Did anyone feel 0 fear their first aerobatic flight?

[Ed Haywood]

What is the real difference between the hammerhead and the wingover, providing you don’t tail-slide it.

Timing of the pivot. Wingover is done with some airspeed remaining, so the flight path at the top is a lateral arc. Hammer is done at the exact point where the aircraft runs out of airspeed, so the turn is completed within one aircraft length and the aircraft goes straight back down the same vertical line it came up. In theory, at least.

 

[Dana]

In a hammerhead you risk a tail slide, in a wingover you risk an inverted spin.

Though I always thought of a wingover as more of a steep half lazy 8, not quite vertical bank.

 

[MajorTurbulence]

Timing of the pivot. Wingover is done with some airspeed remaining, so the flight path at the top is a lateral arc. Hammer is done at the exact point where the aircraft runs out of airspeed, so the turn is completed within one aircraft length and the aircraft goes straight back down the same vertical line it came up. In theory, at least.

I had never encountered the term wingover in competition. I guess if it was “sloppy” with too much vertical airspeed at the pivot, that should get you downgraded. On the other hand, if you were dumb enough to find yourself in a box canyon, anyway you do it would be acceptable( unless it was really narrow).

 

[RoscoeT]

In a hammerhead you risk a tail slide, in a wingover you risk an inverted spin.

Wingover is a lazy positive G maneuver with very little elevator or rudder deflection. You're nowhere near inverted spin risk territory. You need near full forward stick and near full rudder to spin inverted. Not gonna happen during a wingover. Newbies have ended up in inverted spins from hammerhead attempts though, not so much because they slid out, but because they generally kicked with too much vertical airspeed and hamfisted the forward stick input which basically produces a negative snap roll going vertical with inputs that will develop into an inverted spin if you sit there and let it happen without pulling power and neutralizing the controls to recover.

 

[Ed Haywood]

I had never encountered the term wingover in competition. I guess if it was “sloppy” with too much vertical airspeed at the pivot, that should get you downgraded. On the other hand, if you were dumb enough to find yourself in a box canyon, anyway you do it would be acceptable( unless it was really narrow).

I also have little experience with wingovers, since they are not a competition maneuver. Seems like mostly a military thing. Like barrel rolls, probably a lot a variety in how they are flown. I've probably done at least a hundred hammers, so fairly comfortable with the nuances of those. Hammers have very clear and consistent standards, as you know.

To tie it back to the post I was commenting on, the poster stated his CFI demo'd a hammer in a 172. While maybe possible, that is extremely reckless, because there is zero margin for error if you botch the pivot. IMO that CFI should lose his license and maybe be criminally prosecuted for putting an unknowing student at risk. I also question whether a 172 would have sufficient rudder authority to fly a real hammer.

A wingover, being the kind of "warbird" or gentleman's acro described by Rosco and Dana, seems more plausible and somewhat less insane.

 

[Dana]

Not gonna happen during a wingover. Newbies have ended up in inverted spins from hammerhead attempts though, not so much because they slid out, but because they generally kicked with too much vertical airspeed and hamfisted the forward stick input which basically produces a negative snap roll going vertical with inputs that will develop into an inverted spin...

I was being half facetious, but the botched hammerhead scenario you describe is similar to Ed's description of a wingover. Not too likely with a mellow flying plane but it has bit more than a few Pitts drivers.

 

[jesse]

In a hammerhead you risk a tail slide, in a wingover you risk an inverted spin.

Though I always thought of a wingover as more of a steep half lazy 8, not quite vertical bank.

Really unlikely to happen - unless you enter way too slow and stall prior to beginning the bank. Once you begin the bank, you're not pulling. With no pulling, there will be no stall, and no inverted spin.

If my nose is really high, and I'm running out of energy soon, wing-over is going to be my default response pretty much regardless of what the airplane is. It's a lot more gentle than a big 0G shove-over. As long as you don't pull, you won't stall, and you'll safely exit the nose-high attitude.

