
>> out. They do teach this nowadays, right? I was quizzed mercilessly
>> about escape routes from all sorts of fjukkups (all of which I had a
>> good answer for) by the FAA inspector that signed my waiver. Do
>> inspectors even do those anymore? Evrythng else seems to be done by
>> someone else these days.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>>
> The Cobra was a perfect example of something every pilot who flies
> these hot prop fighters in demonstrations should be told on the very
> first day a check pilot works with them.
> First thing you learn is that if you have to think about it, you
> shouldn't be doing it...period! The second thing you learn is that
> money and horsepower don't necessarily equate.
> All of these guys have egos. If they didn't, they wouldn't be
> demonstrating a prop fighter at low altitude. Ego is fine, but you
> leave that on the ground or sooner or later it dies with you in these
> airplanes. The first thing you do when you work with these pilots is
> take away that ego and replace it with a deep respect for the
> airplane. Trust me, those things can kill you quicker than a
> rattlesnake strike. Complacency will kill you in prop fighters. The
> only way you can demonstrate a prop fighter at low altitude and live
> to retire and talk about it is to develop a keen respect for the
> airplane even more keen than any airplane you have ever flown or ever
> will fly. The next thing is consistency. Bob Hoover is alive today
> because of consistency. Every maneuver he does is like it was cut out
> of a template. His g profiles in his pulls and his top gate parameters
> are as consistent as a finely tuned swiss watch. He seldom varies more
> than a few feet in altitude and a few knots in airspeed, and his
> application of g is totally predictable.
> Predictability is the key to survival when demonstrating an airplane
> like a Mustang, Spitfire, or a King Cobra.
> There is a killer up there and it rides with you all the time. Neglect
> it for only an instant and you're history. It's a game that has to be
> played right the first time....every time....period!
>
> You have an issue with these high powered prop fighters that you don't
> have in any other kind of airplane when it comes to demonstration
> flying at low altitude. This issue concerns what happens when these
> airplanes get too slow, have too much angle of attack on the wing, and
> are carrying high amounts of manifold pressure.
> Just to give you some idea of exactly how powerful these airplanes
> are, consider for a moment that a P51 will actually jump it's wheel
> chocks at 40 inches. You can't hold it!
> Now, put one of the fighters on top approaching a critical low
> altitude top gate after losing all your maneuvering airspeed to
> positive g on the way up there; now throw in a high power setting and
> a mushing nose rate as an 11 foot prop disk rotates through the air in
> pitch and what do you get? You get a King Cobra severely being
> impacted by torque in roll, severe P Factor with the prop sensing a
> relative wind; and as the prop disk rotates; gyroscopic precession 90
> degrees to the pitch axis. As if all this wasn't enough, with the high
> power setting, he had spiraling slipstream forces acting on the
> airplane in yaw as well. As the man says, "this just ain't no place
> for a sane person to be"
>
> The Cobra had all these things in play, and it really messed him up
> badly from what I saw. He had all this mess going on at the same time.
>
> It looked like he tried to salvage it, but instead of cutting the
> power and rolling to the nearest horizon throttled back as he should
> have done, then repositioning, continuing his routine by recapturing
> the show line and continuing, he tried to stay with it and ride it
> out. The result was a rolling yawing motion almost surely behind the
> max CL curve with a lot of mush on the airplane. Naturally this worked
> itself out for him as the wing recovered some workable angle of attack
> but by then it was way too late. He had no g available that would
> recover the airplane on the front side of a high speed stall before
> impacting the ground; a classic coffin corner vertical recovery
> failure.


