Did anyone feel 0 fear their first aerobatic flight?

Eat a small balanced meal, don’t attempt to fly on an empty stomach, no dairy, no carbonated beverages, no deserts.

You can build resistance with frequent small doses. Make sure you focus on points that help you keep oriented so your eyes and inner ear agree on what’s happening.

Don’t know your situation, but chandelles and lazy 8s can be flown in just about any airplane. Good exercises so you can practice eyes/ears coordination. Not by the book, but 60* banks with those maneuvers get closer to where you want to be. Steep turns aggressively reversed eventually getting to Dutch rolls can still get to me if repeated too much.

Good luck.
 
wayne said:
I just don't get motion sick.
Click to expand...

Same here. I could eat what would be considered the worst pre-flight meal ever and it wouldn't phase me no matter what the plane was doing.

On the other hand, my wife gets motion sick at the slightest bounce.
 
Went to a local airport tonight to rent a Warrior and buzz around.
After talking to the A&P whom I've never met (first time at this airport). Awesome dude... he says how much time you got?
I say no schedule. He says come on down here.
He opens the hangar door, and there sits a '46 Cessna 140.
I'm like, hey that's nice. He says let's pull it out. So we do.
Then he say's hop in. So I do.
Then he say's no, on the other side. So I'm flying this thing...

First tailwheel flight and landing(s)
First Cessna 140 flight
and soon to find out it's my first aerobatics flight.

Holy schnit.

After the first couple hammer heads and half loop/half roll I was having fun.

Zero fear didn't happen, but it got waaaay less after a few minutes.

What a surprise and what a blast.

IMG_20190515_182014.jpg
 
Last edited:
I'll let you know when that happens. Other than a few spins, I've never done acro.
I can't say I've ever really been afraid in a plane while I have been at the controls. Even when I had my engine failure the only thing I was really thinking was "I hope this doesn't hurt."
 
flyingcheesehead said:
The 140 is aerobatic?!?
Click to expand...
The airplane is not designed for purely acrobatic flight.
However, in the acquisition of various certificates by the pilot owner such as private pilot, commercial pilot, instrument pilot and flight instructor, certain maneuvers are required by the CAA.
All of these maneuvers are permitted in the Cessna 140 and 120.
In connection with the above the following maneuvers may be performed:
Maneuver Entry Speed
(1) Steep Turns 90
(2) Spins Use power to enter
(3) Stalls (except whip-stalls)
(4) Lazy Eights 100
(5) Chandelles 100
 
Those aren't acrobatic. They're standard utility class maneuvers. Of course, acrobatic means different things to to different parts of the regs.
 
No fear. Don’t know why, i guess it was long standing goal of mine. Only fear was when i was solo(after a long break) in a Citabria and started going through the basic aero stuff, blew through VNE and pulled out of a dive in a cold sweat.
 
Tolerance to nausea builds up with experience. It is partly physical and partly mental. I have seen an entire C130 full of paratroopers barfing after NOE.

I was not scared when I started, but I did get scared after I almost killed myself on my second solo acro flight. I did not properly secure the rear seat on a rental Decathlon, did a loop with a vertical downline, and the seat back frame flopped forward and hooked the top of the rear control stick. When I pulled out and tried to set straight and level, the stick stayed buried in my gut. I managed to manipulate power to prevent an involuntary loop and got it stable in a steep climb at MCA, considered jumping, then sorted out what had happened and unfouled the controls. Landed at the nearest runway and hyperventilated for 30 minutes, then went back up and finished my practice session. Went on to fly acro for 5 years and compete at IAC until aircraft availability became an issue. Hoping to buy a plane soon and get back into it.

I will say this, though. 3 good friends of mine killed themselves flying. All were regular IAC competitors, skilled pilots, and careful people. Two dreamed of being airshow pilots. so they moved up to unlimited-class composite monoplanes and started working on their low level waivers before they were ready. One initiated a maneuver with insufficient altitude to complete. One botched a hammerhead and spun in with a 17 year old kid in the back seat. The third had a structural failure at low altitude while racing at Reno.

Fear and nervousness can be nature's way of telling you to dial it back a bit. Sometimes it is wise to listen.
 
Don’t recall my age for first acro ride. It was with my dad flying Shannon Leithoff’s Decathalon. It was a few months prior to her death in 1974 so I’m guessing I was around eleven at the time. He also built up a clipped wing Cub for a customer we wrung out a few times afterwards.

