Wing Overs

This forum has been developed to discuss flight instruction/University and College programs.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, Right Seat Captain, lilfssister, North Shore

MichaelP
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1815
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 3:15 pm
Location: Out

Wing Overs

Post by MichaelP »

Just for fun, there's a discussion on wing-overs on another forum and this was my response.
Be aware that this was not on a Canadian forum and you are not permitted to cite me if you muck about like this... My Canadian aerobatic instructor rating has lapsed, but in the UK I don't need one (less regulation) 8)

1. Lazy Eights

Lazy eights were taught in China in the DA40 in accordance with the American training scheme.
The bank angle reached was only 30 degrees and they were very gentle.
I find it a lot easier to do proper wing overs than this constrained manoeuvre!

2. Chandelles

Again were constrained to 30 degrees of bank and involved a climbing turn onto the reverse heading, reaching 30 degrees at the 90 degree turn point then rolling back to level as you continued the turn to 180 degrees and leveling off at 5 knots above the stall.

3. Immelmann

I absolutely detest the rewrite of history depicted in the Jeppesen PPL training manual! The Eindecker never came up against the SE5A they were three light years apart!

Immelmann had wing warping, and this means he had a very poor roll rate!
When you do a climbing turn you are always applying out turn aileron.
If you don't correct it, the aeroplane's bank angle will increase as the climbing turn progresses.
By doing an uncorrected climbing turn, Immelmann was able to increase the roll rate of his Eindecker such that he could reach the inverted from a form of Chandelle and then half loop onto his opponent.
There's no way you can do a roll of the top in an Eindecker, and I doubt that there would have been enough energy at the top of a loop for him to do a half flick roll either.

4. The way I teach the wing-over...

It's pitch into roll, roll into pitch.
In the beginning and at the end you have high speed and so the pitch input has to be strong... At the same time you have plenty of aileron control so aileron input should be light.
As the speed bleeds off you need more aileron, and less elevator pressure.
Over the top you are more ballistic and so the elevator is relaxed.
When the fuselage is level at the top, however much aileron input you have on one side, you swap it the same amount to the other side.

You can do a wingover from any normal speed.
The speed of entry determines how much height gain you can make, and that determines the amount of bank.
Normally 90 degrees of bank is a proper wingover, but bank angles beyond the vertical are easily done.

With sufficient speed you can gain such a height that 180 degrees of bank is possible, and now you might as well carry on rather than reverse the roll at the top... This is called a Barrel Roll!

If you are doing the manoeuvre properly then it flows smoothly, it is a gentle but spectacular manoeuvre.
In a Cessna 152 aeroplane or any aeroplane with similar weight and wing loading, 2.25g is all you need for a Barrel Roll entry, and so a wingover should be less than or equal to this number.
At the top of the manoeuvre the g approaches zero but is still positive, and 40 KIAS is not unusual nor is it dangerous.

Where the danger is is in the second half of the manoeuvre.
You must begin the rollout at the point the fuselage is level and ideally you will have turned ninety degrees and have a landmark already picked to confirm this.
If you let the nose drop before reversing the roll then you will be entering the worst spiral dive you can imagine, the speed and G will rise... Close the throttle, and add more aileron input.
If you start the rollout early, before the nose is level, you will come out higher and slower, like a Chandelle.

This should be a gentle and pleasant manoeuver so if you feel it, you're doing something wrong.

Like all manoeuvres involving pitch, do not do this close to the ground, and avoid doing it over water.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: Wing Overs

Post by Cat Driver »

Do you need an aerobatic instructor rating to teach aerobatics in Canada?

I thought 20 or 25 hours was sufficient.
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
MichaelP
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1815
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 3:15 pm
Location: Out

Re: Wing Overs

Post by MichaelP »

I thought 20 or 25 hours was sufficient.
Here's something incredibly stupid with the Canadian regulations... You can carry passengers and conduct aerobatics if you have gone out and done them on your own for 20 hours and survived!

