Talk:Aerobatics/Archive 1

Archive 1

Moving of famous teams to end of article

The famous teams list has become long and ungainly, and a lot of people are jockeying for their favorite team to be first in the list. The list also does not add any content about aerobatics itself. Thus I have moved it to the end of the article. Daleh 20:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The Black Eagles link goes to a criminal/paramilitary group rather than the ROKAF display team. The "Black Eagle" disambiguation does not offer the display team either. Sorry, I'm too much of a newb to fix this... I think. Chann94501 14:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wild Mustang

I lifted this from P-51:

• Cloud Dancer (1980): a melodramatic tale of aerobatic fliers includes aerial sequences with a P-51.

if anybody wants to try & figure out if it belongs. Trekphiler (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Aerobatic Teams website

Hi, my site "aerobaticteams DOT net" is blacklisted for a long time since my past webmaster spaming to reach me more trafic. Since that stuped thing my site is blacklisted. Please help if you have time to see my site and insure that Aerobatic teams website is not a spam site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.100.77.142 (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

G limits (reversion)

An editor changed the +/-10g limit reference in Unlimited competition aerobatics to +9/-3g. Unlimited category pilots and aircraft do withstand +10 (sometimes a bit more) and up to -10, so I've undone the change. (In fact, competitors flying in lower categories will pull tight corners, over 9g, but rarely push this hard.) I'll hunt around for an independent reference. An aside: this would be an interesting topic to include in a discrete article (Physiological effects of high-G flight?), as there has been some study in this area. Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 19:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Dedicated treatment of humans' ability to withstand g would be a good idea. A new discrete article is unlikely to be necessary because there is already good coverage in existing articles g-force and Load factor (aerodynamics). Dolphin51 (talk) 02:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 02:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jim, you will find that +10g is quite unusual in most unlimted aerobatocs and you _never_ see -10g. Lets' be serious, what is Pitts special stressed to +6/-5!! That's an unlimted class airplane. Even Sukhoi is limted to -10 and no aero pilot would intentionally take it that far (he/she would also be seriously damaged in the eyes). I suggest the +/- 10g is exaggerating top class unlimited aero diplays. If you cant find a ref to the very high -g figure we limit it to a number that is based on plane limits (Such as a Pitts Secial) as that would be wiki:ver Cheers MarkC 11:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbcannell (talk • contribs)

I've done some digging and found a good article. I suggest the text be changed to: "Experienced aerobatic pilots have been measured to typically pull +/-5g for short periods . The limits for +ve g are higher than for -ve g and this is due to the ability to limit bllod pooling, but it is generally accepted that +10 g for more than a few seconds will lead to loss of consciousness." This at least is wiki:ver via the ref I gave. OK? Cheers MarkCMarkC 11:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbcannell (talk • contribs)

This article is presently without any references or in-line citations. WP:V says The threshhold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I have added the References headline banner.

I have also deleted any reference to positive and negative limits on g levels in unlimited competition. The first editor to find a reliable, authoritative source to support some encyclopedic comment about these g levels is most welcome to insert that comment providing that editor also supplies that source as an in-line citation. Dolphin51 (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(Disclaimer: Some WP:OR and WP:POV follows, but only for the sake of this discussion.) Hi again, Mark. The Pitts and its ilk no longer define the Unlimited category, having been replaced by Sukhois, Edges, some Extras and the like. The faster monoplanes require tighter corners (part-loops) to stay in the 1 km² box than did the biplanes. I fly Intermediate in an Extra and routinely pull up to +9; my wife flies Unlimited in an Edge and does the same or a bit more. The Red Bull guys had been pulling around +12, but I believe the organizers have now made that disqualifying for safety reasons. As for negative: I know no one who's admitted (to me) to pushing more than about -7; my wife pushes around -6 when she must. Do people push harder? Probably, and though I also doubt that it approaches -10, I can't offer evidence. As for locating verifiable sources for the article, it remains on my to-do list. Regards, Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 12:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Jim, I've added some refs for the lower g figures, as required for WK:V. If you can find higher numbers then put them in by all means but watch out for hanger talk. Cheers MarkCMarkC 13:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbcannell (talk • contribs)

