Standard rate turn in Boeing 757?

[Garyurbach]

Can anybody here tall me what the standard rate of turn is in a 757? Is it the
same as small palnes, i.ei, is it universal at 360 degrees in 2 minutes?

I've got someone telling me the Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon did some
impossible turn before flying into the building, and it sounds like a turning
descent to me.

Any help would be appreciated.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, (Garyurbach) said:
>Can anybody here tall me what the standard rate of turn is in a 757? Is it the
>same as small palnes, i.ei, is it universal at 360 degrees in 2 minutes?

The big guys don't do standard rate turns, because that would involve too
high a bank angle. Instead they just do 30 degree banks.

As for what they're capable of, remember Tex Johnson(sp?) barrel rolled
the 707 prototype (the "Dash-80"). If you don't care if the plane is
usable again after the maneuver, I'm sure you could do a lot more abrupt
maneuvers than that.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
The average banker could benefit tremendously from a good kick to
the head at precisely-timed intervals
-- Dan Holdsworth

[Tony Cox]

"Garyurbach" > wrote in message
...
>
> I've got someone telling me the Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon did some
> impossible turn before flying into the building, and it sounds like a
turning
> descent to me.

That'd be the remote controlled 757, flown by Mossad agents into the
Pentagon in an attempt to discredit Islam, right?

[Garyurbach]

You got it.

I am a former student pilot (lost interest after moving constantly set me
back), and I need help from someone with ATP experience on this one.

Surely a 757 can make a descending turn 270 degrees in 2.5 minutes? Maybe, it's
not what an ATP would do to passengers, but it's not some plane-stressing move?

The move, before the crash, sounded like a spiraling descent, or an emergency
descent.

Any help would be appreciated, even if it's to point me to someone who can give
me the answers.

:-)

[Blanche]

Hm....30 bank is new info to me. I always thought it was
a 4 minute turn for the big & fast guys.

Learn something new everyday!

[EDR]

In article >, Paul Tomblin
> wrote:

> As for what they're capable of, remember Tex Johnson(sp?) barrel rolled
> the 707 prototype (the "Dash-80"). If you don't care if the plane is
> usable again after the maneuver, I'm sure you could do a lot more abrupt
> maneuvers than that.

Not necessarily... +1-G is +1-G.
The airplane doesn't know what attitude it's in as long as the proper
g-loading is maintained throughout the maneuver. The only variable is
the pilot's level of skill.

[Bob Moore]

Blanche > wrote

> Hm....30 bank is new info to me. I always thought it was
> a 4 minute turn for the big & fast guys.

Standard Rate is Standard Rate for all aircraft. Three degrees
per second. However, when flying under Instrument Flight Rules
(IFR), and a standard rate turn is specified, aircraft with a
Flight Director/Autopilot installed are permitted to use the
maximum rate of turn commanded by the FD/AP which in the case of
the Boeing a/c that I flew, was about 25 degrees angle of bank
with the flaps up and 30 degrees angle of bank with the flaps
down. During the commencement of an Emergency Descent, the flight
manual called for a bank angle of 45 degrees to aid in getting the
nose down and eliminating negative "g"s.

Bob Moore
ATP B-707 B-727

[vincent p. norris]

>As for what they're capable of, remember Tex Johnson(sp?) barrel rolled
>the 707 prototype (the "Dash-80").

Actually, an aileron roll, Paul. I know his book, ghost written by
another, says barrel roll, but the tape shows it's an aileron roll.

Among non-fliers, all rolls are "barrel rolls," just as all loops are
"loop-de-loops" and among Southerners, all Northerners are
"Damnyankees."

vince norris

[John Bell]

From Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators

n=1/cos(bank angle)

n= load factor in G's

ROT=(1,091*tan(bank angle))/V
r= v^2/(11.26*tan (bank angle)

ROT= rate of turn in degrees per second
r= turn radius in feet, divide by 6078 ft/nm to get nm.
V= velocity, knots

At 250 knots and a 30 degree bank this would be a 2.51 degree per second
turn. It would take 107 seconds to make a 270 turn.

John Bell
www.cockpitgps.com

"Garyurbach" > wrote in message
...
> You got it.
>
> I am a former student pilot (lost interest after moving constantly set me
> back), and I need help from someone with ATP experience on this one.
>
> Surely a 757 can make a descending turn 270 degrees in 2.5 minutes? Maybe,
it's
> not what an ATP would do to passengers, but it's not some plane-stressing
move?
>
> The move, before the crash, sounded like a spiraling descent, or an
emergency
> descent.
>
> Any help would be appreciated, even if it's to point me to someone who can
give
> me the answers.
>
> :-)
>
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

"vincent p. norris" wrote:
>
> ... and among Southerners, all Northerners are "Damnyankees."

No, no, no! Yankees come South on vacation. Damn Yankees come South and stay!

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Ed]

Although John Bell correctly provides the technical calcs to figure the
angle of bank for standard rate turns, the point is the radius [and
ultimately, the rate] of the turn is based on the airspeed, not the size of
the aircraft. If an airplane needs to tighten the turn radius without
increasing the bank angle, it can be done by decreasing speed and/or
descending.