OK, that all makes sense. I've never flown anything this powerful, but
if an immelman was going badly for me I would just transform it into a
half cuban rather than try to roll level with too little speed. With the
power available torque was still and issue, but it wasn't the bomb that
it is on these contraptions, obviously. It's amazing to watch the
difficulty they have regaining a bit of grip once it;s gone..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:
>
> The best technique to use in low altitude roll entries is to use adverse
> yaw to your advantage as you enter the roll. You need top rudder anyway
> and that's the way the nose will go if you don't use rolling rudder into
> the roll to coordinate the entry. I just allow the yaw and follow it
> closely with top rudder as the roll stabilizes.
>
> A lot of these guys doing low altitude rolls will use inside rudder with
> aileron entering the roll because it's the "natural" thing to do. If the
> rudder isn't switched immediately to opposite rudder as the roll
> initiates, this will naturally be bottom rudder and pull the nose down.
> At low altitude, this can get you killed.
>
>

OK, that's the way I always did it. Rudder into roll until the adverse yaw
is no longer a problem at say about 30 deg. Swiftly to top rudder then. I
found, in most of the draggy things I flew, that if you didn;t, you lost
the point. With the roll rates I'd be dealing with a large aileron input
was required (max aileron, to get even a 2.5 to 3 second roll) and adverse
yaw could be fierce. rudder required was only light though and I was fully
mindful of the consequences of not getting top rudder in quickly! I'm
having trouble remembering how I did a lot of things though since at the
end of the day I just kept the point in place and did the neccesary to keep
it there. I'll have to re-educate myself procedurally, though.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>> The best technique to use in low altitude roll entries is to use adverse
>> yaw to your advantage as you enter the roll. You need top rudder anyway
>> and that's the way the nose will go if you don't use rolling rudder into
>> the roll to coordinate the entry. I just allow the yaw and follow it
>> closely with top rudder as the roll stabilizes.
>>
>> A lot of these guys doing low altitude rolls will use inside rudder with
>> aileron entering the roll because it's the "natural" thing to do. If the
>> rudder isn't switched immediately to opposite rudder as the roll
>> initiates, this will naturally be bottom rudder and pull the nose down.
>> At low altitude, this can get you killed.
>>
>>
>
> OK, that's the way I always did it. Rudder into roll until the adverse yaw
> is no longer a problem at say about 30 deg. Swiftly to top rudder then. I
> found, in most of the draggy things I flew, that if you didn;t, you lost
> the point. With the roll rates I'd be dealing with a large aileron input
> was required (max aileron, to get even a 2.5 to 3 second roll) and adverse
> yaw could be fierce. rudder required was only light though and I was fully
> mindful of the consequences of not getting top rudder in quickly! I'm
> having trouble remembering how I did a lot of things though since at the
> end of the day I just kept the point in place and did the neccesary to keep
> it there. I'll have to re-educate myself procedurally, though.
>
>
> Bertie
Coordinated rudder into the roll followed by the switch as you indicate
is indeed the normal way to enter a slow roll. At low altitude however,
as a safety margin for airplanes like a T6 or a 51, I like using the
adverse yaw to negate the switch and give me just that little extra of
nose up in case something "unusual" happens like a bird strike for
example. You can't really see the difference from the ground unless it's
excessive so the roll axis still looks smooth and precise.
In other words, at low altitude you need that nose pointing up at all
times. The Blue Angels use nose down trim for the same reason. Inverted
they have a slight "edge" in case they are distracted for a nano-second
by something unexpected happening with the airplane.
Unless you are doing low altitude work, using coordinated rudder into
the roll entry then switching to top rudder is just fine.

--
Dudley Henriques

[K l e i n]

On Nov 18, 5:22 pm, "Viperdoc" > wrote:

> Congrats on your performance at the nationals.

Hey, thanks. I managed to achieve several personal bests at that
contest - highest % score in a glider flight, highest % in a free
style, highest % overall for the contest. Didn't win, but, hey, if I
keep achieving personal bests, sooner or later I have to win, right?
At least that's what I tell my kids. ;-) I'd have done a lot better
except for a brain fart in the middle of the Unknown sequence where I
turned the wrong way and didn't realize it till after I landed.
Actually, I didn't realize it even then - I had to be told. ;-)

I do confess to working really hard at this. Over 160 practice
flights this year. It DOES make a difference.

