From: jbrown@qdeck.com (Jordan Brown)
Subject: Re: Flying Under Bridges
Organization: Quarterdeck Office Systems, Santa Monica CA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:26:57 GMT

thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes) writes:
>The list had been filled for days with ernest discussion on the hows and
>how-to's of flying acrobatic maneuvers in non-acro rated aircraft.  If
>the discussion was serious, the complete irresponsibility of a pilot who
>would perform such a manuever ...

I don't think anybody disagrees with you on this point.

Somebody (maybe more than one somebodies) brought up the case of some
authority figure (instructor/ATP/whatever) flying aerobatics in non-acro
airplanes, with fatal results in at least one case.  I was one of the
people who followed up on it.

It is possible to fly aerobatics in non-aerobatic airplanes.  It is even
possible to do so without killing yourself or bending the airplane.
Bob Hoover ably demonstrates this all the time, as do many idiots like
the ones mentioned above.  (Incidentally, anybody know whether Hoover's
going to be on the West Coast any time soon?)  Tex Johnson demonstrated
it in the 707 prototype.

You can do so by being very good, or by being very lucky.  Hoover and
Johnson are very good.  The idiots are very lucky.  Very few people are
that good.

Saying that "flying aerobatics in non-aerobatic airplanes will kill you"
is statistically true, but doesn't explain why Hoover and Johnson get
away with it, or why Joe Idiot gets away with it.  Without additional
explanation, such a statement is taken as stuffy advice from a
stick-in-the-mud pilot who doesn't really understand airplanes.

My intent was to point out that while it is possible to perform
aerobatic maneuvers with non-aerobatic airplanes there are many
non-obvious issues that will eventually bite you hard.  These include
the unusual attitudes resulting from flubbed maneuvers, the long-term
effects of metal fatigue, the numerous non-obvious components of
the airplane that can fail under high G, the failure modes involved
in very high speed flight, the acceleration characteristics of the
airplane, and so on.

If you do not fully understand and deal with each and every one of these
issues, and you fly aerobatic in non-aerobatic airplanes, you will
probably get away with it for a while and it will eventually kill you.

Hoover understands these issues.  The vast majority of pilots don't.
I don't claim to understand them adequately, or to have the skill required
to perform the maneuvers as perfectly as would be required, and I have
somewhat more experience with aerobatics than most pilots.  I know a few
(2? 3?) people I believe _might_ have sufficient knowlege and skill to
be able to do such things safely.  They are Unlimited-class competition
aerobatic pilots, and I would be surprised to find that they actually
do such things, even if they are capable of it.

Summary:  Don't do it.  Yes, it can be done.  For 99%+ of pilots, it's
statistical suicide.  Don't do it.


On the flip side is a purely theoretical "fun" discussion of what is and
isn't possible.  Can you loop an Ercoupe?  Probably.  Can you roll one?
Probably.  Can you spin one?  Probably not.  Would it be a good idea
to try any of the above?  Certainly not.  Can you loop a 747?  Can you roll
one?  My experimentation with the SGI flight simulator says yes.
Would it be a good idea?  Certainly not.

"Can" and "should" are two very different things.  To claim that it's
impossible to loop a random production single would be simply untrue.
It would not, however, be a bright thing to do.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc