Curious about simple aerobatics

[Dave Clifford]

I repeat. Anyone who contemplates this has much between the ears. Because you don't care to hear MY opinion on this subject,,,,Thats TOO bad. The forum is for everyone to read. If you don't like what others have to say,,,,move on to the next post.

[John Slade]

Anyone who contemplates this has much between the ears

 

I totally agree with you Dave.

 

Now read what you wrote.

 

Not contemplating these issues is where the MUSH lies.

 

Anyway, back to the discussion.......

 

Oh, by the way. I'm happy to hear you're opinion or anyone elses. That's what this forum is all about. We've heard you're opinion. There's no need to repeat it.

[cncdoc]

Personally, I like it when everybody says what they feel and they are allowed to do so.

There are other forums which are heavily moderated and the posts are like the "South Park' kids on ritalin.

 

My Dad used to get on my case because I was using a crescent wrench as a hammer. The crescent wrench worked as a hammer but it was designed for something else. Now, my Dad was firm but nice about my using a tool improperly. I saw another Dad really ream his kid for doing the same thing. It's just how we express ourselves according to our experience in life and our education. So, some of us are going to be quite adamant about seemingly minor points of canard aircraft building and others will be more non-chalant.

 

A homebuilt aircraft can be an extremely satisfying project. You get to fly it after you build it. It can be quite fun or you could die in it. So, as the poets say, "Therein lies the rub".

To inquire along the lines of potential flight activity that may put aircraft (a pet "priority" project that some have spent years of their life on) in danger : using it in a flight activity for which it was not intended or designed for, may conjure up in such builders' minds an unpleasant picture, much like my Dads ruined crescent wrench.

But, mostly they are trying to help with your expectations. Any disappointment can cause one to put off or delay building activities or foregoe it altogether. Better to not start at all than to not finish.

So cut 'em a break.

I do.

We're just trying to help (in our own way)

Enjoy the Forum

[Marc Zeitlin]

Originally posted by John Slade

Agreed, Marc.

This is not the place for "shut up and build - you're stupid to even ask" slams. That's over on the other list.

 

What, so you don't want any insulting behavior between members here, but it's OK to insult other "lists"? I assume you're still referring to the canard-aviators list, which had the characteristics you posit a couple of years ago, but since you're not on it, how would you know what it's like now? In fact, for the past 9 months or so, just about everything and anything has been discussed, since a new moderator came on board. You're way out of date.

 

Originally posted by John Slade

So ---- personally, I'd like to hear from anyone who has ANY experience of aerobatics in a canard.

 

You've heard from Jim Sower, your hangar mate, me (in Ken Miller's back seat) - what else are you looking to hear about? Simple, positive G aerobatics are clearly doable, but the canard aircraft roll slowly, pick up speed too fast, and are generally not optimized for these activities. Is there something we've missed in this discussion? Ask a question about something in particular.......

[LargePrime]

Seems pretty simple to me.

 

He would like to hear opinions from thoes that have been there.

 

He's got a few, He would like some more.

 

I think it's pretty smart to get many opinions, and pretty stupid to stand on a short list of opinions.

 

Is there a limit on the asking?

[Marc Zeitlin]

Originally posted by LargePrime

I think it's pretty smart to get many opinions, and pretty stupid to stand on a short list of opinions.

 

Agreed.

 

Originally posted by LargePrime

Is there a limit on the asking?

 

Not at all. It's just that he's more likely to get the information he's looking for if he asks a somewhat more specific question, that's all. That, and the fact that there are few people on this forum that CAN answer his questions, other than those that have already.

 

No limit - just trying to maximize the information presented.

[Jim Hann]

Originally posted by cncdoc

Lear 35 loop? or no.

 

No. A Lear 35 is cool enough and fast enough to never need to do aerobatics.