I began flying acro myself in 1987 in my Swift. Didn’t do much again until 2004 when I acquired a Starduster Too with I0-360 with inverted oil. Flew a friends Skybolt several hours which was a better acro mount. That led me to flying a friend’s S-1S Pitts. Man, what a hoot. Later flew a couple more S1S and played a great deal. It was first real snap roll I ever did in a Pitts. Now I fly mild acro in my RV-4. While I’ve never had a problem with nausea doing acro, as I’ve gotten older I cannot do too much or too fast or it messes with my inner ear and makes me a bit dizzy. It started after I did series of eight rolls and three loops in about two minutes a couple of years ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Ed Haywood said:
One botched a hammerhead and spun in with a 17 year old kid in the back seat. The third had a structural failure at low altitude while racing at Reno.
Click to expand...

You are really mischaracterizing these two tragedies. C'mon...Paul did not simply "botch a hammerhead". He was way beyond that. The exact maneuvering is unconfirmed and there's more to it, which as with many crashes will never be fully understood, possibly even related to medication interaction. And the pax rides front seat in an MX-2.

Erica was not "racing" at the time. She attempted a roll during a qualification flight as part of required maneuvers to obtain a class license, but yes it was a structural failure caused by a modified trim system which deviated from the design and allowed the whole horizontal stab to move excessively.
 
Last edited:
RoscoeT said:
You are really mischaracterizing these two tragedies.
Click to expand...

That is why I did not provide names, locations, or other identifying particulars. My intent was not to derail the thread with a detailed discussion of each accident, but to support the point that aerobatics is an inherently dangerous activity, that even good and careful pilots get killed, and if you do not feel at least a tiny twinge of fear then you should.

In 2004, Paul competed with me in Sportsman. In 2005 he competed in Intermediate and ranked #23. By 2008 he was an airshow pilot in an MX2, and in 2009 he was killed in an unrecovered spin. Same thing happened to my good friend and flying mentor Jon W. In 2001 he was competing in Intermediate in a Laser. By 2003 he was flying a Zivko Edge and practicing for airshows, when he was killed in an unrecovered spin.

My personal opinion is that both of my friends tried to progress too far, too fast, and paid the price. Had their mentors urged them to demonstrate mastery of their new unlimited monoplanes by winning advanced/unlimited contests before getting into airshows, perhaps they would still be alive.
 
I had 0 fear on my first acro flight. I had recently got my commercial single engine and a family friend has an S2 Pitts. I honestly think it was the most fun I've ever had in a plane. Aileron rolls, snap rolls, loops, Cuban 8's etc. The analog g meter peaked at 6 g's. He even let me do some aileron rolls. Really helped me understand some of the left turning tendencies like torque since all my experience was in a 172.
 
I missed my first acro ride... overslept... wound up getting a ride in a Jet Ranger helo. Meh.

BUT, I understood they would ask if you were prone to airsickness... to which I had a preplanned response, “no sir, do you?”!!

I eventually actually got to fly the T-34C, on REAL acro flights. Nope. No fear!

A students FIRST RIDE in a A-4 skyhawk has acro... UNDER THE BAG in the back seat! Woo hoo!

My first civilian acro flight was in the front seat of a Bud’s super Decathalon. I was giggling like Lea!!
 
dtuuri said:
(Necro thread, but what the hay.) Six g's? If those maneuvers were done right then that was a heck of an "arrival".
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with pulling 6Gs in a Pitts. You don't sound like a Pitts pilot who does acro, so I'll mention that there are many maneuvers when "done right" need a fair amount of G in order to make them look good and manage the energy properly. Many figures done well are definitely going to need around 5G and sometimes around 6 for more advanced stuff. What you don't need to do in a Pitts is pull more than that. It is counterproductive and hard on the airplane.

If your experience and interest is limited to lazy and simple "warbird" acro sure....you don't need near 6G, you can easily do all that stuff at 3-4G. But you don't buy a Pitts for warbird acro.
 
Yup. I was 26, I had been flying sims since 14 and the pilot gave me a parachute, so I was ready to go. We flew in an Extra 300L, in the last 25 mins, he was teaching me the Cuban 8, hammerhead and slow rolls. The last maneuvers were a couple of tumbles he performed. I did a further 18 hours of aerobatic.