I remember my first loops, I did them in a Fournier RF4D... it did say 112 mph for the entry and I did have that speed, so why not?
I pulled too hard...
The second one I was much more gentle, stalled inverted at the top and the engine stopped.
I headed towards a golf course as I pulled the starter handle (lawn mower style)... It started :D

But I'm not that stupid... Loops are alright, but then I took proper aerobatic training in the Stampe with some of the best pilots in Britain.
They didn't have aerobatic instructor ratings, it doesn't exist in England where there's less regulation!

When I owned my first T67A I learned that even loops are stupid if done too low in an aeroplane that will flick easily... Two died in my aeroplane...
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: Wing Overs

Post by Cat Driver »

Here's something incredibly stupid with the Canadian regulations... You can carry passengers and conduct aerobatics if you have gone out and done them on your own for 20 hours and survived!
Agreed, there are enough loop holes in that regulation to drive a B.C. ferry through...sideways..

For instance how is one to determine if or when the pilot actually did these manouvers.....or to what quality.....

Also is there a time limit on when these manouvers were done...for instance could you do an hour of solo aerobatics once every year for twenty years and be qualified to take a passenger and do aerobatics?
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
eyefloater
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 8:16 am

Re: Wing Overs

Post by eyefloater »

MichaelP wrote:
I thought 20 or 25 hours was sufficient.
Here's something incredibly stupid with the Canadian regulations... You can carry passengers and conduct aerobatics if you have gone out and done them on your own for 20 hours and survived!

I remember my first loops, I did them in a Fournier RF4D... it did say 112 mph for the entry and I did have that speed, so why not?
I pulled too hard...
The second one I was much more gentle, stalled inverted at the top and the engine stopped.
I headed towards a golf course as I pulled the starter handle (lawn mower style)... It started :D

But I'm not that stupid... Loops are alright, but then I took proper aerobatic training in the Stampe with some of the best pilots in Britain.
They didn't have aerobatic instructor ratings, it doesn't exist in England where there's less regulation!

When I owned my first T67A I learned that even loops are stupid if done too low in an aeroplane that will flick easily... Two died in my aeroplane...
Two died? Care to say more?
---------- ADS -----------
 
MichaelP
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1815
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 3:15 pm
Location: Out

Re: Wing Overs

Post by MichaelP »

12th June 1987 was a beautiful summers day but Michael Jones had already closed the hangar doors and was not keen to open them again to let Tiger Club aeroplanes fly.

Paul came up to my end of the field to fly. He had a lot of credit being my avionics engineer.
I was just going in a Condor for some circuits... There wasn't enough fuel in Fox Charlie the other Condor, but the Slingsby had plenty.
I suggested Paul take Andy for a ride... Andy was a young engineer who'd done a brilliant job of restoring the Le Rhone engine fitted to the Pup that was in the hangar....

They took off at 18:00 and were dead twelve minutes later.

They were doing loops West of Leatherhead and witnesses said they were at 700 feet or so... This would have been nearer 1500 feet on the QNH but the terrain is high there.
They did two 'flying club' loops (not the way I teach them!) with the entry from a dive and closing the throttle over the top :shock: I leave the throttle alone, or at most add a little power on the way up and reduce it to the throttle position that gave 200 RPM below the redline at entry speed (fixed pitch).
The altitude you enter from level should be the altitude you exit level. You lose a bit of speed doing the manoeuvre so why throttle back?
On the second loop of the series they were entering a little lower than the first... Were slow over the top, closed the throttle and stopped the prop as the aeroplane fell through.
There were a lot of witnesses.
The aeroplane flicked to wings level upright and at forty five degrees nose down. A much better position than if the loop had been continued!
But then it was observed to flick to the right into a spin into the ground which was right there!

I found out two hours later when the aeroplane was overdue.
---------- ADS -----------
 
trey kule
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:09 pm

Re: Wing Overs

Post by trey kule »

I have to wonder. do you think after reading the original post there might just be one or two readers here who will consider it a do-it-yourself instruction and try it?

Might be a good idea to add ...dont try this at home. The results you get may be different than expected.

I regret being the negative type on these type of threads, but I have seem a couple of good young pilots lose their lives trying aerobatics they learned from hangar talk, or a quick demo from an experienced pilot.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by trey kule on Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: Wing Overs

Post by Cat Driver »

Generally speaking it is not the loop that does them in, it is an incorrect roll entry.