 

Ironically so is the Cozy

 

Kevin

 

Actually, the Lear 35 rolls very nicely. I have witnessed it on many occasions (all well over six months ago for legality purposes). It rolls best above 15,000' and below about FL230. Loop? Naw, would pick up way too much speed on the down line, just like the Cozy.

 

Will I roll my Cozy if I ever get to build it? Probably, but I will make sure I have an idea what is going on before I do it.

 

Jim

[John Slade]

>What, so you don't want any insulting behavior between members >here, but it's OK to insult other "lists"?

Actually I was referring to the ACRE list, and yes - it's ok to insult that one.

 

You're right. I am out of date with the Canard Aviators. I'm delighted to hear that they've wised up somewhat. I'd subscribe again, but I'm suffering from information overload already.

 

Actually I wasnt really asking for more opinions or related experiences on aerobatics, although these would be welcome. You can only learn so much from second hand descriptions. I was talking about practical hands on experience. Once I've got the plane airborne and the basics under my belt I'd like to go flying with someone who's already done some of this stuff and explore the envelope everso gently. Maybe I'll call Ken Miller or Dick Rutan. Any other names I should know?

[Wayne Hicks]

John Slade said:

<What would you do if> You were busy slapping the kids when you inadvertantly entered IFR. According to the instruments you're now upside down at 2000 feet, falling sideways at 2000 ft/m while gently spinning clockwise. The kids are screaming and the wife is beating you over the head with her handbag.

 

 

I say:

I'd hit the eject button and save your own ass. If the kids are screaming and wife is beating you with a purse, the family ain't worth saving! :-)

 

...Wayne

[John Slade]

Better still - hit the passenger eject button, recover from the UP, and fly home and collect the insurance.

 

Either way, you need UP experience in case it happens. JFK jr and many others would testify to this... if they could.

[No4]

Clifford I agree, anyone who attempts this has got mush in his head.

My friend Cookie drives the Pitts Special at Queenstown, and I never met more of a mushy headed fellow. Pulling 6 positive was awful but 3 negative was the worst moment of my life. I kissed the ground when we landed.

Sorry for not reading all the newsletters, subscribing to all the other forums, or searching the archives, but can anyone tell me the positive G-rating of the Cozy MkIV?

I heard mention of 9 G's in the Berkut beast.

P.S. I promise not to try this at home

[dust]

didn't a velocity end up upside down at 1 or 2ooo feet in or near the pattern a year or two ago with disasterious results??

 

enjoy the build

 

mike

[Jim Sower]

Originally posted by dust

didn't a velocity end up upside down at 1 or 2ooo feet in or near the pattern a year or two ago with disasterious results??

I heard of one a couple of years ago, but it was wake turbulence from following an airliner too close.

[dust]

exactly, doesn't matter how you get there, you better be able to get back to top side up

 

enjoy the build

 

Mike

[mlefebvre]

Excellent point, and is one really good reason to discuss these kind of things to the point for disaster recovery. #$%^ happens when you least expect it.

 

I wonder if following an airliner to close on approach could be classifieds as tower error or more like pilot error?

 

Marc

[marbleturtle]

...can anyone tell me the positive G-rating of the Cozy MkIV?

 

I heard Nat say +10 G and -6 G... but that was airframe. I don't want to come near either one of those numbers!

[John Slade]

+10 and -6!

Airframe, perhaps, but not the pilot. Other than current VERY fit jet jockies most of us would black out at +5 or 6 and go to sleep at +7 without a G suit. I doubt that many GA pilots will take more than -3 without severe discomfort.

[No4]

Thanks for that,

So +10 and -6, that sounds very strong indeed.

I agree that any more +6 or -3 would be un bearable. After three inverted loops, followed by an inverted stall turn, in the Pitts, it was all I could do to not unleash the contents of my entire digestive system over the canopy. I felt all my organs trying to fight their way out of my mouth. I weigh about 200 lbs, so must have experienced about 300 lbs on each shoulder strap. Not Nice!

