Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: A Look at Aerobatics Accident Statistics

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #11
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,696
    Quote Originally Posted by 2ndsegment View Post
    Why did you exclude "engine failure." Have you never heard of "Tillie" from WW-II and her diaphram for Spitfires to fly negative "g's"? Or an inverted flight tank? Saber jets, barrel roll, Phantoms oblique loop into chandelle. Don't neglect "inverted oiling system" as a missing element in aerobatic capability. This is WW-I stuff. SPADS and Nieuports? And of course can we clump oil and fuel tanks together for two strokes? Gas Turbines are beyond Brinnell with ETOPS and run dry for endurance right side up.
    Because it was not relevant to the question I was asked. To recap: "Wes Liu suggested that I take a look at aerobatics-related accidents, specifically those that occur in airplanes not approved for aerobatics, and to low-time pilots trying to teach themselves aerobatics." Mechanical failure accidents were thus excluded. Cases where the power was lost due to fuel feed issues, etc. would be included as the NTSB would still rule the cause as being related to the aerobatics.

    Ron Wanttaja
    Last edited by rwanttaja; 04-10-2021 at 12:14 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •