Aerobatics in a Warrior

Status
Not open for further replies.
Groundpounder said:
Here is what happened when an experienced pilot tried to have fun in his last flight in a Lear 35.

At about 3:30 a.m. on January 10, the pilots flying a cargo-carrying Learjet 35 from Jacksonville, Fla., to Columbus, Ohio, for Airnet Systems attempted an aileron roll, according to the NTSB, but the maneuver wasn’t entirely successful. “The crew reported they did an intentional roll,” said NTSB investigator-in-charge Todd Fox. “There was substantial damage. The elevators were bent, and there was some stabilizer damage. Major damage was to the left wing; there was a large crease in the stainless-steel leading edge.” Fox was told that this was the last flight for the Learjet captain before he was to move on to a new job flying passengers for a Part 121 airline. Fox’s Chicago NTSB office will release, probably this week, a data-collection report on the incident. Data-collection reports are a new short form that is a combination of the typical preliminary and factual reports, Fox explained.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-...o-pilots-aileron-roll-attempt-damages-learjet
Click to expand...

I'm guessing he never made it to the 121 job.
 
Just an uninformed guess here but I bet her plane is far more likely to exceed its rated g limits during a hard student-pilot landing than during a barrel roll, especially if the struts aren’t properly gassed up. Someone has probably done the calculations but I bet the instantaneous gs in a hard landing can be pretty high, even with properly serviced struts and tires. THAT’s what ultimately did in the ERAU Arrow, not barrel rolls, I bet.

If she’s really worried about the wings breaking, stop letting it be used as a trainer. Heck - there’s an AD out about this stuff...

“I love my Warrior” and “I put it on leaseback” seems like an oxymoron
 
Llewtrah381 said:
especially if the struts aren’t properly gassed up.
Click to expand...

How dare you imply improper maintenance by a YouTubeHero so clearly obsessed with her beloved aircraft to the exclusion of all normal reaction to a probable nothingburger.

But then, normal reactions don't sell clicks.
 
WannFly said:
b/w my POH says ... "Approved maneuvers for bank angles exceeding 60 degrees" under utility category . the verbiage is kinda odd, does that mean i can go to 90 degrees? i have no interest in even trying it, but i do find it odd. it does say max positive load factor 4.4G under utility and no inverted maneuvers approved.
Click to expand...
Is inverted anything >90?

At the end of the day don't go over Vne and don't pull more than the rated G limit. If you stick to maneuvering speed even better. Actually, even Vne is not the real 'max' speed.. Vne is some flutter related function of the highest speed achieved during testing in a dive, Vd

anyway, I did not watch the video and after seeing the reactions here I'm fairly happy I did not..
 
Tantalum said:
Vne is some flutter related function of the highest speed achieved during testing in a dive,
Click to expand...

Or.................in the case of the DGA-15, where the windshield starts to cave in! I talked to a pilot who was along on the flight with Benny Howard to test this speed.
 
Groundpounder said:
There is a difference between having a crappy landing and doing aerobatics in a non-aerobatic aircraft
Click to expand...
In human shock value, yes. But to the mechanical components of the plane? I'm assuming hundreds (thousands) of hard 2g punches right into the spar has more impact on the wing and frame than the occasional gradual 3-4g excursion.. or less. If it remains positively loaded a plane has no idea if it's upside down or not..

Some club planes here fly 60-100 hrs a month.. they're trainers, assuming an average of 3 landings per hour that's 3,600 landings a year.. ouch!
 
against the regs isn't necessarily unsafe
and unsafe isn't necessarily against the regs.

Should just have titled the video Estrogen Gone Wild.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Have to say I'm pretty surprised and disappointed with the personal attacks that have appeared in this thread. I can see why she is no longer an active member of this forum.
Click to expand...

Did you watch the video and see how fake everything was? It was a click-bait video; plain and simple. You put out something that's solely for getting views by slapping a female on the thumbnail, you get the criticism that comes with it. She wasn't really emotional. It was horrible acting, horrible delivery, horrible everything. She tried to play it up as emotional and what not, you get the repercussions that come with it. If you're gonna play the woman card to get views, then you get everything that comes with it. You don't get to have it both ways.


You love your plane and are so emotional about it so much that you have it on leaseback?

That dog don't hunt.
 
ah... a good 'ol POA 'multiple strongly divided camps arguing the same basic points' thread!
 
What surprises me is that people seem to underestimate how dangerous / strong the aerodynamic loads can be when you exceed the flight envelope... this isn’t the equivalent of student pilot rough landings...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
how many G's was that envelope exceeded by?

you are correct it is not the same it is much more benign.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YKA
So the consensus is that it's ok if I use your non-aerobatic plane for aerobatics so long as I don't damage anything?

That's what I'm reading from some of the posts here.
 
EdFred said:
Did you watch the video and see how fake everything was? It was a click-bait video; plain and simple. You put out something that's solely for getting views by slapping a female on the thumbnail, you get the criticism that comes with it. She wasn't really emotional. It was horrible acting, horrible delivery, horrible everything. She tried to play it up as emotional and what not, you get the repercussions that come with it. If you're gonna play the woman card to get views, then you get everything that comes with it. You don't get to have it both ways.


