Thanks, Jojo. I spoke to a Dutch pilot a couple of months ago who learned under the French system but forgot to ask how it works.
As far as the weather goes I was in exactly the same situation a year ago while doing my Pitts conversion. Fortunately perseverance does pay off eventually! I'm currently looking into training in the USA this winter to get a headstart on flying intermediate and beat the low cloud and drizzle.
(Apols for the late reply, been away for a while...)
Here in France we start with the 'premier cycle', which covers the basic figures and is mainly limited to +G manoeuvres: loop, aileron roll, spin, Immelman, half Cuban 8, stall turn, inverted flight with 180° inverted turns, inverted spins...
Then comes the 'deuxième cycle', with -G manoeuvres.
Followed by competition aerobatics, from the basic 'Espoir' category, open to anyone with a 'premier cycle', right up to Unlimited.
I think the Cap-10 has an asymmetric wing profile. It needs more effort and a more noseup attitude in inverted flight than an aircraft with a symmetric wing profile. The Pitts S-2A has the latter and doesn't need as high a push force when flying upside down.
Absolutely correct. There's a nice explanation here for anyone interested.
I haven't managed a first solo aero yet, and I have to admit I'm feeling a little discouraged: the weather, aircraft availability, instructor availability, work commitments, holiday, yada yada yada have made it incredibly difficult to get any real continuity and flying aeros once every three weeks just doesn't cut it... I'll just have to get a few sessions lined up and really go for it, otherwise apprehension during the manoeuvres gets in the way all over again. It's very frustrating! (Sob!)
PS: Love the upside down avatar!
Jojo, would you like to explain the French system? Is there a troixième cycle?
I think the Cap-10 has an asymmetric wing profile. It needs more effort and a more noseup attitude in inverted flight than an aircraft with a symmetric wing profile. The Pitts S-2A has the latter and doesn't need as high a push force when flying upsidedown.
And have you managed to keep the prop spinning on your first solo aerobatic sortie? :-)
Yeah, what you'll find is that the sequences used in competitions for Intermediate and up, are about evenly distributed between positive and negative G's. Intermediate perhaps not exactly 50/50, but the higher you go, the closer to 50/50 it gets. Trimming for 0G then definitely makes sense.
But as with all things aerobatics, try it with an experienced aerobatics pilot or instructor first.
Interesting, BP! I have to admit I had no idea one can trim for 0G. That would be useful for a routine with lots of -G, I 'spose? Like you, we stick to +1G at RPM 2500. It's an electric trim on the Cap 10, which we turn off before aerobatting.
Have to admit I find inverted turns difficult as you have to push so hard on the stick (tiring), and the whole experience is very disorienting. Gets easier with practice, I 'spose.
How do you trim the aircraft? In the R2160 I still trim for +1G at 2500 RPM, but I know that aerobatics pilots that do intermediate competition and up, trim for 0G. That's why the warm-up maneuvers that are allowed in competition aerobatics include two vertical segments (one up and one down) - so you can get the trim dialed in just right.
It does mean that you need a constant pull to fly upright and level, and a constant push to fly inverted and level, but it might eventually be less tiring.
Don't forget to reset the trim to +1G for the landing though...
@VinceC Nice anecdotes! Now, I bet the Chippy has a prop that rotates to the...let me think about this....Left... which is why you were doing your stall turn to the...Right? Do I get dix points for that? 
@it flies Thanks for the video. That looks bearable... In France, we have to do inverted turns (180°) and inverted spins as part of the 'first certificate' aeros qualification, but not snap rolls or avalanches, they come later, in the "deuxième cycle", which covers -G manoeuvres. Have to admit I find inverted turns difficult as you have to push so hard on the stick (tiring), and the whole experience is very disorienting. Gets easier with practice, I 'spose.
@2greens1red Don't be modest, I bet you did that sort of stuff all the time in your professional days...
@peter > Obviously I know nothing about this stuff for real
...but you're dying to give it a go, I know
Airliner sims are don't give a reliable representation of the real aeroplane when flown way outside the normal flight envelope. Why would they? It costs money to accurately model the performance of the real aeroplane, so the manaufacturers won't spend on modelling parts of the envelope way outside normal ops. The model, which will be indistiguishable from the real thing for normal flight ops, will probably revert to a simple 'MS Flight Sim' type of representation for knife edge in a 747.
However that B707 barrel roll was for real. If accurately flown, a barrel role is a low-G manouvre and any aeroplane can do it. The gotcha is that the barrel role has probably killed more display pilots than any other manouvre; it is a very difficult manouvre to get exactly right.
Done properly, the wings are level as the aeroplane passes through the inverted. A common fault is that the wings haven't reached that state as the inverted is passed; the nose drops and the speed rapidly rises as the manouvere deteriorates into a diving spiral. Even if the pilot realises what's happening and closes the throttle while levelling the wings and pulling out, G loads can be very high in the pull-out and a great deal of height is lost (it's the latter that kills display pilots, the former that causes non-aerobatic barrel rolling aeroplanes to break up).
The 707 is not very highly stressed, but that pilot got the manouvre exactly right and the speed and G remained well within the aeroplane's (narrow) envelope.
Edited to add that Concorde was regularly rolled. It has a narrow span and very powerful flight controls, so rolls very nicely. How do I know? I've been involved with G-BOAC at Manchester since the end of Concorde ops and have spoken first hand to many Concorde pilots who have done it, and many engineers who have been on air tests when it was done. I also recall Turcat said on camera that he was flying an early prototype with Trubshawe and Turcat rolled it. He handed control to Trubshawe saying "I've rolled it one way, you'd better un-roll it the other". Which he readily did!
Bob Hoover has rolled a 707 during a demo for the USAF.
He is on Youtube talking about it; they suggested he doesn't do it again, but they were grateful for the sales that followed
Other stuff like rolling a 747, or Concorde, is widely believed to have been done but nobody will own up to it openly.
A 767 pilot I know says it is easy to roll a 767 in a sim, ballistically, by doing a climb and then rolling it when the G drops to a low value. Obviously I know nothing about this stuff for real but would bet that method would work with any aircraft because you could just pick a near-zero G moment for the roll. But that is not a barrel roll which was the Hoover speciality, and he in on video pouring coffee while doing it.
Well, I did not yet exist at the time but it I'm pretty sure it did happen. A barrel roll can be performed without negative G's. An aileron roll at minus one G would probably exceed the very low negative G-limits for airliners.
The other week I spoke to a 747 pilot who told me he could hold the 747 at knife edge in the simulator. The simulator seemed to conclude that it is possible so it must be true. :-)
@Jojo: Thanks, I'll need luck! Intermediate is a big step up from Standard. On the menu for this year are: snap rolls, inverted turns and spins, rolling circles and new combination figures like an avalanche. That's a snap roll at the apogee of a loop. Lots of new opportunites for confusion and disorientation.
Also take a look a the propeller stopping in this video. If you've got a sensible practice height and an electric starter it should be no big deal.
