-9A Aerobatics

[Mel]

If you want to have aerobatics approved for an otherwise non-aerobatic aircraft, you will need to convince the inspector that the aircraft meets normal aerobatic category requirements.

Normally he will want to see engineering data to confirm that the aircraft meets these requirements. Not an easy task.

[luddite42]

Originally Posted by gladiator68

Ted Johnston rolled a 707. My Dad (14k hour pilot) rolled a Citation. My Grandpa did aerobatics in a Piper Pacer.

A Citation would be extremely easy to safely roll even for someone without a lot of aerobatic experience. 14K hours is irrelevant anyway. Aerobatic experience is all that matters - it's not about seat time. Tex Johnston.

The reality is that it doesn't take an inordinate amount of aerobatic experience and skill to safely and consistently fly a loop and a roll in a "non-aerobatic" airplane. People always bring up Bob Hoover in these discussions, but you don't need to be anything like Bob Hoover. Just have some minimal competence and understanding of the maneuvers. If you're unsure whether or not you have enough of this, then you don't. I don't happen to understand the appeal of doing some loop or roll on occasion in a non-aerobatic airplane (get an aerobatic airplane), pilots are still reponsible for flying within their abilities, aerobatics or not. I think most understand that the 9 is not designed or stressed for aerobatics in the eyes of FAA standards. Same as for a Cessna 172. That's all that needs to be said. Most here are grown-ups. All the admonishments are for those with no aerobatic experience. The same admonishments would apply for these same people who want to start flailing around on their own without training, even in their "aerobatic" RV model. None of this is a recommendation for doing aerobatics in "non-aerobatic" airplanes.

[paul330]

Originally Posted by luddite42

The reality is that it doesn't take an inordinate amount of aerobatic experience and skill to safely and consistently fly a loop and a roll in a "non-aerobatic" airplane.

I beg to differ. Whilst a loop could JUST be flown within 4g, it leaves absolutely no margin for error. Worst still is the idea that a roll or barrel roll is an easy, gentle manoeuvre. I was a flying instructor in the RAF and I can tell you that both these can go horribly wrong, very quickly if you fail to get the nose high enough in the first half.

Doing aerobatics in a non-approved aircraft goes into the same category as flying in cloud without an IR, unauthorized "fly-bys" and any other number of rule-breaking acts which display poor judgment and lack of professionalism even if they could be considered "safe".

[Andy Hill]

The reality is that it doesn't take an inordinate amount of aerobatic experience and skill to fly a loop and a roll in a "non-aerobatic" airplane

I might agree with this statement, but I have removed:

safely and consistently

By definition, and accident records, it is not safe - not least because any pilot doing it on their own accord is unprofessional, probably acting illegally and hence by definition is "unsafe".

[mv031161]

Having rolled and looped many of you in my aerobatic aircraft (simetrical wings) and in yours (asimetrical) i can say "most" (as in almost all) tend to load the aircraft too much after dropping the nose comstantly. I seen 300 to 700 feet drop in just rolls only for some to start pulling hard on the stick. Easy flying mechanics to fix with someone willing to analize your flying and spend time fixing your mistakes. Still aerobatics is not for everyone and must be done safely and with proper training for make and model (if allowed)

[luddite42]

Originally Posted by paul330

I beg to differ. Whilst a loop could JUST be flown within 4g, it leaves absolutely no margin for error.

4.4G, but I disagree. A competent aerobatic pilot could fly 1000 out of a 1000 loops with no more than 3G on the meter. They could fly 1000/1000 aileron rolls under 2G. Competent aerobatic pilots don't NEED much margin with the basic maneuvers. Pilots who are first learning? Of course they do. They also need an instructor sitting with them.

Saying 4.4G gives you "absolutely no margin for error" is like telling a licensed pilot that a 1.3Vso approach gives you "absolutely no margin for error". I would no more tell an inexperienced aerobatic pilot to jump in an RV-9 (or any aerobatic airplane) and have them go do some aeros than I'd tell someone who has never flown an airplane to go take the airplane up...and be sure to fly a 1.3Vso approach for sufficient "safety margin".

Originally Posted by paul330

I was a flying instructor in the RAF and I can tell you that both these can go horribly wrong, very quickly if you fail to get the nose high enough in the first half.

No kidding. You're talking about pilots experiencing aerobatics for the first time. I'm not. And instructors can also tell you how beginning PPL students will spin airplanes during basic stall practice and come close to stalling on base-to-final...and a million more shenanigans that happen when you are first learning. I fail to understand how this comment relates to aerobatics in "non-aerobatic" airplanes. Anyone with the ability to screw up the basics this badly will not be protected by an additional 1.6G of load limit. They are at the beginner level, and they need to be in an aerobatic airplane with an instructor.

Originally Posted by paul330

Doing aerobatics in a non-approved aircraft goes into the same category as flying in cloud without an IR, unauthorized "fly-bys" and any other number of rule-breaking acts which display poor judgment and lack of professionalism even if they could be considered "safe".

