Fri May 20, 2005 12:11 am
Lynn Wrote:
Lynn, O.P and everybody:
It looks like we all observed the same issues. I can't understand anyone falling into these bad habits, when as a low time pilot I'm exceedingly cautious about avoiding stall spin scenarios while in the pattern. To see a seasoned pilot have these problems is appalling.
It appears to me that there have been several stall spin/low level aerobatics issues at airshows too. Take for example, the Mosquito which pulled up to fast in the UK, spun in and crashed. Also, the P-63 accident where the pilot attempted a loop too low in the UK. The Buchon accident in France, and the Wildcat stall out in Texas.
I'm not a seasoned pilot, but that doesn't matter. Stall spin awareness is very important, and planes need to be flown with more respect.
He would have been all right if he hadn't tried the second roll which was almost a snap roll with a stall thrown it there. Also he was to slow and had everything hanging out when he was coming around for his down wind in the end. Those things will bite you.
I wish our UPS truck sounded like that 605, I would be with the rest of the dogs running after it
Lynn, O.P and everybody:
It looks like we all observed the same issues. I can't understand anyone falling into these bad habits, when as a low time pilot I'm exceedingly cautious about avoiding stall spin scenarios while in the pattern. To see a seasoned pilot have these problems is appalling.
It appears to me that there have been several stall spin/low level aerobatics issues at airshows too. Take for example, the Mosquito which pulled up to fast in the UK, spun in and crashed. Also, the P-63 accident where the pilot attempted a loop too low in the UK. The Buchon accident in France, and the Wildcat stall out in Texas.
I'm not a seasoned pilot, but that doesn't matter. Stall spin awareness is very important, and planes need to be flown with more respect.
Fri May 20, 2005 2:13 am
The Mosquito accident was nothing to do with pilot error. It was a problem with the carburettor on the port engine causing a temporary loss of power during a wingover.
Interesting article by Skip Holm. One fairly glaring error is the reference to the CAF Ghost Squadron being leased for the BofB film. At the time the film was made, the aircraft were still in the Spanish Air Force and, I believe, flown by Spanish pilots.
Interesting article by Skip Holm. One fairly glaring error is the reference to the CAF Ghost Squadron being leased for the BofB film. At the time the film was made, the aircraft were still in the Spanish Air Force and, I believe, flown by Spanish pilots.
Fri May 20, 2005 3:01 am
Hi Chris! Everyone!
What I'm saying is, I guess, to you and everyone else talking about this cat is,
No one gets into an airplane thinking they are going to risk their life doing it. Those kinda folks don't last to long.
That guy didn't go to the airshow thinking I'm gonna do some crazy sh1t. There is reason why he was flying the plane in the first place. That's probably because he is extremely qualified, and he wanted to do it.
All of the people doing these kinda things, have to really want to do it. It takes a zillion and a half years just to be considered to be able to do this stuff, let alone, actually doing it.
The only person who knows what happened, is the pilot. The plane landed after a great show. Accident, Mistake, Deliberate, whatever happened, the only guy who could give the skinny on what that was, is him.
Ever do a too low approach? Ever do an excessively steep base to final just to make it without going wide? You ever been where "Cessna seven niner five sierra papa, position and hold" was where you were gonna land 8 seconds from now? Whatever you say is no excuse, ATIS was wrong on the wind, Tower made me go long, too much traffic, called base way to early/late. It's all you baby, no excuse. There isn't anyone flying who hasn't made these choices, bad or good, you walked away, and you didn't think about it afterwords. Just stored it away.
Give this guy the same break you would give yourself. He deserves it.
What I'm saying is, I guess, to you and everyone else talking about this cat is,
No one gets into an airplane thinking they are going to risk their life doing it. Those kinda folks don't last to long.
That guy didn't go to the airshow thinking I'm gonna do some crazy sh1t. There is reason why he was flying the plane in the first place. That's probably because he is extremely qualified, and he wanted to do it.
All of the people doing these kinda things, have to really want to do it. It takes a zillion and a half years just to be considered to be able to do this stuff, let alone, actually doing it.
The only person who knows what happened, is the pilot. The plane landed after a great show. Accident, Mistake, Deliberate, whatever happened, the only guy who could give the skinny on what that was, is him.
Ever do a too low approach? Ever do an excessively steep base to final just to make it without going wide? You ever been where "Cessna seven niner five sierra papa, position and hold" was where you were gonna land 8 seconds from now? Whatever you say is no excuse, ATIS was wrong on the wind, Tower made me go long, too much traffic, called base way to early/late. It's all you baby, no excuse. There isn't anyone flying who hasn't made these choices, bad or good, you walked away, and you didn't think about it afterwords. Just stored it away.
Give this guy the same break you would give yourself. He deserves it.
Fri May 20, 2005 5:56 am
HarvardIV wrote:Who was flying it. It looks like he stalled at the top of that Immelman, and then nearly lost it on the recovery. As indicated by that skid on the third roll during recovery, and the resulting low margin pull up. Don't do low level aerobatics until you can do every maneuver flawlessly at altitude!
