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

"Maxwell" wrote in
news

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
news:2007061120422616807-dhenriques@rcncom...
On 2007-06-11 19:00:00 -0400, "Maxwell" said:


"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.

I'm sorry, but you are totally incorrect.
Dudley Henriques


Certainly not. If you think you cannot roll the wings of an aircraft,
and remain in total control of the g loading, you are totally
incorrect.

If you want to argue the proper name for this manuver is not a barrel
roll, that's another topic, and I would agree. Many people incorrectly
refer to all rolls as barrel rolls. But then we would just be nit
picking, wouldn't we.


Dudley's right, you're wrong,. You're twisting the argument to suit
yourself, changeing the language and rules as you go...






Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.130...

Dudley's right, you're wrong,. You're twisting the argument to suit
yourself, changeing the language and rules as you go...




No I'm not.
Reference my post from this morning.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Maxwell"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 11:39 AM
Subject: Head orientation in turns--how is it taught for aviation?



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.

I fully admit barrel rolls as defined by most pilots require more than
"exactly 1g", and usually a little negative, depending on the desired
flight
path. Also, doing a near 1g roll as I mentioned, more than 1g will be
required to set up the manuver, and return to level flight afterwards. But
I
disagree that it one needs to deviate much from 1g to roll the wings of an
aircraft 360 degrees if flying an arc. Depending on the arc and corkscrew
of
your flight path, you can roll with very little if not no stress on the
aircraft.

"Maxwell" wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.130...

Dudley's right, you're wrong,. You're twisting the argument to suit
yourself, changeing the language and rules as you go...




No I'm not.
Reference my post from this morning.

Yeah right..

Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.130...
"Maxwell" wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.130...

Dudley's right, you're wrong,. You're twisting the argument to suit
yourself, changeing the language and rules as you go...




No I'm not.
Reference my post from this morning.

Yeah right..


No, you mean yeah, correct.

"Maxwell" wrote in news:WMobi.97857$vE1.10405
@newsfe24.lga:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.130...
"Maxwell" wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.130...

Dudley's right, you're wrong,. You're twisting the argument to suit
yourself, changeing the language and rules as you go...




No I'm not.
Reference my post from this morning.

Yeah right..


No, you mean yeah, correct.


No, I meeant you're a fjukkwit in the same league as mxsmanic.


Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.130...
"Maxwell" wrote in news:WMobi.97857$vE1.10405
@newsfe24.lga:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.130...
"Maxwell" wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.130...

Dudley's right, you're wrong,. You're twisting the argument to suit
yourself, changeing the language and rules as you go...




No I'm not.
Reference my post from this morning.

Yeah right..


No, you mean yeah, correct.


No, I meeant you're a fjukkwit in the same league as mxsmanic.


Gotcha!

"Maxwell" wrote in news:WMvbi.560843$2Q1.316920
@newsfe16.lga:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.130...
"Maxwell" wrote in news:WMobi.97857$vE1.10405
@newsfe24.lga:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.130...
"Maxwell" wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.130...

Dudley's right, you're wrong,. You're twisting the argument to
suit
yourself, changeing the language and rules as you go...




No I'm not.
Reference my post from this morning.

Yeah right..


No, you mean yeah, correct.


No, I meeant you're a fjukkwit in the same league as mxsmanic.


Gotcha!

No, you didn't.

Bertei