Hello Mark & Dolphin51: would you have a look at this piece by Dr. Dougal Watson, particularly the section Other G-related problems, paragraph 4? Though it quotes ±12g, would you consider this satisfactory verifiability that ±10g is within the realm of aerobatic competition experience? Thanks, Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 15:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jim, it's anectdotal so I'd say no. What do you think about the overall reliability of a source who says: "The Pitts S-2A and S1, although rated from +6.0 to -3.0Gz, commonly operate between +9Gz and -9Gz, and are probably capable of +10Gz to -10Gz without structural failure"? Is that legal? 3 times the certified structural limit? Since one cannot control the cardio. effects of -gz its generally agreed to be much worse than +gz and 9 g is blackout territory without straining manoeuvres-can we agree on that? Cheers MarkC 20:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbcannell (talk • contribs)

Hi Jim and Mark. I think you guys are losing sight of the wood because of all the trees. The Introductory section of a general article on aerobatics was becoming a forum for detailed information about humans' ability to withstand g forces. I have attempted to mitigate the problem a little by removing all this detailed information from the Introduction and transferring it to a new sub-section which I have called "Competition".

I really think the state-of-the-art detail about what competition aerobatic pilots are currently achieving belongs in g-force rather than in this general introductory article on aerobatics.

Mark - there is a problem with your posts on Talk pages. You need to learn how to sign your name using four tildes. You keep receiving gentle reminder messages on your User talk page, and you keep deleting them. But you continue to save your messages on Talk pages before you sign with four tildes. If you keep doing that you will keep receiving the gentle reminder messages. Dolphin51 (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm adding 4 tildes but some reason it doesn't always work?? Here they are-> MarkC 04:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbcannell (talk • contribs)

Hi Dolphin51 & Mark. Gents, I'm equally fine with any one or more of these options:

• Dolphin's original change (removing the ±10G data entirely)
• Booting the competition data from the lede, where it clearly doesn't belong. (The Competition aerobatics article should be the main repository for it in any case.)
• Moving information dealing with the human physiological effects of G loading to a more appropriate, extant article

Given that we 3 are having a healthy discussion about this, I request that we agree to set aside be bold for a day or so and defer any more immediate changes to the article until we find some consensus, or agree that we cannot.

Mark, here's a sentence you added that concerns me somewhat:

Experienced aerobatic pilots have been measured to typically pull +/-5g for short periods while unlimited pilots can perform more extreme manoeuvres and experience higher g levels -possibly up to +8/-6g.

I've scanned the reference piece you cite and find no substantiation for this. (It's inaccurate in two dimensions: the precise numbers stated and the distinction drawn between "experienced aerobatic pilots" and "Unlimited (category) pilots".) Would you say, please, what's the source for this?

Regards, as always, Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 01:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi jim, the references are given: I quote: "In one study both G's and time were recorded during four competitive sequences or airshows. The pilot experienced negative G's about half of the total time spent in the performance. Approximately 10 percent of the time he has pulling +2Gz or more with spikes to +5.4Gz, and about 10 percent of the time he pulled -3Gz or more with spikes to -5.2Gz. In an "obligatory" outside 360-degree turn the pilot experienced -2Gz or more for 32 seconds.The horizontal rolling 360-degree turn produced rapid and repeated G oscillations. In 28 seconds the pilot experienced 6 major G excursions: -3.4, +2.3, -3.5, +2.0, -4.0, and +2.3. The first transition from negative to positive G's was 5.7G's in 2 seconds, or approximately 2.9G's/second. The outside-inside vertical 8 as was probably the most physiologically demanding; the pilot experienced a maximum of -5.2G's in the upper outside loop and 5 seconds later pulled +5.0 G's in the lower inside loop. This amounted to 10.2 G's in 5 seconds, or over 2G's per second for 5 seconds. Even G-tolerant pilots may have changes in vision or possibly loss of consciousness in this maneuver". MarkC 05:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbcannell (talk • contribs)

