Wingover risks

[markc]

While researching the approaches for doing wing-overs "safely" (there isn't really any such thing as a SAFE wing-over), I ran across a great article by John Heiney written in 1994. And then, I happened across a short video of a failed wingover in a modern topless glider, which occurred in 2010.

Can you spot the point in the video at which the pilot diverges from John's guidelines for performing a "mild" (90-ish degrees, plus or minus) wingover?

Several things got my attention:

- The very small time-window, after the dive and during the pull-out, which determines if a roll-input will lead to a "mild" or a "radical" manuver.

- The apparent cross-controlling, or possibly adverse yaw, shortly after the pilot begins his roll input.

- The fact that things seemed fairly benign, before the sh*t hit the fan.

Kind of an eye-opener for me. There's not a lot of room for error, and you'd better be on top of your game, and very comfortable and experienced with your glider, before moving into anything more than mild wangs....

[John Dullahan]

Mark,

Thanks for the 1994 John Heiney article and the video of the failed wing-over attempt. The video is interesting but there is so much more useful info in the Heiney article and is well worth the little extra time required.

[markc]

What interested me about the video is watching the progression: dive, starting the pull-up, reaching a positive pitch, and then initiating a roll input. According to the J. Heiney article:

You can do a 90 degree wingover by starting your pull-up and then initiate hard roll input before you reach pitch-level.

In the video, the pilot goes from dive, to pull-out, to positive/climb in.... What.... A couple of seconds?

The message which I took away is this: If your goal is to perform a 'conservative' wingover, and for whatever reason your roll input is later than intended, then you could potentially find yourself in a heap of trouble! So: Know thy wing, know the conditions, know *your* condition.

I agree with you that the article is worth a very careful read.

MarkC

[Lostgriz]

Mark,

I have read John's article and it is definitely a good resource. The following thread on HG.org had some good discussion on wingovers and is worth a read as well.

http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=9603

[Danny Brotto]

Back in the day (Harrier, fresh-mint H3), I was very interested in HG aerobatics. (Almost bought a Stratus V until Richard Hays, for good reasons, talked me out of it.) I remember asking around of the more experienced pilots about how to do wingovers. The general response was “Go ask Ron Benschneider, he’ll tell you how.”

So I enthusiastically asked Ron, the group acknowledged aerobatic sage, “How do you do wingovers.” Ron looked at me quizzically and said 3 words; “Practice a lot”.

Danny Brotto

[hepcat1989]

.

[markc]

Yeah, there's a ton of videos out there showing all kinds of really cool and fun wingovers, Dan's among them!

(And I gotta say that his vids are among the best! Did you know that Razr and Razr Maxx can't display content at vimeo.com? I'm looking to upgrade, and those phones are now off the list because I wouldn't be able to see Dan's work on them. Sigh.)

And that brings me to one of the main reasons why I started this thread : Although they look super-cool, there are risks involved which might not be completely appreciated by newer HG pilots (can't speak to PG acro, but I imagine that there are similar issues). While a 90-ish degree wingover isn't considered "radical" in the world of acrobatics, it's still possible to blow one due to poor timing, inappropriate conditions, etc.

So the messages I take away from that failed wingover clip are: Know the dive; Know the pull-up; Know the glider; Know the conditions of the day; Know your condition on that day; Practice. Ya got all that? Then you're probably good to go, have at it!

Everybody's risk tolerance is different. Personally: I'd like to work up to something a bit more than 70-ish wangs... But I'm not really hearing the siren call for loops. Some will want to do more than that. Others, less. But whatever your preference/risk-level, don't approach it lightly.

MarkC

[mcelrah]

Thanks. Very constructive post. - Hugh