That's exactly what I saw....when I saw it I thought " oh oh here comes the close call."
John
Fri May 20, 2005 5:59 am
edit
Fri May 20, 2005 11:02 am
O.P.
Agreed mostly, but it depends on what your standards are. I and most people I know don't take any risks at low altitude in stall/spin situations. Too steep of a bank in the pattern is unacceptible it shouldn't ever happen. To skid a plane during a maneuver or in the pattern is another degree of danger, and is considered dangerous and extremely risky. Safety is no accident.
There is no excuse for skidding a plane close to the ground!
Take a look at the other post just made on the Me 109E video. That was an example of good aerobatics. Safety margin from the ground, and no skidding during the maneuvers!
Agreed mostly, but it depends on what your standards are. I and most people I know don't take any risks at low altitude in stall/spin situations. Too steep of a bank in the pattern is unacceptible it shouldn't ever happen. To skid a plane during a maneuver or in the pattern is another degree of danger, and is considered dangerous and extremely risky. Safety is no accident.
There is no excuse for skidding a plane close to the ground!
Take a look at the other post just made on the Me 109E video. That was an example of good aerobatics. Safety margin from the ground, and no skidding during the maneuvers!
Fri May 20, 2005 12:54 pm
HarvardIV wrote:Who was flying it. It looks like he stalled at the top of that Immelman, and then nearly lost it on the recovery. As indicated by that skid on the third roll during recovery, and the resulting low margin pull up. Don't do low level aerobatics until you can do every maneuver flawlessly at altitude!
It clearly isn't a 'normal flying manoeuvre.... but i won't call it a close call...
If you know La Ferte Alais, you will know that the airfield is situated on a 'hill' (elevated) I guess he had about 50-60 m left to the ground (of the valley). Especially i the past years this was used to create 'dramatic' vieuws when they were flying harvards in dogfights... the hit aircraft would disappear behind the trees to give the impression they crashed...
Just to make it clear that he had some margin to the ground left...
Sander
Fri May 20, 2005 12:58 pm
Ok Sander:
I see your point, but I can't retract mine. The reason is, those are the standards I fly by now, as a green horn.
I see your point, but I can't retract mine. The reason is, those are the standards I fly by now, as a green horn.
Fri May 20, 2005 2:17 pm
Hi everybody,
I guess this is my first post here (I come from the Flypast forum), and I picked a hot topic to start
We've been arguing about this thing on the other forum too, and I guess that apart for speculation, we dont obtain much from this kinda posts.
The pilot made a mistake, this is for sure. My personal opinion, based on my modest experience of aerobatic flying, is that he wanted to go for a loop or half cuban 8, but the climb was too steep and he didnt cut the throttle while reaching the top, this causing a rotation induced by the prop and engine torque (hence the innatural but smooth rotation). Once inverted on top he let the plane go (applying opposite controls would have been fatal), until he gained speed again and did some rudder overcontrol to counteract the roation (he prolly prepared himself to counteract a spin). My only remark is about height: we know of the peculiar display area of la fertè alais, but anyway I'd focus my efforts on requiring more severe parameters about height and aerobatic programs.
My 2 €urocents, hope u dont mind
Cheers
Alex
I guess this is my first post here (I come from the Flypast forum), and I picked a hot topic to start
We've been arguing about this thing on the other forum too, and I guess that apart for speculation, we dont obtain much from this kinda posts.
The pilot made a mistake, this is for sure. My personal opinion, based on my modest experience of aerobatic flying, is that he wanted to go for a loop or half cuban 8, but the climb was too steep and he didnt cut the throttle while reaching the top, this causing a rotation induced by the prop and engine torque (hence the innatural but smooth rotation). Once inverted on top he let the plane go (applying opposite controls would have been fatal), until he gained speed again and did some rudder overcontrol to counteract the roation (he prolly prepared himself to counteract a spin). My only remark is about height: we know of the peculiar display area of la fertè alais, but anyway I'd focus my efforts on requiring more severe parameters about height and aerobatic programs.
My 2 €urocents, hope u dont mind
Cheers
Alex
Fri May 20, 2005 2:19 pm
Hi Alex:
Long time no see! Glad you could join the Wix group!
Long time no see! Glad you could join the Wix group!
Fri May 20, 2005 2:22 pm
thanks mate, I'll try to post more often in here, it's nice to hop across the pond in a couple of clicks
Alex
Alex
Fri May 20, 2005 3:50 pm
italian harvard wrote:My personal opinion, based on my modest experience of aerobatic flying, is that he wanted to go for a loop or half cuban 8, but the climb was too steep and he didnt cut the throttle while reaching the top, this causing a rotation induced by the prop and engine torque (hence the innatural but smooth rotation). Once inverted on top he let the plane go (applying opposite controls would have been fatal), until he gained speed again and did some rudder overcontrol to counteract the roation (he prolly prepared himself to counteract a spin). My only remark is about height: we know of the peculiar display area of la fertè alais, but anyway I'd focus my efforts on requiring more severe parameters about height and aerobatic programs.
