Aerobatics books (Bertie, Dudley)

[[email protected]]

I was reading Bertie & Dudley's analysis of some low level aerobatics
gone bad. They used a fair amount of terminology I wasn't familiar
with.

What are the classic books on aerobatics?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in news:17140127-0137-4b3a-b6ee-
:

> I was reading Bertie & Dudley's analysis of some low level aerobatics
> gone bad. They used a fair amount of terminology I wasn't familiar
> with.
>
> What are the classic books on aerobatics?
>

"Roll around a point", by Duane Cole, Sort of -THE- "My first little
aerobatic book" An excellent primer

"Conquest of lines and symmetry", also by Duane Cole. For instructors,
reall, but lots of good stuff there.

"Aerobatics" by Neil Williams. Superb book that goes into it in some
depth. The terminology is British but that makes little diffeence. Snap
rolls, for instance, are flick rolls in the UK. Hammerheads are stall
turns and so on but the descriptions of how to accomplish the manuevers
are very good, The Cole books are better to begin with, though.
(You don't want to overthink the manuevers while you're trying to do
them)

Kershner has one too, but I've never read it. His other books are good,
though so I can't see this one being bad.

"Hal Krier's Modern aerobatic and precision flying" or something like
that. I have it somewhere. It's a bit like the Cole books.

I have an old WW2 navy manual that's very good as well, though the
terminology is a bit different", shall we say?


All of these are out of print AFAIK except the Neil Williams book, and
mayb ethe Kershner one

Wiliams book is worth buying just for his account of how he landed a
Zlin 526 with a broken wing spar that only allowed him to fly inverted!
Absolutely awe inspiring stuff.


Bertie

[Stefan]

schrieb:

> I was reading Bertie & Dudley's analysis of some low level aerobatics
> gone bad. They used a fair amount of terminology I wasn't familiar
> with.
>
> What are the classic books on aerobatics?

"Flight unlimited" by Eric Müller. It's available again.

But then, it depends on what you want it for. If you want to get a
feeling of some of the difficulties and what can go wrong, there's no
other way than to do it yourself. Go to an aerobatic school and ask for
a couple of lessons, especially inverted flight, rolls and flicks. Then
you'll understand many of the things which can go wrong. Besides, it's
fun. But be warned: It's addictive!

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> I was reading Bertie & Dudley's analysis of some low level aerobatics
> gone bad. They used a fair amount of terminology I wasn't familiar
> with.
>
> What are the classic books on aerobatics?
All of the books Bertie recommended are good. In fact, it was Duane Cole
who first interested me in acro.
For up to date modern explanations and terminology on the subject you
can't use better reference books than the books written by Mike Goulian
and Geza Szurovy. There are two.
1. Basic Aerobatics
2. Advanced Aerobatics.

I recommend these books often. They are extremely well written and are
applicable in a range from a Cessna Aerobat on through the most advanced
aerobatic aircraft in use today.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:IL-
:

> wrote:
>> I was reading Bertie & Dudley's analysis of some low level aerobatics
>> gone bad. They used a fair amount of terminology I wasn't familiar
>> with.
>>
>> What are the classic books on aerobatics?
> All of the books Bertie recommended are good. In fact, it was Duane Cole
> who first interested me in acro.
> For up to date modern explanations and terminology on the subject you
> can't use better reference books than the books written by Mike Goulian
> and Geza Szurovy. There are two.
> 1. Basic Aerobatics
> 2. Advanced Aerobatics.
>
> I recommend these books often. They are extremely well written and are
> applicable in a range from a Cessna Aerobat on through the most advanced
> aerobatic aircraft in use today.
>


Hmm, don't know either of those. I think I'll have a look at them!


Thanks

Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote

> All of the books Bertie recommended are good. In fact, it was Duane Cole
> who first interested me in acro.

And don't forget to get the book from Duane Cole about how to write your
name on an airplane, upside-down.
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

Well, lot's to get busy with!

My club has an aerobat which was my primary trainer.

I've got the book by Williams -- ran across it at a used bookstore.
It's an old edition, hardback, but is in good condition. I'll check
out those others too, particularly the basics books.

Doesn't Bob Hoover have a book about his flying adventures? Anyone
recommend that?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in news:80ea2e4f-f2e0-4ea1-81f6-
:

> Well, lot's to get busy with!
>
> My club has an aerobat which was my primary trainer.
>
> I've got the book by Williams -- ran across it at a used bookstore.
> It's an old edition, hardback, but is in good condition. I'll check
> out those others too, particularly the basics books.
>
> Doesn't Bob Hoover have a book about his flying adventures? Anyone
> recommend that?
>



As a matter of fact, I'm reading that at the moment. t's quite good. Not
much in the way of prose and he has had someone else write it for him,
but that's a minor quibble, really.
He did some fantastic stuff, though..

Williams book is still a bible, though I haven't read it for a while..
What I do recall about it is it's heavy on procedure and tech stuff and
light on style and the psychological.
For instance, he'll tell you what you're looking for in a loop, i'e,
entry speed, the effect of torque as the nose comes up, the ever
changing requirements of elevator presure as the attiude and speed
change, etc, but he doesn't really give any insight into what you're
looking *for* during the manuever. (maybe I'm slighting him, Haven't
read it in years and it's out on loan)
But as a recipe book, where he gives you the ingredients and you supply
the love, it's more than what anyone could ever need for an
introduction.

BTW, I looked at buying the Arrow Active that's pictured in the book.
It's the only one in the world and was for sale years ago, in flying
condition, for about $5,000 US! I think it ended up at Shuttleworth
where it belongs.
Hopefully some Nigel won't plant it in a "watch this!" moment.