I'm not arguing that. I'm not arguing legality. I'm purely talking aerobatics. Legality vs. safety issues are two different things.

Originally Posted by Andy Hill

I might agree with this statement, but I have removed:By definition, and accident records, it is not safe - not least because any pilot doing it on their own accord is unprofessional, probably acting illegally and hence by definition is "unsafe".

Any pilot doing aerobatics without training "on their own accord" in any airplane is unsafe. I am not talking about these types of pilots. I'm talking about pilots with enough experience, basic skill, and smarts to make perfectly acceptable decisions on their own. And yes, it CAN easily be done safely and consistently by an experienced pilot.

And before anyone thinks I am advocating we should forget about design intent, I am not doing that. None of this is a recommendation for anyone doing acro in a plane not designed for it. In reality, the RV-9 is little different from the countless other airplanes "not designed for aerobatics" in which pilots consistently and safely do loops and rolls in. And regarding airshow pilots, most people (with little or no acro experience) seem to give them worship status. Let me break it to you, to get an ACE card to begin flying air shows only takes very minimal aerobatic skills that anyone with some very basic training already has. "Airshow pilots" are no more special in the skill, judgment, and ability department than the many other aerobatic pilots out there who don't care about flying air shows.

So let me repeat -

Don't teach yourself aerobatics (in any airplane) - especially an RV-9.

Get aerobatic instruction in something other than an RV-9.

Afterwards, do NOT build your basic aerobatic skills in an RV-9.

Understand an RV-9 is stressed to 4.4 not 6.

If you question your skills and wisdom of doing acro in an RV-9, it is unwise.

Don't be stupid.

If you are a skilled aerobatic pilot and do an aileron roll in an RV-9, well that's your choice. We even have some of these pilots here on VAF. They're more likely to kill themselves turning base to final. There's not much margin remember.

[mv031161]

Originally Posted by luddite42

If you are a skilled aerobatic pilot and do an aileron roll in an RV-9, well that's your choice. We even have some of these pilots here on VAF. They're more likely to kill themselves turning base to final. There's not much margin remember.

never ever done on other than an RV8 myself!

[Lindamon]

Originally Posted by luddite42

A Citation would be extremely easy to safely roll even for someone without a lot of aerobatic experience. 14K hours is irrelevant anyway. Aerobatic experience is all that matters - it's not about seat time. Tex Johnston.

The reality is that it doesn't take an inordinate amount of aerobatic experience and skill to safely and consistently fly a loop and a roll in a "non-aerobatic" airplane. People always bring up Bob Hoover in these discussions, but you don't need to be anything like Bob Hoover. Just have some minimal competence and understanding of the maneuvers. If you're unsure whether or not you have enough of this, then you don't. I don't happen to understand the appeal of doing some loop or roll on occasion in a non-aerobatic airplane (get an aerobatic airplane), pilots are still reponsible for flying within their abilities, aerobatics or not. I think most understand that the 9 is not designed or stressed for aerobatics in the eyes of FAA standards. Same as for a Cessna 172. That's all that needs to be said. Most here are grown-ups. All the admonishments are for those with no aerobatic experience. The same admonishments would apply for these same people who want to start flailing around on their own without training, even in their "aerobatic" RV model. None of this is a recommendation for doing aerobatics in "non-aerobatic" airplanes.

I agree 100%. Best and most common sense post on the subject so far. Almost any aircraft can be rolled safely if you know what you are doing. Regulations have nothing whatsoever to do with whether a maneuver is safe or not. I was nearly grounded by the FAA when performing at the MERFI airshow once because my paperwork was incomplete, which I fixed. Fixing the paperwork to make me "legal" to fly the airshow did not increase my safety, nor the safety of the crowd. It simply made it legal for me to fly the airshow.

Having said this, and knowing I am capable of safely rolling any aircraft I happen to be flying, I have NEVER, EVER, rolled one that was not approved for aerobatics. Excepting the skilled, experienced airshow pilots who fly planned routines, practice regularly, and inspect their non-aerobatic aircraft regularly, I have felt such activity is showing off solely for the sake of showing off.

Many of my friends who liked to show off for the sake of showing off are dead as a result. And they were flying aerobatic approved aircraft when they were killed.

[Andy Hill]

I'm talking about pilots with enough experience, basic skill, and smarts to make perfectly acceptable decisions on their own. And yes, it CAN easily be done safely and consistently by an experienced pilot

Yes - but it just takes the experienced pilot to have exceptional stupidity and poor judgement to actually do so

[luddite42]

Originally Posted by Andy Hill

Yes - but it just takes the experienced pilot to have exceptional stupidity and poor judgement to actually do so

Are you saying the well-known and respected pilots I've seen doing aerobatics in a Columbia 400, Twin Beech, stock J-3, Lear Jet, Shrike Commander, Interstate Cadet and others I can't think of off the top of my head - have exceptional stupidity and poor judgment? And don't pull the airshow card. They are just people who have practiced. Anyone can practice and learn to fly an airplane within its (as well as their own) capabilities.