In article ,
vincent p. norris wrote:

[...]

And the net G forces don't have to be more than 1, just enough to cause
*net*
positive G forces on the pilot 9and engine, etc.). That's the
*definition* of a positive G maneuver.

That's what I said, above. But if an airplane is in inverted flight,
it takes at least 1.000001 positive Gs caused by acceleration to
overcome the negative G caused by gravity and produce a G sum that is
positive.

This started when you stated that aileron rolls don't cause positive G's
all the way around,

IIRC, I responded to a posting that said it was a "one G" maneuver,
which is what I disagreed with. Perhaps my memory is faulty on that
score.

Erm, well, we can stop right there, because that's what the problem
is... here's your article and my initial response (my stuff with the
single ""):

In article ,
vincent p. norris wrote:

Not if you maintain positive G all the way around (as in aileron
roll).

You don't have positive G all the way around in an aileron roll.

In a properly done aileron roll you certainly do...

To maintain positive G, you need a barrel roll.

Or an aileron roll. Were you thinking of a slow roll?


And later in the thread I also explicitly asked whether you meant a "1G
maneuver" rather than a "positive G" maneuver. In both cases you said no.

Oh well. I think I kinda suspected this -- if you'd actually said it
wasn't a *1 G* maneuver, I'd have agreed wholeheartedly. But to make the
blanket statement that you don't have positive G all the way around in
an aileron roll (or any aileron roll), well, that ain't right....

Hamish