I had gotten some stuff wrong in my post (lefts vs. rights, etc.) and in my attempt to correct them, just got frustrated and chose to delete instead. I've since reposted it.

Yeah, I really wasn't trying to get into a pissing match.

I get what you are saying, but I think having the weight out near the wingtip may change the whole dynamic of what was going on. He wasn't able to get the airplane completely inverted and was progressively inputting more and more left aileron trying to get it level while still inputting right rudder to maintain his line parallel to the crowd -- cross controlled. At some point, I'm thinking he felt the buffet, tried to unload (and maybe overdid it a bit) but ran out of altitude.

The strong right aileron input just before hitting the ground is puzzling, but I can't even begin to comprehend what he must have been thinking at this point, and he may not have even been trying to fly at this point, things were just happening too fast. It may have also just been an instinctual, raw, gutteral, last ditch attempt to wrestle the airplane upright.

interesting thoughts to be sure...but for the life of me, I don't understand that elevator pull that would have done him no good whatsoever given the planes current altitude and state.

panic pull perhaps? or a last ditch effort to roll hard right and get the wheels towards the ground and pulled too soon? Spatial disorientation, pilot restraint failure..who knows.

what seems obvious is that given the plane's airspeed, there didn't seem to be enough airflow past the wings for the ailerons to be very effective with that extra 100+ lbs far out on that left wing

the high res pics are gruesome but you can bet they didn't feel a thing fortunately

This has become a good discussion on acro and aero dynamics. It is important to NOT equate the aerodynamics of the stearman to that of planes like a Pitts. There are significant differences that result in different behaviors of the 2 designs in inverted stalls.

A stearman has flat bottom airfoils so the stall speed inverted for that NACA 2213 airfoil is higher than upright stall. A pitts has symmetrical airfoils so the stall is at nearly the same speed and pitch angle upright or inverted. A stearman, like most vintage biplanes, has more incidence in the top wing than the lower wing. This is done to make the top wing stall first so that the center of lift shifts aft to lower wing only effectively getting the nose to drop and help recover the stall. The problem with this set up is that it doesn't work well when stalling inverted. Keep in mind, at this time in history, for the most part, inverted spins and flat spins were "death spirals" and you had 2 choices, die or bail out. These are standard acro maneuvers now. Not so when the stearman, great lakes, WACOs, were designed.

Anyway, when you have a biplane with more incidence in the top wing than the lower wing like a stearman, the lower wing will stall first inverted. That moves the center of lift forward which makes the airplane become tail heavy. This means the nose will tend to move away from the earth when stalling inverted and it will take aft stick, up elevator to arrest that and try to get the nose to fall as required to get both upper and lower wings to fly again.

This inverted stall, tail drop, tendency is the exact reason Curtis Pitts developed and patented his wing system used on the Pitts S1S improving the Pitts from the S1C/D versions. A pitts has the upper and lower wings at the same incidence angle. The top wing will stall first upright or inverted because the symmetrical airfoil Curtis selected for the top wing stalls before the airfoil he selected for the lower wing. Curtis developed this to improve the inverted stall characteristics of the Pitts.

I read that twice and now I can understand the reasoning to use "up" elevator like he did. Thanks

As usual Kevin brings a wealth of knowledge and experience to the table .

I like to think that her wave was Jane's way of saying goodbye to everyone.....at this point in the sequence of events both she and Charlie knew this was not going to end well.

RIP Jane and Charlie....

I posted earlier in the other thread, but will repeat here my condolences to the family and friends of the deceased.

After seeing the videos of the maneuver performed at other shows, the accident maneuver appears to suffer from a lack of airspeed. I could be wrong, but in videos of other shows it looks like the while inverted with a person way out on the wing, the airspeed decays while trying to maintain level flight, which means that this maneuver has critical airspeed limits which may not have been observed in the accident scenario.

