Guest ozzie Posted July 12, 2009 Posted July 12, 2009 I had a fly in George Markie's Victa. Those damm flaps when you poled back on landing the flaps would extend and you would balloon back up, weird as.
Mazda Posted July 12, 2009 Posted July 12, 2009 Turbo, yes the Victa is an absolute delight to fly. Ozzie they have flapperons which are full span, including flap under the fuselage!
facthunter Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 Flap use. Didn't they make the full flap setting unavailable later on?. I flew the 2 victa's when they were brand new (with a ford anglia front strut) and in a warmish climate they and particularly the 0-200 powered one, were a little underpowered. The controls felt nice and the smallish wing performed well in the air and the plane was considered strong. N..
Mazda Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 There was an AD out on the flap Nev. Mind you, it doesn't take much to get them down anyway, and considering the flap is full wing span and underneath the fuselage, and you can sideslip as well (with flap out), descending isn't a problem! Yep, they still have that Ford front strut, and the car horn stall warning. It makes people jump when you are doing pre-flight checks. They have short, broad, wings alright which gives them a better roll (combined with the full span ailerons.) You do need to be careful with weight/fuel/density altitude. I fly a 115 but have also flown a 160 CSU variant which wasn't underpowered, but didn't have the same light feel as the 115. I don't think I've flown an O-200 powered 100hp one. My theory is that using the same 130 hp O-235 as the Reims aerobat would be a good way to go. No increase in weight, and a little bit of extra power. Maybe one day!
facthunter Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 Victa. You obviously love it Maz. The elevator effectiveness was I believe the concern. The other thing I did not like was the tendency of the canopy to cut your fingers off IF you taxied with one of your hands up on the edge of the windscreen, and applied the brakes. They MUST have fitted a catch!!! surely. Regards Nev
turboplanner Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 On the other hand FH, at least they had brakes which didn't require an extra 500 feet of runway.
Yenn Posted July 14, 2009 Posted July 14, 2009 Try the Corby Starlet. It is aerobatic when registered GA and well under RAAus max weight. Not cleared for spins, but OK with just about anything else.
Mazda Posted July 14, 2009 Posted July 14, 2009 I've never had a problem with elevator effectiveness Nev! The canopy catch is the very effective pilot elbow, as you casually use the canopy rail as an armrest while taxiing out in the sunshine. :thumb_up: I don't think I'm tall enough to have my fingers up over the windscreen! Cliff Tait flew a 115 Victa around the world in 1968 and ended up doing numerous ferry flights. He tells stories of holding his wet socks out in the breeze during flight to help them to dry. He also told me a not so repeatable story about what happened with lidless ice cream container after a nasty case of Bali belly ... let's just say he told me there is negative pressure in the cabin! Yenn, there is a problem with non-spinnable aircraft because you need spin recovery to do aeros.
dazza 38 Posted August 19, 2009 Posted August 19, 2009 murphy Renegade .How about a Sting Carbon ? Their quite strong from reading the specs.
turboplanner Posted August 23, 2009 Posted August 23, 2009 I am getting conflicting accounts with most saying it's pilot inability/lack of training that causes recovery probs. Although its an RV4, this thread might point you in the right direction: Plane down near Clyde in Victoria - PPRuNe Forums
djpacro Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 I stuck my head into the cockpit of a Pazmany the other day and it had a "NO INTENTIONAL SPINS" placard and yet I was informed it's aerobatic, not sure how it can be with out spin ability. This Pazmany newsletter should clarify that.
Yenn Posted August 26, 2009 Posted August 26, 2009 M Wreford. The Corby is another which should not be intentionally spun but can be aerobatted. I think it is more to do with excessive loads if the recovery is poorly done. Which Pazmany are you building?
djpacro Posted August 26, 2009 Posted August 26, 2009 .... have you done spins in an RV6 ... I am building one ... just would like to hear from someone whose done it There are a couple of locals flying RV's in competitions. If you can't get the info elsewhere let me know and I'll put you in conatct with them.
turboplanner Posted August 26, 2009 Posted August 26, 2009 Don't worry about the spelling, but I think you should forget about aerobatics in the RV6. Talk to Facthunter for some very sound advice - he really does know what he is talking about when it comes to aerobatics.
Mazda Posted August 27, 2009 Posted August 27, 2009 This might sound silly because everyone loves their own aircraft, but why don't people just do aeros in aircraft that have been specifically designed to do aeros?
turboplanner Posted August 27, 2009 Posted August 27, 2009 Youtube contains a lot of illegal, and stupid, flying, so it's not the bible for survival, and certainly not a professional source of safety information. A rating of +6 - 3 g isn't out of the ordinary - the Sportstar has the same rating. For a home built I would reduce the rating by about 30% to take account of varying rivet tensions, misfits, stretches, mistakes etc. The Tiger has wire braced wings, a lot more strength than light rivetted aluminium.
