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

There was a thread a while ago about how not only could one stay with
the force into the seat, but actually maintain 1 G straight into the
seat through a roll. If one is flying coordinated, keeping normal to
the airplane makes sense. Those how fly aerobatics have a different
set of criteria. For what it's worth, watching the in cockpit cameras
of some moderatedly skilled pilots, like the Blue Angels, shows them
"upright" with respect to the airplane except when G forces sling
their heads around, but they do fly coordinated most of the time.

But what do they know?

On Jun 10, 8:35 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote :

writes:

If the turn is coordinated, there is no "sideways" force to perceive
as that is the definition of a cooridinated turn.

False. The aircraft is being accelerated to one side.

Nope, wrong again, moron.

Bertie

wrote in
ups.com:

There was a thread a while ago about how not only could one stay with
the force into the seat, but actually maintain 1 G straight into the
seat through a roll.

You can't.

If one is flying coordinated, keeping normal to
the airplane makes sense. Those how fly aerobatics have a different
set of criteria.




Nope, I fly aerobatics.

Quite well, too.

The criteria is the same, only the level of undrstanding changes.


For what it's worth, watching the in cockpit cameras
of some moderatedly skilled pilots, like the Blue Angels, shows them
"upright" with respect to the airplane except when G forces sling
their heads around, but they do fly coordinated most of the time.

But what do they know?

Exactly. But fjukkwit won't buy it..



Bertie

On Jun 10, 8:35 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote
:

writes:

If the turn is coordinated, there is no "sideways" force to
perceive as that is the definition of a cooridinated turn.

False. The aircraft is being accelerated to one side.

Nope, wrong again, moron.

Bertie

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.

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

Think of it this way, and you'll be able to see how it works. If you
roll into a level bank, you'll feel increasing Gs. If, on the other
hand, you push over, you'll feel decreasing Gs. Somewhere between the
two, a coordinated bank and a push over, you'll be able to feel 1 G.

Give it a try a few times when you're flying aerobatics, and I'll bet
you can get to 45 or even 60 degrees of bank in a decending term with
your G meter locked at one before you run out of control authority.



On Jun 10, 8:52 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote roups.com:

There was a thread a while ago about how not only could one stay with
the force into the seat, but actually maintain 1 G straight into the
seat through a roll.

You can't.

If one is flying coordinated, keeping normal to

the airplane makes sense. Those how fly aerobatics have a different
set of criteria.

Nope, I fly aerobatics.

Quite well, too.

The criteria is the same, only the level of undrstanding changes.

For what it's worth, watching the in cockpit cameras

of some moderatedly skilled pilots, like the Blue Angels, shows them
"upright" with respect to the airplane except when G forces sling
their heads around, but they do fly coordinated most of the time.

But what do they know?

Exactly. But fjukkwit won't buy it..

Bertie





On Jun 10, 8:35 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote
:

writes:

If the turn is coordinated, there is no "sideways" force to
perceive as that is the definition of a cooridinated turn.

False. The aircraft is being accelerated to one side.

Nope, wrong again, moron.

Bertie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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.

My I suggest you revisit Newton's laws of motion? Do the google search
I suggested, it's pretty clear there, but not, I would agree
intuitively obvious. Neither, however, is quantum mechanics.




On Jun 11, 8:57 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
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.

writes:

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

My post is based on them.

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

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.

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
:

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

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

wrote in message
ups.com...
There was a thread a while ago about how not only could one stay with
the force into the seat, but actually maintain 1 G straight into the
seat through a roll. If one is flying coordinated, keeping normal to
the airplane makes sense. Those how fly aerobatics have a different
set of criteria. For what it's worth, watching the in cockpit cameras
of some moderatedly skilled pilots, like the Blue Angels, shows them
"upright" with respect to the airplane except when G forces sling
their heads around, but they do fly coordinated most of the time.

But what do they know?


That is either untrue, or real misleading. The Blues fly with a different
purpose, keep the aircraft on trajectory. When they are flying a knife edge,
they are hardly coordinated, as with many other maneuvers.

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.