Homebuilt aerobatic restriction removal

[garyt]

I'm looking on getting the restriction of my homebuilt for aerobatic removed. One of the requirements is that I need to show
pilot qualification, since there are no licence in Canada for aerobatics anyone know how I can show a pilot qualification? Has anyone been able to remove there restriction on there homebuilt?

Thanks for the help

[Hedley]

I've done this before. On the Transport website you can find the list of qualifications which a pilot must have, to perform aerobatics and remove the restriction.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/s ... 1a-535.htm

PART A

5. Simplified One-Off Aerobatic Demonstration Procedure.

This simplified procedure for the removal of the aerobatic restriction is valid for the specific aeroplane evaluated and is not considered a "type evaluation" as are the procedures of section 6 (Part B). This simplified procedure requires a flight demonstration of those manoeuvres the pilot/owner wishes to perform in his aeroplane.

Pilot Qualifications. The pilot demonstrating the aerobatic manoeuvres should have some knowledge and experience in performing aerobatics. This may include the holder of a current Aerobatic Flight Demonstration Certificate issued by Transport Canada, a Designated Airworthiness Representative (Flight Test), the holder of a current Statement of Aerobatic Competency issued by the FAA, current aerobatic instruc­tors and members of recognised aerobatic organisations, current and former military pilots with recognised training in aerobatics. Recreational aviation associations may be able to provide information and resources in pilot qualification determination.

[garyt]

Yes thank you I'm aware of the tc requirements. I'm more confused on the Pilot qualification part. If I would take 10 hours dual aerobatic instruction would I be considered "qualified"?

[mashowski]

You can hire a qualified pilot to do it for you, finding one may be a problem. I am qualified to do it for you, bring it to High River.
What kind of plane is it?
Larry

[Hedley]

If I would take 10 hours dual aerobatic instruction would I be considered "qualified"?

You might be able to smoke that past Transport, but IMHO 10 dual hours of acro on an old docile cow like a decathlon would not give you the required experience to safely perform aerobatics in an uncertified aircraft which is unfamiliar to you and may have all sorts of interesting behaviour such as unrecoverable spin characteristics in some modes.

Flying aerobatics in an unfamiliar airplane for the first time, you would never fall out of an aerobatic maneuver into an intentional inverted spin, would you?

Feel free to kill yourself trying, though. Please try not to kill anyone on the ground, ok? It looks bad in the papers when you do that.

[garyt]

Easy easy now Hedly.

I'm only asking a question! I'm very familiar with the airplane I built it. I have Well over 10,000 hours and years in MTC hangar as well. I DO need aerobatic training this is all new to me this is why I'm asking. I'm asking because I don't what to kill my self or as you put it anyone on the ground thank you for your concern.

Thanks for the offer Larry. But I would have trouble letting someone else do aerobatics in my airplane and to have something go wrong. It would be a hard life after that.

Oh it's an RV8

So does anyone know how to be qualified? or should I say how much experience should one have?

the search continues for answerers.

I may go to our good friend in the U.S. lots of guys in RV's with aerobatic experience.

[erics2b]

I DO need aerobatic training this is all new to me... I don't what to kill my self

I would have trouble letting someone else do aerobatics in my airplane and to have something go wrong. It would be a hard life after that.

Side note: You can be in the aircraft with the qualified pilot during the "Simplified One-Off Aerobatic Demonstration Procedure" flight (provided he's an acro instructor I think, so you log dual - Hedley can confirm/deny this).

So does anyone know how to be qualified? or should I say how much experience should one have?

I may go to our good friend in the U.S. lots of guys in RV's with aerobatic experience.

I'm confused - you say you don't want anyone else to do the acro, but you recognize that you're unsafe to?

A ruder person than I would then ask you if you intend to rig the aircraft with RC controls, or fabricate an aerobatic autopilot, so no one's on board, to satisfy both your ultimatums!