[Jim Baker]

"vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
...
> >As for what they're capable of, remember Tex Johnson(sp?) barrel rolled
> >the 707 prototype (the "Dash-80").
>
> Actually, an aileron roll, Paul. I know his book, ghost written by
> another, says barrel roll, but the tape shows it's an aileron roll.
>
> Among non-fliers, all rolls are "barrel rolls," just as all loops are
> "loop-de-loops" and among Southerners, all Northerners are
> "Damnyankees."
>
> vince norris

Vince...everyone is entitled to their opinion. I've seen that tape numerous
times and I've done and taught several hundred aileron rolls (23 continuous
ones once in a T-38) and barrel rolls. The 707 prototype that day over Lake
Seattle did not do an aileron roll, it was a barrel roll. He dove, he
climbed and he did a constant "speed" roll about a point which is close to
the definition of a barrel roll as I can get without a book in front of me.
An aileron roll is a roll about the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. He
did not do a 360 roll around the longitudinal axis.

Regards,

JB

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Baker" > wrote in message
...
> Vince...everyone is entitled to their opinion. I've seen that tape
numerous
> times and I've done and taught several hundred aileron rolls (23
continuous
> ones once in a T-38) and barrel rolls. The 707 prototype that day over
Lake
> Seattle did not do an aileron roll, it was a barrel roll.

All those times you watched the tape, you never figured out it's Lake
Washington?

:)

Pete

[Jim Baker]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Baker" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Vince...everyone is entitled to their opinion. I've seen that tape
> numerous
> > times and I've done and taught several hundred aileron rolls (23
> continuous
> > ones once in a T-38) and barrel rolls. The 707 prototype that day over
> Lake
> > Seattle did not do an aileron roll, it was a barrel roll.
>
> All those times you watched the tape, you never figured out it's Lake
> Washington?
>
> :)
>
> Pete
>
Sigh,

JB

[Cub Driver]

>Emergency Descent, the flight
>manual called for a bank angle of 45 degrees to aid in getting the
>nose down and eliminating negative "g"s.

Wow. Don't the passengers screaming get on your nerves?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com

[Bob Moore]

"John Bell" > wrote
> From Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators
>
> n=1/cos(bank angle)
>
> n= load factor in G's

True...for a level turn, but when no attempt is made to maintain
altitude, bank angle and load factor are not related.

Bob Moore
Who also preaches from the "bible" :-)

[Bob Moore]

"Jim Baker" > wrote

> Vince...everyone is entitled to their opinion. I've seen that tape
> numerous times and I've done and taught several hundred aileron rolls
> (23 continuous ones once in a T-38) and barrel rolls. The 707
> prototype that day over Lake Seattle did not do an aileron roll, it
> was a barrel roll. He dove, he climbed and he did a constant "speed"
> roll about a point which is close to the definition of a barrel roll
> as I can get without a book in front of me. An aileron roll is a roll
> about the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. He did not do a 360 roll
> around the longitudinal axis.


Vince has it right. You must have missed last year's "barrel-roll
discussion", a portion of which is quoted from William Kershner's
book "The Flight Instructor's Manual". Do a newsgroup Google search
for barrel roll and you will find the entire debate between "Big John"
and myself.

"How-
You might use the following explanation, or develop your own:
(1) Make sure the area is clear, then pick a reference on
the horizon off the wing tip as in the wingover and lazy eight.
(2) Set the throttle to low cruise rpm and ease the nose over to pick-
up about 10 K more than used for the wingover or set up the
airspeed used for a loop, whichever is higher. Power adjustment
should not be necessary during the maneuver. You might have
some of your sharper trainees apply full power as the airplane
approaches inverted and then remind them to throttle back as the
airspeed picks up in the last part of the maneuver.
(3) Smoothly pull the nose up and start a coordinated climbing turn
(note that it will have to be at a much faster rate than was used
for the wingover) toward the reference point. (Assume that at first
the roll will be to the left.)
(4) When the nose is 45° from the original heading, it should be at its
highest pitch attitude and the left bank should be vertical.
(5) When the nose is at 90° from the original heading, you should be
looking directly at the reference point that was originally off the
wing tipfrom a completely inverted position (momentarily).
(6) When the airplane heading is again 45° from the original, the bank
is vertical but you will be in a right bank as far as the ground is
concerned; that is, the right wing is pointing straight down at this
instant of roll. The nose will be at its lowest pitch attitude at
this point.
(7) The roll is continued to wings-level flight as the nose is raised
back to the cruise attitude."

Note that half-way through the maneuver, the nose of the airplane
is 90 degrees to original heading at the same time that the airplane
is inverted.

Bob Moore

[Jerry Kurata]

Unless they look out the window the passengers won't even notice the
manuver. Done correctly, the G's stay at 1 and the wine does not spill.

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >Emergency Descent, the flight
> >manual called for a bank angle of 45 degrees to aid in getting the
> >nose down and eliminating negative "g"s.
>
> Wow. Don't the passengers screaming get on your nerves?
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
> The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
> The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 05:48:00 -0400, Cub Driver wrote:

>>Emergency Descent, the flight
>>manual called for a bank angle of 45 degrees to aid in getting the
>>nose down and eliminating negative "g"s.
>
>Wow. Don't the passengers screaming get on your nerves?

the doors are locked. who cares ...? :-)

#m

--
Martin!!! Maaaaartiiiin!!! Can you please flame this guy for me?
'HECTOP' in rec.aviation.piloting

[John Gaquin]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
>
> >Emergency Descent, the flight
> >manual called for a bank angle of 45 degrees to aid in getting the
> >nose down and eliminating negative "g"s.
>
> Wow. Don't the passengers screaming get on your nerves?