Self taught aerobatics is very dangerous.
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
MichaelP
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1815
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 3:15 pm
Location: Out

Re: Wing Overs

Post by MichaelP »

I regret being the negative type on these type of threads, but I have seem a couple of good young pilots lose their lives trying aerobatics they learned from hangar talk, or a quick demo from an experienced pilot.
It's much worse than that....

There should be a poster with "Hangar Talk Costs Lives" written across it.
I have heard a lot of much worse things said that pilots have subsequently done, like 'the best way out of cloud is to spin, at least you know what the aeroplane is doing, then recover when you break cloud'.
I know a chap who did this in the Tripacer, came out of the cloud, recovered from the spin and smacked it in. He walked away but the aeroplane was wrecked... I suppose it worked for him :shock:

"Don't do what I do, do what I say..."

How many instructors have done something for fun and then said the above?

Reference the original post: we should still be able to talk about these things even if the children might be listening!

I was given the task of checking some of the instructors out in the Warrior.
This aeroplane is very very different to the school's fleet of Cessna's and so a type check of two flights was mandatory...
So, I went through the American manoeuvres, Lazy Eights and Chandelles... Might as well do something they'd never seen.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: Wing Overs

Post by Cat Driver »

Lazy Eights and Chandelles... Might as well do something they'd never seen.
You didn't show them how to maintain a consant circle over an object on the ground in a wind? :mrgreen:
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
MichaelP
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1815
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 3:15 pm
Location: Out

Re: Wing Overs

Post by MichaelP »

You know what, I teach that as part of the Illusions Created By Drift lesson.

Cat, if you haven't purchased your copy yet, I strongly suggest you buy a copy of the January 2008 Aeroplane Monthly magazine available at Aviation World.
I bought one today and perhaps you can have my copy after I've finished with it.

I also bought an A6M2 model, I hope Akiko doesn't get carried away with it especially if an American carrier visits Vancouver!

And a tiny model of a VC10, and it's G ARTA, the first jet I ever saw. I was walking in Mickleover at the age of 9 or 10, and there was this beautiful graceful airliner cruising around at low level to show the Rolls Royce employees their Conways in action.
The first aeroplane I ever flew in was a VC10 when I was 12.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: Wing Overs

Post by Cat Driver »

The VC10 was hands down the sexiest four engine jet airliner ever made.

What is in the Jan. Aeroplane monthly that I should read?

P.S. do you ever read Todays Pilot?
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
MichaelP
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1815
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 3:15 pm
Location: Out

Re: Wing Overs

Post by MichaelP »

There's a lot of nostalgia for Cat Driver's in the January 2008 Aeroplane monthly.

I've read a couple of Today's Pilot magazines in the past... but these days I am so very busy...

Now I've got to go fly with our 'fellow' forumite again:

Image
---------- ADS -----------
 
Hedley
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 10430
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 6:40 am
Location: CYSH
Contact:

Re: Wing Overs

Post by Hedley »

Wingovers and chandelles are gentle, non-aerobatic (IMHO)
maneuvers that can be flown in any aircraft.

I must recommend that people do not go upside down
in an aircraft by themselves, the first time. Problem
is that people often panic when they are upside down
at first, and do the "wrong thing" such as pull the
yoke/stick all the way back, because they "want to
go up". Unfortunately they are teaching themselves
how to fly a "split-s" which is a great way to convert
altitude into airspeed, and if they don't have much
altitude, will result in a hole in the ground. If they
do have lots of altitude, speeds in excess of Vne
often result, as wellas very high G which frequently
results in structural damage. There was a learjet
in California a few months back that suffered
structural damage when someone tried to teach
themselves aerobatics.

You wouldn't teach yourself instrument flying,
would you? Do you think it would be a good thing
for a student pilot with no hood time, to climb
up into the clouds and teach himself IFR flying?