[Hedley]

Ok, it's an RV-8 - you didn't mention that. It's good news that you've built an aircraft of which there are lots flying aerobatics.

On the subject of RVs ... please keep the G down. It's a slippery aircraft and not particularly structurally strong. As such it's easy to make a mistake doing aerobatics and lose a lot of altitude and gain a lot of airspeed. It is NOT a good aerobatic trainer, and IMHO should only do "old man" aerobatics - rolls, loops and 1/2 cuban 8's only, and preferably in the hands of a skilled aerobatic pilot. Structurally speaking an RV isn't much stronger than a 172, and most people don't do aerobatics in a 172, either.

I tell people doing acro in an RV, you can go fast, or pull G, but please don't do both at the same time. Please pay careful attention to your Va at your weight.

Last homebuilt I signed off for acro was an RV-7A, and the owner/pilot is dead now. He didn't kill anyone on the ground, which I appreciate.

I apologize if you don't find my attitude more loving or respectful towards you, but I'm a little annoyed when people treat aerobatics with contempt. Over the decades, I've known quite a few people like that, and they're all dead now.

PS I did a first flight an an RV-9 about a week ago. I've flown aerobatics and formation aerobatics in the RV-8. I've also instructed on the RV-4 and RV-6A and RV-7A. Nice little airplanes, but they are little delicately constructed for my taste and must be carefully flown to keep the airspeed and G down to minimal levels. An Extra it surely ain't.

[garyt]

Thank you Hedley.

Now that is the kind of response I like to hear. I really appreciate your opinion and experience in the RV. I agree about everything you had to say about the RV, fun little airplane to fly around does a little of everything, and it's not really made for hardcore Acro. Like you said it does "old man acro" or the way I see it nice and smooth acro rather then the rock and roll of an Extra.

The RV is diffidently not is the same ball park as an Extra.

Now for my little rant. If I did not have any respect for acro I would have not posted any questions about acro. But the response you gave me would be enough to push people just to go out on there own. I find in aviation ego's need not be shown, allot of people get hurt because they have to much pride to ask. I for one try not to fall into that trap.

Again I appreciate your advice and I do take it seriously.

C/D

I guess what I wrote didn't come across the way I meant it to.

I hope Strega is not to hard on me. Because that is true just because you built it doesn't mean you can fly it. But it doesn't mean you can learn how to fly it. You know flying is not that difficult get some good instructions and as long as you keep learning and it doesn't matter how many hours logged. I love aviation for this there is no end to trying to improve one self.

And I guess what I mean about getting the acro restriction off the airplane. I should have said something along the line of where would be a good school for acro so I can be competent and safe to have fun in my own airplane. Keeping in mined my airplane is an RV8.

[mashowski]

Hi garyt,
I did the aerobatic evaluation for my Cassutt, and I have flown several RVs including the -8. So don't worry about me hurting myself or the airplane. And unlike Hedley, I don't have a habit of falling out of simple figures like loops or hammerheads.
(that's a joke pal so don't go ballistic again)
The RV-8 is very light in pitch especially with an aft CG (dual) so it really is not a good plane to be teaching yourself aerobatics on. A few years back a spam can pilot snapped both wings off of the factory demo RV-8, killing himself and the factory demo pilot.
Hedley mentioned the RV-9, it is lightly built and is not aerobatic, do not, I say again, do not do aerobatics in it. The wing is only stressed to 4.4G
Give me a call if you are serious about this it is easier to discuss it on the phone or in person.
Larry
//Slanderous comment removed from post by Sulako. That's a strike. Try to keep it on topic.//

FNZP aw certificate.pdf

(724.21 KiB) Downloaded 160 times

[Hedley]

unlike Hedley, I don't have a habit of falling out of simple figures like loops or hammerheads

The RV-8 is ... really is not a good plane to be teaching yourself aerobatics on.

Agreed.