Good morning, Mark. Thanks, yes: I saw this passage in the reference you cited – let's call it [1] for brevity – but I don't understand how it serves as a reference for the sentence I quoted. Can we agree that [1] describes the study of a single pilot performing 4 flights? If so, it's usable only to identify one datapoint: that for the pilot measured. (Ascribing a behavior to a class of individuals from the study of a single member of that class is not valid.) There is no mention in [1] that distinguishes "experienced pilots" from "Unlimited pilots". Moreover, there is no language in [1] that supports the phrase, "Experienced aerobatic pilots have been measured to typically pull +/-5g…" because [1] measures exactly one pilot – and doesn't even claim that this pilot "typically" pulls ±5g. The essence of my issue is that the assertion is unsupported by the reference and should be stricken.

Hi Jim. I think I see your objection. I would say that since he was displaying in an airshow and comptetition he was experienced.... But no matter, as I think we can resolve this issue by following the layout I suggest below... By the way, in the physiology study I cite below 5 pilots were tested during their normal display routines (3 times each) and the highest g's recorded were: +6.5/-3.5 in a CAP231 and the average overall was +5.7/-3.2. These pilots were experienced aero pilots; they had up to 5000 hours and up to 500 aero hours and were members of the French airforce aerobatic team (pretty impeccable credentials as experienced pilots -no?). That does not mean that higher g's might be pulled but that would be outside the norm for typical aeros. from the literature I've found (which actually recorded the g's) ... Cheers

21:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbcannell (talk • contribs)

Hi Mark. I think the article's purpose is best served if we don't get too precise about G loading as it relates to what pilots encounter in aerial displays or competition. Mentioning the G limits to which a sampling of aircraft are certified would be ok and quite verifiable. The topic of G limits that pilots encounter is stickier, of which our conversation over the last few days is proof. I think we'd agree that different aircraft require different G-loads to remain in the box (or display area) on account of their wing design, engine-prop combination, airspeed range, control surface effectiveness, aerodynamic drag, and so on. We might also agree that pilot capability to withstand G is dependent on number of factors, too, including physical conditioning and well-being, proper application of AGSM, seating position, diet, tolerance of discomfort and more. There are Wikipedia articles (the Human tolerance section of g-force possibly being one) that might benefit by inclusion of some of this research. As far as the Aerobatics article goes, I propose that g-force deserves only a modicum of coverage in the same way that aerodynamic factors does. Best regards, Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 17:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Jim, yes I agree. Let's talk about why more g is needed, the limits of g for planes, why more vertical performance lead to more speed that leads to more g, structure of aero. planes, some physiology (I can write that with no problem). I'll try a version of the lead and you can edit it ti fit the mark (LOL). Cheers

MarkC (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mark. Great to see that you have the interest and energy to pursue this. So that we don't get into a rash of quick succession edits and reversions on the article proper, would you consider copying the article to a sandbox under your user page and saving it there first? Once you've made your first pass of edits, you can post a note on this talk page inviting all interested parties to review the changes in the sandbox and comment. Nothing would stop you from editing the article in place, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James R. Ward (talk • contribs) 01:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Jim a good idea but I don't know how to use the sandbox in this way... I've therefore just done the intro section as is but I you can help by dumping it in the sandbox and pointing me to where that is I'll gladly follow your lead.... MarkC (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Popping up a level or two, the last 2 sentences that Dolphin moved from the lede to the Competition section are tangential to the article's subject matter and should both probably be stricken; the latter might find a home in one of the G-related articles previously cited if a supporting reference can be identified. Regards, Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 16:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree to Jim's suggestion of a ceasefire for as many days as it takes to achieve some measure of consensus. The article is in a satisfactory state now that the contentious detail has been moved out of the Introduction. The article is still lacking any form of reference or in-line citation, so if you find any good citations in the next few days please add them to the article. Cheers. Dolphin51 (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

