Originally Posted by 3DFTW

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

Plus 1

Originally Posted by 3DFTW

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

This thread has turned retarded. One false s tatement after another.

What's with the brand-new posters who have never flown an airplane coming out of the woodwork to completely incorrectly analyze this accident? Don't know why I'm bothering, but...

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.

Apparently you did not notice the commanded right aileron deflection applied after the airplane failed to continue rolling inverted with the original commanded left aileron.

Originally Posted by el touristo

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.

Originally Posted by el touristo

And I dont think walker weight, drag on wing was important...

Why then did the airplane stop rolling with commanded left aileron input?

Originally Posted by el touristo

I think he was flying, he used rudder, it snapped, that's it, NOTHING more.

Because of the pitch toward the "canopy", and the fact that the right roll did not commence before the right aileron and aft stick were applied, I don't think it negative snapped, or even stalled. The only pitch change was in the positive direction due to the aft stick which was clearly visible. And it was not nearly enough aft stick and rudder for it to be a positive snap from that negatively-loaded line.

Originally Posted by el touristo

In hindsight I think this tragic event could have been prevented by keeping power on and using ails to keep it level inverted.

Ha. Engine running hard the whole time. Again, look at the commanded left aileron deflection inverted with no roll reaction.

Originally Posted by el touristo

I know pilots use rudder in rolls of course, Im just saying there's a time when its a BIG no-no.

Rudder usage did not contribute to this accident.

Originally Posted by el touristo

I'm still trying to figure out why planes roll opposite with rudder when inverted...If anyone knows please explain.

Not sure what you're trying to say. Opposite rudder is used during the inverted phase of level rolls due to adverse yaw when the wing is under negative G.

Originally Posted by el touristo

I know why bipes snap so easy...short tail moment and low wing inertia.

Bipes don't necessarily snap easier than monoplanes.

Scott

I don't think it was a troll post. Just some kid flight sim hero who honestly thought he had this accident figured out due to "countless hours" of sim time.

I like full scale pilots thinking they automatically know how to fly RC planes just as much as I like RC pilots thinking they automatically know how to fly full scale.

Anyone who's never flown full scale aerobatics has no business analyzing this accident.

As for the simulator comment. Hahahahahahaha!!! El touristo - you're without a clue buddy and seem to know as little about RC planes as you do full scale. Even if any simulator came that close to the real thing (RC) it is NO comparison to full scale. Our planes are extremely overpowered for their weight which is nowhere near scale. A 35% Extra 300 would weigh about 700lbs at scale - not 20-25lbs. RC flies very differently than full scale and simulators fly differently than both.

Originally Posted by Cerus98

Anyone who's never flown full scale aerobatics has no business analyzing this accident.

Yep.

well that's what I get for being honest. Im not a kid or a troll. And I'm not a sim hero. I am not a full scale pilot. But that doesn't mean I'm clueless. I'm not claiming to be an expert. But I don't know where you geniuses get off concluding that just because I'm a sim and RC pilot that my conclusion MUST be wrong. Yeah no similarities there, nothing to be learned. Apples and oranges, right? What arrogance! I havn't heard ONE aerodynamic explanation for why my conclusion is wrong. And it's STUPID to think bipes don't snap easier or faster, whatever, than monoplanes. Of course they do. Instead of bashing my honest effort, why don't you offer a better explanation? I know he had speed and power, I was just addressing that there was no reason for him to try to roll upright. I'm not the only person with the snap theory. It's probably the best one going.
Why one earth would you think ails made it roll? Occam's razor,...it was probably was a snap roll.
Instead of baseless berating of my credibility, let's stick to the topic...
I challenge you to both explain exactly why it wasn't a snap and what it was instead.
If you guys can see all the inputs from photos and video you a ahead of me. Of course there was forward stick, why would there be aft? (unless too late he was trying to lessen the snap). And with forward stick, if a right roll gets started by ANY left rudder with a nose high attitude, the elev instantly compounds that roll and its snaps. How is it so terribly impossible that is what happened? Yeah there was speed but nose had just been bumped up right? Perfect setup for a snap...no?
------------
I will leave this up but I now think its wrong.I think a weird stall of a sort that could only happen on this sort of bipe led to aft stick...counter-intuitive and unstable. And I don't have an accurate sim of a Stearman's idiosyncratic wings. This is a very advanced and idiosyncratic failure. I was correct that most modern monoplanes have no such odd character. If we were dealing with a 'normal' plane this wouldn't have happened. Or if it did it most likely would have been a snap as myself and other (apparently) mistakenly proposed.

