I'd rather say it's awesome.

Anybody catch the registration # I want to buy the pilot a

C-IDAC...

I can think of only two reasons explaining what was going on in that video:
1. A wasp in the pants
2. Stupidity

Why would you say that?

He seems like a very proficient pilot, and if he is qualified for surface (or low level, I'm not sure of the real term) aerobatics and his airplane is strong enough, I don't see anything stupid about all this.

He seems like a very proficient pilot, and if he is qualified for surface (or low level, I'm not sure of the real term) aerobatics and his airplane is strong enough, I don't see anything stupid about all this.

No such thing as a qualification for low level aerobatics except in an airshow.
All we have in Canada is permission to practice alone and away from people. The rest is self regulated usually by fear.

trampbike wrote:Why would you say that?

He seems like a very proficient pilot, and if he is qualified for surface (or low level, I'm not sure of the real term) aerobatics and his airplane is strong enough, I don't see anything stupid about all this.

Spectrum Beaver, like many other similar ultralights, has limit load factors of +4/-2 G. Personally, I refuse to believe that those limits were in any way respected or adhered to during this "ride 'im cowboy" type of display. In fact, a few times it looked liked the airframe might have been brought awfully close to a failure. For a few minutes I actually thought that it was an RC airplane...then I saw the registration. I mean, we are not in a grey area here; this stuff is very much black and white. A spar doesn't care how skillful the pilot thinks he is - it can only take so much.

not in a grey area here; this stuff is very much black and white. A spar doesn't care how skillful the pilot thinks he is - it can only take so much.

Not quite so black and white. Metals typically weaken over time so its not just a case of oops you hit 4G so off comes the wing. Its more like, after the 50th episode of 3.5G then cracks start to form and get worse and worse. Then, if you are not paying attention to the airframe ... well .. off comes the wing. Aerobatics, especially snap rolls like this guy was doing introduce lateral G's (twisting) which may not have near as high a limit as simple positive/negative. Without a multi access G meter its hard to know what that airframe was experiencing, however he was at low power and airspeed so its likely not 'quite' as bad as it appeared but the twisting on that tail boom would be seriously worrying to me. Perhaps he has a BRS chute which I suppose makes it a teensy bit less risky.

What I do think was rather dumb, was the zero room for mistakes pulls. A snap into a split S type thing and pull at surface is wraught with peril. All it takes is a change in density altitude of a few hundred feet and your margine is gone. The minimum recovery altitude in a pull like that is increased with density altitude and infact this is one of the questions that the ICAS/ACE low level waivers for airshow pilot examiners usually ask due to the prevelance of hot day pulls gone wrong as a quick perusal of YouTube airshow accidents will show.

However he's on his own, far from people so its his right to take risks.

cgzro

I'm glad you posted. If you hadn't, I was going to pm you to comment.

I know of the Beaver. I do not know if that partiular airframe was modified to take the stresses induced by multiple snap rolls. From my limited knowledge, well flown positive maneuvers can limited the stress put on an airframe. Not knowing the guy flying or that specific airframe, kept me from opening my mouth. But, it is an ultralight and few are designed for aerobatics.

Airframe strength aside, pilot judgement comes into question, for me. His opening maneuver saw him recover pretty low. While I am a proud Canadian watching a Canadian design showing rigidity in this performance, made more impressive by being a non aerobatic machine. I shake my head at the wisdom behind wringing out a non aerobatic ultralight. My gut tells me there is not an infinite capacity to do that.

If early Citabra's, well known acro designs that appear to be well built, needed spar replacement, if is this guy taking unnecessary riskst with an ultralight? I think so, but who am I.

All of that aside, the guy has good hands and feet.

If early Citabra's, well known acro designs that appear to be well built, needed spar replacement, if is this guy taking unnecessary riskst with an ultralight? I think so, but who am I..

Yes they beefed them up with metal spars which caused different failures but as far as I know nobody had a wing come off with either spar type.

Nice thing about wood is it gives you warnings. The glue joints will let go and youll get loose bits of wood in the wings when you tap them.

But agreed not easy what he's doing but frankly he should add a few hundred feet and have a BRS to give him an out. But as I said hes on his own and its his right to run the risks.

I have never flown an airplane equipped with a BRS. What is the minimal altitude at which its deployment can save the occupants from serious injuries? I had an impression that as much as 1,000 ft (or more) is needed to bring the ROD to some survivable value.

I really have no intimate knowledge of this aircraft nor the design limits but at the speeds he was flying I doubt whether he exceeded 3 G's in any of his manuvers.

I actually thought that it was an RC airplane

Me too. How do we know it isn't?

Me too. How do we know it isn't

Engine sound, thats classic Rotax on a fabric drum sound.. plus RC pilots NEVER throttle back

Peter

Would it be possible to fake up a sound track? Something about that video doesn't look "full size".

Colonel Sanders wrote:Would it be possible to fake up a sound track? Something about that video doesn't look "full size".

I somewhat agree Col. it's all a bit surreal.... but if the reg # is C-IDAC and if that happens to be correct, the aircraft is listed here http://www.lazair.com/registry/d-g.htm as a Beaver RX-28

So i'm guessing it is a real ultralight and not a model aircraft but getting back to your initial question, sure it is possible to fake damn near anything these days....

Regards;
Dave

Colonel Sanders wrote:Would it be possible to fake up a sound track? Something about that video doesn't look "full size".

Like what?

Personally I think its real. Years ago I flew a couple of ultrulights and they do very tight loops. I have never snapped one but those low speed snaps look to be normal, just making it around sort of thing. That strip is located just off King George hiway in Surrey, BC