J+D, How about this. In the lede we describe how the rapid changes in direction lead to high forces on plane and pilot. This means that aero. planes must be structurally stronger and we give typical structural g-limits for both normal and aerobatic planes. Don't forget glider aeros. Then describe how pulling a loop requires about 3.5g in a (say) an aerobat or citabria/decathalon which is close to the limit for a normal cat plane (+4g). We note that more extreme manouvers and faster planes require higher forces.

in a new section called perfomance, we describe phsyiological conditing reuired for top pilots and planes. I've found a good research paper that describes changes in VO2 and HR during measured g excursions in experienced pilots in CAP 10 and CAP231 aircraft. We also desribe why/how aero planes are different. Finally we talk cerification requirements? Any other ideas or shall we divvy these tasks up? Cheers MarkC 20:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbcannell (talk • contribs)

J+D, I've made a first pass at the lead, please help by referencing/editing it further... If someone would like to work on a section on "Aerobatic aircraft" to define the basic structural differences from a normal category aircraft cf. FAA (hint to D?) while maybe someone else would like to work on how "aerobatic sequences" are constructed and executed (hint to J?) I'll have a go at simple physiology issues for pilots (my Ph.D. is in physiology/biophysics). I think this is going to make a great wiki page! Cheers MarkC MarkC (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

References

Introductory section

On 30 April IP address 130.216.133.23 (possibly MarkC) edited the introductory section. I have reverted the edit for the following reasons:

• The additional text was undoubtedly correct technically, but it was too dense with jargon and technical specialisation for the introductory paragraphs. If this text has a place in Aerobatics it belongs further down in the article, under its appropriate sub-heading.

OK then what should be in it? I think a formal definition is OK and it's pretty much the same for the CAA in Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. I don't see the "jargon" as being that dense... but would you like to clarify what aerobatics is more simply?

• The article cited USA FAA publications, including USA regulations. This is commendable, but placing such emphasis in the second and subsequent sentences gives the reader the impression that aerobatics is a USA activity. It is not. Aerobatics are practised universally. Wikipedia is not a USA encyclopedia. Wherever possible, articles should present a world-wide perspective on things.

As above, do we just need to add other countries? the referencing will get a bit tedious, and the FAA definition is widely echoed.

• Jim Ward has proposed a moratorium on edits on this subject by himself, myself and MarkC, until some degree of consensus can be achieved. I think it is a very good idea that we move forward carefully, comparing ideas and seeking agreement on what belongs where. Dolphin51 (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Jim responded to my suggestion for the lead, and I'm trying to move it all forward by consensus. The suggested suspension on bold was to stop our disagreement on g and I have suggested a solution to that (see above). If you can suggest a better lead, then by all means go ahead and drop the first section in (say) a subsection called "Definition" or something like that. Simple reversion does not get us anywhere and I'm trying to meet the need for facts and precision. Cheers MarkC (talk) 04:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Lede text inserted, then deleted, then re-inserted: moving forward

Three editors are actively involved at present in trying to improve this article, or at least to keep it from devolving. Today, the lede was altered, that change was reverted, and then the reverted text was reinserted. I'm pretty sure we don't want to edit war on this piece; it'll just instill grumpiness and steal the wind from everyone's sails. I suggest that we observe the moratorium I proposed a couple of days back and to that end, I'm not going to change the article now, tempted as I am. Meanwhile, here's my critique on some of the inserted text.

(1) An FAA definition of aerobatic flight is too U.S. specific. Perhaps at some point later in the article there should be language that identifies what aerobatic flight is, using concepts that are common across several states. (US, CAN, RSA, UK, NZ, AU?)

(2) The second sentence,

In addition, FAA rule part 91.307 states that a pilot should not intentionally fly at high angles of bank (>60 degrees) or with large pitch (>30 degrees) unless each occupant is wearing an approved parachute [2].

is factually inaccurate and, if corrected, too U.S.-specific. Parachutes aren't required when solo in the U.S. Should and must differ in semantic, which is meaningful here. Parachutes are not required in all English-speaking countries when persons are aboard other than required crewmembers.