I might say the same of all of the RV series, which has a history of losing big parts in flight, and as a result was for a brief while specifically banned from aerobatic contests by the IAC 'way back when - in the days of RV-3 and RV-4 - until someone mentioned to the IAC that by banning the RV they were implicitly approving all the other types, thus opening themselves up to massive liability suits, so the RV ban was rapidly lifted by the IAC.

It's important to realize that there is a "paper world", and there is the "real world".

The two are both important, but are only loosely coupled. I'm a graduate engineer, and structurally speaking, I personally don't think an RV is very much stronger than say a C172.

Forgetting about the paper world for a moment and only concentrating on the real world, I tell people that if they are comfortable doing loops, rolls and hammerheads in a C172 - it can be carefully done by a skilled aerobatic pilot with minimal G and airspeed, look at what Bob Hoover used to do - then yes, you can do loops, rolls and hammerheads in an RV.

And yes, in the paper world the RV is legal to do aerobatics, and the 172 is not. But that doesn't mean it's always a good idea to do aerobatics in the RV. Don't confuse the paper world with the real world. That's a good way to get yourself killed.

Neither a C172 nor an RV is a good aerobatic trainer, but solely from a structural engineering standpoint, both can safely do aerobatics in the hands of a skilled aerobatic pilot. An unskilled aerobatic pilot will use more airspeed and G, thus stressing the airframe more, and the unskilled aerobatic pilot may even fall out of a maneuver entirely, and cause enormous stresses on the airframe duing the ensuing unusual attitude recovery, during which you can reasonably expect to lose big pieces of the airplane in a 172 or an RV.

There's a guy with a Maule in central america that puts in an awesome airshow - he snap-rolls it, etc. Personally, I would stick to doing aerobatics in an aircraft which was specifically built for aerobatics, but maybe I'm just getting old

/* edit */

[garyt]

Thanks for all the info.

I'm just in the preliminary investigation stage, if in the real world putting an RV acro makes sense or not. If you talk to an RV owner they all tell you the same thing. "Oh ya no problem RV's tough as nails acro no prob." So I'm trying to get a broad base of opinions on the RV if it's suitable for casual Acro's.

As far as the c-172 goes that thing has got to be tough I've hammered that thing when I was first learning. I've done lots of MTC on c-172 back in the early 90's some of the thing I've seen that thing go thru I started to feel sorry for that airplane.

I hoping in the spring of 2011 to be able to head to the U.S. to get some good training. I was thinking about Executive Flyers.

Will see what next year brings around, as of now I'm still learning the machine.

Yes I'm also aware of the early 3's getting the RV slap, then they decided to make a spar change thus the rv3b and I believe on the 8 as well the made some changes after that accident.

But like it or not Acro's is a hight risk sport even some of the best have hit the great big ball.

Got to know your limits as well as the airplanes.


Larry are you located out West?

[mashowski]

I live in Okotoks and I fly out of High River or Springbank.
Most of the evaluation process is done on the ground. It involves going through your airplane to see what makes it different or unique and how this will affect the aerobatic flying qualities. ie, any significant modifications from the plans, engine/prop combination, additional equipment that may put extra stress on supporting structures, inverted systems if you got 'em, etc.
You can decide what manoeuvres you want to test it for, it can be as simple as loop, roll, spin. We already know what the flying qualities are of the -8 so the actual flying part of it doesn't have to be too involved.
You wouldn't be able to use a pilot from the U.S. to do it unless he has a Canadian license.
A flight permit has to be obtained from Transport Canada before the evaluation.

Larry Mashowski is my real name, you can look it up. My pilot license is CA422815.

//Edit by Sulako to remove another personal attack. That's a strike 2, next time is a vacation. //

[AEROBAT]

I flew a RV 7 a few weeks ago. The plane was very easy to fly but I found that the roll rate was sluggish...it would get aileron snatch at full deflection, allthough it would continue in the roll with no problem. Pitch was good and I could see someone easily over pitching and pulling a lot of G but the one thing I noticed most was lack of rudder authority. Loops rolls and split S's were a breeze but I didn't try any snap manouvers.