Bertie

[K l e i n]

On Dec 2, 5:58 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in news:80ea2e4f-f2e0-4ea1-81f6-
> :
>
> > Well, lot's to get busy with!
>
> > My club has an aerobat which was my primary trainer.
>
> > I've got the book by Williams -- ran across it at a used bookstore.
> > It's an old edition, hardback, but is in good condition. I'll check
> > out those others too, particularly the basics books.
>
> > Doesn't Bob Hoover have a book about his flying adventures? Anyone
> > recommend that?
>
> As a matter of fact, I'm reading that at the moment. t's quite good. Not
> much in the way of prose and he has had someone else write it for him,
> but that's a minor quibble, really.
> He did some fantastic stuff, though..
>
> Williams book is still a bible, though I haven't read it for a while..
> What I do recall about it is it's heavy on procedure and tech stuff and
> light on style and the psychological.
> For instance, he'll tell you what you're looking for in a loop, i'e,
> entry speed, the effect of torque as the nose comes up, the ever
> changing requirements of elevator presure as the attiude and speed
> change, etc, but he doesn't really give any insight into what you're
> looking *for* during the manuever. (maybe I'm slighting him, Haven't
> read it in years and it's out on loan)
> But as a recipe book, where he gives you the ingredients and you supply
> the love, it's more than what anyone could ever need for an
> introduction.
>
> BTW, I looked at buying the Arrow Active that's pictured in the book.
> It's the only one in the world and was for sale years ago, in flying
> condition, for about $5,000 US! I think it ended up at Shuttleworth
> where it belongs.
> Hopefully some Nigel won't plant it in a "watch this!" moment.
>
> Bertie

If you can't wait to buy a book, you could look here:
http://www.iac.org/begin/figures.html
It's free and it's right now.

K l e i n

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

K l e i n > wrote in news:7a4127e7-1f13-401e-8865-
:
>
> If you can't wait to buy a book, you could look here:
> http://www.iac.org/begin/figures.html
> It's free and it's right now.


It's not really good enough for instruction, but it is good enough to
describe what the manuevers are.


Bertie

[K l e i n]

On Dec 2, 7:38 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> K l e i n > wrote in news:7a4127e7-1f13-401e-8865-
> :
>
>
>
> > If you can't wait to buy a book, you could look here:
> >http://www.iac.org/begin/figures.html
> > It's free and it's right now.
>
> It's not really good enough for instruction, but it is good enough to
> describe what the manuevers are.
>
> Bertie

I agree.

But, I would hope that no one thinks that ANY book is an adequate
substitute for competent dual instruction in an appropriately
certified aircraft, not that this is what you meant. ;^)

K l e i n

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote

> BTW, I looked at buying the Arrow Active that's pictured in the book.
> It's the only one in the world and was for sale years ago, in flying
> condition, for about $5,000 US! I think it ended up at Shuttleworth
> where it belongs.
> Hopefully some Nigel won't plant it in a "watch this!" moment.

Here it is, if this is the same one. Been rebuilt, if it is.

<http://www.realaero.com/>
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

Sounds like a lot of interesting material even for the casual pilot..
BTW, is there a reason why there is no separate aerobatics rating for
pilots? How do I judge if an aerobatics pilot is experienced or not?

On Dec 2, 1:40 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in news:17140127-0137-4b3a-b6ee-
> :
>
> > I was reading Bertie & Dudley's analysis of some low level aerobatics
> > gone bad. They used a fair amount of terminology I wasn't familiar
> > with.
>
> > What are the classic books on aerobatics?
>
> "Roll around a point", by Duane Cole, Sort of -THE- "My first little
> aerobatic book" An excellent primer
>
> "Conquest of lines and symmetry", also by Duane Cole. For instructors,
> reall, but lots of good stuff there.
>
> "Aerobatics" by Neil Williams. Superb book that goes into it in some
> depth. The terminology is British but that makes little diffeence. Snap
> rolls, for instance, are flick rolls in the UK. Hammerheads are stall
> turns and so on but the descriptions of how to accomplish the manuevers
> are very good, The Cole books are better to begin with, though.
> (You don't want to overthink the manuevers while you're trying to do
> them)
>
> Kershner has one too, but I've never read it. His other books are good,
> though so I can't see this one being bad.
>
> "Hal Krier's Modern aerobatic and precision flying" or something like
> that. I have it somewhere. It's a bit like the Cole books.
>
> I have an old WW2 navy manual that's very good as well, though the
> terminology is a bit different", shall we say?
>
> All of these are out of print AFAIK except the Neil Williams book, and
> mayb ethe Kershner one
>
> Wiliams book is worth buying just for his account of how he landed a
> Zlin 526 with a broken wing spar that only allowed him to fly inverted!
> Absolutely awe inspiring stuff.
>
> Bertie

[Stefan]

schrieb:

> Sounds like a lot of interesting material even for the casual pilot..
> BTW, is there a reason why there is no separate aerobatics rating for
> pilots? How do I judge if an aerobatics pilot is experienced or not?

In many countries there is, and for a good reason, IMHO. You really can
kill yourself if you try to figure out by yourself how to roll a plane.

[Stefan]

schrieb:

> I've got the book by Williams -- ran across it at a used bookstore.
> It's an old edition, hardback, but is in good condition. I'll check
> out those others too, particularly the basics books.

If you have already read Neil Williams, then it's fun to read the book
by Eric Müller. Without referring explicitely to Neil's book, he does so
implicitely by expressing some decidedly different opinions concerning
some figures.

IMHO, Neil's book is a classic, in that it was one of the first (or even
the first) book about aerobatics. But it doesn't teach well, and it
shows its age.

I consider Eric Müller's "Flight unlimited" one of the best textbooks I
have seen. Concise, precise, and well written. (Except the chapter about
physical conditions, which is, hum, just plain wrong in many points.
Eric was a pilot, not a physician.)

