Myth: 1 G barrel rolls are impossible.

On Jun 14, 8:05 am, "Viperdoc" wrote:
Actually, with him, it's more like trying to breathe under water. What an
idiot.

A child starved for attention.

Notice the disproportionate write/read ratio and the recurring
reference to the apparent 'club' which "won't let me in!"

It wants to run with the adult dogs, yet it continues to bark like
puppy..

What you said about acceleration is true enough, but if you were on
speaking terms with Newton or vector analysis of some other analytical
tools you might understand some of what's been said here.


not continue to offer

On Jun 13, 2:32 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Viperdoc writes:
That's the point you idiot- there is no change in direction during a
vertical roll.

You cannot change the attitude, direction, altitude, etc., of the aircraft
without changing its direction in some plane, and that requires acceleration.

Dave Doe wrote:

To put it another way, if you closed your eyes, you wouldn't know you've
done a roll (given you go for the 'non-standard' 1G roll), other than
the initial sensation of beginning the turn, and then the sensation of
the turn stopping.


Not sure exactly where you are with this, but as what you are saying
pertains to barrel rolls begun from level flight or from a position with
the nose below the horizon, don't forget that the entire gist of the
misunderstanding that has been running rampant on this thread about
barrel rolls and doing them at 1 positive g can be centered and
completely focused on the fact that it's the ENTRY and the EXIT of the
roll, and how these two factors interplay into the roll itself that is
causing all the confusion.
The one factor that can't be taken out of the barrel roll scenario is
that no matter how you cut it, if PITCH is a factor in a barrel roll,
there will be an indication on a g meter above 1 g as that pitch change
is being made. In a normal barrel roll you have pitch change as the nose
transverses the roll in it's helical path.
If a barrel roll requires the nose of the aircraft to be above the
horizon during the entry and then again brought back to the horizon
during the recovery (as it does) you will absolutely be showing more
than 1 positive g on the g meter during the roll, and if it's a
retaining double needle g meter, after the roll when you bring the
airplane home........period! This is a fact of life. As soon as the
aircraft's nose shows a positive nose rate in PITCH as it's raised
during the roll entry and then again during the recovery as it's raised
again to level flight, that g meter will leave 1 and show more than 1
positive g.

Now here is the part that is causing all the confusion. ONCE the nose
has been raised above the horizon (and that over 1 g has been registered
on the g meter) as you feed in aileron you can PLAY WITH THE BACK
PRESSURE being applied and EASE OFF the positive g to a LOWER LEVEL if
desired over the top of the roll, but that level can't be unloaded below
1 g or the arc of the roll will be destroyed. It's the COMBINATION of
roll and pitch that is producing the roll arc and those TWO pressures
MUST be maintained to produce the roll.
So the bottom line is simply that to do a barrel roll where the nose
must be both above and below the horizon line starting from level flight
you need over 1 g during the entry and exit, but you can reduce the g to
1 through the top of the roll if desired.

Dudley Henriques

writes:

'Some combination', 'several possibilities.' I'm confused by this -
can you be more precise? What are the possibilities?

You can move and accelerate in any combination of three dimensions, with any
combination of acceleration rates, almost. You have to calculate the
direction and magnitude of the net acceleration vector to determine exactly
how much force is acting upon the pilot, and in which direction.

Some of it is (or should be) intuitive. For example, if you turn the aircraft
to the right, you'll be accelerated to the right.

writes:

What you said about acceleration is true enough, but if you were on
speaking terms with Newton or vector analysis of some other analytical
tools you might understand some of what's been said here.

Most of what has been said here has been said by people who manifestly lack
even the most basic notions of physics. I don't understand how people can
believe that changes in direction are possible without accelerations.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

Most of what has been said here has been said by people who manifestly
lack
even the most basic notions of physics.

Most of what has been said here has been said by YOU, so this statement is
probably true.

I don't understand how people can believe that changes in direction are
possible without accelerations.

There are lots of things you don't understand. Unfortunately, you won't
accept it.

Hang on, let's keep things simple:

1. If I enter a coordinated turn, I experience an increase in Gs.
2. If I enter a descent, I experience a decrease in Gs.

If I do these two things at the same time, it is possible to enter a
descending turn without any change in Gs. Just as long as I
continously feed in enough down elevator to offset the increasing Gs
from the turn, the force on the airframe and me, the pilot, will stay
at 1 G.

Of course, all combinations are indeed possible. But this interesting
special case of the situation exists, doesn't it, in which there is no
change in the force felt by the pilot?


On Jun 14, 3:36 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
'Some combination', 'several possibilities.' I'm confused by this -
can you be more precise? What are the possibilities?

You can move and accelerate in any combination of three dimensions, with any
combination of acceleration rates, almost. You have to calculate the
direction and magnitude of the net acceleration vector to determine exactly
how much force is acting upon the pilot, and in which direction.

Some of it is (or should be) intuitive. For example, if you turn the aircraft
to the right, you'll be accelerated to the right.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

What you said about acceleration is true enough, but if you were on
speaking terms with Newton or vector analysis of some other
analytical tools you might understand some of what's been said here.

Most of what has been said here has been said by people who manifestly
lack even the most basic notions of physics.

Like you, for instance.

I don't understand

I know.


Bertie

On Jun 14, 9:39 pm, "mike regish" wrote:
Didn't say anything about maintaining it. It is easy to attain zero g in an
airplane. And if you start out with a steep climb, you can sustain zero g
for several seconds easily. I know because I do it all the time. My kids
love watching their soda bottles floating up in front of them.

I used to move an item from one side of the cockpit to the other and
back and forward just to impress the pax..
Then on the ground I'd drop the item just to show pax the speed we
were descending at at the time ...

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

'Some combination', 'several possibilities.' I'm confused by this -
can you be more precise? What are the possibilities?

You can move and accelerate in any combination of three dimensions,

Wrong again, fjukktard.


Don';t you ever get tired of being wrong?

I'm guessing the answer is "yes", since you run away every time I cal you
on it.


Guess that's why you went bankrupt. Running away.


Bertie