If you're initiating an emergency descent on a passenger flight, the pax
would likely already be screaming, what with the fog and dangling masks.
Probably wouldn't even notice the roll. :-)

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jim Baker" > wrote in message
...
>
> "vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >As for what they're capable of, remember Tex Johnson(sp?) barrel
rolled
> > >the 707 prototype (the "Dash-80").
> >
> > Actually, an aileron roll, Paul. I know his book, ghost written by
> > another, says barrel roll, but the tape shows it's an aileron roll.
> >
> > Among non-fliers, all rolls are "barrel rolls," just as all loops
are
> > "loop-de-loops" and among Southerners, all Northerners are
> > "Damnyankees."
> >
> > vince norris
>
> Vince...everyone is entitled to their opinion. I've seen that tape
numerous
> times and I've done and taught several hundred aileron rolls (23
continuous
> ones once in a T-38) and barrel rolls. The 707 prototype that day
over Lake
> Seattle did not do an aileron roll, it was a barrel roll. He dove, he
> climbed and he did a constant "speed" roll about a point which is
close to
> the definition of a barrel roll as I can get without a book in front
of me.
> An aileron roll is a roll about the longitudinal axis of the aircraft.
He
> did not do a 360 roll around the longitudinal axis.
>
> Regards,
>
> JB

I almost hate to get into this one again, as the last time was quite
unpleasant! :-)
It was a barrel roll. The -80 needed positive g all the way around for
the oil scavenger pumps. Tex knew this and I discussed it with him many
times through the years. Also, the airplane, regardless of how high the
roll set would have been and regardless of the airspeed at entry for a
pure aileron roll , would not have had the energy available through the
roll axis to complete an aileron roll without split S'ing out the back
side. The result of a pure aileron input would have been a HUGE split S
with serious airspeed problems on the back side!.
Tex did the roll the only way the airplane could have been rolled. He
FLEW it all the way around the barrel, keeping positive g on the
airplane throughout the maneuver for the oil pumps and to avoid the
split s.
Tex flew the prototype through a 3 dimensional roll at positive g , and
that spells barrel roll.
All the best as usual,
Dudley

[Dudley Henriques]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 6...
> "Jim Baker" > wrote
>
> > Vince...everyone is entitled to their opinion. I've seen that tape
> > numerous times and I've done and taught several hundred aileron
rolls
> > (23 continuous ones once in a T-38) and barrel rolls. The 707
> > prototype that day over Lake Seattle did not do an aileron roll, it
> > was a barrel roll. He dove, he climbed and he did a constant
"speed"
> > roll about a point which is close to the definition of a barrel roll
> > as I can get without a book in front of me. An aileron roll is a
roll
> > about the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. He did not do a 360
roll
> > around the longitudinal axis.
>
>
> Vince has it right. You must have missed last year's "barrel-roll
> discussion", a portion of which is quoted from William Kershner's
> book "The Flight Instructor's Manual". Do a newsgroup Google search
> for barrel roll and you will find the entire debate between "Big John"
> and myself.
>
> "How-
> You might use the following explanation, or develop your own:
> (1) Make sure the area is clear, then pick a reference on
> the horizon off the wing tip as in the wingover and lazy eight.
> (2) Set the throttle to low cruise rpm and ease the nose over to pick-
> up about 10 K more than used for the wingover or set up the
> airspeed used for a loop, whichever is higher. Power adjustment
> should not be necessary during the maneuver. You might have
> some of your sharper trainees apply full power as the airplane
> approaches inverted and then remind them to throttle back as the
> airspeed picks up in the last part of the maneuver.
> (3) Smoothly pull the nose up and start a coordinated climbing turn
> (note that it will have to be at a much faster rate than was used
> for the wingover) toward the reference point. (Assume that at
first
> the roll will be to the left.)
> (4) When the nose is 45° from the original heading, it should be at
its
> highest pitch attitude and the left bank should be vertical.
> (5) When the nose is at 90° from the original heading, you should be
> looking directly at the reference point that was originally off
the
> wing tipfrom a completely inverted position (momentarily).
> (6) When the airplane heading is again 45° from the original, the bank
> is vertical but you will be in a right bank as far as the ground
is
> concerned; that is, the right wing is pointing straight down at
this
> instant of roll. The nose will be at its lowest pitch attitude at
> this point.
> (7) The roll is continued to wings-level flight as the nose is raised
> back to the cruise attitude."
>
> Note that half-way through the maneuver, the nose of the airplane
> is 90 degrees to original heading at the same time that the airplane
> is inverted.
>
> Bob Moore


This is simply the "classic" method of teaching a barrel roll. A barrel
roll is simply a 3 dimensional maneuver, and in fact in air combat
maneuvering, is the ONLY 3 dimensional maneuver through 3 dimensional
space. The roll can be performed as written by you and Kershner here, or
it can be flown much tighter. Any roll that is FLOWN through
3 dimensions while maintaining a positive g on the airplane is a barrel
roll. The "barrel" can also be altered while in the roll by changing the
load on the airplane.In fact, in one offshoot scenario in the ACM arena,
we often began a barrel roll with positive g, then unloaded the airplane
to just below ballistic in the roll. (speeds up the roll rate :-)
Tex's roll was absolutely a barrel roll.

