Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:35:10 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote in
:

The Luscombe 8A (I don't believe the 8 ) had a letter of limited
aerobatic capability from the CAA dated 1947 included in the
aircraft's
operating manual. This letter listed specific aerobatic maneuvers
approved for the 8A after joint tests between Luscombe and the CAA
were
performed.

Do you recall if snap rolls were among those maneuvers listed in that
letter?


They were. I still have it.

It's irrelevant in any case. Then an airplane was an airplane. Part of
what an airplane did was go upside down. They thought better of that
policy eventually and an aerobatic category was established, but
airplanes certified before whatever date that was, (about 1950, maybe a
bit earlier) were, for better or worse, exempt from any such
restriction.
Luscombes are tough, but not as tough as legend would have one believe.
A couple have been lost over the years, but fewer than many of it's
certified aerobatic brethren. It's not a particularly good aerobatic
airplane. The roll rate is very slow, almost glider like. Barrel rolls
are fine and it loops OK but snaps are not great especially at the
relatively low entry speed of 70 mph that's recommended.
Add in the multiple structural ADs the airplane has and it's not what
you could call a first class aerobatic mount. I'd still loop, barrel
roll and wingover a good one, but that's all.
A new one would be another story..

The Taylorcraft was well able for aerobatics in stock form. Same sort fo
stuff It does aileron rolls quite a lot better than the Luscombe (though
it;s been many years since I've flown one, wheras I've had a Luscombe
upside down recently)

Modded for aerbatics with clipped wings and only a few more ponies, it's
one of the best aerobatic airplanes ever made.




Bertie