Rolling big stuff

This AAIB report has an excellent description of how a barrel roll can go wrong.

https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/north-american-rockwell-ov-10b-bronco-g-bzgk-10-july-2012

On whether the 707 did an aileron roll I somehow doubt it, would want to see a source from Boeing – in any event management asked Johnson to please not do it again.

An aileron roll goes through close to zero g rolling inverted, and requires a reasonable roll rate. While the 707 was used for vomit comet ballistic zooms by NASA, and therefore would go zero G, not sure the oil system was designed for zero g inverted, or the ailerons/flaperons have the required roll rate for an aileron roll.

A slow roll by definition will be minus 1 g (slightly – 1+ if airfoil positively cambered) when inverted. Not sure what the RPM was in the early turbo jets, but wouldn’t want to run the bearings without oil for a nano second, hence my money on it being a low G, gentle pull up, barrel roll.

You don’t need to pull 3-4 g to execute a barrel roll and if you choose, a perfectly tame barrel roll can be done with an initial pull up of 2 g.

Airborne_Again wrote:

I disagree. With that line of reasoning, we shouldn’t discuss IFR flight techniques either because there are non-IR rated pilots on the forum. Or indeed any flight techniques because non-pilots may read this forum and get ideas.

….. discussing aerobatic flight techniques could well make more people interested in getting aerobatic training.

I’m not worried about non pilots, as they are a long way away from getting themselves up side down in a plane. If discussing IFR or aerobatic training creates interest to pursue competent training, excellent. Training is available, and supports a worthy industry.

However, in the middle of the pack (between non pilots, and experienced pilots) can be found a number of lesser experienced pilots, who may have a poor sense of balancing risk vs reward. The result could be taking risks, whose magnitude may not be clearly understood, with poor reward. Rolls are about top of that list, particularly low altitude rolls. So giving lesser experienced pilots the recipe to go unsupervised and fly a maneuver, easily accomplished by some, and fatal to others has a lot more risk that reward for the custodian of the recipe! I speak as a pilot trained to fly basic aerobatics, who still managed to exceed Vne buggering up a roll recovery.

There are endless sources of information out there on this subject. If someone wanted the recipe to fly this manoeuvre, they could find it in about five seconds elsewhere.

It’s difficult to see what censoring this particular thread would achieve.

Pilot_DAR wrote:

However, in the middle of the pack (between non pilots, and experienced pilots) can be found a number of lesser experienced pilots, who may have a poor sense of balancing risk vs reward. The result could be taking risks, whose magnitude may not be clearly understood, with poor reward. Rolls are about top of that list, particularly low altitude rolls. So giving lesser experienced pilots the recipe to go unsupervised and fly a maneuver, easily accomplished by some, and fatal to others has a lot more risk that reward for the custodian of the recipe!

Excuse me for swearing in church, but this is deep down utter nonsense. Anyone can jump in the river from a bridge and try to swim to the shore. No training required, and certain death if you cannot swim or the height to the surface is too large. Anyone can walk on thin ice, just to see how far you dare to go. This was what we did when I was a child, every autumn. The reward? lots of adrenaline and eventually feeling of panic but feeling very brave afterward and a bit stupid and very guilty when the neighbor mother complaining about older children showing younger children how to play deadly dangerous “games”. A few times also very wet and cold. Anyone can take a hike across the ice on Greenland (lots of people do). Yet, for the inexperienced and untrained it is certain death.

What I mean is life is full of recipes for fatal outcome. They are all around us, every day, all the time, even if they at first glance look like a walk in the park. Doing “crazy” things when flying is just one in a million of them. Flying is nobody’s responsibility but the PIC’s. For us, on this site, to somehow feel responsible for other pilots doing stupid things is ridiculous.

I learned to fly before GPS, and before the internet. You could learn to fly by receiving training, perhaps supplemented by reading. Unlike today’s internet, what was available to be read, was generally pretty authoritative, and well thought out. Conscientious authors avoided luring new pilots into unsafe piloting with careful writing. And, enough of what was written was cautionary, to remind new pilots to be wary of silly fooling around. “Flying” magazine always ran a column “I learned about flying from that”.