It was my FIRST 19 hours in any small plane. Lol

I got my certificate after.

Now I want an Extra 300L or a VL3 Evo



PrivatePilotStudy said:
Yesterday I went up with my instructor in his Citabria. We did some tones of aerobatics most of which I was flying with him assisting. I expected some brown moments, I was super excited and not once felt scared, and even times wanted to push the plane even hard.

Anyone else have a similar experience?
Click to expand...
 
RoscoeT said:
There is nothing wrong with pulling 6Gs in a Pitts.
Click to expand...
I have never flown a Pitts, but I met Curtis back in the '70's at his farm in Florida. :) As I remember he wasn't thrilled with the new symmetrical wing design, at least as far as newbies were concerned. I guess he thought it was easier for amateurs to over-stress? :dunno:

RoscoeT said:
If your experience and interest is limited to lazy and simple "warbird" acro sure....
Click to expand...
Don't know what "warbird" acro is, I never flew a warbird either that I can remember. I had a PT-22 parked in my back yard when I was a little kid, if that counts. The wings were rotted out, but it was better than a swing set for me. :) I've done my aerobatics in 7ECAs for the most part. I've had two over the years. I LIKE big round loops with about 3 'g's at the bottom, zero at the top and half the speed as at entry. I envy being able to fly maneuvers without having to work so hard at it. The stick forces in my Citabria took some of the fun out of it, I think. I still had a blast, though.

RoscoeT said:
...you don't need near 6G...
Click to expand...
Exactly. This was a first-time experience, so I assumed the flight was conducted accordingly. Maybe the 6 'g's came from the "etc." maneuvers unlisted and not a hard landing? :dunno:
 
dtuuri said:
I have never flown a Pitts, but I met Curtis back in the '70's at his farm in Florida. :) As I remember he wasn't thrilled with the new symmetrical wing design, at least as far as newbies were concerned. I guess he thought it was easier for amateurs to over-stress? :dunno:
Click to expand...

No. I've flown a bunch of different round wing and flat wing Pitts' and there's little difference in pitch sensitivity. That has much more to do with individual aircraft differences such as angle valve vs. parallel valve motor, propeller type, and CG location. Not much to do with the airfoil. Curtis was plenty happy with symmetrical wings since he went on to design several more Pitts variants with symmetrical airfoils.

dtuuri said:
Don't know what "warbird" acro is.....I've done my aerobatics in 7ECAs for the most part..... I LIKE big round loops with about 3 'g's at the bottom, zero at the top and half the speed as at entry.
Click to expand...

Warbird acro just means the easy lazy low G positive G basic stuff like loops, barrel rolls, and Cubans. And be aware that flying 3G loops in a 7ECA results in a shape that is nowhere near round. It looks like a skinny cursive lower case "L".

Rest assured you really don't need to worry about people who happen to experience 6G on an intro Pitts flights.
 
RoscoeT said:
... be aware that flying 3G loops in a 7ECA results in a shape that is nowhere near round.
Click to expand...
Not true at all. I used to position observers perpendicular to the plane of my loops and draw them as they saw them while I numbered them and recorded my impressions from the cockpit. This was before video cameras. The roundest looking ones were as I described. At first, though, I would do them oriented to the runway alignment and not 90° to the observers. Took awhile to realize the slight difference in perspective was causing the loops to look like hairpins when they "felt" (and were) nice and round.

I'm pretty sure at the time I was talking to Mr. Pitts he was having some reservations about the symmetrical wing, otherwise it wouldn't have been noteworthy. I thought it interesting. It would have been around 1974 or 1975. Could have been just a temporary concern. Or maybe he didn't want less experienced pilots to bite off more than they can chew and give the new wing a bad reputation? :dunno:
 
Last edited:
dtuuri said:
Not true at all. I used to position observers perpendicular to the plane of my loops and draw them as they saw them while I numbered them and recorded my impressions from the cockpit. This was before video cameras. The roundest looking ones were as I described. At first, though, I would do them oriented to the runway alignment and not 90° to the observers. Took awhile to realize the slight difference in perspective was causing the loops to look like hairpins when they "felt" (and were) nice and round.
Click to expand...

