Don't Snap Roll A Hawker

[Boris Badenov]

Isn't it bad enough...

No, Gulley, it's not bad enough, but I suppose it will have to do. For now!

 

[Boris Badenov]

IBut you're the one who called him a creepy old man, not me!

Yeah, dang Steve, he didn't call me old. Although, I mean, I am, so.

 

[DPApilot]

No, Gulley, it's not bad enough, but I suppose it will have to do. For now!

first class was sold out on my leg to ATL. Now I have to sit next to people like you in the steerage.

 

[Boris Badenov]

Now I have to sit next to people like you in the steerage.

I hope you get TB from Oliver Twist.

 

[DPApilot]

Also, @SteveC, I have edited out those portions of my post in reference to @Boris Badenov that were a bit too far. My apologies.

 

[Boris Badenov]

@SteveC is the One. The fabled GulleyWhisperer.

Now where did I put that hot tub picture?

 

[ClarkGriswold]

Mmm. Pastrami

When in BOS

 

[Luigi]

When in BOS

When in NY...

 

[ryan1234]

There's some technical reasons why it's a bad idea, but I would have to dig up my glasses and velcro shoes to present those. The short version is that control margins and force gradients may be very different in the negative angle-of-attack regime than in the normal one. Most airplanes are not tested in that high-negative AOA area because there isn't a need to do so.

I'm a little curious what you mean here pertaining to negative AOA?

Also, I'd agree with you about not rolling aircraft for the sake of repercussions, particularly if it was not my own aircraft - and for the sake of the regulations. However, I'd like to see some data concerning how bad a constant G aileron roll is for a particular aircraft in say, a normal category with a 3.8G restriction (but perhaps not the real structural factor, but the given certification number). My argument (and obviously the contrarian point of view in this thread) is that airplanes aren't engineered for specific maneuvers, rather they're designed for certain maximum loads, gradients, pressures, accelerations, torque, etc - to cover a variety of maneuvers, turbulence, etc - at least from a Part 23 perspective http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?rgn=div5&node=14:1.0.1.3.10#ap14.1.23_11589.a

However, some aircraft may not have been tested in various regimes with x amount of variables and combination factors so however the engineering would be validated without the specific maneuver accomplished is realistically anyone's guess. As far as light aircraft goes, many manufactures would rather not assume extra liability, so they're perfectly happy to keep the normal or utility category.

 

[derg]

When in NY...

View attachment 29982 View attachment 29983

YOU'RE KILLING ME, SMALLS!

 

[BobDDuck]

My argument (and obviously the contrarian point of view in this thread) is that airplanes aren't engineered for specific maneuvers, rather they're designed for certain maximum loads, gradients, pressures, accelerations, torque, etc - to cover a variety of maneuvers, turbulence, etc - at least from a Part 23 perspective http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?rgn=div5&node=14:1.0.1.3.10#ap14.1.23_11589.a

Where it may come into play is that many fuel systems and engine lubrication systems won't work inverted, even if you are keeping a constant 1 G load on the airframe. That requires testing and, most planes won't undergo that sort of testing during certification, unless of course they are being certified to do that sort of thing.

 

[JeppUpdater]

Where it may come into play is that many fuel systems and engine lubrication systems won't work inverted, even if you are keeping a constant 1 G load on the airframe.

If you're keeping a constant 1G load on the airframe, how would the fuel and engine lubrication systems 'know' they're inverted?

 

[Boris Badenov]

Where it may come into play is that many fuel systems and engine lubrication systems won't work inverted, even if you are keeping a constant 1 G load on the airframe.

Uh. What?

 

[knot4u]

Where it may come into play is that many fuel systems and engine lubrication systems won't work inverted, even if you are keeping a constant 1 G load on the airframe. That requires testing and, most planes won't undergo that sort of testing during certification, unless of course they are being certified to do that sort of thing.

Please clarify, this would be something I need to know. Airplanes experience negative Gs a lot in turbulence and they keep running. Perhaps the AHRS tells the FADEC "This guy is getting a little sporty, please shut down and record this event in your trend monitoring as will I"(read in a british accent).

 

[fholbert]

There is an old promotional sales video on YouTube of a Bellanca Viking doing medium aerobatics, including snap rolls. All approved maneuvers for that airplane. @fholbert

Back in the day there were a couple of Super Vikings on the airshow circuit. They had a waver from the FAA, other than an inverted oil pump and smoke system they were stock. A Viking isn't certified for acrobatics but I believe it could be, it's a really strong aircraft. I always say it's the safest GA airplane to crash.

Factory Demo Video. Acro starts at about 6:00 minutes. For the record I don't roll, loop or hammer head stall my Viking.

Debbie Gary, she was married to the President of Bellanca at the time.

 

[derg]

All of this braggadocio about rolling airplanes solidifies my nagging paranoia about renting airplanes.

 

[Boris Badenov]

All of this braggadocio about rolling airplanes solidifies my nagging paranoia about renting airplanes.

Well, it makes sense, look at all of the rental planes shedding wings and falling out of the sky! Can't believe you'd even consider it!

 

[derg]

Well, it makes sense, look at all of the rental planes shedding wings and falling out of the sky! Can't believe you'd even consider it!

Rough picture. I had several friends end up doing just that. Ick!

 

[mikecweb]

I think a more important debate is whether or not this should be shared on a public forum. The bravado or whatever want to call it, and notion that you can willingly break regulations because you are • super pilot is sad. Are you going to fall out of the sky for rolling a airplane, probably not. You want to brag about it, get off my lawn.

 

[SurferLucas]

I think a more important debate is whether or not this should be shared on a public forum. The bravado or whatever want to call it, and notion that you can willingly break regulations because you are *I don't have the education to emote without using a curse word* super pilot is sad. Are you going to fall out of the sky for rolling a airplane, probably not. You want to brag about it, get off my lawn.

Aka, never go full retard?