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Jim Baker]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Jim Baker" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >As for what they're capable of, remember Tex Johnson(sp?) barrel
> rolled
> > > >the 707 prototype (the "Dash-80").
> > >
> > > Actually, an aileron roll, Paul. I know his book, ghost written by
> > > another, says barrel roll, but the tape shows it's an aileron roll.
> > >
> > > Among non-fliers, all rolls are "barrel rolls," just as all loops
> are
> > > "loop-de-loops" and among Southerners, all Northerners are
> > > "Damnyankees."
> > >
> > > vince norris
> >
> > Vince...everyone is entitled to their opinion. I've seen that tape
> numerous
> > times and I've done and taught several hundred aileron rolls (23
> continuous
> > ones once in a T-38) and barrel rolls. The 707 prototype that day
> over Lake
> > Seattle did not do an aileron roll, it was a barrel roll. He dove, he
> > climbed and he did a constant "speed" roll about a point which is
> close to
> > the definition of a barrel roll as I can get without a book in front
> of me.
> > An aileron roll is a roll about the longitudinal axis of the aircraft.
> He
> > did not do a 360 roll around the longitudinal axis.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > JB
>
> I almost hate to get into this one again, as the last time was quite
> unpleasant! :-)
> It was a barrel roll. The -80 needed positive g all the way around for
> the oil scavenger pumps. Tex knew this and I discussed it with him many
> times through the years. Also, the airplane, regardless of how high the
> roll set would have been and regardless of the airspeed at entry for a
> pure aileron roll , would not have had the energy available through the
> roll axis to complete an aileron roll without split S'ing out the back
> side. The result of a pure aileron input would have been a HUGE split S
> with serious airspeed problems on the back side!.
> Tex did the roll the only way the airplane could have been rolled. He
> FLEW it all the way around the barrel, keeping positive g on the
> airplane throughout the maneuver for the oil pumps and to avoid the
> split s.
> Tex flew the prototype through a 3 dimensional roll at positive g , and
> that spells barrel roll.
> All the best as usual,
> Dudley

I must have missed last years blood bath, :-))

I don't know how anyone looking at that tape, who has done the manuevers
we're speaking of, could confuse one with the other. As you've said Dudley,
the -80 (which I had the pleasure of seeing up close on Mothers Day weekend)
did not have the roll authority to do an aileron roll. Those little tiny
ailerons couldn't provide enough asymetic energy. Half way through the crew
would have been looking straight down at Lake WASHINGTON (thanks Pete!).
Now maybe that would have been more impressive, but it would've taken one
hell of an altitude to start and the folks on the ground might not have been
able to even see the entry. I've "aileron" rolled a large aircraft (
>250,000 lbs) a few times but it didn't depend on ailerons for the manuever.
The B-1B used a split stab for primary roll authority and that was one huge,
split "aileron" that provided enough energy to roll the aircraft without the
Split S and the problems that would bring to a large airframe.

Have a pleasant weekend fellas!!

Stepping off the battlefied,

Jim

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jim Baker" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >
> > "Jim Baker" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > >As for what they're capable of, remember Tex Johnson(sp?)
barrel
> > rolled
> > > > >the 707 prototype (the "Dash-80").
> > > >
> > > > Actually, an aileron roll, Paul. I know his book, ghost
written by
> > > > another, says barrel roll, but the tape shows it's an aileron
roll.
> > > >
> > > > Among non-fliers, all rolls are "barrel rolls," just as all
loops
> > are
> > > > "loop-de-loops" and among Southerners, all Northerners are
> > > > "Damnyankees."
> > > >
> > > > vince norris
> > >
> > > Vince...everyone is entitled to their opinion. I've seen that
tape
> > numerous
> > > times and I've done and taught several hundred aileron rolls (23
> > continuous
> > > ones once in a T-38) and barrel rolls. The 707 prototype that day
> > over Lake
> > > Seattle did not do an aileron roll, it was a barrel roll. He
dove, he
> > > climbed and he did a constant "speed" roll about a point which is
> > close to
> > > the definition of a barrel roll as I can get without a book in
front
> > of me.
> > > An aileron roll is a roll about the longitudinal axis of the
aircraft.
> > He
> > > did not do a 360 roll around the longitudinal axis.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > JB
> >
> > I almost hate to get into this one again, as the last time was quite
> > unpleasant! :-)
> > It was a barrel roll. The -80 needed positive g all the way around
for
> > the oil scavenger pumps. Tex knew this and I discussed it with him
many
> > times through the years. Also, the airplane, regardless of how high
the
> > roll set would have been and regardless of the airspeed at entry for
a
> > pure aileron roll , would not have had the energy available through
the
> > roll axis to complete an aileron roll without split S'ing out the
back
> > side. The result of a pure aileron input would have been a HUGE
split S
> > with serious airspeed problems on the back side!.
> > Tex did the roll the only way the airplane could have been rolled.
He
> > FLEW it all the way around the barrel, keeping positive g on the
> > airplane throughout the maneuver for the oil pumps and to avoid the
> > split s.
> > Tex flew the prototype through a 3 dimensional roll at positive g ,
and
> > that spells barrel roll.
> > All the best as usual,
> > Dudley
>
> I must have missed last years blood bath, :-))
>
> I don't know how anyone looking at that tape, who has done the
manuevers
> we're speaking of, could confuse one with the other. As you've said
Dudley,
> the -80 (which I had the pleasure of seeing up close on Mothers Day
weekend)
> did not have the roll authority to do an aileron roll. Those little
tiny
> ailerons couldn't provide enough asymetic energy. Half way through
the crew
> would have been looking straight down at Lake WASHINGTON (thanks
Pete!).
> Now maybe that would have been more impressive, but it would've taken
one
> hell of an altitude to start and the folks on the ground might not
have been
> able to even see the entry. I've "aileron" rolled a large aircraft (
> >250,000 lbs) a few times but it didn't depend on ailerons for the
manuever.
> The B-1B used a split stab for primary roll authority and that was one
huge,
> split "aileron" that provided enough energy to roll the aircraft
without the
> Split S and the problems that would bring to a large airframe.
>
> Have a pleasant weekend fellas!!
>
> Stepping off the battlefied,
>
> Jim

Biggest thing I ever barreled was a twin Beech. The B1 had to be a
handful!!
Watched a buddy of mine in the RAF barrel a Vulcan once. Beautiful!! You
should have seen that bat winged SOB going around. His nose had to be
sixty degrees as he initiated.