I try to be humble and careful about what I say, not arrogant. RC planes weight scales exponentially. Look it up before spouting nonsense. And snaps don't need a bunch of excess power to happen. The main reason RC planes can't behave almost exactly like real planes is because the density of the air isn't scaled up to match.Try thinking about physics and airflow instead of unrelated assumptions about me. How can someone look at that video and say for certain that rudder had nothing to do with it? Based on the flight, (I'm not trying to visually verify deflections) it looks like he either put in right ails and pulled stick aft (now why on earth would he do that?) or..he just hit some left rudder and that alone is all it would take with the nose up and stick forward.
-----edit --again this is wrong...applies to 'normal' planes but Stearmans have this one wing stall thing...wow.

And one more thing bumpkins...RC models and sims DO fly and act a LOT like full scale. Of course its not the same, but most of the principles are the same. That's why they use scale models in wind tunnels and then use math to adjust the flows for scale. Everything happens quicker with models but the principles of flight, stall, lift, CG, torque, drag (both induced and parasitic) spins, snaps, etc, etc, they all apply similarly to both. Many RC planes are a bit lighter than scale. A Great Planes Yak 54 1/4 scale weighs about 15 lbs, to scale that you cube the scale factor and multiply 4*4*4=64 * 15 = 960 where a full scale yaks weight about twice that. So yeah RC can sometimes be more forgiving, lighter and more powerful and recoverable but also harder because its quicker. The main reason full scale pilots can't fly RC is because they aren't used to the stick reversals.

You're trying to tell folks on here, licensed pilots, several which ARE very experienced in many types of aircraft including aerobatic, that you are right. You are dead wrong in your conclusions. Not a jab at you, but you are so far off on just about every point you're trying to make and trying to argue that point with people who know otherwise as fact is, well, pointless. Yes you are entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't make you right. And you are not right. The worst statement being rc simulators fly a lot like the real thing. I can tell you as a pilot, having flown several types, including aerobatics (albeit a drop in the bucket to the countless hours of lots of the others in this thread) an RC sim and the real deal are on opposite ends of the world from each other. Go buy you a Pitts and prove me wrong. If you taxi it without ground looping it, I'll kiss your hiney. But seriously, calling greatly experienced people bumpkins and telling them to state facts to disprove you, I'll just say go back and read the thread. They're already posted.

el touristo, your observations and assessment of the snap is not supported by the control inputs clearly visible in the video and still frame pictures. Also, understand that many full scale aerobatic pilots with thousands of hours, RetroAcro included, have weighed in on this thread up to now. Unfortunately, your claims are baseless. Don't be insulted as this and the prior posts are not meant to be.

NTSB report will be out in the next 6-12 months wtih full factual findings.

I'm a sucker, so...

Originally Posted by el touristo

But I don't know where you geniuses get off concluding that just because I'm a sim and RC pilot that my conclusion MUST be wrong.

Not the case. Your statements alone were factually off-base. Mentioning all your sim time simply added comic value.

Originally Posted by el touristo

I havn't heard ONE aerodynamic explanation for why my conclusion is wrong.

I offered some if you go back and re-read.

Originally Posted by el touristo

And it's STUPID to think bipes don't snap easier or faster, whatever, than monoplanes.

I'm confused. Are you talking sim biplanes or full-scale biplanes? If you're talking full-scale, then you could use some aerobatic experience. The number of wings alone does not necessarily make an airplane snap easier or faster. You think a Stearman snaps "easier" or faster than an Extra 330SC? A Pitts S-2B snaps faster than a Decathlon, and slower than lots of unlimited monoplanes. I assumed you were a kid because you don't run across many grown people who make such arrogant statements with ZERO practical experience. And furthermore, you're directing these statements to people who actually have full-scale aerobatic experience.