Really brings me back to the memories of my dad & grandpa crop-dusting in the Stearman. There was a wing-over at the end of every pass (with maybe the exception of the first one or two if the airplane was incredibly heavy and couldn't get very vertical).

 

[MajorTurbulence]

Really unlikely to happen - unless you enter way too slow and stall prior to beginning the bank. Once you begin the bank, you're not pulling. With no pulling, there will be no stall, and no inverted spin…………..

When you say bank, you mean aileron neutral but kicking with full rudder deflection to the left until nose pointing down, right? ( and also providing the pivot is made with enough energy left to allow whatever size rudder you have to do the job)

 

[jesse]

When you say bank, you mean aileron neutral but kicking with full rudder deflection to the left until nose pointing down, right? ( and also providing the pivot is made with enough energy left to allow whatever size rudder you have to do the job)

I do not mean aileron neutral. In the crop duster version of this (or to escape an unusual attitude), you'd generally begin the bank before you got to absolute minimum energy. It'd be some combination of ailerons and rudder to do so.

Generally you start pitching really high, and beginning the banking somewhere during that pitching. Depending on the reason you are doing a wing-over, you might start banking sooner in that vertical pull, or other times you might do it much later. Either way, you're looking to end up at about 90 degrees bank at your highest pitch point, with some energy left so that you don't stall prior to the wings getting to 90, You don't need much energy, as once you get the wings vertical, gravity has all you need. From there, gravity pulls the nose down, and you roll out of the bank/level the nose at the rates that are needed to put you headed back in the direction you came from.

Is there some competition definition you're referring to which says you wouldn't begin the bank until minimum energy and that you'd do so with ailerons neutral by stomping a rudder pedal? I'm always interesting in learning, but that does not sound like the wing-overs I am familiar with.

Maybe you're confusing a wing-over with a hammer head?

 

[MajorTurbulence]

Maybe you're confusing a wing-over with a hammer head?

I’m laughing, but not at all at you, but at the variability of how pilots define what a wing-over is, and how to fly them. I asked that exact question about 10 posts earlier as I was not sure what folks were talking about. My only frame of reference was in the definition and performance of a hammerhead. I refer you to this definition/explanation by one of pilots on this thread:

Timing of the pivot. Wingover is done with some airspeed remaining, so the flight path at the top is a lateral arc. Hammer is done at the exact point where the aircraft runs out of airspeed, so the turn is completed within one aircraft length and the aircraft goes straight back down the same vertical line it came up. In theory, at least.

This explanation is easily understood by me. As has been pointed out, the term wing-over is not a competition maneuver.

I would say this regarding the performance of a hammerhead, or the wingover in this definition, and take a stab at why. Many aerobatic aircraft have very effective ailerons. To keep the proper vertical line once established, you would not use the ailerons, except to keep them neutral. If you did to the left, an adverse yaw would be created to the right. In order to counter that, some of your available left rudder would have to be used to counter that. In my mind, as a result, this reduces the rest of the available rudder effectiveness to achieve the leftward pivot in its entirety to complete the maneuver.(along with the leftward tendency of the engine to yaw left at full power). The maneuver has to be completed before energy is lost or some complicated occurs, whether tail slide or other.

 

[RoscoeT]

I would say this regarding the performance of a hammerhead, or the wingover in this definition, and take a stab at why. Many aerobatic aircraft have very effective ailerons. To keep the proper vertical line once established, you would not use the ailerons, except to keep them neutral. If you did to the left, an adverse yaw would be created to the right. In order to counter that, some of your available left rudder would have to be used to counter that. In my mind, as a result, this reduces the rest of the available rudder effectiveness to achieve the leftward pivot in its entirety to complete the maneuver.(along with the leftward tendency of the engine to yaw left at full power).