Sorry but you're flat wrong. Think about the size of the radius of the flight path at your initial entry speed at 3G. Then think about the size of the radius on top at zero indicated without the engine sputtering. The radius on top will be a fraction of the size of the initial radius on the bottom. Round means you must fly a CONSTANT radius the whole way. I guarantee you that it's physically impossible to do this in the way you've described flying a loop.

I spent many years coaching and judging competition aerobatics and have seen hundreds of loops by all different aircraft types performed by people attempting to learn to fly an ACTUAL round loop. NOBODY comes close at first. They have a hard time adjusting to how much speed and G are required initially, and how much time you have to spend floating over the top at zero G. If you fly a 3G loop in a 7ECA, zero indicated on top, without the engine sputtering on top, the shape is nowhere close to round unless you have one hellacious wind on the tail over the top. You're quite out of your depth commenting about Pitts' and aerobatics in this thread anyway.
 
RoscoeT said:
Sorry but you're flat wrong.
Click to expand...
I don't claim to know it all and I did bring my own judges and I also did my own math. Floated across the top at about half the indicated airspeed as entry and always got rave reviews on roundness. YMMV.
 
dtuuri said:
I don't claim to know it all and I did bring my own judges and I also did my own math. Floated across the top at about half the indicated airspeed as entry and always got rave reviews on roundness. YMMV.
Click to expand...

Well clearly it's been a while for you and there are things you're not remembering correctly. It just won't happen at 3G in a 7ECA...it just ain't got the juice. I've seen it countless times. Bring your 7ECA to a contest, fly the beginner category and you'll see the scores you get on a 3G loop no matter how hard you try to float it across the top. You have to pull more in the 4.5G range at least.
 
Last edited:
RoscoeT said:
Well clearly it's been a while for you and there are things you're not remembering correctly.
Click to expand...
Quite possible. So I just looked in William Kershner's Advanced Flight Instructor's Manual, 2nd edition. There he has a force vector diagram under similar conditions to what I recall, half the airspeed on top. Assuming 1 g at the top, the g force at the bottom is 4 times as much, or 4 'g's. So if you fly over the top with zero 'g's aren't you only going to need 3 at the bottom? It's a bigger loop. Not as intense. That logic comports with what I recall as being a 3 'g' differential based on my own calculations of turn radius. But you're right, it's been eons since I did these or thought much about the theory. I do remember being slightly higher than 3 'g's at the end of the maneuver, say 3.2g. Kershner says something about that, too, but I didn't read it all.
 
dtuuri said:
Quite possible. So I just looked in William Kershner's Advanced Flight Instructor's Manual, 2nd edition. There he has a force vector diagram under similar conditions to what I recall, half the airspeed on top. Assuming 1 g at the top, the g force at the bottom is 4 times as much, or 4 'g's. So if you fly over the top with zero 'g's aren't you only going to need 3 at the bottom? It's a bigger loop. Not as intense. That logic comports with what I recall as being a 3 'g' differential based on my own calculations of turn radius. But you're right, it's been eons since I did these or thought much about the theory. I do remember being slightly higher than 3 'g's at the end of the maneuver, say 3.2g. Kershner says something about that, too, but I didn't read it all.
Click to expand...

Well the thing is that most pilots who fly any sort of acro don't care about flying loops that are exactly round, nor would they even have any idea how close they got to it unless they have had a significant amount of ground coaching and practice with someone knowledgeable on the ground with a radio telling them in real time how to adjust their inputs to make it actually round. This is not a figure that's easy to self-critique. General aerobatic advice that floats around out there in books or otherwise is not necessarily specific to competition aerobatic standards of precision, since it just doesn't matter to most. 99% of pilots who do loops do egg-shaped loops and they are actually more enjoyable for recreational pilots since they're low G, carb engines don't sputter on top, and dust and dirt on the floor of the airplane doesn't fly up and float around during the zero G float on top. I don't know of any airplanes that will do an actual round loop while pulling 1G on top, but it works for recreational loops. The reality is that almost all aerobatic airplanes need significantly more than a 3G initial pull to do an actual round loop. It's 4.5-5G in most, whether it's a Pitts or a Citabria. No need to analyze L/D ratios and force vectors and such.
 