BTW, if you don't know who Eric was: 1988 world champion in the unknown
programme, several times European overall champion, he invented the
figure "Zwirbelturm", and he too had to do and survived an inverted
approach with a quick roll just before impact, after the elevator had
broken during a spin recovery.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in news:49526e29-d68a-4385-b170-b17a478ebf08
@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com:

> Sounds like a lot of interesting material even for the casual pilot..
> BTW, is there a reason why there is no separate aerobatics rating for
> pilots? How do I judge if an aerobatics pilot is experienced or not?


Good question and a difficult one too!

By reputation, really. Ask around.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

K l e i n > wrote in news:884cf1bb-6619-466b-aebb-
:

> On Dec 2, 7:38 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> K l e i n > wrote in news:7a4127e7-1f13-401e-8865-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > If you can't wait to buy a book, you could look here:
>> >http://www.iac.org/begin/figures.html
>> > It's free and it's right now.
>>
>> It's not really good enough for instruction, but it is good enough to
>> describe what the manuevers are.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I agree.
>
> But, I would hope that no one thinks that ANY book is an adequate
> substitute for competent dual instruction in an appropriately
> certified aircraft, not that this is what you meant. ;^)


True enough. you got me there. There just isn't any substitute for flying..



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in news:DdL4j.107$Fl4.63
@newsfe02.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>
>> BTW, I looked at buying the Arrow Active that's pictured in the book.
>> It's the only one in the world and was for sale years ago, in flying
>> condition, for about $5,000 US! I think it ended up at Shuttleworth
>> where it belongs.
>> Hopefully some Nigel won't plant it in a "watch this!" moment.
>
> Here it is, if this is the same one. Been rebuilt, if it is.
>
> <http://www.realaero.com/>


It's the only one. I think two were built. One with a radial, I think, but
someone crashed it and this one is the only one in the world. Funny looking
little thing. Cool looking in a funky kind of way. It's suppsed to have
been a pretty good aerobatic airplane. I think it won some competitions in
its day. Wish i'd gotten to fly it!


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Dec 2, 10:15 pm, wrote:
> Sounds like a lot of interesting material even for the casual pilot..
> BTW, is there a reason why there is no separate aerobatics rating for
> pilots?

There sort of is in that a CFI can get an endorsement in Aerobatics.

My instructor has one of those.

In that way you could look for an instructor who has been endorsed by
the FAA (at some level) to teach aerobatics.

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>Wiliams book is worth buying just for his account of how he landed a
>Zlin 526 with a broken wing spar that only allowed him to fly inverted!
>Absolutely awe inspiring stuff.
>
>Bertie

http://www.aerobatics.org.uk/repeats/zlin_wing_failure.htm

JEEEEZUS....Friggin' steel cojones

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200712/1

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in news:7c25cff70aaec@uwe:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>Wiliams book is worth buying just for his account of how he landed a
>>Zlin 526 with a broken wing spar that only allowed him to fly inverted!
>>Absolutely awe inspiring stuff.
>>
>>Bertie
>
> http://www.aerobatics.org.uk/repeats/zlin_wing_failure.htm
>
> JEEEEZUS....Friggin' steel cojones
>

Yeah, he had very little choice. That's some bit of flying, too. Imagine,
an outside barrel roll, maintainting negative G the whole way and having to
put it down at exactly the moment you ran out of manuever and altitude
simultaneously.
Mindblowing.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

> >http://www.aerobatics.org.uk/repeats/zlin_wing_failure.htm
>
> > JEEEEZUS....Friggin' steel cojones
>
> Yeah, he had very little choice. That's some bit of flying, too. Imagine,
> an outside barrel roll, maintainting negative G the whole way and having to
> put it down at exactly the moment you ran out of manuever and altitude
> simultaneously.
> Mindblowing.
>

Steel cojones -- no choice. But someone without steel down there might
have just let go of the stick and died. (What's that psych problem,
"resignation"? Williams had nothing but antidote for that.)

The sheer presence of mind to think about a previous incident and
REALIZING that it was the same problem but inverted, and doing that in
a matter of seconds and rolling over to save your azz, and all the
other stuff -- Mindblowing.

Gives you hope if you're knocked upside down on short final by wake
turbulence -- hell it makes that seem like a relatively small
problem!!!

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in
:

>> >http://www.aerobatics.org.uk/repeats/zlin_wing_failure.htm
>>
>> > JEEEEZUS....Friggin' steel cojones
>>
>> Yeah, he had very little choice. That's some bit of flying, too.
>> Imagine, an outside barrel roll, maintainting negative G the whole
>> way and having to put it down at exactly the moment you ran out of
>> manuever and altitude simultaneously.
>> Mindblowing.
>>
>
> Steel cojones -- no choice. But someone without steel down there might
> have just let go of the stick and died. (What's that psych problem,
> "resignation"? Williams had nothing but antidote for that.)
>
> The sheer presence of mind to think about a previous incident and
> REALIZING that it was the same problem but inverted, and doing that in
> a matter of seconds and rolling over to save your azz, and all the
> other stuff -- Mindblowing.
>
> Gives you hope if you're knocked upside down on short final by wake
> turbulence -- hell it makes that seem like a relatively small
> problem!!!
>
>

It is a relatively small problem if you've had any aerobatic training
and you have a bit of altitude.
Unless you cross it at a right angle and it's fresh and you're going
fast enough to do some damage.

This all asumes a light plane and something large enough to upset you
badly, say something over 25,000 lbs, though anything will give you some
lumps if you get close enough.