That said, it is interesting that there are very,
very, very few true two-seat aerobatic aircraft
in Canada. It is also interesting that almost all
of the great civilian aerobatic pilots are self-taught
in single-seat aerobatic aircraft. However, the
countryside is littered with failed attempts to
perform the above. Quite often it is a lack of
knowledge of spins that kills the low-time
aerobatic pilot - there was a Christen Eagle
in the northeast a couple months back, that
a 10,000 hour airline pilot jumped out of, after
he accidentally entered a spin he had never
seen before.

It is truly a pity that aerobatics, over the
years, has become a dangerous "black art"
instead of simply another dimension of flying,
like night, IFR, float, skiplane or glider. But
that's how it is.

My advice is to go south to the USA if you
are interested in aerobatics. There are many
flight schools in the USA which have adequate
two seat aerobatic aircraft, and knowledgeable
instructors.
---------- ADS -----------
 
2R
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4327
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: left coast

Re: Wing Overs

Post by 2R »

"Lazy 8's normally should be performed with no more than approxiamately 30 degrees of bank .Steeper banks may be used but control touch and technique must be developed to a much higher degree than when the maneuver is performed with a shallower bank " AC 61-21A pg 164
That money getting my CFI/CFII was not wasted after all :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
How i miss the deep south,the peaches and them fried green tomatoes.Ocra and grits :mrgreen: :mrgreen
---------- ADS -----------
 
canpilot
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 522
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 12:08 am
Location: Richmond B.C. Canada
Contact:

Re: Wing Overs

Post by canpilot »

nice pic of sky michael p!

Just wait until you fly with me................
---------- ADS -----------
 
SkyWolfe
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1483
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:18 pm
Location: CYVR

Re: Wing Overs

Post by SkyWolfe »

And the nice old mickey mouse headset.... :shock:
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: Wing Overs

Post by Cat Driver »

Have you been doing aerobatics in that Wolfie? :mrgreen:
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
SkyWolfe
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1483
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:18 pm
Location: CYVR

Re: Wing Overs

Post by SkyWolfe »

No way Cat! :oops:

I love Aerobatics.....Wish I had the time fo that :D


Thanks Canpilot :smt008
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
1000 HP
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1090
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2004 8:00 am
Location: South-East Asia

Re: Wing Overs

Post by 1000 HP »

I did a few loops with a 90 HP Champ back in '88 when I was based in Camp Borden. I had been briefed by a couple of airshow pilots at the Change of Command parade on proper technique. Out I went and my observer on the ground said they looked nice and round. Later during an inspection, I noticed that the wood right wing spar had 2 splices in it. :shock: I decided to stick to more mellow stuff after that :oops:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Drinking lots of coffee lately, at a nice safe jungle desk, wishing I were flying......
Hedley
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 10430
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 6:40 am
Location: CYSH
Contact:

Re: Wing Overs

Post by Hedley »

I'm not sure anybody really cares, but ...

Vertical aerobatics is much harder on the
airframe than horizonatal aerobatics.

I define horizontal aerobatics as variations
on a roll, with or without pitching up or
pitching down. A perfect, horizontal roll
(without any altitude change) requires
that the aircraft experience one negative
G while it is inverted. Without inverted
fuel and oil systems, this is bound to cause
the engine to hiccup.

An even moderately skilled aerobatic pilot
with a bit of pitch up and down, can perform
a roll with no negative G. The G is positive
all the time - around +2G on the initial
pitch up, perhaps +0.5G while inverted, then
another +2G during the pullout. Any aircraft
can be rolled in this manner, even large turbine
and jet passenger aircraft (see Tex Johnston,
Boeing Chief Test Pilot rolling the 367-80 (aka
B707) at the Seattle Hydroplane races, at
1500 feet. Twice).

However, when you get to "vertical"
aerobatics (involving a pitch up from
horizontal to the vertical upline) you
will load the airframe with around +4G,
sometimes more, depending upon how
hamfisted or enthusiastic the pilot is.
I know a pilot that loves to fly +6G
loops. Go figure.

Anyways, looping an old champ with
wooden spars (!) is like taking your
80 yr old grandmother out to an orgy
for a gang-bang. I'm not saying you
shouldn't, but it's a bit of an unusual
choice for the old girl.