 

Back to the Cozy MkIV, am I right that it's G loading will exceed the abilities of the pilot?

 

If so, in the case of say, being in IMC and suddenly seeing a mountain fill the windshield, is it capable of pulling a 6 G max rate turn to avoid collision with terrain, or is the canard not capable of such a manouevre?

Thanks in advance,

[Jim Sower]

... I wonder if following an airliner to close on approach could be classifieds as tower error or more like pilot error? ...

I wonder if it really matters to the poor slob that gets flipped ...

 

... Airframe, perhaps, but not the pilot ...

Agreed. Back in my early 30s I could pull 4G all day, at 5G it was maybe 60 secs (depending on I'd been up to the night before) to tunnel vision, 6G was maybe 30 secs or so to tunnel vision, and I plumb blacked out shortly thereafter. Interestingly enough, I have never experienced sustained negative G, and about -2 for about 2-3 secs was the most I ever saw - once. Rumors to the contrary notwithstanding, ACM very rarely involves negative G.

 

That said, my EZ wouldn't hold 4G for any time at all. It slowed down so fast I was into a high speed stall after just a very few seconds. It takes a very steep spiral to maintain that kind of AoA. Level, you run out of peanut butter almost immediately. In an attitude where you can maintain 4G, you run out of altitude in less time than it takes to discuss it.

 

If I ever had opportunity to do some negative G like No4, I would have to pass on it. Remembering what 5G did to my legs way back there in my mispent youth, I'm quite certain that -3G would stroke me out immediately. I'm not prepared to take that chance for a marginal thrill.

 

... being in IMC and suddenly seeing a mountain fill the windshield, is it capable ...>

Why in hell on earth would you let yourself get into a position like that?

That said, probably not for me. In order to keep my prop and paint job from eroding away, I fly at around 120 kts max enroute and 100 on approach of it's raining. As a practical matter, if you broke out of the klag and saw nothing but green, you couldn't make a 4G or 6G level turn because the Cozy rolls so slow you'd be in the trees before you had any bank at all. If you pulled straight back, you would probably stay out of the trees (for the moment) but would find yourself waaaaay nose up, IMC, at maybe 40 kts trying to figure how to finish a wingover or something in the 1 or 2 seconds you have before you are at 20 kts and have lost all rudder authority (you've already lost pitch or roll).

[No4]

I don't know the FAA regulations, but here in NZ, tower is responsible for separation of IFR and VFR. Tower should have separated the Velocity. Here they are very strict on it. At take off we wait 2 minutes for a heavy turboprop, and 3 minutes for a heavy jet. When landing behind a jet, it is possible provided you follow a lower or higher trajectory than the jet, and pick a different landing point.

I know an Air New Zealand 747 Captain who almost had a mid air with a drug running Beech King Air, on approach into Los Angeles. The King Air passed close behind into the 747's wake and was smashed to smithereens. The Airbus that lost it's rudder and crashed into Queens (?) was experiencing wake turbulence from a preceeding 747.

 

Wake turbulence is a monster not to be underestimated, and can affect any aircraft. My advice is to keep well clear of the path of the heavies, and if you think ATC are calling you in too close, tell them to get stuffed, they work for you.

 

Back to Cozy MkIV,

Just to confirm from high speed (200mph) it is possible to pull a max rate to the limit of my consciousness, which will a) slow me right down, and b) have me going in the opposite direction, and the wings won't fall off?

Edited to say,

I see you're editing as well Jim, No intention of ever being so silly, but better to prepare for the worst case scenario.

Is the roll rate really that slow?. Would full power, full rudder with stick hard over and back not allow a fairly good attempt at reversing direction?

[Jim Sower]

<... Just to confirm from high speed (200mph) it is possible to pull a max rate to the limit ... have me going in the opposite direction, and the wings won't fall off? ...>

Sure. But if it's raining, your paint job and a lot of the filler on the leading parts of your whole airframe (not to mention the leading edge of your prop) will be a receding memory. I eroded the sh*t out of the outboard 1/3 of my composite prop at 140 kts or so.