Mazda Posted August 28, 2009 Posted August 28, 2009 By specifically designed I mean in the aerobatic category, tested in aerobatics by test pilots, approved manoeuvres shown in the flight manual, most likely with entry speeds published in the manual and a published spin recovery technique - perhaps with a number of spins allowed. These aircraft are marketed as aerobatic. When you think of aerobatic aircraft the types that spring to mind are things like the Pitts, Extra, Yak, Sukhoi, Decathlon, Citabria, Robin, even the humble Aerobat. It's not just about +6/-3. Citabrias are aerobatic, their name is even airbatic backwards, but they are not stressed to +6/-3. Others are stressed to more than +6/-3. It's about design features enabling the aircraft to safely perform and recover from manoeuvres without normally exceeding VNE, not running into too many problems with the maximum control deflection speed, having a spin that can be recovered from, and being able to do these things on a regular basis. Let's leave the unknown to trained test pilots.
facthunter Posted August 28, 2009 Posted August 28, 2009 Agree. Mazda gives good advice. Where aircraft are permitted to do aerobatics, there will be a list of allowed manoeuvers, Entry speeds (Max) for each manoeuver and where required, notes on tecnique. There will be a reduced max weight and usually a lesser rearward C of G permitted. Reduced airframe life, (particularly wing spars) and seat structures etc require special extra inspections. The DH-82 "Tiger Moth" is an aircraft that I never had any great worries with strength-wise, ( although it did need fuselage modifications to do "flick" manoeuvers). It is built like a brick s***house. One thing I never tested was how it would behave where "flutter" might be expected . The high drag of the aeroplane kept you away from this problem pretty much, but plenty of RAAus aircraft would build up speed very quickly because of their "clean" design. Very few non-aerobatic pilots will have ever experienced having the nose pointing vertically at the ground. AND I DON'T RECOMMEND IT! but I will mention it to show how things can go pear-shaped very fast. 1. Your speed builds up very quickly. You can get through Vne rapidly, Possible flutter. 2. Your sink rate is not measured in feet per minute . It can be in MILES a minute. Say you hit 150Kts vertically. (easy to achieve). THAT is about 15,000 fpm, so things are happening fast. 3. You need height to pull out from this situation, and you can pull destructive "G" or simply not manage it , with the height you have. This situation may be unintentional. You might muck up a manoeuver, that is all it takes, a small misjudgement at low level Regarding the ability of the plane to be spun, I would consider it an absolute prerequisite for any aerobatic aircraft. An imbalanced (rudder off centre) high "G" pull -up can cause a "flick" roll easily and that is in reality a horizontal spin. This happens when someone does a fast run along the strip and pulls up rapidly to a steep climb. The plane rolls inverted and it is all over, (straight into the deck) Dynamic stall with flick roll. I hope all of this adds up to doing it in the right plane, with the right training or not at all. Nev.
Guest Cloudsuck Posted August 28, 2009 Posted August 28, 2009 but I am also going to enjoy this sport for all its worth and i won't be wasting time with nit picky bloody forums, cheers all Nice one M Wreford, if I had an RV-6 it would be going upside down, I wouldn't be deducting 30% of any of the flight envelope just because it is a home built. The manufacturer says it's ok for aeros, its ok for me. The manufacturer of your RV knows it is a homebuilt when they crunched the numbers so perhaps if it could be built in a factory, they should add 30% :thumb_up: I think the question on this thread was a hypothetical one but of course if you answer, you are a rogue, a cowboy and dangerous. Just because someone answers a hypothetical question on a forum, doesn't mean they are going out to do a full unlimited routine at 500 feet in their Fisher Horizon. The hypothetical question was a good one given that my Tecnam Sierra is not certified for aeros, but if you go to the Tecnam 'official' website, guess what you will see? Full on aeros in that very aircraft. TECNAM Doesn't mean I'm doing them. You might find that the reason they are not certified for Aeros is that the aircraft is certified in the JAR-VLA category. JAR-VLA applies to airplanes intended for non-aerobatic operation.
djpacro Posted August 28, 2009 Posted August 28, 2009 Okay you win I won't be going upside down in my RV ... Mat, I don't know why anyone would not recommend aerobatics in the RV. The International Aerobatic Club has many members amongst the 5000+ RV owners with a lot of experience and knowledge on the types. A few are in Australia and you can tap into that info.Of course the RVs are not certified aircraft and you are going down the right track in researching its capabilities and characteristics. I fly a FAR 23 certified aerobatic aircraft and I definitely downgrade its g limits by 30% because I know that regularly working it to higher Gs will cause cracks in fuel tanks etc. I agree with just about all that facthunter and Mazda have stated especially the bit about spinning. I flew a friend's Pazmany some years ago - he was rightly (in my opinion) wary of stalling it because of the spin limitation and wouldn't even ride with me for a few straight stalls. I'm sure that I am more nit-picky than anyone else. Mazda mentioned a couple of well-known aerobatic aircraft which are not certified - I know of queries which have been raised with them too.
pylon500 Posted November 12, 2013 Posted November 12, 2013 Interesting that no one mentioned the 'Amethyst Falcon'? A Bill Whitney design, specifically for aerobatics within the ultralight movement. The other missing aircraft is the Markey/Winton UltraBat. A fairly comprehensive history here; http://theultrabat.com/#/the-ultrabat-story/4578373011 1
djpacro Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 The UltraBat was a very nice aeroplane to aerobat - I took it through an Advanced category sequence quite comfortably. Perhaps it will be revived - see http://theultrabat.com/ 2
winsor68 Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 Was the Amethyst Falcon any relation to the Lightwing? http://www.buckmasterfamily.id.au/images/falcon_01_thumb.jpg
pylon500 Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 Was the Amethyst Falcon any relation to the Lightwing? It was in the sense that it was another Bill Whitney design... Had a photo of it at a Narromine, but damned if i can find it
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now