Myth: 1 G barrel rolls are impossible.

On Jun 15, 4:42 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
george writes:
Graveyard spiral dive

Which probably isn't a coincidence, since pilots likely get into these
precisely because they maintain "normal" G forces.

Berties right!
You are every thing he says..
FYI a noninstument rated pilot entering IFR conditions has about 90
seconds of life remaining.
The resulting high speed spiral dive is a result losing all visual
references and becoming disorientated in cloud...

Thought it was 158 seconds before he loses orientation and then whatever it
takes to crash into the hard edge of the sky.

mike

"george" wrote in message
oups.com...
Berties right!
You are every thing he says..
FYI a noninstument rated pilot entering IFR conditions has about 90
seconds of life remaining.
The resulting high speed spiral dive is a result losing all visual
references and becoming disorientated in cloud...

On 06/14/07 15:29, Jim Stewart wrote:
wrote:
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.

Isn't there some sinister name for this
when it happens to a non-IFR pilot in a cloud?


Actually, the same name applies whether or not the pilot holds an
Instrument Rating.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

writes:

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.

Yes. Note, however, that you must _accelerate_ downward, and not merely drift
downward at a constant rate.

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.

The additional G from the acceleration towards the center of the turn will be
constant, but the offsetting G from the descent will be constant only if you
continuously accelerate downward.

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?

Yes. It sounds a lot like a spin.

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.

Yes. Note, however, that you must _accelerate_ downward, and not merely drift
downward at a constant rate.

Right. A major part of your argument in this thread has been that it
is impossible to change the direction in which the plane is travelling
without accelerating the plane. Your own analysis, based on my
questions, clearly shows that it is possible to change the direction
the plane is going in without deviating from the 1G being exerted.
Note that the I am not denying that the aircraft is accelerating in
this situation. But it is doing so without a change in force being
felt. So where your argument breaks down is in the assumption that if
changing the direction requires acceleration, then acceleration will
require a change in G force.

I am not saying that this is, in of itself, proof of the possibility
of the 1G barrel roll. It does, however, clearly indicate a flaw in
your argument. I find it odd that you find it so hard to believe that
people can believe that changes in direction are possible without
accelerations being felt, given that by your own admission, these
people are actually correct.


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?

Yes. It sounds a lot like a spin.

What? It sounds very little like a spin - try entering a spin with no
change in G force!

wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

Yes. Note, however, that you must _accelerate_ downward, and not merely
drift
downward at a constant rate.

Right. A major part of your argument in this thread has been that it
is impossible to change the direction in which the plane is travelling
without accelerating the plane. Your own analysis, based on my
questions, clearly shows that it is possible to change the direction
the plane is going in without deviating from the 1G being exerted.
Note that the I am not denying that the aircraft is accelerating in
this situation. But it is doing so without a change in force being
felt. So where your argument breaks down is in the assumption that if
changing the direction requires acceleration, then acceleration will
require a change in G force.

I am not saying that this is, in of itself, proof of the possibility
of the 1G barrel roll. It does, however, clearly indicate a flaw in
your argument. I find it odd that you find it so hard to believe that
people can believe that changes in direction are possible without
accelerations being felt, given that by your own admission, these
people are actually correct.


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?

Yes. It sounds a lot like a spin.

What? It sounds very little like a spin - try entering a spin with no
change in G force!


A change in direction does not *require* acceleration..........a change in
direction *is* acceleration.
You "feel" the effects of acceleration, whether it is caused by gravity, a
change in velocity, or
change in direction. All of these factors come into play when doing any
maneuver giving a net
result that you interpret as gee's, whether you are in freefall or in a high
gee turn.

muff528 wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
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.
Yes. Note, however, that you must _accelerate_ downward, and not merely
drift
downward at a constant rate.
Right. A major part of your argument in this thread has been that it
is impossible to change the direction in which the plane is travelling
without accelerating the plane. Your own analysis, based on my
questions, clearly shows that it is possible to change the direction
the plane is going in without deviating from the 1G being exerted.
Note that the I am not denying that the aircraft is accelerating in
this situation. But it is doing so without a change in force being
felt. So where your argument breaks down is in the assumption that if
changing the direction requires acceleration, then acceleration will
require a change in G force.

I am not saying that this is, in of itself, proof of the possibility
of the 1G barrel roll. It does, however, clearly indicate a flaw in
your argument. I find it odd that you find it so hard to believe that
people can believe that changes in direction are possible without
accelerations being felt, given that by your own admission, these
people are actually correct.

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?
Yes. It sounds a lot like a spin.
What? It sounds very little like a spin - try entering a spin with no
change in G force!


A change in direction does not *require* acceleration..........a change in
direction *is* acceleration.
You "feel" the effects of acceleration, whether it is caused by gravity, a
change in velocity, or
change in direction. All of these factors come into play when doing any
maneuver giving a net
result that you interpret as gee's, whether you are in freefall or in a high
gee turn.



What's a gee? Is that like a gee whiz? :-)

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
muff528 wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
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.
Yes. Note, however, that you must _accelerate_ downward, and not
merely drift
downward at a constant rate.
Right. A major part of your argument in this thread has been that it
is impossible to change the direction in which the plane is travelling
without accelerating the plane. Your own analysis, based on my
questions, clearly shows that it is possible to change the direction
the plane is going in without deviating from the 1G being exerted.
Note that the I am not denying that the aircraft is accelerating in
this situation. But it is doing so without a change in force being
felt. So where your argument breaks down is in the assumption that if
changing the direction requires acceleration, then acceleration will
require a change in G force.

I am not saying that this is, in of itself, proof of the possibility
of the 1G barrel roll. It does, however, clearly indicate a flaw in
your argument. I find it odd that you find it so hard to believe that
people can believe that changes in direction are possible without
accelerations being felt, given that by your own admission, these
people are actually correct.

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?
Yes. It sounds a lot like a spin.
What? It sounds very little like a spin - try entering a spin with no
change in G force!


A change in direction does not *require* acceleration..........a change
in direction *is* acceleration.
You "feel" the effects of acceleration, whether it is caused by gravity,
a change in velocity, or
change in direction. All of these factors come into play when doing any
maneuver giving a net
result that you interpret as gee's, whether you are in freefall or in a
high gee turn.

What's a gee? Is that like a gee whiz? :-)

No... it's like geez whiz......you spread it on bread to get a geez sammich.

writes:

Right. A major part of your argument in this thread has been that it
is impossible to change the direction in which the plane is travelling
without accelerating the plane.

Yes.

Your own analysis, based on my questions, clearly shows that it
is possible to change the direction the plane is going in without
deviating from the 1G being exerted.

Accelerations sometimes reinforce each other, and sometimes cancel each other.
Even when they cancel each other, they do not disappear.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

Right. A major part of your argument in this thread has been that it
is impossible to change the direction in which the plane is
travelling without accelerating the plane.

Yes.

Your own analysis, based on my questions, clearly shows that it
is possible to change the direction the plane is going in without
deviating from the 1G being exerted.

Accelerations sometimes reinforce each other, and sometimes cancel
each other. Even when they cancel each other, they do not disappear.



Wrong again bankruptcy boi.


Bertie