K l e i n

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Viperdoc wrote:
> Great work! Saw your photo in the IAC mag. There was a while when I was
> going up at least five days a week, and twice a day practicing on the
> weekends. However, it soon stopped being fun, and started feeling like a
> responsibility.
>
> Then, a bunch of us were going to hire a coach to come up and critique, and
> I suddenly realized that it was getting too intense, and the fun aspect of
> flying acro was going away- it had become a second job.
>
> Now, a bunch of us use the box, and we go out and have fun, and frequently
> hook up on those summer evenings and fly formation. Afterwards, we go to one
> of our hangars and cook out, have a few beers, and tell stories.
>
> So, I realize how much work and effort go into all of your practice
> sessions, and it obviously did pay off! Congrats again, and best wishes in
> the future.
>
> Good luck next year!
> JN
>
>
You'll never know how much I both envy and respect you new guys. You're
flying equipment that we in our time only dreamed about, and you're
doing things with these airplanes we envisioned but didn't have the
planes available to us to make it happen.
I never flew competition acro as military stuff was basically my venue
but I got a piece of what you guys can do today in the Pitts.
It was what made flying fun then, and I'm sure you guys feel the same
way today.


--
Dudley Henriques

[K l e i n]

On Nov 18, 9:01 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Viperdoc wrote:
> > Great work! Saw your photo in the IAC mag. There was a while when I was
> > going up at least five days a week, and twice a day practicing on the
> > weekends. However, it soon stopped being fun, and started feeling like a
> > responsibility.
>
> > Then, a bunch of us were going to hire a coach to come up and critique, and
> > I suddenly realized that it was getting too intense, and the fun aspect of
> > flying acro was going away- it had become a second job.
>
> > Now, a bunch of us use the box, and we go out and have fun, and frequently
> > hook up on those summer evenings and fly formation. Afterwards, we go to one
> > of our hangars and cook out, have a few beers, and tell stories.
>
> > So, I realize how much work and effort go into all of your practice
> > sessions, and it obviously did pay off! Congrats again, and best wishes in
> > the future.
>
> > Good luck next year!
> > JN
>
> You'll never know how much I both envy and respect you new guys.

Hehe. I should have mentioned that I also won the "Old Buzzard Award"
which goes to the highest % scoring pilot, power or glider, who is 65
or older. ;-) Nevertheless, I am only an egg.

K l e i n

[Todd W. Deckard]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> Unless you are doing low altitude work, using coordinated rudder into the
> roll entry then switching to top rudder is just fine.
>
I took (a little) aerobatic instruction from Ken Hadden and he would call
out "kick the sky! kick the sky!"
as a way to coach you to switch to the top rudder input as the airplane
rolled.

Regards
Todd

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

K l e i n wrote:
> On Nov 18, 9:01 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Viperdoc wrote:
>>> Great work! Saw your photo in the IAC mag. There was a while when I was
>>> going up at least five days a week, and twice a day practicing on the
>>> weekends. However, it soon stopped being fun, and started feeling like a
>>> responsibility.
>>> Then, a bunch of us were going to hire a coach to come up and critique, and
>>> I suddenly realized that it was getting too intense, and the fun aspect of
>>> flying acro was going away- it had become a second job.
>>> Now, a bunch of us use the box, and we go out and have fun, and frequently
>>> hook up on those summer evenings and fly formation. Afterwards, we go to one
>>> of our hangars and cook out, have a few beers, and tell stories.
>>> So, I realize how much work and effort go into all of your practice
>>> sessions, and it obviously did pay off! Congrats again, and best wishes in
>>> the future.
>>> Good luck next year!
>>> JN
>> You'll never know how much I both envy and respect you new guys.
>
> Hehe. I should have mentioned that I also won the "Old Buzzard Award"
> which goes to the highest % scoring pilot, power or glider, who is 65
> or older. ;-) Nevertheless, I am only an egg.
>
> K l e i n
Hey...congratulations anyway. In this case I should simply say;
"We "older folk" have to stick together" :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Todd W. Deckard wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> Unless you are doing low altitude work, using coordinated rudder into the
>> roll entry then switching to top rudder is just fine.
>>
> I took (a little) aerobatic instruction from Ken Hadden and he would call
> out "kick the sky! kick the sky!"
> as a way to coach you to switch to the top rudder input as the airplane
> rolled.
>
> Regards
> Todd
>
>
Each acro instructor will pick up little subtle ways of getting
something through to a student that can be easily remembered under
pressure. "Kick the sky" seems to be a good method of presentation for
your instructor.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Viperdoc wrote:
>> Great work! Saw your photo in the IAC mag. There was a while when I
>> was going up at least five days a week, and twice a day practicing on
>> the weekends. However, it soon stopped being fun, and started feeling
>> like a responsibility.
>>
>> Then, a bunch of us were going to hire a coach to come up and
>> critique, and I suddenly realized that it was getting too intense,
>> and the fun aspect of flying acro was going away- it had become a
>> second job.
>>
>> Now, a bunch of us use the box, and we go out and have fun, and
>> frequently hook up on those summer evenings and fly formation.
>> Afterwards, we go to one of our hangars and cook out, have a few
>> beers, and tell stories.
>>
>> So, I realize how much work and effort go into all of your practice
>> sessions, and it obviously did pay off! Congrats again, and best
>> wishes in the future.
>>
>> Good luck next year!
>> JN
>>
>>
> You'll never know how much I both envy and respect you new guys.
> You're flying equipment that we in our time only dreamed about, and
> you're doing things with these airplanes we envisioned but didn't have
> the planes available to us to make it happen.
> I never flew competition acro as military stuff was basically my venue
> but I got a piece of what you guys can do today in the Pitts.
> It was what made flying fun then, and I'm sure you guys feel the same
> way today.
>

