Acroduster Crash

Discussion in 'Safety Forum' started by mikkee1, Aug 20, 2018.

Help Support Biplane Forum by donating using the link above.
  1. Oct 3, 2018 #81

    cwilliamrose

    cwilliamrose

    cwilliamrose

    Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    7,788
    Likes Received:
    1,686
    Location:
    SW Florida (94FL)
    The main thing that drives training for the high performance biplanes is the insurance companies. If you're willing to forgo the insurance coverage you can get a few hours in a Citabria and then go blast off in an S-1. It probably won't end well but you are 'legal' to do so. I wonder how you could create a regulation that would cover that loophole?

    When I started flying these airplanes there was no formal spin training. I experienced inverted flat spins but not the entire list of possible Pitts spin modes. You did that on your own over time (often by accident) and with reasonable altitude.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2018
  2. Oct 3, 2018 #82

    PB Schafer

    PB Schafer

    PB Schafer

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    5
    PIC_2330.JPG

    If you keep the aircraft flying, your chance of survival increases greatly.
     
  3. Oct 3, 2018 #83

    Larry Lyons

    Larry Lyons

    Larry Lyons

    Registered Users Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    3,872
    Likes Received:
    923
    Greg, I agree on the danger is at first and then goes down as you gain experience to once again climb as you get "comfortable". Sky diving showed this to be true back in the 70's already. If you got through the first 100 jumps you were safe up to somewhere around 700 to a 1,000. Then once you got by the 1,000 jump mark you became a bit safer again. At least in the data we had at that time.
     
  4. Oct 3, 2018 #84

    EAABipe40FF

    EAABipe40FF

    EAABipe40FF

    Registered Users Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    5,081
    Likes Received:
    957
    I'm absolutely against either the Feds or the insurance companies getting into new endorsements. Time in type or similar is reasonable. Pitts S2 time seems to be a norm and is reasonable. Standard is simply to be able to get the airplane up/down safely. IMHO aerobatics is an additional issue. Many of us simply like high performance biplanes and have no need for aerobatic instruction even less an endorsement.

    Like Knight Twister simply says,

    AIRSPEED IS LIFE! Simple as that.

    In addition NO LOW AEROBATICS! Unless well trained and experienced. Indeed a low waver/endorsement is needed for airshow(FAA) or advanced competition(IAC).

    Yes I believe in spin training especially emergency spin training. But if you keep the speed up one can operate a sport biplane just like any other airplane.

    In addition one should know that an engine failure requires an instant forward push on the stick. But that likewise applies to many if not most other types too.

    Again, Airspeed is life. Especially in a biplane.

    Jack
     
    biplanebob likes this.
  5. Oct 3, 2018 #85

    Melndav

    Melndav

    Melndav

    Registered Users Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    31
    While a totally agree with keeping the FAA and insurance companies at bay (they BOTH already have enough "authority") I really think some basic upside down training should be a necessity even if you're a straight and level, sunset kind of biplane pilot. I had a very good friend that was killed, along with his grandson, in a Skybolt who was exactly that type. He cared nothing for aerobatics but loved to tool around at 100mph looking around. He also owned a T6 and flew it well, but always refused our offer to give some very basic loops and rolls. We don't know exactly what happened, but the airplane wound up spinning out of control from a recoverable altitude according to witnesses. I wonder if his grandson grabbed the stick or maybe was flying and got too aggressive (he was a kid,) and snapped the bolt, but I firmly believe that if he'd had some basic acro and spin training he would still be here. If you're gonna spend the money and time on a checkout it's really not that much more investment for some very basic acro.
     