Mind you that was the first and only RV I have ever flown.

[mashowski]

I wouldn't do any snap rolls in an RV. Snap rolls are hard on the structure of the fuselage and vertical stabilizer.
Stay away from them unless you are in a plane that is specifically designed for advanced aerobatics like a Pitts, Extra, Sukhoi, etc.
The Extra is a fantastic plane for snaps and you can do them all day long without hurting the airplane because it was designed for it.
Mash

[Hedley]

I wouldn't do any snap rolls in an RV

Me neither. Have you seen what holds an RV vertical fin on?

Torsional loads are hard on an airframe. As a very rough rule of thumb, you want your maximum torsional load G to be 2/3 of your design (not ultimate!) G.

Example. You have an aerobatic airplane with an ultimate (breaking) G of 9. So, design G is set to 6 - that's the red line you should see on the G meter.

A torsional load maneuver should show no more than 2/3 x 6 = 4G on the meter.

Let's say your stall speed - at your current weight - is 60 mph. That limits you to

60 mph x sqrt(4) = 120 mph max for inside snaps.

You can do a similar calculation for -ve.

Again, these are all very rough rules of thumb. YMMV.

[franki]

This is some very useful information - I'm looking at getting a RV4 - I see you've built an RV8 - sweet - I'm taking tail dragger endorsement and my aerobatic training down in penticton bC - only place close to where I live that offers such training. The training I'm taking although no actual licence is given or required actually - will help me when I want to venture into doing sport aerobatics on my own. They use a citabria - which as the fellow below mentioned is not a "aerobatic Hot rod" but will teach you the basics. I also would not be comfortable - jumping into the Rv4 - and doing the same procedures. Luckily we have a fellow with one in our flying club that does aerobatics and is a certified CFI. So I think he can do some more dual lessons with me when i purchase one of these types of planes. a question for you - is the RV 4 or 8 the best one's for sport aerobatics that Van's make? I was also wondering about the RV6 or 6a? if they are as capable for sport aerobatics. Not to be confused with competion aerobatics - such as Edge 540 - Extra 300 etc... we are speaking about basic aerobatics - like ingelman's - loops, rolls etc... Well you have to start somewhere eh. haha - It's all good fun that's for sure - but being properly trained is definetly the way to go. Hopefully you can find someone in your area that has aerobatic experience on RV's - that can help you train in your own AC. Speaking about slow - AC's - I was actually suprised what that citabtria could do. Sure it's not a rocket - for sure - but ? they can pull some hefty g's - much more so that my general purpose piper! It's a good plane to start out learning aerobatics with. I think.
Best of luck to you eh.

[Osiris]

a question for you - is the RV 4 or 8 the best one's for sport aerobatics that Van's make? I was also wondering about the RV6 or 6a? if they are as capable for sport aerobatics. Not to be confused with competion aerobatics - such as Edge 540 - Extra 300 etc... we are speaking about basic aerobatics - like ingelman's - loops, rolls etc... Well you have to start somewhere eh.

I don't know what your other needs are in an aircraft, but you might consider a single seat Pitts. Surprisingly affordable for what it does. Aerobatic-wise it's much more capable, and in my opinion safer, than the RV.

[jamesel]

Franki said:

is the RV 4 or 8 the best one's for sport aerobatics that Van's make? I was also wondering about the RV6 or 6a? if they are as capable for sport aerobatics

If you are comparing RV's only to RV's -
As you noted, get dual from some-one who has had aerobatic training and aerobatic time on RV's, the specific variant doesn't matter, they all handle very much alike. The performance depends more on the weight of the aircraft, the build quality and the installed engine and prop.