Now, everyone will write about everything on the internet. Well, there are some things I won’t write – perhaps I’m the exception. There are some things I won’t demonstrate in flight: I was flying a special maintenance check flight in club 172, for which they sent one of their instructors to “check me out” – club rules. No problem, I’m check out able. This instructor was previously known to me as being somewhat self important, as he and I had had words – before he knew my role at his club. I instructed him the standard, “get in, buckle up and don’t touch anything while I did the following [well briefed]”. He silently complied. 30 minutes of flying later, and the plane was perfectly fine. I declared this to him. I then asked if he would like me to fly any particular maneuver for him, to satisfy a checkout. He replied: “Would you show me a roll?”. No, I would not. “A 172 can be rolled, can’t it?”. Yes, it can, but I’m not going to do it for you. He appeared saddened. But if he ever “experiments”, and he will, it won’t be because I started him off.

Every certified aircraft is bound by limitations, presented in section 2 of most flight manuals. In 99.9% of certified airplanes, it is not possible for the pilot to measure two of those limiting values in flight (there’s no instrument installed in the plane for it). So the only way to assure compliance, and the way the plane was able to be certified without that information being available to the pilot, is a prohibition on aerobatic maneuvering. If the plane is flown within the approved maneuvering range, it will be very difficult to exceed either of those limitations. I have know aircraft in which one of these limitations was obviously exceeded = pilot fooling around. Damage found post flight. One aircraft, $750,000 landed safely (well, somewhat, I suppose, and was grounded for the damaged, then written off. He’d rolled it.

Yes, the recipes are out there, and on this thread. But not from me. My experience rolling a number of types, and knowingly never exceeding a limitation, is not described here. My choice….

Pilot_DAR wrote:

“A 172 can be rolled, can’t it?”. Yes, it can, but I’m not going to do it for you.

Pilot_DAR wrote:

My experience rolling a number of types, and knowingly never exceeding a limitation, is not described here.

I would say almost…

Pilot_DAR wrote:

Yes, the recipes are out there, and on this thread. But not from me. My experience rolling a number of types, and knowingly never exceeding a limitation, is not described here. My choice….

Of course. I am not questioning your choice to say, or not say, whatever it is you will, or will not say, for whatever reason. What I don’t like, is what I perceive to put a general lid on discussing things that is perceived as dangerous. It is also rather odd. What kills GA pilots is VFR into IMC and CFIT (due to intentional or not VFR into IMC), yet 90% of discussions here is about IFR without anyone ever questioning the “political correctness” of discussing such “dangerous” type of flying. Then, the moment a simple roll pops up, and it’s all hush hush.

Pilot_DAR wrote:

I learned to fly before GPS, and before the internet. You could learn to fly by receiving training, perhaps supplemented by reading. Unlike today’s internet, what was available to be read, was generally pretty authoritative, and well thought out. Conscientious authors avoided luring new pilots into unsafe piloting with careful writing. And, enough of what was written was cautionary, to remind new pilots to be wary of silly fooling around. “Flying” magazine always ran a column “I learned about flying from that”.

This is equally true today.

Pilot_DAR wrote:

Now, everyone will write about everything on the internet.

Indeed. So if the conscientious and careful authors don’t write anything, what will remain?

I reserve all further comments on the above topic until we meet in person on the next fly-in. Warning to non-aerobatic pilots who read this: unless you 1) get full aerobatic rating first; 2) can execute a SUPER SLOW roll on an aerobatic aircraft (lasting at least 15 seconds); 3) can keep within the aircraft’s limitations, you will be 100% illegal and 50% dead. No mater how high you try; your speed will plummet-through the Vne and you will loose the wings or tail even if you keep within the maximum G. The Citation first lost the tail. Make sure you fly alone and don’t kill anyone on the ground.

Flying is great. Happy new year to everybody. Did anybody consider/try flying on the New Year’s Eve? Those fireworks must look great from the air.