Head orientation in turns--how is it taught for aviation?

"Erik" wrote in message
...
Mxsmanic wrote:
Erik writes:


3) Meet me in real life, I'll beat the living daylights out of
you just to make me feel better. Yep, violent, but who gives
a ****?


District attorneys do. You've established premeditation, for one thing.
It's
a really bad idea to threaten people in writing, especially in written
forms
that will be archived indefinitely and exposed to public view. It can
work
against you in ways you may not at all suspect.


Bull ****.

If you ever disappear the list of documented suspects will be so long, I
seriously doubt the authorities would even begin to look. You are clearly
the poster child for justifiable homicide.

"Maxwell" wrote in
:


"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
news:2007061101084716807-dhenriques@rcncom...

Bertie is correct. Barrel Rolls are perhaps the most misquoted and
misunderstood maneuver done in an airplane.
Basically, you can do a barrel roll as loosely or as tight as the
airplane's flight envelope will allow. You can also enter a BR from
many different flight conditions involving many different g loadings.
The main thing to remember about barrel rolls is that they are a 3
dimensional maneuver through 3 dimensional space and that the common
denominator in a barrel roll regardless of the g used is that it will
remain POSITIVE all the way around. The one exception to this would
be after the pull and roll application, you can unload the airplane
over the top and drop the g to +1 if you like to loosen the roll
rate, but that g must be regained during the recovery.
Basically, you will be somewhere over +1g in the entry as you raise
the nose, then at some positive +g throughout the roll ranging from
as unloaded as you want to loosen up the airplane or as high a
positive g and tight a roll as the envelope will allow. As long as
the airplane transverses 3 dimensions through the roll, it's a barrel
roll. I've done them as loose as a 90 degree change of direction at
the top apex in a P51,the F8F, and several jets including the T38,
and as tight as a corkscrew in a Pitts S1Sl which was highly loaded
with +g and extremely tight.
Bob Hoover's rather famous Iced tea stunt in the Shrike is probably
responsible for much of the misconception about barrel rolls. He does
them fairly loose and with just enough positive g on the airplane to
keep the glass from spilling without stressing the airplane. The
"secret" to Bob's tea trick is simply his smoothness through the roll
as much as keeping positive g on the tea. It's really this smoothness
that makes this stunt possible, as although positive g will keep the
tea inside the glass. (You can actually POUR tea as you're rolling
the airplane but ONLY if you're as smooth as Hoover :-)
The reason smoothness is so necessary for the tea trick is that even
though you might have positive g on the airplane and in effect doing
a barrel roll, if you are not perfectly coordinated through the roll
(any excessive yaw for example) your tea will slide off the glare
shield laterally and you don't want that......not if you're Bob
Hoover anyway :-) So it's positive g for the roll, and smoothness and
perfect coordination for the tea stunt.

I'm not talking about Bob's tea trick. Obvoiusly, positive Gs and
coordination is the key there. And I'm not sure I understand or agree
with your post. But I think it might be possible we having a
terminology issue here with the definition of a barrel roll.

Nope. The thing is, you can`t do anything at all at one G except
straight and level flight.

Period, Endo fo story, finnito spaghettio. Nothing to do with
terminology or anything else. It's just a BS legend that has been
repeated so many times that it's dug it's own groove in the urban legend
record.



Bertie

"Maxwell" wrote in
:


"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
news:2007061116042375249-dhenriques@rcncom...
On 2007-06-11 12:39:10 -0400, "Maxwell" said:

No. Barrel rolls do NOT go negative generally. If you went negative
you would change the roll arc and destroy the roll. You can unload to
0 g through the top however without destroying the roll arc, but if
you do, you have to reapply positive g almost immediately as you pass
through inverted to regain the roll arc. As I said, you can do a
barrel roll at any positive g; as tight or as little as the flight
envelope for the aircraft will allow up to 90 degrees of flight path
direction change at the roll apex.
Generally the roll profile will be the application of positive g
above +1 from the roll initiation (either from level flight or from a
slight dive offset to gain energy if needed) followed by coordinated
roll and back pressure into the roll arc maintaining positive g with
varying back pressure to maintain the roll arc through the roll and
through the recovery back to the entry heading.
You can NOT at any time during a barrel roll, allow the g to go
negative as doing so will instantly destroy the arc of the roll.
Dudley Henriques


No it won't, and yes you can.


Nope.

You';re wrong dude.

That's OK, you can go on being wrong. I don't have to fly with you.
....


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

You aren't attached to the horizon while in an aircraft in flight,
simulator boy, you are attached to the aircraft.

You aren't attached to either,

Well, you aren't attached to earth in any significant fashion anyway..


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Maxwell writes:

A 1g barrel roll can be done, but the required trajectory of the
aircraft is not going to be one that is necessarily eye pleasing for
ground demonstration purposes.

Any maneuver that involves a change in altitude will involve forces
exceeding 1 G at some point.


Nope, wrong again fjukktard.


Bertie

wrote in
ups.com:

Actually, with respect to maintaining one g into the seat and doing a
kind of roll, you can, or at least Newton says so,


Yeah, but only if you do it in a zero G environment, i.e, off the
planet's surface.



but I'm not sure
the airplane exists that has the control authority to do it. If you
search the groups you'll be able to find the analysis, but the short
form is this. The airplane has got to accelelerate downward at 1 G,
then pull a G in a coordinated bank. It'll roll, but it won't be
pretty, and the pilot will feel 1 G into the seat.

The diameter of the roll is something like 80 feet! Almost a snap
roll.

Also wrong.



Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

Actually, with respect to maintaining one g into the seat and doing a
kind of roll, you can, or at least Newton says so, but I'm not sure
the airplane exists that has the control authority to do it. If you
search the groups you'll be able to find the analysis, but the short
form is this. The airplane has got to accelelerate downward at 1 G,
then pull a G in a coordinated bank. It'll roll, but it won't be
pretty, and the pilot will feel 1 G into the seat.

You cannot climb without exceeding 1 G, and you cannot stop a descent
without exceeding 1 G, either.

Yes, you can fjukktard.

You are, of course, talking straight out of your ass yet again



Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

My I suggest you revisit Newton's laws of motion?

My post is based on them.

No, it isn't



How can you climb or descend from one altitude to another without any
vertical acceleration?

Easy., I do it almost daily, fjukkwit.



And since the acceleration due to gravity is constant, how can any
positive increase in rate of climb not result in total acceleration
exceeding 1 G?

A simple example would suffice.


Reread your post fjukktard. Not that that will make any diference, but
you're talking about at least three different things here.

Of course, if you flew you would know that.

But you don't and never will.




Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Nomen Nescio writes:

By already being in a climb at "one altitude" and maintaining it
through "another".

At some point your vertical speed must change, and then your net
acceleration will change as well.

Wrong!
It's not!

It is constant for all practical purposes.

Nope.


If one G is defined as 32.2 ft/sec/sec, it can be done. I'll leave it
to you to figure out how.

It cannot be done, and you cannot demonstrate otherwise.


I could if you would get into an airplane,

But you wont.


Bertie

george wrote in news:1181596437.557910.199630
@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com:

On Jun 12, 1:53 am, "ManhattanMan" wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

I think he probably tried Viagra, but found it only made him
taller.

Boom! Head shot!

Or straight over the top :-)
You are awarded the kooks tail and both ears


Thenkew.

Bertie