  6. Oct 3, 2018 #86

    Dave Baxter

    Dave Baxter

    Dave Baxter

    Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,671
    Likes Received:
    783
    I think this this thread was unearthed some very valid points. As an old guy 77 and a sport biplane pilot I will only add that Lou Stolp was never an advocate of aerobatics. The Starduster Too was designed as a week end sport biplane, not an aerobatic one. He did though make the airplane a 6 G airplane, because he knew what people would do with it. Back in the early 80s at one of the Starduster fly-ins at Flabob he expressed his opinion , saying many of the pilots he knew that flew competition, and or airshow aerobatics over the yrs were all gone, with the exception of Art Scholl, and only several yrs later he was gone filming for the movie Top Gun It can be debated as to the actual cause, but aerobatics where involved, and he was one of the best at doing so. It is my opinion that anyone owning flying and looking to buy any of these biplanes, should have some training in aerobatics, one should be able to loop roll and spin their airplanes with a reasonable expectation of recovery. Have I done acro, yes, and am I good at it no. Just my thought. Dave
     
    DavidAD and biplanebob like this.
  7. Oct 4, 2018 #87

    jrs14855

    jrs14855

    jrs14855

    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,684
    Likes Received:
    352
    There's a lot more to it than airspeed. It would be much more correct to say "maintain an appropriate angle of attack". When I first had the opportunity to fly the Sukhoi I set out to determine just how much g load would be required to high speed stall the airplane. At 180 plus I did pulls to vertical, pulling more G each time until the airplane stalled. The high speed stall in the Sukhoi is quite an eye opener. The airplane will snap roll aggressively with little or no yaw input.
    Later in the two seater I did a flight with a magazine writer. Visibility was poor, a wall of weather to the west, but that was what we had to work with. At cruise speed he banked the airplane past 60 degrees, pulled quite aggressively and the airplane did a rather violent 1 1/4 snap to upright level flight. He said what the f___ was that? He didn't have a clue what had just happened. The point of this is that are MANY airplanes where a LOT of extra speed will not save you, especially close to the ground.
    I got two hours dual in a Pitts after I had taught myself basic acro in other airplanes. There were no options for flat spin training in that era. After a few years in the Pitts I climbed to around 12'000' and did my first inverted flat spin. Very early on I had one inverted flat go perhaps one turn past what I expected. Never the slightest problem after that.
    Very early on I decided that any time control was in question in the S1S, if I neutralized the rudder and finessed the nose towards the nearest horizon the airplane would never spin. As a result of this the only time I lost control was learning outside snaps on a 45 degree upline.
    A few months ago there was a lot of discussion on the RV forum about traffic pattern stalls. Apparently simulating a base to final turn at altitude, if the airplane is skidded it will snap inverted with little or no warning. This is typical of the way people with little or no spin training kill themselves and far too often a passenger.
    I do disagree with the comment about airshow pilots dying in airshows. Leo died in a motorcycle crash. Charlie Hilliard flipped the Sea Fury on landing, nothing to do with the airshow. Bob Herendeen was taking pictures out of the Eagle and flew into the ground. Duane and Marion Cole both died of natural causes. Likewise Rod Jocelyn and Lindsey Parsons. Having said this, competetion aerobatics has a much better safety record than airshows. Quite a few practice accidents but only two fatal's at contests in the history of IAC.
     
  8. Oct 4, 2018 #88

    Dave Baxter

    Dave Baxter

    Dave Baxter

    Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,671
    Likes Received:
    783
    Well Jim as our elder statesmen of aerobatics on the biplane forum your experiences are most knowledgeable welcome and enlightening, and should be taken in the best possible way. About Lou Stolp's comments he did not say all pilots, he said many that he knew, and I am quite familiar with what happened to Leo, and Charlie as for Bob Herendeen I am painfully aware of the circumstances that ended his life he being a dear friend. Dave
     
    andy_pitts likes this.
  9. Oct 4, 2018 #89

    f18shack

    f18shack

    f18shack

    f18shack Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2015
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    72
    That's exactly what I was thinking, but was reluctant to open the AOA can of worms here. All experienced aerobatics pilots understand AOA, from experience, or understanding the aerodynamics, or some combination of the two. Most GA private pilots don't have a clue, and think of stall as an airspeed, which is why highly maneuverable aerobatic aircraft can be so dangerous for them without further training.
     