If you're flying parallel, more or less, to the other aircraft, what's
going to happen is you're going to roll and you're going to roll very
quickly. This roll will be smooth but extemly fast.
Unless your own airplane has a fantastic roll rate, you're going to be
on your back and nose down and probably out of the wake before you even
know what's happened.
The vortice is relatively smooth, as is the resultant roll, but it's
action is extremely strong, so the best course out of it is to allow it
to eject you this way (it's not like you get a choice here, BTW) and
then recover from the resulting upset in the most convienient fashion.
e.g, roll or split S out of it.
If you are very close to the ground when this happens, you're probably
screwed.
BTW, I'm not even remotely suggesting anyone be cavalier about these
things. They're strong and will roll you over every time and can bust
your airplane on the spot (this is unlikely, unless you're flying lawn
furniture).
I'm assuming an accidental encounter between a large wake and a smaller
aircraft. They do happen. If it happens too low for a recovery you've
ignored all the info that's out there about avoidance. In other words,
you've flown into one from a preceding aircraft taking off or landing.




Bertie

[Phil]

On Dec 3, 1:29 pm, "Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >Wiliams book is worth buying just for his account of how he landed a
> >Zlin 526 with a broken wing spar that only allowed him to fly inverted!
> >Absolutely awe inspiring stuff.
>
> >Bertie
>
> http://www.aerobatics.org.uk/repeats/zlin_wing_failure.htm
>
> JEEEEZUS....Friggin' steel cojones
>
> --
> Message posted via AviationKB.comhttp://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200712/1

OK, that is one of the most amazing flying stories I have ever read.
Thanks for posting the link.

Phil

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Phil > wrote in
:

> On Dec 3, 1:29 pm, "Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> >Wiliams book is worth buying just for his account of how he landed a
>> >Zlin 526 with a broken wing spar that only allowed him to fly
>> >inverted! Absolutely awe inspiring stuff.
>>
>> >Bertie
>>
>> http://www.aerobatics.org.uk/repeats/zlin_wing_failure.htm
>>
>> JEEEEZUS....Friggin' steel cojones
>>
>> --
>> Message posted via
>> AviationKB.comhttp://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/20071
>> 2/1
>
> OK, that is one of the most amazing flying stories I have ever read.
> Thanks for posting the link.
>

Unfortunately, Neil Williams was killed a few years later ferrying a
Heinkel 111 from Spain in a stupid CFIT accident. A bit like Frank
Tallman..


Bertie

[[email protected]]

> Unfortunately, Neil Williams was killed a few years later ferrying a
> Heinkel 111 from Spain in a stupid CFIT accident. A bit like Frank
> Tallman..
>

CFIT?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in news:950ecf70-cd9b-4922-8a4a-
:

>> Unfortunately, Neil Williams was killed a few years later ferrying a
>> Heinkel 111 from Spain in a stupid CFIT accident. A bit like Frank
>> Tallman..
>>
>
> CFIT?
>

Yep. It happens even to the best of them. Sobering thought, really, that
someone that experienced can make a mistake like that..


Bertie

[Phil]

On Dec 5, 6:16 pm, wrote:
> > Unfortunately, Neil Williams was killed a few years later ferrying a
> > Heinkel 111 from Spain in a stupid CFIT accident. A bit like Frank
> > Tallman..
>
> CFIT?

Controlled Flight Into Terrain.

That really sucks.

Phil

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Phil > wrote in news:e2fe0061-da0d-4836-9f61-
:

> On Dec 5, 6:16 pm, wrote:
>> > Unfortunately, Neil Williams was killed a few years later ferrying a
>> > Heinkel 111 from Spain in a stupid CFIT accident. A bit like Frank
>> > Tallman..
>>
>> CFIT?
>
> Controlled Flight Into Terrain.
>
> That really sucks.
>
> Phil

Oh sorry, I didn;t realise I was being asked what it was!

Bertie

[[email protected]]

> I'm assuming an accidental encounter between a large wake and a smaller
> aircraft. They do happen. If it happens too low for a recovery you've
> ignored all the info that's out there about avoidance. In other words,
> you've flown into one from a preceding aircraft taking off or landing.
>
> Bertie

Damn straight. If they happen to you it is sheer sh1t pantz terror.
Bertie's descriptions are 100% spot on.

I think the FAA should put warnings in big FAT red type in their
publications. The reality is far more threatening than gets drilled
into student pilot's heads.

In her student pilot days my instructor came in for a landing on a
runway parallel to where a big jet had landed a couple minutes before.
While she was still at 400 - 500 feet, I believe, she suddenly found
herself in a knife-edge orientation. She righted herself before really
thinking about it. Jet turbulence had drifted over and got her.

A coworker of mine, a CFI (though no longer current), was on a 737 on
approach as a passenger. He said suddenly the plane was at about 70
degrees or more of bank (actually I think he said 90 but am no longer
sure). The pilot corrected immediately. He said most of the people had
no idea what had happened. There'd been a few gasps but that was it.

On my second solo flight I was doing T&Gs at KAUS (Austin Bergstrom).
My hands and feet and brain were completely occupied just with trying
to land and takeoff correctly. Bad place for a spankin' newbie to
practice. ATC routed me to the 12000 foot runway. As I was downwind
they cleared a 737 to take off. Then when I was abeam the numbers they
cleared a 757 to land. After that ATC cleared me but I extended my
downwind some for what I *thought* was adequate separation & delay. In
theory I might have shot for the space between where the one landed
and the other rotated. In theory I could have asked ATC to extend my
downwind to allow wake turbulence avoidence.

I did neither. Bout 3 minutes after the 757 I landed okay near the
numbers, accelerated and climbed. I was maybe 30 - 40 feet in the air
when a gigantic invisible fist slammed the plane. Nose up, wing over.
It seemed like I saw the top of the sky from the front windshield and
the runway out the right side window. Close -- very close.

I didn't think fear could shoot through the body that fast nor have I
ever so radically and accurately corrected aircraft attitude. I don't
think I lost a single knot.