The RV 7 & 8 are built a bit stronger than the 4 & 6 series - amongst other things the control surfaces are heavier gauge and the Äerobatic Gross Weight is up to something actually useful, (2 people & some fuel).

The side - by - side 6 & 7 may take a litle longer (1 or 2 lessons tops) to get used to the different sight picture when rolling to the left versus rolling to the right, so that shouldn't be a deal stopper on it's own.

The pitch forces in all the Van's series are rather light and like every other aircraft they get lighter with an aft centre of gravity. All of them, but more particularly the tandem machines (especially the 4) with a small Lyc., wood prop, big tailwheel, and no gyros can have a centre of gravity that won't allow aerobatics 2 up, even if under aerobatic gross. At the aft limit the low stick force per g can let you give yourself an unexpectedly harsh squash down if you pull a little too enthusiastically.

For solo loop and a roll on a Sunday afternoon type aerobatics, I don't think there is much difference between them all, but cost aside, overall I would rank them in order of preference as 8, 7, 6, 4. Funnily enough, that's about the way the purchase prices run, too!! The 4's are the cheapest, but I think that is mainly a reflection of both their generally older age and higher airframe/engine times, and their somewhat limited room & payload. I prefer the 8/7/6 over the 4 for room, better baggage space & payload, instrument panel space, etc - in otherwords, its' non-aerobatic qualities!

That said, I'm doing most of my current aerobatics in a RV6A

[franki]

THanks for the tips - I'm in that sort of 40G price range so unfortunately the 7's and 8's are not for me - right now anyways. My current AC is fully paid for so I'm hoping to sell it for enough to be able to afford a nice RV4 - or 6. Thanks for the tips though I really did'nt know that about the RV's that the aerobatic's is similar - I always thought that the 4 and 8 were built more for the aerobatics - and 6 - 7's more for sport flying. I have a friend with a 7a - that has 195 HP - his goes pretty good - he can usually get about 178mph or so - cruise speed. That's what he says anyways. My little piper 120mph or so. haha

I'm enjoying the training - tail wheel and aerobatics - and lucky that there is even a qualified CFI near by here where I can train. If I get the RV 4 like I mentioned one fellow in our flying club - . Ross - here in Vernon - CYVK - also has an RV4 and does some aerobatics - and works part time - semi retired for a very small school here in vernon called Sport air. I'm fully confident he would be able to do the dual I need to get famiilar with the AC. This will be my 4th aircraft - but my first "experimental" non certified AC. That used to make me very nervous - thinking of that catagorie. I realize now that these planes have an excellent proven design - and are as air worthy as any certified AC - the important thing is who built it - has there been any damage history - what maintenance schedule has been followed - and what time is on the motor - and airframe etc... Most of thes RV's are pretty low time planes - compared to piper's and cessnas etc... My plane has 4400 total time - 1979 Piper tomahawk - and now 450 SMOH. Rebuilt in 2005 - fully repainted in just last fall. it's like new now . But I've outgrown it and want more fun out of my flying experience. hence I thought I would try sport aerobatics. Since I'm one of those crazy guys that will drive to LA from here just to ride the front seat of all the most extreme coasters - and do that all day long - I'm pretty certain I'm going to love sport aerobatics. First I have to sell my tommie. Great plane for a low wing trainer - and short distance X country - flying schools etc... I bought it because of it's ease of acess for my wife - who really dosn't like flying much as I've discovered. Since it has doors on both sides - etc... So now I'm going to fly something that makes me happy - she can come too ! if she wants.

Pitts is an awesome plane - yes I could afford the solo seat Pitts - especially with a 0360 etc... amazing - but you need a hanger. Around here that is - for sure. 95000 for a hanger. may as well buy yourself a lancair at the same time! or a Hammond Rocket. haha Although the weather here is pretty good - like that of the Napa valley in CA - but with a tad more winter thrown in. Semi arid desert - here - similar to areas in the interior of WA state - like Yakima - or Winachee WA.