East River turning radius

Recently, Roy Smith posted:

In article ,
"Neil Gould" wrote:

The Klingons stole the technology from the Romulans.

I don't recall... did the Federation steal it from the Klingons or
Romulans?

I think they got it from the Romulans in a secret alliance against the
Dominion.

I remember now. Kirk stole it from the Romulans while Spock kept the
female captain of the ship, um, distracted.

The other poster was correct; they must have misplaced that device,
because they had to borrow one for use on the Defiant.

Neil

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..
You need to look at the acceleration, not the velocity. If you're
descending at a constant vertical velocity (zero acceleration), then the
forces are the same as with constant altitude, so you still get a 2G turn
with a 60-degree bank. (Emergency-descent spirals are often flown that
way.)
If you accelerate downward though, you get less than 2G during the
acceleration.

I wonder if perhaps the type of 60 degree bank turn that I do is less than
2Gs not so much because of any acceleration downward, but rather because
the actual radius of the turn is more than a 60 degree bank turn where you
were maintaining altitude... I suspect that you could consider the plane of
the turn to be inclined perhaps 45 degrees to the horizontal, dependent upon
the turn radius, couldn't you? Think of it as your traversal around 1/4 of
a cylinder... If you remained at the same altitude, the distance that you
travelled would be 2 * pi * R / 4 = pi * R / 2... Since your endpoint is not
at the same altitude, but rather at 500 ft below it, the distance that you
travelled around the cylinder is more... I don't have enough caffeine in me
at this time to calculate how much more, but I'm pretty damn sure that you
are travelling a further distance... Rough guess is that it is related to
something like the tangent of the angle between the altitude change and the
radius of the cylinder... So, if the distance travelled along the surface of
the cylinder is greater, then the effective radius of the turn is greater...
A greater radius of the turn equates to lower G forces...

For example, I used to fly a gyrocopter... Even if you were in a 60 degree
bank at a constant altitude, you don't get a 2G turn because you mush
through the air, basically resulting in a larger radius turn... The highest
Gs that you will receive in a gyro is perhaps 1.5Gs...

There's an NTSB update about Lidle's crash:
http://www.ntsb.gov/pressrel/2006/061103.htm.

Unsurprisingly, they conclude that the plane didn't bank enough for the
turn.

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:
Unsurprisingly, they conclude that the plane didn't bank enough for the
turn.

Duhhh!

Kind of the definition of a too wide turn, isn't it?

Grumman-581 wrote:

Gary Drescher wrote:
Unsurprisingly, they conclude that the plane didn't bank enough for the
turn.

Duhhh!

Kind of the definition of a too wide turn, isn't it?

Or they did not roll out of the bank soon enough. Busting airspace
(go AROUND the building) or violating altitude above a populated area
is far better than what they did.

Ron Lee

Ron Lee wrote:
Or they did not roll out of the bank soon enough. Busting airspace
(go AROUND the building) or violating altitude above a populated area
is far better than what they did.

Oh, I think that if they were still around, they would agree that just
about *anything* is better than what they did do... sick-grin

"Grumman-581" wrote in message
...
Gary Drescher wrote:
Unsurprisingly, they conclude that the plane didn't bank enough
for the turn.

Duhhh!

Kind of the definition of a too wide turn, isn't it?

Kind of the definition of 'unsurprisingly', too.

Ron Lee wrote:

Grumman-581 wrote:


Gary Drescher wrote:

Unsurprisingly, they conclude that the plane didn't bank enough for the
turn.

Duhhh!

Kind of the definition of a too wide turn, isn't it?


Or they did not roll out of the bank soon enough. Busting airspace
(go AROUND the building) or violating altitude above a populated area
is far better than what they did.

Ron Lee

If they were in a steep bank and high AOA, I wonder if they could even
see the building over the nose?

Matt

It would have been high in the windshield, the roof would
have blocked it until the last 1/2 of the turn. But I doubt
they were experienced acro pilots trained to look out all of
the windows. They also probably did not bank even 45°, let
alone the 53-55° they needed to complete the turn.
They didn't plan the turn well, where they needed to be when
they started or what they would have done if the weather or
other traffic had blocked them, had they been prepared to
call for a Class B clearance, in other words the CFI screwed
up because he did not plan ahead, Casey Lidle screwed up
because he didn't act like the PIC, they both screwed up
because they expected the other pilot "did the planning" so
two dead pilots for no good reason.



"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
| Ron Lee wrote:
|
| Grumman-581
wrote:
|
|
| Gary Drescher wrote:
|
| Unsurprisingly, they conclude that the plane didn't
bank enough for the
| turn.
|
| Duhhh!
|
| Kind of the definition of a too wide turn, isn't it?
|
|
| Or they did not roll out of the bank soon enough.
Busting airspace
| (go AROUND the building) or violating altitude above a
populated area
| is far better than what they did.
|
| Ron Lee
|
| If they were in a steep bank and high AOA, I wonder if
they could even
| see the building over the nose?
|
| Matt

On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 20:54:26 +0000, Grumman-581 wrote:

Oh, I think that if they were still around, they would agree that just
about *anything* is better than what they did do

Indeed. I was at a dinner last night where someone asked me whether or
not those flying that airplane had made a mistake.

- Andrew