Last word I got from the Blues was that the boss had to come out to the
ramp every morning and tell the Fat Albert crew, "You will NOT roll this
airplane today gentlemen. I don't give a **** HOW much money the diamond
has paid you to try it" :-))))
Dudley

[Jon Woellhaf]

John Gaquin wrote,

> If you're initiating an emergency descent on a passenger flight, the pax
> would likely already be screaming, what with the fog and dangling masks.
> Probably wouldn't even notice the roll. :-)

John, did you ever get to do one for real?

[Newps]

"Jerry Kurata" > wrote in message
...
> Unless they look out the window the passengers won't even notice the
> manuver. Done correctly, the G's stay at 1 and the wine does not spill.

Not possible to miss the roll unless you are asleep. Sit there with your
eyes closed and you have no problem telling which way the plane is rolling.

[John Gaquin]

"Jon Woellhaf" > wrote in message news:Ayqwc.7120
>
> John, did you ever get to do one for real?

Nope. From intro flight to 747, I never had a catastrophic failure of any
kind. I'd love to think skill and professionalism had something to do with
it, but nobody would buy that song -- particularly the guy in the mirror.
Just pure good luck. :-) Had a few system failures, and a few
precautionary landings, but nothing officially an emergency. How dull.

[Darrell]

While +1 G = +1 G, nobody said to limit to 1G. A level turn at 60 degrees
of bank requires a constant +2 G. Bank in excess of 60 degrees requires
more G to maintain level flight. As Paul indicated, if the wings will stay
on and you don't care if the plane is flyable afterwards you can make pretty
exciting turns. The rate of turn for any given bank angle in level flight
(coordinated) is dependant on your TAS. In the Hustler, at mach 2, any
autopilot turn, using the navigator's input for bomb run heading, used 60
degrees of bank. At 1,200 plus TAS even 60 degrees of bank doesn't turn you
real fast. With anything less than 60 degrees of bank a misaligned target
could displace faster than you could turn.

--

B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
-

"EDR" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Paul Tomblin
> > wrote:
>
> > As for what they're capable of, remember Tex Johnson(sp?) barrel rolled
> > the 707 prototype (the "Dash-80"). If you don't care if the plane is
> > usable again after the maneuver, I'm sure you could do a lot more abrupt
> > maneuvers than that.
>
> Not necessarily... +1-G is +1-G.
> The airplane doesn't know what attitude it's in as long as the proper
> g-loading is maintained throughout the maneuver. The only variable is
> the pilot's level of skill.

[Darrell]

And in a true aileron roll you pull one negative G to hold the point while
inverted. A little tough with an air carrier machine.

--

B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
-
> I don't know how anyone looking at that tape, who has done the manuevers
> we're speaking of, could confuse one with the other. As you've said
Dudley,
> the -80 (which I had the pleasure of seeing up close on Mothers Day
weekend)
> did not have the roll authority to do an aileron roll. Those little tiny
> ailerons couldn't provide enough asymetic energy. Half way through the
crew
> would have been looking straight down at Lake WASHINGTON (thanks Pete!).
> Now maybe that would have been more impressive, but it would've taken one
> hell of an altitude to start and the folks on the ground might not have
been
> able to even see the entry. I've "aileron" rolled a large aircraft (
> >250,000 lbs) a few times but it didn't depend on ailerons for the
manuever.
> The B-1B used a split stab for primary roll authority and that was one
huge,
> split "aileron" that provided enough energy to roll the aircraft without
the
> Split S and the problems that would bring to a large airframe.
>
> Have a pleasant weekend fellas!!
>
> Stepping off the battlefied,
>
> Jim
>
>

[Bob Moore]

"Darrell" > wrote
> And in a true aileron roll you pull one negative G to hold
> the point while inverted.

Darrell, how come you Air Force guys define rolls differently
than everyone else?



http://acro.harvard.edu/ACRO/acro_figures.html#rolls
Aileron rolls are flown with the rudder and elevator in
the neutral position during the roll. The aileron is
fully deflected in the direction of the roll. This is the
easiest of the rolls to fly.
The aileron roll is started by pulling the nose up to 20 - 30
degrees above the horizon. The elevator is then neutralized
and the aileron fully deflected in the direction of the roll.
The controls are maintained in that position till the roll is
completed. After the roll is completed the nose is usually
20 - 30 degrees below the horizon.
Slow rolls have to be flown normally on a straight line. The
roll rate has to be constant and the longitudinal axis of the
plane has to go straight.
This requires constantly changing rudder and elevator control
inputs throughout the roll. Hesitation or point rolls include
stops at certain roll angles.
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sunrise-aviation.com/Ailroll.html
As the name implies, the aileron roll is done with "normal"
inputs of aileron and rudder (in contrast to snap rolls).
At the point this maneuver is introduced to students in the
Sunrise Basic syllabus, no attempt is made to maintain altitude
during the roll. The result is a steady transition from climb
to descent until the aircraft regains upright flight. This
simplified approach to rolling is ideal for beginning aerobatic
pilots.
A further development of basic rolling technique introduces
forward elevator (and negative G) to eliminate altitude loss
while inverted. The result is a Slow Roll, introduced in the
Sunrise Intermediate syllabus. Once mastered, slow rolls
completely replace aileron rolls in the repertoires of most
pilots.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Moore

[pacplyer]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message >...
> "Jon Woellhaf" > wrote in message news:Ayqwc.7120
> >
> > John, did you ever get to do one for real?
>
> Nope. From intro flight to 747, I never had a catastrophic failure of any
> kind. I'd love to think skill and professionalism had something to do with
> it, but nobody would buy that song -- particularly the guy in the mirror.
> Just pure good luck. :-) Had a few system failures, and a few
> precautionary landings, but nothing officially an emergency. How dull.