 

But to each his own.

[No4]

Thanks Jim,

Better some filler, a new paint job, and a new set of underpants than controlled flight into terrain for yours truly.

[Jim Sower]

<... Is the roll rate really that slow?...>

Just how close is this mountain? Yes, it's pretty slow for the maneuver you're proposing.

 

Would full power, full rudder with stick hard over and back not allow a fairly good attempt at reversing direction? ...>

Probably. But you'd then be IMC, very low, in an unusual attitude (probably inverted by now, what with everything on the stops and all) and all the controls 2-blocked. So now what do you propose?

 

The hurrier you go, the behinder you get .... g'night my eager friend.

[No4]

OK Jim, how about look at the AH, go for blue up, brown down, nose up ten degrees, and KITT Turbo boost!

I really wish I hadn't mentioned the mountain, or the clouds, for that matter.

It's just that in one ear I'm hearing Berkut drivers blacking out at 9 G, yet in the other ear, pulling the hardest manouevre I can think of, from 200mph, only results in me stalling inverted at 20mph. I'm guessing there's some middle ground. I heard of a Long EZ climbing in a steep turn, that sort of information can save your life.

I also stress I have no intention of playing silly buggers in a Cozy, but it's good to know what it is capable of.

From the CAFE report I see it rolls to a similar rate to a Cessna 152, thats good enough for me.

For a good look at the 747 beast laying a tidy bit of wake turbulence, check out the attached photo

[John Slade]

Is the roll rate really that slow?.

Depends what you're comparing it to. Compared to a jet going 300kts or better it's slow. Compared to a 172 at 100kts its very very quick. Control movements in a jet are more like changes in pressure than movements. You practice using two fingers instead of the whole hand. In Jeff Russel's Aerocanard at 200kts the feel was much closer to a jet than a Cessna.

 

Remember - Jim's flying a Velocity at 125 - 150kt. The Cozy at 200+ will be a LOT quicker to turn.

 

From the CAFE report I see it rolls to a similar rate to a Cessna 152

at 100KTS, maybe. At 200+ its a different story.

 

As for the max G. In MUCH younger days they taught me to pull through tunnel vision to black (about 6.5), hold for 10 seconds, check forward (to view the instruments), then pull to black again. This was repeated three or four times as you pulled out of a loop. The trick was holding in black, and not loosing conciousness. It took a lot of practice, and building up to 6.5 took weeks plus a trip in a centrifuge. Before training I could take about 4 while young and fit. Pulling past 3.5 in a Cozy 30 years later with no training would probably put me out.

 

I'd suggest aclimatizeation (at least 5 hours) heavy G aerobatics with concentration on recovery from unusual positions in something like a Pitts before "experimenting" with a Cozy. In fact, that training would benefit anyone whether they're planning to experiment or not. The more you get used to being totally disoriented (under the hood) taking a quick peek at the instruments, figuring out you're situation, then making the RIGHT moves to recover, the more prepared you'll be for the JFK jr syndrome (or wake turbulence problems). The problem with disorientation is that you're likely to make the WRONG moves and make the situation much worse very quickly.

 

This kind of training teaches you to read the gauges and totally ignore what you're butt and ears are telling you. My RAF instructor fooled me once with straight & level inverted. I missed the horizon W being inverted and declared that we we good. (They gave you a count of 2 to decide on action required) Height, speed and direction were stable. No moves necessary. Only when I removed the hood did I know I was inverted, and only then did I notice that I was hanging in the straps at -1G. I thought I'd screwed up. The instructor said this error meant that I'd passed that section of the course since it that I'd learned to ignore my senses.

 

I believe strongly that UP training is essential for any pilot, just as I believe that skid pan training is essential for any driver. I wish they has public skid pans in the US like they do in Europe. Skid training has saved my butt many times over.