It was one of those moments where my bag of luck still had something
in it when I sure as hell didn't effectively use my knowledge of wake
avoidance. If the x-wind had been a bit slower and my judgement a
little worse -- presto, upside down and squished or burned to death.
It was a lesson to me I shall not forget -- the scariest of a few I've
had so far.

It's always worth asking ATC for more space / time / altered course if
there's risk of wake turbulence. Landing or taking off behind a single
big jet is one thing. But I will never again accept a clearance to
land in such circumstances (one heavy takes off, another lands, or
vice versa). I'll ask to extend.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in news:5352dadf-1422-4ac0-b8f1-
:

>> I'm assuming an accidental encounter between a large wake and a
smaller
>> aircraft. They do happen. If it happens too low for a recovery you've
>> ignored all the info that's out there about avoidance. In other
words,
>> you've flown into one from a preceding aircraft taking off or
landing.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Damn straight. If they happen to you it is sheer sh1t pantz terror.
> Bertie's descriptions are 100% spot on.
>
> I think the FAA should put warnings in big FAT red type in their
> publications. The reality is far more threatening than gets drilled
> into student pilot's heads.
>
> In her student pilot days my instructor came in for a landing on a
> runway parallel to where a big jet had landed a couple minutes before.
> While she was still at 400 - 500 feet, I believe, she suddenly found
> herself in a knife-edge orientation. She righted herself before really
> thinking about it. Jet turbulence had drifted over and got her.
>
> A coworker of mine, a CFI (though no longer current), was on a 737 on
> approach as a passenger. He said suddenly the plane was at about 70
> degrees or more of bank (actually I think he said 90 but am no longer
> sure). The pilot corrected immediately. He said most of the people had
> no idea what had happened. There'd been a few gasps but that was it.
>
> On my second solo flight I was doing T&Gs at KAUS (Austin Bergstrom).
> My hands and feet and brain were completely occupied just with trying
> to land and takeoff correctly. Bad place for a spankin' newbie to
> practice. ATC routed me to the 12000 foot runway. As I was downwind
> they cleared a 737 to take off. Then when I was abeam the numbers they
> cleared a 757 to land. After that ATC cleared me but I extended my
> downwind some for what I *thought* was adequate separation & delay. In
> theory I might have shot for the space between where the one landed
> and the other rotated. In theory I could have asked ATC to extend my
> downwind to allow wake turbulence avoidence.
>
> I did neither. Bout 3 minutes after the 757 I landed okay near the
> numbers, accelerated and climbed. I was maybe 30 - 40 feet in the air
> when a gigantic invisible fist slammed the plane. Nose up, wing over.
> It seemed like I saw the top of the sky from the front windshield and
> the runway out the right side window. Close -- very close.
>
> I didn't think fear could shoot through the body that fast nor have I
> ever so radically and accurately corrected aircraft attitude. I don't
> think I lost a single knot.
>
> It was one of those moments where my bag of luck still had something
> in it when I sure as hell didn't effectively use my knowledge of wake
> avoidance. If the x-wind had been a bit slower and my judgement a
> little worse -- presto, upside down and squished or burned to death.
> It was a lesson to me I shall not forget -- the scariest of a few I've
> had so far.
>
> It's always worth asking ATC for more space / time / altered course if
> there's risk of wake turbulence. Landing or taking off behind a single
> big jet is one thing. But I will never again accept a clearance to
> land in such circumstances (one heavy takes off, another lands, or
> vice versa). I'll ask to extend.


Yes, time is the best healer for wake turbulence. It also pays to have a
thorough understanding of how they behave and how they drift in wind.
It's also one of the most common problems you can have where aerobatic
experience would be a huge help.
disagree that the FAA doesn't put enough emphasis on wake education,
though. There is plenty of info on it out there and it is very good
info.
If you've ever seen the FAA's film about it, the one with the 747's
straming smoke and passing through the smoke emitted by towers, it's
well worth seeing..

Bertie

[Maxwell]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> wrote in news:5352dadf-1422-4ac0-b8f1-
> :
>
>>> I'm assuming an accidental encounter between a large wake and a
> smaller
>>> aircraft. They do happen. If it happens too low for a recovery you've
>>> ignored all the info that's out there about avoidance. In other
> words,
>>> you've flown into one from a preceding aircraft taking off or
> landing.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Damn straight. If they happen to you it is sheer sh1t pantz terror.
>> Bertie's descriptions are 100% spot on.
>>
>> I think the FAA should put warnings in big FAT red type in their
>> publications. The reality is far more threatening than gets drilled
>> into student pilot's heads.
>>
>> In her student pilot days my instructor came in for a landing on a
>> runway parallel to where a big jet had landed a couple minutes before.
>> While she was still at 400 - 500 feet, I believe, she suddenly found
>> herself in a knife-edge orientation. She righted herself before really
>> thinking about it. Jet turbulence had drifted over and got her.
>>
>> A coworker of mine, a CFI (though no longer current), was on a 737 on
>> approach as a passenger. He said suddenly the plane was at about 70
>> degrees or more of bank (actually I think he said 90 but am no longer
>> sure). The pilot corrected immediately. He said most of the people had
>> no idea what had happened. There'd been a few gasps but that was it.
>>
>> On my second solo flight I was doing T&Gs at KAUS (Austin Bergstrom).
>> My hands and feet and brain were completely occupied just with trying
>> to land and takeoff correctly. Bad place for a spankin' newbie to
>> practice. ATC routed me to the 12000 foot runway. As I was downwind
>> they cleared a 737 to take off. Then when I was abeam the numbers they
>> cleared a 757 to land. After that ATC cleared me but I extended my
>> downwind some for what I *thought* was adequate separation & delay. In
>> theory I might have shot for the space between where the one landed
>> and the other rotated. In theory I could have asked ATC to extend my
>> downwind to allow wake turbulence avoidence.
>>
>> I did neither. Bout 3 minutes after the 757 I landed okay near the
>> numbers, accelerated and climbed. I was maybe 30 - 40 feet in the air
>> when a gigantic invisible fist slammed the plane. Nose up, wing over.
>> It seemed like I saw the top of the sky from the front windshield and
>> the runway out the right side window. Close -- very close.
>>
>> I didn't think fear could shoot through the body that fast nor have I
>> ever so radically and accurately corrected aircraft attitude. I don't
>> think I lost a single knot.
>>
>> It was one of those moments where my bag of luck still had something
>> in it when I sure as hell didn't effectively use my knowledge of wake
>> avoidance. If the x-wind had been a bit slower and my judgement a
>> little worse -- presto, upside down and squished or burned to death.
>> It was a lesson to me I shall not forget -- the scariest of a few I've
>> had so far.
>>
>> It's always worth asking ATC for more space / time / altered course if
>> there's risk of wake turbulence. Landing or taking off behind a single
>> big jet is one thing. But I will never again accept a clearance to
>> land in such circumstances (one heavy takes off, another lands, or
>> vice versa). I'll ask to extend.
>
>
> Yes, time is the best healer for wake turbulence. It also pays to have a
> thorough understanding of how they behave and how they drift in wind.
> It's also one of the most common problems you can have where aerobatic
> experience would be a huge help.
> disagree that the FAA doesn't put enough emphasis on wake education,
> though. There is plenty of info on it out there and it is very good
> info.
> If you've ever seen the FAA's film about it, the one with the 747's
> straming smoke and passing through the smoke emitted by towers, it's
> well worth seeing..