Well obviously you didn't have a catastrophic failure since your
posting here. But no memorable problems with this machine is
unbelievable. I flew it for four years and had all kinds of
mechanical failures. We had an engine slam into reverse at FL180 and
the cowlings and reverser sleave fell into Brooklyn one night. It
sounds to me like you were not on the airplane very long. Were you
just a flight engineer? Or were you a pilot? Just give a straight
answer John. Your postings are very suspicious buddy.

pacplyer

[Peter Duniho]

"pacplyer" > wrote in message
om...
> [...] Your postings are very suspicious buddy.

Says the guy who posts anonymously. How ironic.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
...
> "Darrell" > wrote
> > And in a true aileron roll you pull one negative G to hold
> > the point while inverted.
>
> Darrell, how come you Air Force guys define rolls differently
> than everyone else?
>
>
>
> http://acro.harvard.edu/ACRO/acro_figures.html#rolls
> Aileron rolls are flown with the rudder and elevator in
> the neutral position during the roll. The aileron is
> fully deflected in the direction of the roll. This is the
> easiest of the rolls to fly.
> The aileron roll is started by pulling the nose up to 20 - 30
> degrees above the horizon. The elevator is then neutralized
> and the aileron fully deflected in the direction of the roll.
> The controls are maintained in that position till the roll is
> completed. After the roll is completed the nose is usually
> 20 - 30 degrees below the horizon.
> Slow rolls have to be flown normally on a straight line. The
> roll rate has to be constant and the longitudinal axis of the
> plane has to go straight.
> This requires constantly changing rudder and elevator control
> inputs throughout the roll. Hesitation or point rolls include
> stops at certain roll angles.
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.sunrise-aviation.com/Ailroll.html
> As the name implies, the aileron roll is done with "normal"
> inputs of aileron and rudder (in contrast to snap rolls).
> At the point this maneuver is introduced to students in the
> Sunrise Basic syllabus, no attempt is made to maintain altitude
> during the roll. The result is a steady transition from climb
> to descent until the aircraft regains upright flight. This
> simplified approach to rolling is ideal for beginning aerobatic
> pilots.
> A further development of basic rolling technique introduces
> forward elevator (and negative G) to eliminate altitude loss
> while inverted. The result is a Slow Roll, introduced in the
> Sunrise Intermediate syllabus. Once mastered, slow rolls
> completely replace aileron rolls in the repertoires of most
> pilots.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Bob Moore

Although pulling 1 negative g is definitely NOT done in an aileron roll,
you will note as well the discrepancy between the two examples you have
given to explain aileron rolls. The first calls for a complete neutral
rudder throughout the roll and the second calls for rudder and aileron
together.
The first example is totally incorrect both for aileron rolls AND in the
explanation for a slow roll.
In a true aileron roll, the nose is pulled and set as explained, but at
roll initiation, just enough inside rudder is used with inside aileron
to initiate the roll without adverse yaw, THEN the rudder is eliminated
as it would pull the nose down as the airplane goes toward knife edge
and beyond. Although it's true that you can do an aileron roll without
this initial use of inside rudder, it's considered a flaw, and pure
aileron will pull the nose to the outside of the roll and alter the
normal arc that should take the nose from it's position above the
horizon at roll onset, to where it must be below the horizon on
recovery. Initiating a pure aileron input without correction for yaw is
classified as an error in any competent aerobatic school. That being
said, holding in the inside rudder too long after initiation is ALSO
classified as an error :-) It should also be noted that it's perfectly
acceptable to execute an aileron roll varying the amounts of forward
stick and top rudder to allow a more EXACT roll while not crossing the
line to a slow roll. Basically, all you're doing in a true aileron roll
is allowing the nose to arc naturally from it's position over the
horizon back down to a position below the horizon without attempting to
PIN IT!
Now to slow rolls. A slow roll is NOT executed on a straight line as the
description states clearly. No airplane, regardless of it's wing design,
(symmetrical or asymmetrical) flies inverted at the same nose attitude
as level flight erect. The nose MUST be raised ABOVE the horizon in a
slow roll so that the airplane will be level as it passes through it's
inverted level flight attitude. You will find that the correct figure
for describing a slow roll is a letter D to the right or a reverse
letter D if to the left. The vertical line up must be flown before the
roll is initiated. The roll itself is done at the top apex of the D. The
curve of the D is absolutely mandatory if the airplane is to return to
it's beginning level flight attitude erect at the end of the roll.
Exactly how high above the horizon the apex of that D is will be a
function of individual wing design. For example, you do a slow roll a
lot closer to the inverted horizon in an Extra than you do in a P51
Mustang!
In other words, a slow roll can't be done on a straight line without
losing altitude. You MUST place the airplane at a point where it passes
through it's level flight inverted nose attitude and then bring it back
down again in the recovery to it's normal level flight attitude.
So I would grade the first explanation as incorrect on two counts.
The second one is more in line with reality.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[John Gaquin]

"pacplyer" > wrote in message

>.... It
> sounds to me like you were not on the airplane very long. Were you
> just a flight engineer? Or were you a pilot? Just give a straight
> answer John. Your postings are very suspicious buddy.