Last edited:
RoscoeT said:
Well the thing is that most pilots who fly any sort of acro don't care about flying loops that are exactly round, nor would they even have any idea how close they got to it unless they have had a significant amount of ground coaching and practice with someone knowledgeable on the ground with a radio telling them in real time how to adjust their inputs to make it actually round. This is not a figure that's easy to self-critique. General aerobatic advice that floats around out there in books or otherwise is not necessarily specific to competition aerobatic standards of precision, since it just doesn't matter to most. 99% of pilots who do loops do egg-shaped loops and they are actually more enjoyable for recreational pilots since they're low G, carb engines don't sputter on top, and dust and dirt on the floor of the airplane doesn't fly up and float around during the zero G float on top. I don't know of any airplanes that will do an actual round loop while pulling 1G on top, but it works for recreational loops. The reality is that almost all aerobatic airplanes need significantly more than a 3G initial pull to do an actual round loop. It's 4.5-5G in most, whether it's a Pitts or a Citabria. No need to analyze L/D ratios and force vectors and such.
Click to expand...

And of course if your positioning is lousy, it won't look round, no matter how round it is. Sebring two weeks ago had a 20mph wind at a 45 degree angle to the box. A lot of fancy airplanes spent most of their sequence directly above the judges.
 
RoscoeT said:
Warbird acro just means the easy lazy low G positive G basic stuff like loops, barrel rolls, and Cubans.
Click to expand...

The usual term is "gentleman's aerobatics". What I do in my Hatz. I don't care if my loops are round, nobody's judging. Though in one video I have of me doing a loop taken from another plane, it looks pretty good and round, probably visually stretched by the relative motion.

 
Dana said:
The usual term is "gentleman's aerobatics". What I do in my Hatz. I don't care if my loops are round, nobody's judging. Though in one video I have of me doing a loop taken from another plane, it looks pretty good and round, probably visually stretched by the relative motion.

Click to expand...

Always liked the Hatz, came close to buying an OSH winning Classic some years ago. Regarding loops and roundness, they are very hard to self-critique, but one clue you can use from inside the cockpit (or cockpit video review) is pitch rate through the entire figure. Lets say you enter a loop at 120mph and are (generously) 60mph over the top. This means in order for the loop to actually be round, your pitch rate over the top must be HALF that of your pitch rate on the bottom (on entry AND exit). Most loops you see people do show a constant or even an increased pitch rate over the top compared to the bottom. The only way you can possibly fly a round loop at a constant pitch rate all the way around would be to also fly it at a constant airspeed all the way around. I don't know of any piston engine airplanes that can do that. Entering a loop with a strong wind on the nose helps round things out some over the top, but we're assuming no wind effect here.

You flew a loop at 1:20 in this video and actually INCREASED your pitch rate over the top compared to what you entered and exited with on the bottom. You would have flown a severely egg-shaped loop even if your pitch rate had been constant the whole way. But increasing pitch rate over the top distorts the loop even more.

Again, as I've already mentioned it really doesn't matter unless you're in front of judges in competition. And even so, you really only lose if you're not having fun.
 
I def need some ground coaching on my loops. The float over the top is pretty easy to cue. Just relax and let the plane fly itself. Where I struggle is timing the pull on the backside. I tend to pull too hard thru vertical down and get a cursive e shaped loop from exiting higher than I started.

On a really nice loop, you get that bump at the end from hitting your own prop wash.
 
The only thing that makes me nervous is that it is my own plane and I do not want to stress any components. With that being said I am having a blast learning the basics and how to truly manage the energy. I think every pilot should have basic aerobatic training.
 
There was a CFI who thought it was cool to demonstrate a hammerhead stall during my C172 checkout at a new-to-me airport. I was too much of a newbie to be scared or even to know that it was improper. Does that count?
 
midlifeflyer said:
There was a CFI who thought it was cool to demonstrate a hammerhead stall during my C172 checkout at a new-to-me airport. I was too much of a newbie to be scared or even to know that it was improper. Does that count?
Click to expand...

Are you sure it was an actual hammerhead, and not a wingover or lazy eight?
 
I guess technically my first aerobatic flight was in an L39. I was only “concerned” because when building up speed for the loop entry. The trees seemed to be coming up awfully fast!

Other than that…. No.
 
BrianNC said:
Same here. I could eat what would be considered the worst pre-flight meal ever and it wouldn't phase me no matter what the plane was doing.

On the other hand, my wife gets motion sick at the slightest bounce.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top