If that's the one where they fly a 182 up the middle of the wake from behind
the wide body, I certainly agree. Been around a long time, but every pilot
should see it.

[[email protected]]

> If that's the one where they fly a 182 up the middle of the wake from behind
> the wide body, I certainly agree. Been around a long time, but every pilot
> should see it.- Hide quoted text -
>

All right. Never heard of that film before. It's gotta be on the web
somewhere. Thanks, will find.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Maxwell" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> wrote in news:5352dadf-1422-4ac0-b8f1-
>> :
>>
>>>> I'm assuming an accidental encounter between a large wake and a
>> smaller
>>>> aircraft. They do happen. If it happens too low for a recovery
>>>> you've ignored all the info that's out there about avoidance. In
>>>> other
>> words,
>>>> you've flown into one from a preceding aircraft taking off or
>> landing.
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Damn straight. If they happen to you it is sheer sh1t pantz terror.
>>> Bertie's descriptions are 100% spot on.
>>>
>>> I think the FAA should put warnings in big FAT red type in their
>>> publications. The reality is far more threatening than gets drilled
>>> into student pilot's heads.
>>>
>>> In her student pilot days my instructor came in for a landing on a
>>> runway parallel to where a big jet had landed a couple minutes
>>> before. While she was still at 400 - 500 feet, I believe, she
>>> suddenly found herself in a knife-edge orientation. She righted
>>> herself before really thinking about it. Jet turbulence had drifted
>>> over and got her.
>>>
>>> A coworker of mine, a CFI (though no longer current), was on a 737
>>> on approach as a passenger. He said suddenly the plane was at about
>>> 70 degrees or more of bank (actually I think he said 90 but am no
>>> longer sure). The pilot corrected immediately. He said most of the
>>> people had no idea what had happened. There'd been a few gasps but
>>> that was it.
>>>
>>> On my second solo flight I was doing T&Gs at KAUS (Austin
>>> Bergstrom). My hands and feet and brain were completely occupied
>>> just with trying to land and takeoff correctly. Bad place for a
>>> spankin' newbie to practice. ATC routed me to the 12000 foot runway.
>>> As I was downwind they cleared a 737 to take off. Then when I was
>>> abeam the numbers they cleared a 757 to land. After that ATC cleared
>>> me but I extended my downwind some for what I *thought* was adequate
>>> separation & delay. In theory I might have shot for the space
>>> between where the one landed and the other rotated. In theory I
>>> could have asked ATC to extend my downwind to allow wake turbulence
>>> avoidence.
>>>
>>> I did neither. Bout 3 minutes after the 757 I landed okay near the
>>> numbers, accelerated and climbed. I was maybe 30 - 40 feet in the
>>> air when a gigantic invisible fist slammed the plane. Nose up, wing
>>> over. It seemed like I saw the top of the sky from the front
>>> windshield and the runway out the right side window. Close -- very
>>> close.
>>>
>>> I didn't think fear could shoot through the body that fast nor have
>>> I ever so radically and accurately corrected aircraft attitude. I
>>> don't think I lost a single knot.
>>>
>>> It was one of those moments where my bag of luck still had something
>>> in it when I sure as hell didn't effectively use my knowledge of
>>> wake avoidance. If the x-wind had been a bit slower and my judgement
>>> a little worse -- presto, upside down and squished or burned to
>>> death. It was a lesson to me I shall not forget -- the scariest of a
>>> few I've had so far.
>>>
>>> It's always worth asking ATC for more space / time / altered course
>>> if there's risk of wake turbulence. Landing or taking off behind a
>>> single big jet is one thing. But I will never again accept a
>>> clearance to land in such circumstances (one heavy takes off,
>>> another lands, or vice versa). I'll ask to extend.
>>
>>
>> Yes, time is the best healer for wake turbulence. It also pays to
>> have a thorough understanding of how they behave and how they drift
>> in wind. It's also one of the most common problems you can have where
>> aerobatic experience would be a huge help.
>> disagree that the FAA doesn't put enough emphasis on wake education,
>> though. There is plenty of info on it out there and it is very good
>> info.
>> If you've ever seen the FAA's film about it, the one with the 747's
>> straming smoke and passing through the smoke emitted by towers, it's
>> well worth seeing..
>
> If that's the one where they fly a 182 up the middle of the wake from
> behind the wide body, I certainly agree. Been around a long time, but
> every pilot should see it.
>

I haven't seen that one, but they'd all be the same.. The one I was
thinking of was done at NAFEC n the sixtis and they used a Colt. I knew
one of the guys who was doing it.