You love your plane and are so emotional about it so much that you have it on leaseback?

That dog don't hunt.
Click to expand...
Do you watch youtube and see how fake everything is?
 
Fine, I watched portions of it to see what all the hullabaloo was about.

I'm not totally sure I understand the references to ERAU incident. Was that caused by aerobatics? That's a genuine question, I thought the consensus was lousy ERAU maintenance and a life spent doing power off 180s

At the end of the day it seems there was nothing actually wrong with the plane
 
  • Like
Reactions: YKA
While I don't see the need for personal attacks if you put yourself up on YouTube you have to know you are going to take some abuse from time to time.

I admittedly commented to my wife when I watched it that while I would be ticked if someone did that to my plane, I thought the video topic was solid but it was a little overly dramatic and if you are really worried about your plane don't lease it back. Oh, and I am really thankful for the partner I have in our airplane.
 
Tantalum said:
I'm assuming hundreds (thousands) of hard 2g punches right into the spar has more impact on the wing and frame than the occasional gradual 3-4g excursion.. or less.
Click to expand...
fetch.png

Yep. It's exponential decay. The lower the load the more cycles it can take. Of course it's exponential decay so the 3-4G excursions must happen exponentially less than the 2g punches, which I'd imagine they do.

Also - why have we been agreeing so much lately? I'm not comfortable with this.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Bob Hoover approves, lol.
Click to expand...
Bob Hoover is damn better control than the average renter who tries acro in a Cherokee. Of course, there' a Partanavia that had the wings fold up with another airshow pilot doing a Hoover-esque routine.
 
But the fatigue damage problem isn't just the students occasional +2G (a pretty bad bump) vs 1 g static. The important "special event" in its fatigue history is where the loading goes to Minus 1 g. There are not many of those very significant cycles in the average fatigue history.
 
When you receive aerobatic instruction, you learn a variety of maneuvers with names like "loop," "slow roll," and "hammerhead."

When you give aerobatic instruction, you learn a much larger variety of maneuvers, none of which has a name.

I watched the first minute or two of the video before I saw this thread. I don't fault anyone for doing what it takes to get views, whether it's on YouTube or NBC. They just don't get my views, and we're all okay with that.
 
By the way, I'm not condoning this, but I bet you this is way more common than people think

A few seconds of Youtube'ing found these:

 
  • Like
Reactions: YKA
Mtns2Skies said:
Also - why have we been agreeing so much lately? I'm not comfortable with this.
Click to expand...
haha I know, right?! Ravioli liked a post of mine a few months ago, then Nauga sort of agreed to something I wrote on the Raptor thread and I think it all went downhill from there. it's bizzaro world!
 
for the record, I did a 34* bank once and lived to tell about it. that video would probably get like 4 million views I'm sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YKA
flyingron said:
Then there was this one: https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/R...ID=20070427X00463&AKey=1&RType=Final&IType=FA
A friend didn't appreciate it when I was flying his Baron and said "I think I can roll this airplane."
Click to expand...

I saw a video discussion of this mishap some time ago. In the discussion they talked about the debris path, and how you could clearly see the order of the breakup by looking at the order in which structures hit along the debris path. The rudder hit the ground first.

I suspect a "normal" category light plane with plenty of dihedral takes a lot of energy to achieve a successful roll over the top. Not being aggressive enough on the entry probably will get you falling out of the "maneuver" and pointing straight down with too much energy and not enough (perceived) time to dissipate it on the recovery without an over-G. Or, if you take too long, you exceed Vne by enough to find the flutter speed of the rudder.
 
Tantalum said:
If it remains positively loaded a plane has no idea if it's upside down or not..
Click to expand...

That’s true about the engine and the structure. However, the gyros know when the plane is upside down, and most mechanical (non-mems) gyro instruments in normal category planes are not designed to deal with pitch and bank excursions outside the limits. Doing these kinds of maneuvers can cause excessive wear on the bearings of these instruments. Not a good thing.
 
jimhorner said:
That’s true about the engine and the structure. However, the gyros know when the plane is upside down, and most mechanical (non-mems) gyro instruments in normal category planes are not designed to deal with pitch and bank excursions outside the limits. Doing these kinds of maneuvers can cause excessive wear on the bearings of these instruments. Not a good thing.
Click to expand...

And as we know, gyros tumbling lead to needing a spar inspection and faux tears.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YKA
RoscoeT said:
I'm assuming you're serious. It sounds like you don't have enough aerobatic experience to understand what a bad idea that would be, and all the inventive ways budding acro pilots find to screw up. An experienced aerobatic pilot will have little interest in doing acro in a plane like this, so you'd be handing the keys to an under/untrained pilot in a plane with much less design margin, and would just say "go have fun"? Your perspective will change with experience.
Click to expand...


