Time to earn license for professionals

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:14:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote in
:

You could get a decent snap out of the 8A by breaking the stall ...

I don't recall the Luscomb nor the Taylorcraft being certified for
aerobatics. Did you two fellows have an FAA waiver for aerobatics in
the aircraft in question, or were they registered in the experimental
category?

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:14:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote in
:

You could get a decent snap out of the 8A by breaking the stall ...

I don't recall the Luscomb nor the Taylorcraft being certified for
aerobatics. Did you two fellows have an FAA waiver for aerobatics in
the aircraft in question, or were they registered in the experimental
category?

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.
The limit load factors both ways if I remember right were -2.2 to + 4.5.
The airplane was never certified in the aerobatic category however, and
even the limited aerobatics approved for the airplane were approved
suggesting a high degree of skill if these maneuvers were to be attempted.
That's all I remember about the airplane. Perhaps Bertie, having owned
them has more detailed data for you.

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:14:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote in
:

You could get a decent snap out of the 8A by breaking the stall ...

I don't recall the Luscomb nor the Taylorcraft being certified for
aerobatics. Did you two fellows have an FAA waiver for aerobatics in
the aircraft in question, or were they registered in the experimental
category?

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.
The limit load factors both ways if I remember right were -2.2 to +
4.5. The airplane was never certified in the aerobatic category
however, and even the limited aerobatics approved for the airplane
were approved suggesting a high degree of skill if these maneuvers
were to be attempted. That's all I remember about the airplane.
Perhaps Bertie, having owned them has more detailed data for you.


They were good for considerably more than that on paper, but the CAA didn't
realy have an aerobatic category back then, so almost everything was legal.
The handbook did indeed have a list of entry speeds and some have competed
(not very well) in the sportsman class. Unlike the T-Cart, of course, one
of which won the '66 (?) world championship.
As you said, the t-craft would still be competitive today if vertical stuff
didn't get as many points as the did.. Now where are those Swick plans...


Bertie

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?

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

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.

Yep. Here it is:

http://www.popularaviation.com/docs/...Aerobatics.pdf

Article about Luscombe aerobatic "certification":
http://www.popularaviation.com/Lusco...leDtl.asp?id=7
Is the Luscombe Aerobatic?
Disclaimer: PopularAviation.com makes no claim or warranty as to
accuracy of these articles. You and your mechanic are responsible
for your aircraft.

By: Bill Dickey
Posted: Tuesday, July 17, 2001

Updated February 17, 2004

Question: My Instructor is a great aerobatic pilot and says the
Luscombe is a full acrobatic airplane. How aerobatic is the
Luscombe really?.

Answer: The Luscombe is an FAA standard category aircraft. It is
not certified nor built for aerobatics. During World War II a list
of entry speeds for various aerobatic maneuvers was published in
1947 for the Luscombe Airplane Corporation. Its purpose was to aid
sale of Luscombes to schools teaching flying to WW II veterans
learning to fly under Public Law 346. This was the much praised GI
Bill of Rights that paid educational expenses for returning
veterans. The letter from the CAA included both 8A and 8E
airplanes but did not include fabric wing airplanes. The speeds
were the result of an evaluation by a US CAA test pilot who deemed
that the aircraft could safely perform correctly executed mild
aerobatics. This document spawned the myth that the Luscombe 8
series are aerobatic airplanes. (See a PDF version of that
document by clicking here.)

Like a number of people, I misunderstood that the Luscombe was
aerobatic and, twenty five years ago, performed a number of loops,
Immelmans, wingovers, hammerheads and various rolls including snap
rolls. When the airplane was disassembled for restoration three
years ago we discovered that the number 8 fuselage bulkhead
(vertical fin rear spar attach point) was deformed and torn. The
damage may have been due to overstress during the snap rolls.

Can correctly performed 1G aerobatics be safely performed in a
Standard Category airplane? Of course, if you don't make a mistake
that could result in overstress. Is it a good idea to perform
aerobatics in a 50 year old airplane that wasn't designed for
them? Perhaps not.

The Luscombe was marketed as a strong airplane, thus the many
factory photos of two dozen pretty girls perched on the wing.
These images were specifically created to counter the concerns at
the time that a metal airplane was not as strong as airplanes that
had welded steel tube fuselages and laminated wood wing spars.
True, Luscombes are pretty tough, but there are several
Airworthiness Directives on the airframe that were the result of
structural failures or persistent corrosion damage.

As far as aerobatic performance and handling are concerned, the
Luscombe is OK for a low powered airplane. Smooth manuevers are
the result of good technique and careful energy management. Those
heavy ailerons make rolls a bit of work, but it sure does snap
well due to that powerful rudder. Ditto for hammerheads. The
airplane spins well and recoveries are very conventional. Spins,
by the way, are legal in standard category aiplanes (unless
prohibited by placard) for training purposes.

My source of historical data on this topic was a series of
conversations with Mr. Doug Combs, the founder of DLAHF. His
knowledge of the Luscombe type is well known. He also has some
personal experience with in flight structural failures in
Luscombes.

If you decide to perform areobatics in your Luscombe, good
luck--you may need it.

Bill Dickey
Kirkland, WA



Type certificate:
http://www.popularaviation.com/docs/LuscombeTC.pdf

Pilot Operation Handbooks, Service Bulletions and other manuals:
http://www.popularaviation.com/Lusco...mbeManuals.asp

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/8d006abbddeb78428525673c004dd3f3/$FILE/a-694.pdf

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.

Yep. Here it is:

Yes, i've seen it. It's all correct except that there was no "standard"
category back in 1947.


What's your point?

Bertie

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:14:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote in
:

You could get a decent snap out of the 8A by breaking the stall ...

I don't recall the Luscomb nor the Taylorcraft being certified for
aerobatics. Did you two fellows have an FAA waiver for aerobatics in
the aircraft in question, or were they registered in the experimental
category?



Get a grip Larry. All aircraft built before 49 are allowed to do
aerobatics. Some cub handbooks has directions on how to do loops.

Bertie

On Sep 19, 11:48 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Larry Dighera wrote :

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:14:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote in
:

You could get a decent snap out of the 8A by breaking the stall ...

I don't recall the Luscomb nor the Taylorcraft being certified for
aerobatics. Did you two fellows have an FAA waiver for aerobatics in
the aircraft in question, or were they registered in the experimental
category?

Get a grip Larry. All aircraft built before 49 are allowed to do
aerobatics. Some cub handbooks has directions on how to do loops.

Bertie

I routinely did +G maneuvers in my '46 BC12D back in the 60's... I
saw it again recently, still flying and looks good...

denny

Denny wrote in
ups.com:

On Sep 19, 11:48 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Larry Dighera wrote
:

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:14:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote in
:

You could get a decent snap out of the 8A by breaking the stall ...

I don't recall the Luscomb nor the Taylorcraft being certified for
aerobatics. Did you two fellows have an FAA waiver for aerobatics
in the aircraft in question, or were they registered in the
experimental category?

Get a grip Larry. All aircraft built before 49 are allowed to do
aerobatics. Some cub handbooks has directions on how to do loops.

Bertie

I routinely did +G maneuvers in my '46 BC12D back in the 60's... I
saw it again recently, still flying and looks good...

Mine's still flying too. Nice thing about wooden spars is if you don't
crack them doing whatever mad maneuver you might try they are just as
strong the next time you fly, unlike a tin airplane..


They were nice airplanes. I'd love to try a clip wing somtime. A much
better contender for a modern aerobatic trainer than the Champ ever
was..


Bertie