  10. Oct 4, 2018 #90

    EAABipe40FF

    EAABipe40FF

    EAABipe40FF

    Registered Users Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    5,081
    Likes Received:
    957
    It still depends on how they are flown. 1000's of owners of relatively high performance aircraft including biplanes fly them successfully w/o a clue to what happens in a high G stall. Granted a high performance biplane might cause a pilot to do things he wouldn't do the average GA airplane but that's a matter of judgment. I witnessed a high speed pass with abrupt pull up/turn in a C172 that resulted in a pilot just as dead as if he would have been in a Pitts. Departure from controlled flight happens all the time in really docile GA aircraft......Again I'm certainly not against spin/departure training but suggest that pilots with general poor judgment will always be tempted to exceed whatever training they might have had. One needs to know their own individual limitations.

    Jack
     
    pitts t driver likes this.
  11. Oct 4, 2018 #91

    Chris McMillin

    Chris McMillin

    Chris McMillin

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    427
    Likes Received:
    195
    Ioneater,
    Why wait? You already know how habits are created and good habits in one type are perhaps not good in another. Get current NOW. Start those piston powered, propeller driven habits now and stay fresh until whatever you are building is done. Then you will have all of that time, those weeks, those months, those Y E A R S of experience to pull from while flying your new ship... not 4,000 hours 30 years ago on a different discipline of aircraft altogether!
    This is where a home builder can fall down.

    Being current in anything all of the time is a huge help to one's being a pilot in everything.

    It might not be what you are building but flying has a lot more transferable skills than not flying.

    If you're building a bipe and can only rent a 140, well rent it. Maybe only a 172, go for it. Keeping at all of the disciplines necessary to be current is a part of your home building experience.

    I just read an old article from the '50's about building a Knight Twister. The fellow kept current, learned to build it himself, then flew it in two and half years. Not 30 years. He didn't have a lot of total time, but he flew a few different airplanes and kept current. His recency of experience was at the top. He kept the mind fresh and learning all while building too.
    We as a group need to keep an eye on the prize and discipline ourselves to finish what we start, not get complacent in building, or worse, not building... flying, and worse, not flying, Keep the head in the game. The whole idea for me is to finish and fly, not produce a flying airplane for someone else or leave a project, or for that matter make the perfect sculpture shaped like an airplane, I want to fly it, a lot.

    I'm lucky, I fly all of the time. It's my profession. I'm also lucky I can fly little airplanes too, have a network of friends for flying, etc. But one must seek out that anyway, no matter where or what the builders circumstance.
    Get current, stay current, then build confidence by flying airplanes closer to what you are building as the day comes closer to flying your own ship. Complacency a problem in your mind already, Ion? Just gen up that old enthusiasm and create your own training program for your build and what you are flying currently. Start getting the mind moving on your recurrent training disciplines, make normal, aerobatic, recovery profiles, emergency procedures, escape plans, as necessary and you'll be right in the head for flying with no problems of "getting comfortable".

    Okay, done writing, gotta do something productive. Hoping what I wrote helps someone get motivated to think and fly.

    Chris...


     
    smizo likes this.
  12. Oct 4, 2018 #92

    smizo

    smizo

    smizo

    Moderator Staff Member Moderator Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    6,026
    Likes Received:
    3,159
    ^^^^^^ I was flying a decat and extra once a month or so when I was building and felt very fortunate for that. however when I knew I was a few years out I bought that baby ace. cheap enough to own to be able to continue throwing money at the project and stay tailwheel current. not exactly like a hp biplane, but it was something...……..
     
    Mach2 and Chris McMillin like this.
  13. Oct 5, 2018 #93

    IanJ

    IanJ

    IanJ

    Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,988
    Likes Received:
    356
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Agreed, the Champ is nothing like what the Charger will eventually be, other than tailwheel, but I'm very glad to have it to keep myself going. I wasn't sure if I'd really like it or not, but turns out I do. I credit my currency in the Champ with my ease sliding into the front seat of a Charger a few weeks ago in Florida and flying everything but the takeoff and landing without a second thought (and I would have tried the landing if I'd been more comfortable with the area and Marquartflyer allowed it). You can get a flying 152, Champ, Tomahawk, etc. for the price of a used O-360, or a nice one of those planes for the cost of a new O-320. ;)
     
    Chris McMillin likes this.

Share This Page