Bertie
>
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in
:

>> If that's the one where they fly a 182 up the middle of the wake from
>> behind the wide body, I certainly agree. Been around a long time, but
>> every pilot should see it.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> All right. Never heard of that film before. It's gotta be on the web
> somewhere. Thanks, will find.
>
>
I found a few clips on youtube. Mostly jets streaming smoke. None of actual
encounters, though.
Anyhow, everyone knows what happens when yuo encounter the stuff..

Bertie.

[Maxwell]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> I haven't seen that one, but they'd all be the same.. The one I was
> thinking of was done at NAFEC n the sixtis and they used a Colt. I knew
> one of the guys who was doing it.
>

I belonged to a flying club in 73 or so, that borrowed several 16mm movies
from the GADO office. One was on wake turbulence. I remember the smoke
towers, how the smoke would slowly start to swirl and then suddenly zing
down the eye of the vortex maybe 100 yards as it passed. I don't recall
which wide body they used, but it passed a few hundred feet below a 182
moving the same direction. After it passed at approach speed, the two guys
in the 182 dropped down until they found the vortex. Seems they did two if
not three rolls in the vortex with the alerons on full opposite lock.
Certainly got the point across.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Maxwell" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> I haven't seen that one, but they'd all be the same.. The one I was
>> thinking of was done at NAFEC n the sixtis and they used a Colt. I
>> knew one of the guys who was doing it.
>>
>
> I belonged to a flying club in 73 or so, that borrowed several 16mm
> movies from the GADO office. One was on wake turbulence. I remember
> the smoke towers, how the smoke would slowly start to swirl and then
> suddenly zing down the eye of the vortex maybe 100 yards as it passed.
> I don't recall which wide body they used, but it passed a few hundred
> feet below a 182 moving the same direction. After it passed at
> approach speed, the two guys in the 182 dropped down until they found
> the vortex. Seems they did two if not three rolls in the vortex with
> the alerons on full opposite lock. Certainly got the point across.
>


Yes, it would..

I know one of the FAA's pilots involved in that program (Dudley might as
well, he worked at NAFEC) They did it in a Colt. He thought it was great
fun, but he was a very experienced aerobatic pilot as well as a lunatic.
(He crashed a Luscombe at an airshow drunk once and cleaned up the mess
before the FAA got there, denying all knowledge of the event, know him?)
I did it a few times in a 'Lakes. It was actually incredibly smoooth,
but completely overpowering, even for an airplane with a good roll rate.
There just isn't anythign you can do except get out of it ( you won't
get a lot of choice here, as you'll be tossed out) and recover from
whatever attitude you've would up in. Even going in fully expecting a
high roll rate, I could barely slow it down with full deflection. Each
time I was tossed out past 90 degrees at least and often more. I even
tried rolling with it just for fun, but it was very hit and miss staying
in the vortice.
An unsuspecting pilot in a standard lightplane would end up in roughly
the same position, but without the sreserves of strength nd
manueverability.
Crossing them at right angles or nearly so is another story entirely. I
once flew a Mooney 231 across the wake of a C-141, IMC (ATC were to
blame here, it wasn't intentional) And he bump you receive doing this at
high speed is not a bit pleasant and I could easily see it fracturing a
wing spar.

Flying mag also did an experiment around 1970, I think. I can't remember
if it was a Reed Cub or a Citabria, but they went and played around the
glideslope at Teterboro, I think. I can't remember what the article had
to say now, but it wouldn't be hard to guess..

One tip, though. If you suddenly smell burnt kerosene, brace yourself.
Bertie

[Maxwell]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> I know one of the FAA's pilots involved in that program (Dudley might as
> well, he worked at NAFEC) They did it in a Colt. He thought it was great
> fun, but he was a very experienced aerobatic pilot as well as a lunatic.
> (He crashed a Luscombe at an airshow drunk once and cleaned up the mess
> before the FAA got there, denying all knowledge of the event, know him?)
> I did it a few times in a 'Lakes. It was actually incredibly smoooth,
> but completely overpowering, even for an airplane with a good roll rate.
> There just isn't anythign you can do except get out of it ( you won't
> get a lot of choice here, as you'll be tossed out) and recover from
> whatever attitude you've would up in. Even going in fully expecting a
> high roll rate, I could barely slow it down with full deflection. Each
> time I was tossed out past 90 degrees at least and often more. I even
> tried rolling with it just for fun, but it was very hit and miss staying
> in the vortice.
> An unsuspecting pilot in a standard lightplane would end up in roughly
> the same position, but without the sreserves of strength nd
> manueverability.
> Crossing them at right angles or nearly so is another story entirely. I
> once flew a Mooney 231 across the wake of a C-141, IMC (ATC were to
> blame here, it wasn't intentional) And he bump you receive doing this at
> high speed is not a bit pleasant and I could easily see it fracturing a
> wing spar.
>
> Flying mag also did an experiment around 1970, I think. I can't remember
> if it was a Reed Cub or a Citabria, but they went and played around the
> glideslope at Teterboro, I think. I can't remember what the article had
> to say now, but it wouldn't be hard to guess..
>
> One tip, though. If you suddenly smell burnt kerosene, brace yourself.