There;s a down side to them if they start in them from scratch. It took me
about two minutes to see that a Pitts S2 was a real bad airplane to be
teaching aerobatics in. You can slow roll it just by banging the stick to
the side. It's not a slow roll, of course, but I couldn't see the thing
teaching any kind of management at all.
A good friend of mine who does instruction and displays in a Chipmunk
recently took a guy up in it who had bought an Extra 300 as his first
aerobatic aircraft and learned aerobatics in it. He couldn't get the
Chipmunk to do anything (and the Chipmunk is an easy airplane to aerobat)
A simple hammerhead ended up in a near inverted spin entry. Nothing wrong
with these new airplanes I'd love to fly one! Just not great primary
aerobatic trainers.


Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> K l e i n wrote:
>> On Nov 18, 9:01 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>> Viperdoc wrote:
>>>> Great work! Saw your photo in the IAC mag. There was a while when I
>>>> was going up at least five days a week, and twice a day practicing
>>>> on the weekends. However, it soon stopped being fun, and started
>>>> feeling like a responsibility.
>>>> Then, a bunch of us were going to hire a coach to come up and
>>>> critique, and I suddenly realized that it was getting too intense,
>>>> and the fun aspect of flying acro was going away- it had become a
>>>> second job. Now, a bunch of us use the box, and we go out and have
>>>> fun, and frequently hook up on those summer evenings and fly
>>>> formation. Afterwards, we go to one of our hangars and cook out,
>>>> have a few beers, and tell stories. So, I realize how much work and
>>>> effort go into all of your practice sessions, and it obviously did
>>>> pay off! Congrats again, and best wishes in the future.
>>>> Good luck next year!
>>>> JN
>>> You'll never know how much I both envy and respect you new guys.
>>
>> Hehe. I should have mentioned that I also won the "Old Buzzard
>> Award" which goes to the highest % scoring pilot, power or glider,
>> who is 65 or older. ;-) Nevertheless, I am only an egg.
>>
>> K l e i n
> Hey...congratulations anyway. In this case I should simply say;
> "We "older folk" have to stick together" :-))

I*s that a wrinkle/velcro effect sort of thing?


Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in
:

> Agree completely. My first TD was a Super Decathlon. Things happen
> slowly enough that you need to use your feet all the way around in a
> roll, and landing in a crosswind with all of the side surface area and
> high wing takes a lot of technique.
>
> By comparison, the Extra has no forward visibility on landing, and a
> pattern is flown pretty quickly. Anything less than 90 K on base and
> short final and the sink rate gets too high. Rolling an Extra still
> takes rudder input to do it right, but might be hard to appreciate the
> difference from the ground. Although it can happen, it would be pretty
> hard to do an inverted flat spin entry from an attempted hammer unless
> someone was really not feeling what was going on.