My 2 €urocents, hope u dont mind
Cheers
Alex
What??? What are you people talking about??? I can't understand any of that? Let's look at this again...
"...he wanted to go for a loop or half cuban 8, but the climb was too steep and he didnt cut the throttle while reaching the top"
I don't know what is meant by "the climb was too steep", but if you're going to execute a loop or any other over the top maneuver you're going to have to fly past vertical. When performing over the top maneuvers you don't reduce power until established on the down line, unless you want to perform a tail slide.
"...this causing a rotation induced by the prop and engine torque (hence the innatural but smooth rotation). Once inverted on top he let the plane go (applying opposite controls would have been fatal), until he gained speed again and did some rudder overcontrol to counteract the roation (he prolly prepared himself to counteract a spin)."
I've read this seven times and I have no idea what it means. "Applying opposite controls would have been fatal". Huh? After the aircraft runs out of energy and reaches what is basically a zero airspeed state the Bf-109 begins to enter a spin. At this point the aircraft has departed controlled flight and the pilot is now a passenger. It appears he does unload the elevator and is also probably applying opposite rudder, at which point the aircraft recovers and the pilot regains control, departing the area at approx a 90 degree divergent heading.
This is NOT about height, it's about energy. The Bf-109 pilot did not have enough kinetic energy (airspeed) to successfully complete the maneuver. If he had, say another 50 or 75 knots of airspeed then the loop would have been completed with a more than sufficient altitude cushion. However, once the aircraft stalled and began to spin it was necessary to convert the potential energy of altitude into kinetic energy of airspeed in order to regain control of the aircraft.
We don't need to perform aerobatics at greater altitude, we need to not stall/spin while performing display aerobatics. Very embarassing, especially when captured on video.
I went out yesterday and flew the Sea Fury to set a minimum energy state for "over the top" maneuvers. This is something I learned from aerobatic flying in the L-39, but I needed to work out the numbers for the big Hawker, as I hadn't done it yet. After that (with this debate in mind) I decided to enter a loop at an airspeed I knew didn't give me enough energy to complete the maneuver (160 knots).
Anyone want to guess what happened?
Fri May 20, 2005 4:14 pm
first of all it's good to hear u steve, needless to say your opinion is highly appreciated. Now about my point.
I talked about this episode with several pilots (a couple of military pilots and a pitts one), and they all gave a different opinion!
When I say the climb was too steep I meant that the eccessive loss of kinetic energy was caused by an improper climb or probably by a low speed start..
I was always told that when u find yourself in a critical flight attitude u dont have to follow your instinct, but u must second the plane attitude for a second to understand what's really going on (I've never found myself in an inverted spin, but I guess it's not the best place to be..). An improper input might put yourself in a more critical situation.
I've expressed my opinions according to my really modest experience and about what I was told by professional pilots about the matter, hope I made myself clearer!
As per the height or energy question, well this is a matter of opinions. I agree with u that performing a correct aerobatic display would be the solution, but I guess u need a safety layer just in case u make some mistake, dont u think so?
Alex
P.S.
About the loop. If u do one with your Sea Fury, but u lose almost all yr kinetic energy on your way up, and u reach the top of it at full throttle but almost zero airspeed, doesnt the prop torque affect the plane behaviour?
I talked about this episode with several pilots (a couple of military pilots and a pitts one), and they all gave a different opinion!
When I say the climb was too steep I meant that the eccessive loss of kinetic energy was caused by an improper climb or probably by a low speed start..
I was always told that when u find yourself in a critical flight attitude u dont have to follow your instinct, but u must second the plane attitude for a second to understand what's really going on (I've never found myself in an inverted spin, but I guess it's not the best place to be..). An improper input might put yourself in a more critical situation.
I've expressed my opinions according to my really modest experience and about what I was told by professional pilots about the matter, hope I made myself clearer!
As per the height or energy question, well this is a matter of opinions. I agree with u that performing a correct aerobatic display would be the solution, but I guess u need a safety layer just in case u make some mistake, dont u think so?
Alex
P.S.
About the loop. If u do one with your Sea Fury, but u lose almost all yr kinetic energy on your way up, and u reach the top of it at full throttle but almost zero airspeed, doesnt the prop torque affect the plane behaviour?
Last edited by italian harvard on Fri May 20, 2005 4:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fri May 20, 2005 4:14 pm
Steve, Welcome back:
My guess is since the Sea Fury is a very stable plane, you had an inverted stall at towards the top of the maneuver. You most likely had enough speed to prevent the torque roll, unlike the Me 109 example.
At that point you fell through the top of the loop and recovered with no problem.
Anyone want to guess what happened?
My guess is since the Sea Fury is a very stable plane, you had an inverted stall at towards the top of the maneuver. You most likely had enough speed to prevent the torque roll, unlike the Me 109 example.
At that point you fell through the top of the loop and recovered with no problem.
Fri May 20, 2005 4:16 pm
srpatterson wrote:We don't need to perform aerobatics at greater altitude, we need to not stall/spin while performing display aerobatics. Very embarassing, especially when captured on video.
I guess he didnt intentionally stall/spin the 109, did he?
Alex