I don't have hundreds or thousands of hours doing aerobatics, you're correct. Initially I signed up for a 5 hour course in aerobatics, which i loved so much, I signed up for more. I have about 26 to 27 hours total in an Eagle ll, about 4 hours solo doing acro, and the rest dual. It had a G meter, usually things were 2 to 3 G,'s, sometimes playing harder we hit 4 or 5, but by 6 we were doing some crazy stuff. The average Joe will really feel 6 G in their body and head. People who have not done any acro probably think 4 to 6 G's is nothing and they would barely feel it lol. Trust me you will, and 6 is my limit for personal comfort...and it takes some pretty wild flying to hit 6. Doing a loop for instance is really nothing, and a regular engine still has oil pressure because even while inverted the oil is being forced up into the oil pan at 2G. Now an outside loop is a different animal and requires an acro oil system and higher than many planes are built for in negative G. But a regular loop is a 2 or 3 G nothing. I've looped a non acro plane, and got it nowhere close to its G limits, nor starved the engine for fuel or oil. I could fly 10 loops in a row in a warrior like nothing. I'm guessing the shocked people are the same ones who have not done anything acro, so are of the opinion its difficult, and requires some super special pilot skills. I did a loop 20 minutes after the first take off in the Eagle, my instructor sat back not touching the controls at all. Using 50% of a planes rated G force amount is not hurting a thing. I am the same guy who pushes the nose over to 0 G and has the passenger hold a pen in their hand, then say now let it go and watch it float in mid air. This insane woman in the video should go see her psychiatrist and get her meds switched to something else that works better. She should be extremely embarrassed by her actions, not putting it on the internet!
 
Llewtrah381 said:
Just an uninformed guess here but I bet her plane is far more likely to exceed its rated g limits during a hard student-pilot landing than during a barrel roll, especially if the struts aren’t properly gassed up. Someone has probably done the calculations but I bet the instantaneous gs in a hard landing can be pretty high, even with properly serviced struts and tires. THAT’s what ultimately did in the ERAU Arrow, not barrel rolls, I bet.

If she’s really worried about the wings breaking, stop letting it be used as a trainer. Heck - there’s an AD out about this stuff...

“I love my Warrior” and “I put it on leaseback” seems like an oxymoron
Click to expand...


Amen!

Lets not forget the extreme engine abuse to doing circuits. Those constant full power climb out make it really hot, then chopping the throttle shock cooling it 10 times in an hour doing circuits, as well as the constant slamming it on the runway, that's hard on a plane. I bet tire wear alone is absolutely incredible. Lets not mention the 5 G shock force, and the strain on the firewall, which has been wrinkled on many a trainer. Even if I hated my plane, I would not lease it to a school.
 
YKA said:
I don't have hundreds or thousands of hours doing aerobatics, you're correct. Initially I signed up for a 5 hour course in aerobatics, which i loved so much, I signed up for more. I have about 26 to 27 hours total in an Eagle ll, about 4 hours solo doing acro, and the rest dual. It had a G meter, usually things were 2 to 3 G,'s, sometimes playing harder we hit 4 or 5, but by 6 we were doing some crazy stuff. The average Joe will really feel 6 G in their body and head. People who have not done any acro probably think 4 to 6 G's is nothing and they would barely feel it lol. Trust me you will, and 6 is my limit for personal comfort...and it takes some pretty wild flying to hit 6. Doing a loop for instance is really nothing, and a regular engine still has oil pressure because even while inverted the oil is being forced up into the oil pan at 2G. Now an outside loop is a different animal and requires an acro oil system and higher than many planes are built for in negative G. But a regular loop is a 2 or 3 G nothing. I've looped a non acro plane, and got it nowhere close to its G limits, nor starved the engine for fuel or oil. I could fly 10 loops in a row in a warrior like nothing. I'm guessing the shocked people are the same ones who have not done anything acro, so are of the opinion its difficult, and requires some super special pilot skills. I did a loop 20 minutes after the first take off in the Eagle, my instructor sat back not touching the controls at all. Using 50% of a planes rated G force amount is not hurting a thing. I am the same guy who pushes the nose over to 0 G and has the passenger hold a pen in their hand, then say now let it go and watch it float in mid air. This insane woman in the video should go see her psychiatrist and get her meds switched to something else that works better. She should be extremely embarrassed by her actions, not putting it on the internet!
Click to expand...

Yeah, you feel it after 4. I got as high as 6.5G according to the G-Meter. I could have probably went to 7, but any more than that, no thanks. Even multiple times at 6.5 was fatiguing.

Of course this was done in a +10 rated aircraft.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YKA
And just worth mentioning, hour 2 of flight instruction was my second day of flying in a school 172. That was the first day I experienced the floating pencil trick, and barrel rolls, as my instructor said I have control, check this out. That was also the day he taught me how to do both, with 2 hours in my log book, and it was his idea, not mine.
 
You know the "This meeting could've been an email" thing?

That video could've been a forum post, in words, without the heavy production and editing, dramatics, etc.

The same points would've gotten across as a public service with nobody giving any crap about the typical YouTube BS:
-Don't do leasebacks if you're not willing to accept the risks of other morons flying your baby.
-Don't do aerobatics in a plane not rated for it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top