A touch over three years, pac, about three and a half. As a pilot.

And what do you mean by "...just a flight engineer..."? Bet you make a lot
of friends among the crews you fly with carrying an attitude like that.

Nothing suspicious about my posts. Just a guy who went to work and flew
the plane. From 72 to 96 I never had any kind of catastrophic failure in
any airplane. Period. OTOH, you seem to have endless tales of horrible
events, dangerous circumstances, horrid weather, self-destructing aircraft,
incompetent crew members, etc, etc. Many of your posts involve
demonstrating how skillful you are and how bumbling someone else is.
Denigrating your F/O seems a recurring subject. In point of fact, your
posts sound a might suspicious to me. Nothing in your posting sounds like
any mature Captain I've ever encountered over the past thirty years.
Frankly, you sound to me like someone relatively new to the big leagues who
wants everyone to believe you're an old pro. I may be wrong, and hope I am,
and I really don't want to get into a debate about this, but that's the way
you come across to me.

[Bob Moore]

"John Gaquin" > wrote
> I may be wrong, and hope I am, and I really don't want
> to get into a debate about this, but that's the way
> you come across to me.

I'm with you John.

Bob Moore

[Morgans]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 8...
> "John Gaquin" > wrote
> > I may be wrong, and hope I am, and I really don't want
> > to get into a debate about this, but that's the way
> > you come across to me.
>
> I'm with you John.
>
> Bob Moore

It is because the poster has never flown the airlines. A while back,
another guy said something to the effect, that he knows enough, he could
make people believe (fool them), he was really an airline pilot. He is so
busted, in my book. Remember saying that, Mr. Fake? I do.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.699 / Virus Database: 456 - Release Date: 6/4/2004

[George]

Bob Moore > wrote in message >...
> "John Gaquin" > wrote
> > I may be wrong, and hope I am, and I really don't want
> > to get into a debate about this, but that's the way
> > you come across to me.
>
> I'm with you John.
>

A nice little toy to look at turn rates here


http://www.csgnetwork.com/aircraftturninfocalc.html
should keep the pundits smiling

[pacplyer]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message >...
> "pacplyer" > wrote in message
>
> >.... It
> > sounds to me like you were not on the airplane very long. Were you
> > just a flight engineer? Or were you a pilot? Just give a straight
> > answer John. Your postings are very suspicious buddy.
>
>
> A touch over three years, pac, about three and a half. As a pilot.
>
> And what do you mean by "...just a flight engineer..."? Bet you make a lot
> of friends among the crews you fly with carrying an attitude like that.

Were you Captain, First Officer, or Flight Engineer hired on the basis
of having a Comm pilot lic? My guess it that you were in the
non-flying seat. The reason I suspect this is you have this constant
need to sign your posts with B747 at the bottom. I've never seen a
747 driver feel the need to do this all the time. I have seen S/O's
go to the bar and pretend that they physically fly the airplane since
people don't understand the difference.


>
> Nothing suspicious about my posts. Just a guy who went to work and flew
> the plane. From 72 to 96 I never had any kind of catastrophic failure in
> any airplane. Period. OTOH, you seem to have endless tales of horrible
> events, dangerous circumstances, horrid weather, self-destructing aircraft,
> incompetent crew members, etc, etc.

I do believe you were a crewmember on the airplane John. You must
have worked for a better outfit than I did if nothing ever went wrong.
But things do fall off airplanes and sometimes they are lost; I guess
you never read AW&ST. Since I got hired we had six hull losses, and
killed four people. Many others were injured.
International/MAC/supplemental freight flying is statisically much
more dangerous than any other type.

Many of your posts involve
> demonstrating how skillful you are and how bumbling someone else is.
> Denigrating your F/O seems a recurring subject. In point of fact, your
> posts sound a might suspicious to me. Nothing in your posting sounds like
> any mature Captain I've ever encountered over the past thirty years.
> Frankly, you sound to me like someone relatively new to the big leagues who
> wants everyone to believe you're an old pro. I may be wrong, and hope I am,
> and I really don't want to get into a debate about this, but that's the way
> you come across to me.

Fair enough John. It's clear you don't like my writing style. I just
use these forums as practice for writing. I use a certain amount of
literary creative licence in my stories, otherwise they would be dull.
I include memorable things that happened to me in my career which
started in 82'.

Best Regards,

pacplyer

[Darrell]

Good point, Bob. I said to "hold the point" which is really a roll on a
point which is not necessary and seldom done in plain aileron rolls. To
roll on a point you do need to use top rudder at each 90 degree point and 1
negative G while inverted but... that's not what was asked. Another "senior
moment". Sorry.