Doesn't work out like this. In a hammerhead, the vertical upline is flown at zero angle of attack, so there is no adverse yaw even if you do move the ailerons. And you only really need to move the ailerons at the very top, just before the pivot if you're in a high powered airplane that is very torque-affected, such as a Pitts S-1. In this case, you move the ailerons to the right (Lycoming engine) to counter torque, but there is no adverse yaw. There is slipstream yaw though, which is different. The propeller slipstream spirals around the fuselage and tightens the slower you get. With near zero airspeed at the top, you must use some right rudder to keep the airplane perfectly vertical in yaw before using left rudder to pivot the airplane. All of this assumes a motor that turns in the direction of a Lycoming.

But regarding the wingover, it's not really a hammerhead with excess airspeed over the top. It's just a steep (but not vertical) climb, where you bank the airplane vertically near the top and just let the airplane fly a tight ballistic trajectory over the top at very low airspeed. You really don't need to pivot the airplane with rudder. It's just a near zero G float over the top. Gravity does the work turning the airplane around, not the rudder.

 

[MajorTurbulence]

You are right in what you explained. I haven’t thought about this stuff in decades and you induced me to look up a bunch of stuff. The first thing was that the angle of attack on the ascending vertical was zero. Not an intuitive concept when pointing 90degrees up except when I realized the plane is not “flying” by virtue of the wings but is moving up by momentum and/or pulled up by the engine and prop. And to buttress your statement, I think I recall that when rolling on the vertical ascent, rotation via ailerons was not accompanied by any movements that required rudder.

The other thing I thought I was sure of was the lack of aileron needed at the time left rudder was used rotate the fuselage downward. It should not be surprising that the high-tork short wing biplane Pitts S1 would require some idiosyncratic and slightly different control inputs than the monoplane Lycoming 180hp CAP10Bs that have 9 ft longer span, that I had flown. The need to use right aileron is one of those differences for the hammerhead that I doubt is needed for the CAP10B. Probably other accommodations exist for other maneuvers to be performed and to appear ideal from a judges perspective.

Maybe what you and others call wingovers have more in common with each other. Although your diagram looks tempting except for it’s right turn for clockwise turning engines, and having practiced hammerheads, if forced into the emergency maneuver, I would prefer the variation with excess airspeed at the point of rotation. It seems to me to be more efficient(ie more compact), and as long as there is enough centrifugal force and/or inertia on the stuff in the passenger/baggage compartment (if not belted down) when rotating or on the down line, not sure if it is any less safe. However, tail sliding must be scrupulously avoided.

 

[RoscoeT]

I think I recall that when rolling on the vertical ascent, rotation via ailerons was not accompanied by any movements that required rudder.

Correct, no rudder required for a true vertical roll unless you're flying an airplane (like a Vans RV) with differential ailerons. But most aerobatic airplanes do not have diff ailerons. But sometimes you will use tiny rudder and elevator inputs during a vertical roll to correct small input errors in order to keep the airplane perfectly vertical during the roll. Those outside of the competition acro world are generally not too obsessed with these tiny details though.

The other thing I thought I was sure of was the lack of aileron needed at the time left rudder was used rotate the fuselage downward. It should not be surprising that the high-tork short wing biplane Pitts S1 would require some idiosyncratic and slightly different control inputs than the monoplane Lycoming 180hp CAP10Bs that have 9 ft longer span, that I had flown. The need to use right aileron is one of those differences for the hammerhead that I doubt is needed for the CAP10B. Probably other accommodations exist for other maneuvers to be performed and to appear ideal from a judges perspective.

Yep, not all airplanes will start torque rolling prior to the hammer pivot. Planes with longer wings and/or lower power to weight ratios than a Pitts S-1 generally don't torque roll prior to the pivot even though during the pivot itself some aileron may be needed to control torquing. The precise technique required is specific to the aircraft.