As we fly our models around with insane power/weight ratios, it can be hard to remember that full size aircraft behave so differently, especially a design nearly 80 yrs old like the Stearman.

A well done tribute to Jane here;

Jane Wicker Tribute (2 min 25 sec)

Takes a lot of shutzpa to do what she did.....God Speed.

Originally Posted by Pistolera

As usual Kevin brings a wealth of knowledge and experience to the table .

I like to think that her wave was Jane's way of saying goodbye to everyone.....at this point in the sequence of events both she and Charlie knew this was not going to end well.

RIP Jane and Charlie....

Have you ever ride a roller Custer?
When your body suddenly goes down into a deep slope?
I donīt think she was saying good bye to gens out ther ... Her hand separated from the wing due to the sudden change of negative gravity, the other one was holding the harness or grasping the leading edge.

Never mind...

My prays go out to them and their families.

Me?......roller coasters....aerobatic flting.....NEVER .

Yes, I understand what was happening, and the forces involved....but what I said was "I like to think that's what Jane was doing...."

Originally Posted by Pistolera

As usual Kevin brings a wealth of knowledge and experience to the table .

I like to think that her wave was Jane's way of saying goodbye to everyone.....at this point in the sequence of events both she and Charlie knew this was not going to end well.

RIP Jane and Charlie....

+1

It's entirely possible that a 'snap' was the only way to generate enough roll rate to get back to upright and salvage anything from it. I haven't flown a Stearman much, but I don't remember them being spritely in any control axis.

One of the better videos is shot from a side angle and you can watch the flight path of the Stearman as he rolls it over. There is just enough background to judge to flight path and andle of attack.

It is pretty clear, at least to me, that he failed to keep the nose high through the knife-edge position and then had a pretty significant push as it neared (but never quite achieved level inverted. That is the moment when the nose dropped and the roll reversed.

Of course the NTSB report will ultimately determine the probable cause, but my opinion is that he stalled it inverted and then tried to roll it back around the other way, since that was the way it was rolling due to the stall. Of course, Charlie may have also had some medical issue that occurred to cause all of this.

A great pilot and performer and a tragic loss.

Originally Posted by el touristo

My 2 cents: not really a stall, but an inverted flight speed and attitude that will likely result in a snap roll if you use ANY rudder. And REALLY don't think roll was part of a recovery effort, the roll WAS the accident. And I really don't think pilot or walker had time to realize anything or wave tragic goodbye. This happened so fast, the impact occured about the time they realized it was unrecoverable. Most experience I have is countless hours Phoenix sim on its various bipes etc. They all roll WITH the rudder when flying upright and the OPPOSITE of rudder when inverted. IF you NEVER TOUCH the rudder flight is more predictable. So I think we could talk about other control inputs and positions all day but it's only rudder at fault, and make speculations about pilot intentions, including steering away from crowd. And I dont think walker weight, drag on wing was important, nor was wind speed or direction. I think that none of above or anything else was going on.
I think he was flying, he used rudder, it snapped, that's it, NOTHING more.
In hindsight I think this tragic event could have been prevented by keeping power on and using ails to keep it level inverted. If power was failing the choice would be same. Try to mush in inverted. We all know that trying to roll, even when inverted on flat bottom airfoil, takes more power and altitude than maintaining level inverted flight. I know pilots use rudder in rolls of course, Im just saying there's a time when its a BIG no-no. I'm still trying to figure out why planes roll opposite with rudder when inverted...If anyone knows please explain. (I think it might be because the tail is lower in both cases so the whole tail is lever, idk). I know why bipes snap so easy...short tail moment and low wing inertia. I hope stunt pilots learn from this tragedy.

There is a big difference in the way a real airplane flies and a computer model on an rc simulator. The control inputs of the elevator, rudder, AND ailerons show enough to disprove your observation. You are completely incorrect.

Comparing a real Stearmans flying characteristics to perhaps the worst "R/C" simulator ever produced is foolish.