(3) Sentence 3 says,

Such maneuvers can lead to the aircraft carrying out up to 360 degree rotation about its longitudinal axis (rolling) or in the pitch axis (looping) which form the basis of many aerobatic maneuvers.

How do they do that? This implies that the aircraft departs controlled flight. That can't be the intention.

(4) Sentence 4 is awkward. I don't see how the article is improved by saying "spins are complex"? As for yaw, an airplane yaws each time it turns; nothing unusual, unsafe or complex about that. See Spin (flight).

I'll stop picking apart the new lede here. To improve the April 29 lede, I'd suggest identifying the basic aerobatic maneuvers and then saying that they are combinable to increase difficulty for competition or to increase the entertainment for displays.

I don't see anything in the revised lede that should stay; I support Dolphin's reversion. There may be a place later in the article for some of these concepts (aerobatic flight from a regulatory perspective is a good one). Regards, Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 05:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jim. I have just spent half an hour working on some refinements of Mark's latest changes. After I saved my work I saw your excellent suggestions above. Seeing I saved my work after your addition it looks like a contemptuous reaction but that wasn't intended.

Your suggestion to Mark about making use of a sandbox is a good one. Currently I am using my personal sandbox for some extensive re-working I am doing on Aspect ratio. Mark has asked you for some help in establishing a personal sandbox. Detailed information is available at WP:USERSUBPAGE. Cheers. Dolphin51 (talk) 05:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Commercial advertising

It appears to me that the section Aerobatics#Aerobatic Solo Performers has become a site for commercial advertising. There are some links there, but they are external links, not Wikilinks. There is now some evidence of a commercial battle taking place at this section. One solo performer with a new Wikipedia account has deleted the external links to two other performers, presumably commercial competitors. See the diff.

I think the section should be deleted until there is a solo aerobatic performer who has his (or her) own Wikipedia article that can be listed under such a heading. Dolphin (t) 05:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The offending section has now been deleted. See diff. Dolphin (t) 21:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

List of aerobatic teams.

The article seems to have more content devoted to a list of aerobatic teams than aerobatics itself. Can we prune / delete this or move it to a list article? (Hohum ^@) 14:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I support the creation of a list article. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

What are aercobatics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.10.104.35 (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

From the Overview section: "Among the earliest innovators in aerobatics the Frenchman Euclid's name is foremost." Frankly, I very much doubt this unsourced assertion, added by an IP back in 2012. [1] Wikipedia has no article on this alleged aviator. And neither for that matter does the French-language Wikipedia. The French-language article on 'Voltige aérienne' likewise fails to mention him. Basic Google-foo fails to locate him. If he isn't a figment of the IP's imagination, we need evidence to the contrary, and accordingly I'm going to remove the sentence. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Do we need two articles?

Maybe I'm dense and/or I've missed something, but do we really need two articles, one on Aerobatics and one on Aerobatic maneuver? It seems to me that these would easily combine into one article of not excesive length.

Idumea47b (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The two articles should be merged. See WP:MERGE. Dolphin (t) 22:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

No mention

Inverted flight links to this article, yet there is no mention. Some information in this and similar maneuvers would be useful, and yes merging the two articles would help. Doug butler (talk) 04:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Misleading

just came to this article and in the limited amount of aerobatics ive done, but a lot of formation flying, I see some inaccuracies. Aircraft do not fly slightly “below” the aircraft in front but slightly above, and not because of engine exhaust! You fly slightly above to avoid the lift vortices and wake turbulence of the aircraft ahead. Even the engine exhaust would be worse slightly below the aircradt ahead of you as the downwash would drift it downward but engine exhaust is hardly a problem at all. Who is writing this stuff. The only time you would be below the aircraft in front would be because you are so severely close you need to be able to not lose sight of “lead”. [contribution by 2600:6c4c:677f:faf7:94d:2ebc:3aef:bf6b moved to end] Doug butler (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I have erased three sentences from the offending paragraph - it was all unsourced and unencyclopaedic. I also inserted the “Refimprove” banner. Dolphin (t) 05:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)