Originally Posted by el touristo

I was just addressing that there was no reason for him to try to roll upright.

Descending inverted at extremely low altitude, heading for the crowdline is not a reason to try to roll upright? Furthermore, he tried rolling upright after the airplane failed to continue rolling with left aileron applied. I believe the lack of airspeed, and the weight and drag of the wingwalker prevented the airplane from continuing the roll to the left. He had to do something. The number one thing you don't do as an airshow pilot is put the crowd at risk.

Originally Posted by el touristo

I challenge you to both explain exactly why it wasn't a snap and what it was instead.

Already did. See earlier post.

Originally Posted by el touristo

If you guys can see all the inputs from photos and video you a ahead of me.

Yep. There was one video in particular where you could see every input very clearly, all the way to the end.

Originally Posted by el touristo

Of course there was forward stick, why would there be aft?

He applied a little aft stick simultaneous with his application of right aileron in an effort to roll upright. This is visually evident from the video. I don't have a good explanation of why he would have applied aft stick while that low, inverted. All I can imagine is that either he was attempting to unload the airplane and prevent an inverted stall, or the desperate nature of the situation caused him to apply aft stick before the airplane had rolled upright enough to do any good.

Originally Posted by el touristo

And with forward stick, if a right roll gets started by ANY left rudder with a nose high attitude, the elev instantly compounds that roll and its snaps.

Some right rudder was held the entire time, not left rudder. If he did a snap roll with forward stick and right rudder, the airplane would have rolled left, not right. Airplane rolled right at the end.

Originally Posted by el touristo

Yeah there was speed but nose had just been bumped up right? Perfect setup for a snap...no?

As I already mentioned in a previous post, this could not have been an outside snap due to the roll direction, and there was not enough aft stick and rudder applied to do an inside snap to the right from that negatively loaded line. I believe the fast roll rate to the right was due to the fact that the wingwalker's weight on the wing was in this direction, and the drag of the wingwalker already added a right yaw effect. And when you apply aft elevator and right rudder along with right aileron along with these other factors, roll rate can be higher than average.

Originally Posted by el touristo

I try to be humble and careful about what I say, not arrogant.

Maybe that's the way you generally are, but sure isn't the case here.

"A 35% Extra 300 would weigh about 700lbs at scale - not 20-25lbs. " wrong. The weight scales with the cube of the scale factor. 35%= 1/2.86 scale. 2.86 cubed is 23.39. Full scale flight weight of extra about 2000. 2000/23.29 = 85.51. a far cry from 700. Yeah I guess those extras are about 22-35 lbs. And the desity of air isn't scaled up for whatever scale you are using, so I think the RC plane has to be a little lighter than scale to act similar.

Originally Posted by BOSSIER_ROB

You're trying to tell folks on here, licensed pilots, several which ARE very experienced in many types of aircraft including aerobatic, that you are right. You are dead wrong in your conclusions. Not a jab at you, but you are so far off on just about every point you're trying to make and trying to argue that point with people who know otherwise as fact is, well, pointless. Yes you are entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't make you right. And you are not right. The worst statement being rc simulators fly a lot like the real thing. I can tell you as a pilot, having flown several types, including aerobatics (albeit a drop in the bucket to the countless hours of lots of the others in this thread) an RC sim and the real deal are on opposite ends of the world from each other. Go buy you a Pitts and prove me wrong. If you taxi it without ground looping it, I'll kiss your hiney. But seriously, calling greatly experienced people bumpkins and telling them to state facts to disprove you, I'll just say go back and read the thread. They're already posted.

I'll humbly go read more. Quoting someones statement about sim and RC and using that alone to dismiss is bumpkin. I wasn't talking about the substantial part of the discussion. I will try to learn more, and maybe more will come out. Not naming names but using erroneous casual scale weight comment used against my cred is bumpkin.

it seems logical that he would've perhaps been holding a little right rudder to offset her drag, idk.
That goes against my theory. I kinda doubt the ails couldn't hold up her weight idk.
--edit--- unless there was this weird one wing stall thing which I am now convinced is what happened.
-thanks to someone that knows about Stearman.