--

B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
-

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
...
> "Darrell" > wrote
> > And in a true aileron roll you pull one negative G to hold
> > the point while inverted.
>
> Darrell, how come you Air Force guys define rolls differently
> than everyone else?
>
>
>
> http://acro.harvard.edu/ACRO/acro_figures.html#rolls
> Aileron rolls are flown with the rudder and elevator in
> the neutral position during the roll. The aileron is
> fully deflected in the direction of the roll. This is the
> easiest of the rolls to fly.
> The aileron roll is started by pulling the nose up to 20 - 30
> degrees above the horizon. The elevator is then neutralized
> and the aileron fully deflected in the direction of the roll.
> The controls are maintained in that position till the roll is
> completed. After the roll is completed the nose is usually
> 20 - 30 degrees below the horizon.
> Slow rolls have to be flown normally on a straight line. The
> roll rate has to be constant and the longitudinal axis of the
> plane has to go straight.
> This requires constantly changing rudder and elevator control
> inputs throughout the roll. Hesitation or point rolls include
> stops at certain roll angles.
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.sunrise-aviation.com/Ailroll.html
> As the name implies, the aileron roll is done with "normal"
> inputs of aileron and rudder (in contrast to snap rolls).
> At the point this maneuver is introduced to students in the
> Sunrise Basic syllabus, no attempt is made to maintain altitude
> during the roll. The result is a steady transition from climb
> to descent until the aircraft regains upright flight. This
> simplified approach to rolling is ideal for beginning aerobatic
> pilots.
> A further development of basic rolling technique introduces
> forward elevator (and negative G) to eliminate altitude loss
> while inverted. The result is a Slow Roll, introduced in the
> Sunrise Intermediate syllabus. Once mastered, slow rolls
> completely replace aileron rolls in the repertoires of most
> pilots.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Bob Moore

[Robert M. Gary]

EDR > wrote in message >...
> In article >, Paul Tomblin
> > wrote:
>
> > As for what they're capable of, remember Tex Johnson(sp?) barrel rolled
> > the 707 prototype (the "Dash-80"). If you don't care if the plane is
> > usable again after the maneuver, I'm sure you could do a lot more abrupt
> > maneuvers than that.
>
> Not necessarily... +1-G is +1-G.
> The airplane doesn't know what attitude it's in as long as the proper
> g-loading is maintained throughout the maneuver. The only variable is
> the pilot's level of skill.

But that's just the cabin. The wing tips receive much higher G forces
in a roll. It depends how fast the roll is.

-Robert

[John Gaquin]

"pacplyer" > wrote in message

> ...My guess it that you were in the non-flying seat.

LOL. Bad guess. I was scheduled for a transition from 727 to 747, but a
contract was lost and the whole 727 program was cxd. Furloughs, and lots of
bumping, as you might imagine. I wound up flying three plus years in the
right seat of the 747. Not bad duty, though. All the guys who did manage
to hold on to their Capt seats were professionals, we had professional FEs
who were outstanding, and the crews worked together accordingly.

> ..... You must
> have worked for a better outfit than I did if nothing ever went wrong.

I never said nothing ever went wrong, although damn few things did. I said
no catastrophic failure occurred on any airplane I was on.

>
> International/MAC/supplemental freight flying is statistically much
> more dangerous than any other type.

All of my 747 flying was for supplemental carriers. The bulk of it was
contract or ad hoc freight, and MAC work. There was some pax work for one
of the carriers. I never sensed an environment that was "...much more
dangerous...", but I can't speak to the statistics.

>
>.....I use a certain amount of
> literary creative licence in my stories,

I interpret that to mean you simply make stuff up.

Regards,

John Gaquin
B727, B747

[pacplyer]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message >...
> "pacplyer" > wrote in message
>
> > ...My guess it that you were in the non-flying seat.
>
> LOL. Bad guess. I was scheduled for a transition from 727 to 747, but a
> contract was lost and the whole 727 program was cxd. Furloughs, and lots of
> bumping, as you might imagine. I wound up flying three plus years in the
> right seat of the 747. Not bad duty, though. All the guys who did manage
> to hold on to their Capt seats were professionals, we had professional FEs
> who were outstanding, and the crews worked together accordingly.
>
> > ..... You must
> > have worked for a better outfit than I did if nothing ever went wrong.
>
> I never said nothing ever went wrong, although damn few things did. I said
> no catastrophic failure occurred on any airplane I was on.
>
> >
> > International/MAC/supplemental freight flying is statistically much
> > more dangerous than any other type.
>
> All of my 747 flying was for supplemental carriers. The bulk of it was
> contract or ad hoc freight, and MAC work. There was some pax work for one
> of the carriers. I never sensed an environment that was "...much more
> dangerous...", but I can't speak to the statistics.
>
> >
> >.....I use a certain amount of
> > literary creative licence in my stories,
>
> I interpret that to mean you simply make stuff up.
>
> Regards,
>
> John Gaquin
> B727, B747


Such as taxi outs at over 800,000 pounds with two engines shut down?
Sounds to me like you made that up. If you had to stop, it would take
more than climb power on the remaining outboards to make a 90 degree
turn. The taxiway erosion alone caused by this stunt is extremely
unprofessional which is why I knew you weren't a captain on the 747.
Now in one of my stories was a coke can going to kill us? No. But it
makes a fine story about a non-pertinant event.

I get alone with well with all the people I work with. They aren't so
sensitive about bar room talk like you are. This NG is not a
professional setting. You should take your pointed hat off, and quit
trying to be a cheif pilot to everybody here. Rec.avi.pilotg is
RECREATION John. It's just entertainment. You're retired now. Try to
lighten up. IMHO you take things way too seriously. Life is too
short to be a shoe-shine inspector.

pacplyer

[John Gaquin]

:-)

[Margy Natalie]

According to the Smithsonian it was a barrel roll.

Margy

"vincent p. norris" wrote:

> >As for what they're capable of, remember Tex Johnson(sp?) barrel rolled
> >the 707 prototype (the "Dash-80").
>
> Actually, an aileron roll, Paul. I know his book, ghost written by
> another, says barrel roll, but the tape shows it's an aileron roll.
>
> Among non-fliers, all rolls are "barrel rolls," just as all loops are
> "loop-de-loops" and among Southerners, all Northerners are
> "Damnyankees."
>
> vince norris