Red Bull Pilots to Swap Planes in Midair

How does Red Bull stunt end?

  • Both planes and pilots survive unscathed

    Votes: 36 40.0%

  • One plane or pilot impacts obstacle at speed

    Votes: 22 24.4%

  • Multiple casualties and/or damage to both planes

    Votes: 6 6.7%

  • Nothing happens after this

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Temporary suspension by FAA of two pilots

    Votes: 2 2.2%

  • Revocation by FAA of two pilots

    Votes: 19 21.1%

  • All Red Bull personnel with certificates have them revoked

    Votes: 5 5.6%

  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    90
Yes, cowl flaps use in a 182 does noticeably change the pitch tendencies of the plane. This is a significant configuration change that they should not have ignored, if they did.
 
hindsight2020 said:
In fairness, barnstorming was big in the dawn of US civil aviation. It's credited in some circles with the bona fide launch of the US civil aviation sector outright, with equal credit given to the proliferation of military surplus acro capable planes for civilian purchase/access.

Things like airplane transfers inflight were among the stunts, and this is 1920s we're talking about. So it seems the old is new again. In a way, this modern attempt is rather lipstick on a pig. Many of the regulatory bodies of today stem from pushback from the barnstorming days, and some fencing/monopolizing of revenue operations (airlines in particular.. and the whole 134.5 and PPL pro-rata things we still go round and round about today). So it would stand to reason these social media sloots would run afoul with the very agencies created to counter the former's equivalents in 1920s.
Click to expand...
They don’t prohibit inflight transfers today (although the most recent I know of is probably 10 years ago, but it was pretty regular before that.)
 
Arm3 said:
There was also talk after about the ballast they used. It sounds like during the tests they used a safety pilot that stayed in the planes. For the actual event I gathered that they replaced the safety pilot weight with extra fuel and may have raised the CG which isn’t a factor in level flight but during the dive portion could have been a factor.

To me it looked like both planes got a little squirrelly compared to the test attempt they showed during the lead up.
Click to expand...

that one dude was hefty, and if I remember correctly his plane is the one that spun.

i probably would have suggested using seat ballast to replicate the missing safety pilots.

standing by for memes…
 
texasclouds said:
that one dude was hefty, and if I remember correctly his plane is the one that spun.

i probably would have suggested using seat ballast to replicate the missing safety pilots.

standing by for memes…
Click to expand...
He just got sucked out before he could get it trimmed properly.

(in case anyone missed the reference…)
 
MauleSkinner said:
Have you ever heard of the FAA doing both?

I’ve never even heard of a year-long suspension…seems like they’d just revoke if it was that egregious.
Click to expand...

Martha Lunken and Trevor Jacob - both had all their certificates revoked and put on a 1 year suspension before they could start training to regain them.
 
bflynn said:
Martha Lunken and Trevor Jacob - both had all their certificates revoked and put on a 1 year suspension before they could start training to regain them.
Click to expand...
No, they were only revoked. The reg says you can reapply one year after revocation.
 
Ok - so after revocation, the 1 year wait is automatic. Ok, got it.
 
bflynn said:
Ok - so after revocation, the 1 year wait is automatic. Ok, got it.
Click to expand...
61.13(d)(2) if you want the reference…
Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, a person whose pilot, flight instructor, or ground instructor certificate has been revoked may not apply for any certificate, rating, or authorization for 1 year after the date of revocation.
Click to expand...
 
In special cases such as this, isn’t there a double secret probation?
 
I wonder want the point is of revocation if all you have to do is reapply after a year. These incidents are ADM and "dangerous attitude" related. It is easy enough to fake/talk your way through that part of a written/practical exam, with your true colors never really changing.

Does the FAA have a stronger, more durable certificate ban available to them (other than medical revocation)?
 
texasclouds said:
that one dude was hefty, and if I remember correctly his plane is the one that spun.

i probably would have suggested using seat ballast to replicate the missing safety pilots.

standing by for memes…
Click to expand...
I wish you guys would quit guessing what happened. Dan Gryder will tell us soon.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
Does the FAA have a stronger, more durable certificate ban available to them (other than medical revocation)?
Click to expand...
Not that I'm aware of. The certificate revoke falls under a USC law. There have been a few people who have had their certificates revoked more than once and regained them a 3rd time. However in some blatant offences there can be an unofficial "double secret probation" fall into place in that the offending petson may not find a willing CFI to sign off their next solo endorsement. ;)
 
Grum.Man said:
It's not easy to make an airplane go straight down like an arrow
Click to expand...

I dunno, I do it several times a week. Aerodynamically it is no different than holding any other attitude. The trick, of course, is the speed buildup.

If they tested the dive with the pilot in the left seat, and then ballasted it on centerline (eg extra fuel), the resulting weight shift to the right might have been enough to result in dynamic instability in yaw.
 
Ed Haywood said:
I dunno, I do it several times a week. Aerodynamically it is no different than holding any other attitude. The trick, of course, is the speed buildup.

If they tested the dive with the pilot in the left seat, and then ballasted it on centerline (eg extra fuel), the resulting weight shift to the right might have been enough to result in dynamic instability in yaw.
Click to expand...
How often do you do it when you're not in the airplane? lol
 
Red Bull stock will go up. Right now their brand logo is on every TV and website in the world. A marketers wet dream.

The biggest damage will be to their relationship with the FAA and other national regulatory bodies. Their air show at Oshkosh last summer was fantastic. Hate to see that suffer.
 
Ed Haywood said:
I dunno, I do it several times a week. Aerodynamically it is no different than holding any other attitude. The trick, of course, is the speed buildup.

If they tested the dive with the pilot in the left seat, and then ballasted it on centerline (eg extra fuel), the resulting weight shift to the right might have been enough to result in dynamic instability in yaw.
Click to expand...
You are correct technically but these airplanes are designed to want to fly straight and level. Obviously several modifications were made as I bet the factory trim settings wouldn't even hold it vertical at terminal velocity. Then you have the incidence in the wing and tail that want to naturally return to straight and level. Of course I am no aerodynamicist nor aircraft designer so I could be wrong. I would imagine their "speed brake" could keep the plane under Vne but if not you can introduce flutter which will upset the trajectory.
 
Why would they ballast with fuel?

The fuel tank isn’t where the safety pilot sat. If it’s almost the same arm in level flight, it won’t be when it sloshes forward in a dive. And it’s got a lateral offset.

And it can burn.
 
The fuel would be in a very different ARM than the copilot when the plane is pointed straight down. Sloshing forward would be irrelevant in that position, it’s a totally different axis. Probably 30-40 inches different, and the “cg” would be much less stable around that axis.
 
NoHeat said:
Why would they ballast with fuel?
.......
And it can burn.
Click to expand...

I have to assume this was a bladder tank 182, in which case this is a pretty impressive display of the fire resistance of that design after that crash.
 
N120Z is pretty clever.

But Red Bull cans are actually smaller than 12 oz, aren’t they?
 
MacFlier said:
It actually tastes good...
Click to expand...

That has to be due to whatever wonderful scotch flavor notes manage to claw their way through the matrix of gawd-awful Red Bull taste.

Mind you, I'm glad enough people drink the stuff to enable Red Bull to fund many cool aviation-related things they do (the plane-swap stunt notwithstanding).
 
If you want to see real Red Bull teamwork, watch the Miami Formula One Race Sunday. The Drivers, Pit Crews, Team Engineers et al are the pinnacle of sport. (Except for the first two races this year).

Cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top