- Changes in Latitudes
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2396
- Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:47 am
- Location: The weather is here, I wish you were beautiful.
She's a nimble beastie, love the master.
.... or less, there seemed to be a few items floating around.Looked like a 1g roll
Leaving the registration fully visible at several points in the video was a nice touch.
Posted back in 2009. Doubt anyone's going to be chased down at this point, regardless.
I would hope you would be able to answer that yourself.Changes in Latitudes wrote:Looked like a 1g roll. What certification does that require?
That was my first thought too, well after he needs to pledge his windshieldPilotDAR wrote:.... or less, there seemed to be a few items floating around.Looked like a 1g roll
Frankly though, presuming the pax knew before hand and were cool with it, long as it was the PICs own plane, and since it wasn't over a populated area, whatever
How much ya wanna bet that guy watched Bat21 the night before?
Registered Owner Information
Name: Discovery Air Fire Services Inc.
Address: Box 400
(1) Spins (if approved for the particular type of aeroplane); and
(2) Lazy eights, chandelles, and steep turns, or similar manoeuvres, in which the angle of bank is more than 60 degrees but not more than 90 degrees.
I don't see rolls in there.
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3412
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:33 am
- Location: YYC 230 degree radial at about 10 DME
Just because it's possible, doesn't mean it's smart, a good idea, or legal. Certainly pretty dumb to film it, and especially to post it on YouTube.
co-joe wrote:So doesn't that invalidate the C of A?
For the time the aircraft is operated in contravention to the POH and its category.
That being said, if you can keep the loading within spec between 3.8 and -1.52 as per the AFM, isn't the bank angle really just an arbitrary limiting factor? Plane doesn't know which end is up.
-Edit, the way the AFM reads, it is "turns in which the angle of bank is not more than 60*." This implied a bit more relationship with wing loading. So partially answering my own musings....
You can't do a barrel roll at 1G.DanWEC wrote: A 1g barrel roll is doable (Not that aileron roll in the video!!)
How does the pilot of your average airplane measure this?if you can keep the loading within spec between 3.8 and -1.52 as per the AFM
Many posters here already know this well, but it's probably time to refresh the theme...
An element of the certification of an aircraft is operational limitations and approved maneuvers. It is required that they be stated on the limitations placard. Flying the maneuver is one thing, but the tolerance for excursion is another. Sure, you can roll many planes ( I found myself in a roll during flight testing of a Lake Amphibian - beautiful!), but does the aircraft have the capability to let you safely out of a botched maneuver? How would you know until you find yourself there?
All single engined certified planes must demonstrate spin recovery during certification testing, so why are not many spin approved? Because the margin for recovery from excursion or imperfect technique is inadequate. A well executed spin recovery in a forward C of G Caravan will require a 2.5G recovery near Vne to get out. Not much room to get it wrong, and really difficult to execute correctly without a G meter!
So the intrepid 337 pilot knows what many of us know, it'll roll okay. But if the roll were to be botched, is there room to get out without bending or stretching something important? Would he know if he did? Would he report it if he knew?
The pitch up at the beginning means more than 1G, probably 1.5 to 2G's. Then the pitch up again at the end also requires more than 1G. The only way to roll it within the [1G , -1G] envelope is if the plane has sufficient thrust / speed and side area to maintain altitude in knife edge flight with healthy application or rudder as you go around.Why not?
The main danger in any rolling maneuver is insufficient roll rate, or relaxing or pausing the roll after the plane goes past 90 degrees. Most pilots the first time they roll will naturally make several mistakes. The first is not tightening the seat belts enough so their ass lifts off the seat as you go negative. Then when their ass goes off the seat they naturally pull on the control column which pulls you toward the ground causing increased altitude loss and greater speed/G required for recovery. The third error is not maintaining sufficient aileron which slows the roll and means longer time without the wings lifting the way you want and increased recovery speed and altitude. If you are unlucky you can end up with the nose very low during the pull up and a very high speed and over G during the recovery. These are all mistakes that are best made in a plane that can take the abuse when you muck it up. Of course there is no physical reason why most planes could not execute rolls with little risk but in a fragile airplane it requires a lot of skill to do it perfectly every time... remember 1 in 100 botch ups are pretty poor odds.
Also the pre-flight for an aerobatic flight includes a few more items such as loose items checks etc. which likely have never been done in a non aerobatic plane and you risk getting hit in the head by something. I once got a mag-light right in the temple during a low roll and fire extinguishers have been known to come loose.. not fun so careful pre-flight is pretty important. We typically also usually have redundant seat belts because well ... its not pretty when you come loose.