Dave Russell) wrote:

> Consistently flying a slow roll well is really *darn* hard.

Amen. In addition to the usual heading/altitude concerns,
try real hard not to speed up the last 90 degrees of rotation :)

Also, the name, "Slow Roll" is a misnomer. A slow roll can
be done at any rate of rotation - it merely implies that the
aircraft is to apparently rotate about the longitudinal axis
(more correctly, along the extended flight path).

The faster the rate of roll, the easier it is to do a slow
roll. A megabuck composite monoplane will roll so fast,
there's almost no time for anything to go wrong :) :)

The slower the rate of roll, the harder it is to do a good
slow roll. Citabria, PT-17, etc are all much more difficult
to slow roll than the more expensive aerobatic aircraft. It's
all about keeping that heavy nose up: top rudder, push on
the stick while inverted, top rudder again. Much more pilot
skill is involved as compared to the megabuck composite monoplanes.

And if you don't have an inverted fuel system (which an
amazing number of aerobatic aircraft do not), well ...

--
aboyd ATP

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: Re: Dual Purpose Aerobatic planes--conflicts, Herb Martin
Next message: Re: Slow rolls, Ditch
Next message in thread: Re: Slow rolls, Ditch
Previous message in thread: Slow rolls, Dave Russell