Yes, but th epoint I was making is that it's just as difficult to do
aerobatics properly in one of those things as it is in say, a clipped
cub, but the hamfisted will get away with sloppy technique in one of
them and will never learn to do anything properly. Like the guy who went
with my friend in the Chipmunk.
>
> On the other hand, I've gotten a burble going straight down at 190 K
> when trying to pull too hard doing a downward quarter loop. The stick
> pressure seems to get a slight bit lighter during a pull just before
> it stalls.
>
> A guy on our field bought an SU-29 as his first tail dragger, and was
> "checked out" in less than six hours. His only previous experience was
> in an SR-22. On the first day he dropped it in on a landing attempt,
> and destroyed the MT prop and damaged the tail. It took thousands of
> dollars (new prop, paid cash) to repair and over a year. He is just
> now getting back into flying it, and he does stuff that you could do
> in a clipped wing cub or Stearman.


He'd be better off in either one. The Stearman is a great first
aerobatic trainer. It's nearly indestructable for one thing ( we used to
play "see how fast you can fly past the office" in them and nobody ever
did it at more than about 130) and it's difficult enough to get it do
what you want it to. Energy is hard to come by so you learn economy and
when you get it right you're rewarded with world tumbling around framed
by those gorgeous wings. Not to mention the noise the thing makes.
>
> So, I agree completely- an Extra or Sukhoi are not great primary
> trainers for a TD or intro aerobatics. Our small field has an Extra,
> three Pitts, two Sukhoi 29's, and two Yaks, so there is quite an acro
> following.


Sounds it! Al that competition around has to be a good thing as well!


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Viperdoc wrote:
> Agree completely. My first TD was a Super Decathlon. Things happen slowly
> enough that you need to use your feet all the way around in a roll, and
> landing in a crosswind with all of the side surface area and high wing takes
> a lot of technique.
>
> By comparison, the Extra has no forward visibility on landing, and a pattern
> is flown pretty quickly. Anything less than 90 K on base and short final and
> the sink rate gets too high. Rolling an Extra still takes rudder input to do
> it right, but might be hard to appreciate the difference from the ground.
> Although it can happen, it would be pretty hard to do an inverted flat spin
> entry from an attempted hammer unless someone was really not feeling what
> was going on.
>
> On the other hand, I've gotten a burble going straight down at 190 K when
> trying to pull too hard doing a downward quarter loop. The stick pressure
> seems to get a slight bit lighter during a pull just before it stalls.
>
> A guy on our field bought an SU-29 as his first tail dragger, and was
> "checked out" in less than six hours. His only previous experience was in an
> SR-22. On the first day he dropped it in on a landing attempt, and destroyed
> the MT prop and damaged the tail. It took thousands of dollars (new prop,
> paid cash) to repair and over a year. He is just now getting back into
> flying it, and he does stuff that you could do in a clipped wing cub or
> Stearman.
>
> So, I agree completely- an Extra or Sukhoi are not great primary trainers
> for a TD or intro aerobatics. Our small field has an Extra, three Pitts, two
> Sukhoi 29's, and two Yaks, so there is quite an acro following.
>
>
I concur as well on the primary question. Rating aerobatic training
aircraft as I have experienced and used them over the years, I would
rate without hesitation the Decathlon as my ultimate choice for
aerobatic introduction through primary.

One can make the case in most any direction when it comes to acro
training really. I've seen pilots buy an Extra or a Pitts and start
right from there, going on to become highly proficient acro pilots.

My personal choice however has always been to take a new acro student
through a good solid basic airplane like a Decathlon, then transition
them into higher performance aircraft. In my opinion, this path allows
an easier and smoother introduction to the general basics which I
consider the rock foundation of aerobatics; then on into advanced stuff
with the student armed with this solid background of basics in tow.



--
Dudley Henriques