Maybe what you and others call wingovers have more in common with each other. Although your diagram looks tempting except for it’s right turn for clockwise turning engines, and having practiced hammerheads, if forced into the emergency maneuver, I would prefer the variation with excess airspeed at the point of rotation. It seems to me to be more efficient(ie more compact), and as long as there is enough centrifugal force and/or inertia on the stuff in the passenger/baggage compartment (if not belted down) when rotating or on the down line, not sure if it is any less safe. However, tail sliding must be scrupulously avoided.

IMO hammerheads and wingovers have practically nothing in common. That diagram above is for a wingover which can be flown just fine in either direction regardless of the direction the engine turns. But hammerhead performance is far worse in the direction opposite the slipstream yaw.

 

[MajorTurbulence]

But sometimes you will use tiny rudder and elevator inputs during a vertical roll to correct small input errors in order to keep the airplane perfectly vertical during the roll.

A fine but important tip you have made 2 times regarding rudder. Not just important for a precise vertical line in competition, but also for aerobatic demonstrations. There is little worse than, as a spectator, watching an otherwise beautiful routine including a hammerhead with a crappy crabing to the left airplane on the ascending vertical because a lack of sufficiently increasing R rudder.

IIRC, easily rectified by looking over each wing to make the displacement from horizon equal, and stay that way.

You know, while it’s been almost 4 decades, I bet I could perform a reasonably precise routine in the right aircraft. Some things are harder to forget.

 

[RoscoeT]

There is little worse than, as a spectator, watching an otherwise beautiful routine including a hammerhead with a crappy crabing to the left airplane on the ascending vertical because a lack of sufficiently increasing R rudder.

I hear ya, though my last comment about tiny rudder corrections was for vertical rolls rather than hammerheads. Tiny rudder and elevator corrections can be made especially in the beginning of the vertical roll to keep the wingtip locked on the same position relative to the horizon as the airplane rolls.

IIRC, easily rectified by looking over each wing to make the displacement from horizon equal, and stay that way.

You can do that, but it's easy to inadvertently go off line slightly as you're bobbing your head back and forth. You really only need to learn the proper sight picture while looking at a single wingtip to know that you're perfectly vertical in pitch and yaw. Once you learn this (sighting device makes this easier), you don't need to look back and forth between both wing tips to check for an equal sight picture.

 

[Guy Zindel]

Was I afraid or nervous? Nope. Annoyed damn straight... went out in an rv6a, we did a couple of rolls(no chutes).. no big woop. Then he thought he'd be cute and do a snap and loop in close prox to the damn craigy front range mountains near our airport, didn't ask if I was cool no heads up no nuthin' im 265 and 6‐1... bird sounded like it was going to crap the bed, like a pile of empty tuna cans slamming around in the back of an empty moving van.... not cool, crappy harness too. I'll never do that to anyone.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Since this thread got resurrected and I hadn't seen the whole hammerhead vs wingover discussion...

The way I look at it, a wingover is half a lazy eight that' really isn't lazy: Increase pitch first while slowly increasing bank, then continue to bank in the same direction while letting the nose slice down through the horizon as you reach 90º of bank, let the nose continue downwards as you begin lessening the bank angle, and finally let the nose come back up to level as you're removing the rest of the bank. The first and last quarters of the maneuver require you to have flying airspeed, while the middle part follows a more ballistic trajectory.

In contrast, a hammerhead (my definition based on my experience, not official whatsoever) is more of a pull to a straight vertical upline that you hold until the airspeed is about to run out, then quick kick the rudder over and use enough opposite aileron and nose down input such that where one wing starts on the horizon at the top of the upline, you slice the nose and the other wing through the same spot and then you have a straight downline and build up airspeed for a couple seconds before you pull out.

So, to me, the difference is that the wingover really has no straight lines, the airplane is following a path that curves in all axes and the control inputs are constantly changing, while a hammerhead has a distinct upline and downline with a bunch of stuff that happens quickly right at the top.