I really don't like the wooden spars in
the Citabria, either. Read the AD's for
yourself, or grab a wingtip, give it
a wiggle, and watch the standing wave.

The Super Decathlon, with it's metal
spars, flatter wing, 180hp, constant
speed prop, inverted fuel & oil systems
is a MUCH better aerobatic trainer.

IMHO doing aerobatics in a Citabria is
like doing aerobatics in a C172. It does
not fill you with confidence from a structural
standpoint.

P.S. Just because wood has been spliced,
or metal has been patched, does not make
it weaker. Often it is stronger than before,
albeit certainly heavier.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: Wing Overs

Post by Cat Driver »

Anyways, looping an old champ with
wooden spars (!) is like taking your
80 yr old grandmother out to an orgy
for a gang-bang. I'm not saying you
shouldn't, but it's a bit of an unusual
choice for the old girl
You never know Hedley, she might be as excited and pleased as hell. :mrgreen:
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
MichaelP
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1815
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 3:15 pm
Location: Out

Re: Wing Overs

Post by MichaelP »

I prefer wooden spars...

Even though there have been instances of split and cracked spars in Citabrias, they didn't let go.
Metal will let go!
I fly gentle aerobatics in the Chipmunk, I'm aware the aeroplane is 58 years old with metal spars and metal fatigues.
I fly somewhat more serious aerobatics in the Decathlon and I trust its wooden spars a lot more than I would if they were metal.

The Citabria now has metal spars and the wings are not as flexible as before, but she doesn't roll any better... It's still like a Tiger Moth, work it around!

World War 1 wood was tested and found to have most of its original strength after more than 60 years... I would not expect aluminium to possess as much of its strength over the same period, and I'd worry about metal fatigue.

The Beagle Bulldog has a meter to measure the G and time on the airframe, and the whole thing is life limited.
Wooden aeroplanes don't need the same care.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Hedley
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 10430
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 6:40 am
Location: CYSH
Contact:

Re: Wing Overs

Post by Hedley »

I actually have nothing against wooden spars ...
I do fly a Pitts, after all!

What I have a problem with, is the wooden
spars in the Citabria. Remember that the
Citabria was not a "clean sheet" purpose-
designed aircraft for aerobatics. Rather,
it was an adaptation of an existing design
(like the Cessna 152 aerobat) which someone
pushed some paper on.

Pushing some paper does not fix fundamental
engineering limitations, regardless of what
anyone might tell you.

Legalities aside, if someone asked me which
aircraft I would prefer to do aerobatics in -
either a Citabria or a C172 - I would choose
the 172, because IMHO it is a stronger
aircraft. The wooden-wing Citabria scares
the living excrement out of me, and I shudder
whenever I hear of someone offering aerobatic
instruction in one. All I can hope is that no
one dies any time soon.

As I said before, the (metal spar) Super-D
is a GREAT aerobatic trainer. I am NOT being
a snob with respect to roll rate, power to weight
ratio, vertical penetration, etc.
---------- ADS -----------
 
MichaelP
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1815
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 3:15 pm
Location: Out

Re: Wing Overs

Post by MichaelP »

The origins of the Champ were from a time when aerobatics were expected to be done in aeroplanes.

I hate the Cessna 172 with a passion, it's a terrible aeroplane.
If you are going to do aerobatics in one then pick one with the float braces, the windscreen might survive!
On a grass field watch the windscreen move as you taxy... Twist that flexible airframe and you'll break it.
I strongly advise anyone Do not attempt aerobatics in such an awful contraption!

The 172 is not a strong aeroplane and its poor control response will get you into trouble really quickly.
I won't even barrel roll a Cessna 172 and yet I have barrel rolled many aircraft in my past and I'm still current at it.

No, give me a Citabria any day, I know its a poor performer, but I also know it's a lot stronger than something like a Cessna 172.

If the Citabria was as bad as implied above they'd be a lot of dead pilots out there who did something stupid...
Altair's loss of its OC when an instructor was caught doing aerobatics in a 172 was well deserved IMHO.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Flight Training”