I think by chosing an initial climb rate of 320 fps (!!) you can do
this 1 G roll and end up level but 1600 feet higher, or at a lower
rate , maybe 160 fps, and end up at the same altitiude as you started,
but going down 160 fps. (superposiiton works!)

I sure can not think of a 1 g track that would get you straight and
level from a dive, unless the dive took you through the center of the
earth.


Hey, there's the answer. You have to go really fast so that your fall
rate is compensated by the earth being a sphere. That would be pretty
fast!

This part of the thread belongs over in the physics newsgroup.


On Jun 14, 10:34 pm, "muff528" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

Jim, you don't have to do the physics for a 1 g roll. click on

stanford.edu/~sigman/one_g_roll.html for a really neat analysis.

Page down toward the end of sigman's article to see the actual flight
paths that it takes. It's a neat read.

Oh, for the nonbelievers in Newton and vector analysis and such (Mx
whatever comes to mind) don't bother.

Hmmmm....some of the trajectories for varying "initial roll angles" look
kinda like my drawing
somewhere above in this thread. Especially the ones to the left side of the
graph with higher
initial angles. Only I was trying to imagine a scenario where you end up
straight and level rather
than finishing in a high-speed dive as Siegman's model shows. I was thinking
more along the lines
of pulling up the nose throughout the maneuver to induce the 1g, resulting
in a corkscrew dive which
you would gradually flatten until the end of the roll. By pulling up the
nose to create the g-force you
would not have to accelerate downward to "outrun" the acceleration of
gravity. Of course Siegman's
model more closely approximates a barrel roll where I think I ended up with
a gradually opening
spiraling dive. Mine was just a thought experiment....no math involved. :-)