Yeah, I certainly wouldn't want anyone to think I would recommend the
practice. IIRC, these guys were carrying some pretty expensive measurement
gear, and wearing back pack parachutes. They could have easily broken that
airplane flying in the easy way. Much less if you punch a fresh one
perpendicular to your flight path. You could easily remove the wings.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Maxwell" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> I know one of the FAA's pilots involved in that program (Dudley might
>> as well, he worked at NAFEC) They did it in a Colt. He thought it was
>> great fun, but he was a very experienced aerobatic pilot as well as a
>> lunatic. (He crashed a Luscombe at an airshow drunk once and cleaned
>> up the mess before the FAA got there, denying all knowledge of the
>> event, know him?) I did it a few times in a 'Lakes. It was actually
>> incredibly smoooth, but completely overpowering, even for an airplane
>> with a good roll rate. There just isn't anythign you can do except
>> get out of it ( you won't get a lot of choice here, as you'll be
>> tossed out) and recover from whatever attitude you've would up in.
>> Even going in fully expecting a high roll rate, I could barely slow
>> it down with full deflection. Each time I was tossed out past 90
>> degrees at least and often more. I even tried rolling with it just
>> for fun, but it was very hit and miss staying in the vortice.
>> An unsuspecting pilot in a standard lightplane would end up in
>> roughly the same position, but without the sreserves of strength nd
>> manueverability.
>> Crossing them at right angles or nearly so is another story entirely.
>> I once flew a Mooney 231 across the wake of a C-141, IMC (ATC were to
>> blame here, it wasn't intentional) And he bump you receive doing this
>> at high speed is not a bit pleasant and I could easily see it
>> fracturing a wing spar.
>>
>> Flying mag also did an experiment around 1970, I think. I can't
>> remember if it was a Reed Cub or a Citabria, but they went and played
>> around the glideslope at Teterboro, I think. I can't remember what
>> the article had to say now, but it wouldn't be hard to guess..
>>
>> One tip, though. If you suddenly smell burnt kerosene, brace
>> yourself.
>
> Yeah, I certainly wouldn't want anyone to think I would recommend the
> practice. IIRC, these guys were carrying some pretty expensive
> measurement gear, and wearing back pack parachutes. They could have
> easily broken that airplane flying in the easy way. Much less if you
> punch a fresh one perpendicular to your flight path. You could easily
> remove the wings.
>


True enough. Jack told me that he found it good fun, though. G forces
were fairly normal for the type of manuevering done. They did wear
chutes ( so was I, BTW) and I know the Colt had a quick release door.

I do believe most encounters over a few hundred feet would be
survivable if he pilot had aerobatic training, though, just in case that
point has been lost!

Bertie

[Jose]

>> Even going in fully expecting a
>> high roll rate, I could barely slow it down with full deflection.

Wouldn't a good technique be to pull "up" once you are near 90 degrees?
It would pull you out of it. Or would you end up stalling?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jose > wrote in news:0c_5j.3450$NY.3198
@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com:

>>> Even going in fully expecting a
>>> high roll rate, I could barely slow it down with full deflection.
>
> Wouldn't a good technique be to pull "up" once you are near 90 degrees?
> It would pull you out of it. Or would you end up stalling?
>

Even knowing it was coming, you're out the side of it and in an unusual
attitude before you can even think about what to do. The Lakes could go
360deg in less than 2 seconds and full aileron agains the rotation barely
slowed it down, so trying to fly out of a violent "fresh" one is moot.
If you were to take an example in which a typical lighplane, on approach,
were to encounter strong wake at, say a bit above approach speed, I believe
it' be on it's side, if notalmost compltely inverted, and ejected out the
side of the vortice with a pronounced nose down attitude before you knew
it. Basically what you have here is a well advanced botched roll. Any
aerobatic experience and you're back straight and level in a flash, but for
someone who hasn't got that experience is probably going to lose a great
deal of altitude and/or gain a great deal of speed recovering.

BTW, even an airplane the same size as your own will give you a bit of a
bouncing around if you're close enough. Something twice your weight can
easily cause you to lose control, at least momentarily. If a 172 were to be
following a big-ish light twin with less than a minute's seperation, and
the 172 was slow, you could get an unexpected ride for a second or two.
The classic encounter on approach is when both aircraft are following the
same glidepath and there's a ligth tailwind. The tailwind will bring the
preceding aircraft's wake up into the glidepath, especially if there's a
slight x-wind component.


Bertie

[Doug Carter]

On 2007-12-06, Jose > wrote:
>>> Even going in fully expecting a
>>> high roll rate, I could barely slow it down with full deflection.
>
> Wouldn't a good technique be to pull "up" once you are near 90 degrees?
> It would pull you out of it. Or would you end up stalling?

Thats just a (really) steep turn that would likely just stall. If deflection
against the roll failed then I'd roll with it. Rather do that in a Pitts
though :)

[[email protected]]

> He thought it was great
> fun, but he was a very experienced aerobatic pilot as well as a lunatic.
> (He crashed a Luscombe at an airshow drunk once and cleaned up the mess
> before the FAA got there, denying all knowledge of the event, know him?)

This I got a good laugh out of.

I need a time machine.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in news:7ac988ce-d66d-4cd2-9708-5e674ab3c102
@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

>> He thought it was great
>> fun, but he was a very experienced aerobatic pilot as well as a lunatic.
>> (He crashed a Luscombe at an airshow drunk once and cleaned up the mess
>> before the FAA got there, denying all knowledge of the event, know him?)
>
> This I got a good laugh out of.
>
> I need a time machine.
>

Wasn't all that long ago. Well, depending on how you measure time, of
course!

He's dead now anyway. Crazy son of a bitch in every way. He had an engine
failure in an Enstrom on his way to take his RW checkride! Put it in
someone's garden and actually walked away from it after making his own
clearing in the trees.
The Luscombe story is completely true. He had a few of them in various
states of disrepair. When the authorities came around to view the accident
site, there was another airplane there without a mark on it.


Bertie