Unbelievable Airbus A380 vertical Take-off + Amazing Air Show ( HD ) Paris Air show 2013

[Larry Dighera]

Wanna see, what happens if you place two former military pilots of the French
Navy in the cockpit of an Airbus A380? A vertical take-off and some acrobatic
maneuvers are the result. Two pilots who previously worked for the French Navy
have been working as test pilots for Airbus since a few years. This was the
most amazing A380 performance I have ever seen. Very impressive to see such a
big bird gliding threw the skies as if it would be a small Cessna. Of course
the fuel tanks were empty because the Airbus just made a short presentation
flight for the audience in France. I hope I could see such a performance again
someday: <http://youtu.be/RJxnwF-MPi0>



A380 Approach and Landing KSFO San Francisco SUBTITLES English (without
commentary): <http://youtu.be/ENe89j89tBA>


More videos: <https://www.youtube.com/user/Cargospotter/videos>

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> Wanna see, what happens if you place two former military pilots of the French
> Navy in the cockpit of an Airbus A380? A vertical take-off and some acrobatic
> maneuvers are the result. Two pilots who previously worked for the French Navy
> have been working as test pilots for Airbus since a few years. This was the
> most amazing A380 performance I have ever seen. Very impressive to see such a
> big bird gliding threw the skies as if it would be a small Cessna. Of course
> the fuel tanks were empty because the Airbus just made a short presentation
> flight for the audience in France. I hope I could see such a performance again
> someday: <http://youtu.be/RJxnwF-MPi0>
>
>
>
> A380 Approach and Landing KSFO San Francisco SUBTITLES English (without
> commentary): <http://youtu.be/ENe89j89tBA>
>
>
> More videos: <https://www.youtube.com/user/Cargospotter/videos>

Nor "acrobatics" or, more precisely, aerobatics there. They never
exceeded 60 deg bank angle (more like 45 deg), nor 30 deg. climb angle.
They also never retracted the flaps, allowing for enhanced low-speed
maneuvering. Also, isn't it amazing how low-speed maneuverability is
enhanced with (very) minimum fuel load and no payload?

Yes -- it is impressive to see such a huge bird put through its paces --
especially when its very size makes it look as if it is barely moving.

[george152]

On 03/10/14 13:00, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> Wanna see, what happens if you place two former military pilots of the French
>> Navy in the cockpit of an Airbus A380? A vertical take-off and some acrobatic
>> maneuvers are the result. Two pilots who previously worked for the French Navy
>> have been working as test pilots for Airbus since a few years. This was the
>> most amazing A380 performance I have ever seen. Very impressive to see such a
>> big bird gliding threw the skies as if it would be a small Cessna. Of course
>> the fuel tanks were empty because the Airbus just made a short presentation
>> flight for the audience in France. I hope I could see such a performance again
>> someday: <http://youtu.be/RJxnwF-MPi0>
>>
>>
>>
>> A380 Approach and Landing KSFO San Francisco SUBTITLES English (without
>> commentary): <http://youtu.be/ENe89j89tBA>
>>
>>
>> More videos: <https://www.youtube.com/user/Cargospotter/videos>
>
> Nor "acrobatics" or, more precisely, aerobatics there. They never
> exceeded 60 deg bank angle (more like 45 deg), nor 30 deg. climb angle.
> They also never retracted the flaps, allowing for enhanced low-speed
> maneuvering. Also, isn't it amazing how low-speed maneuverability is
> enhanced with (very) minimum fuel load and no payload?
>
> Yes -- it is impressive to see such a huge bird put through its paces --
> especially when its very size makes it look as if it is barely moving.
>
Yup.
The first B747 I ever saw just seemed to stay in one place and the world
around it grew smaller...

[Skywise]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> <http://youtu.be/RJxnwF-MPi0>

I wanna see 'em Tex Johnston the thing.

:)

Brian
--
http://www.earthwaves.org/forum/index.php - Earth Sciences discussion
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Skywise > wrote:

> Larry Dighera > wrote in
> :
>
> > <http://youtu.be/RJxnwF-MPi0>
>
> I wanna see 'em Tex Johnston the thing.
>
> :)
>
> Brian

Any airplane that can take 3G can be aileron rolled successfully. It
would be like watching an elephant dance.

[Robert Moore]

Orval Fairbairn > wrote
> Any airplane that can take 3G can be aileron rolled successfully. It
> would be like watching an elephant dance.

Why 3Gs? I don't recall any specific elevator input when doing
aileron rolls back in my Navy aerobatic training nor more
recently while flying a YAK-52. You aren't one of those people
who confuse aileron rolls with barrel rolls are you? :) :) :)

Bob Moore

[Dudley Henriques[_3_]]

On Friday, October 3, 2014 5:28:05 PM UTC-4, Robert Moore wrote:
> Orval Fairbairn > wrote
>
> > Any airplane that can take 3G can be aileron rolled successfully. It
>
> > would be like watching an elephant dance.
>
>
>
> Why 3Gs? I don't recall any specific elevator input when doing
>
> aileron rolls back in my Navy aerobatic training nor more
>
> recently while flying a YAK-52. You aren't one of those people
>
> who confuse aileron rolls with barrel rolls are you? :) :) :)
>
>
>
> Bob Moore

Just happened on the thread in passing by. Like to answer this for you but experience tells me not a good idea. :-))
Best to you Bob,
Dudley Henriques

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article 67>,
Robert Moore > wrote:

> Orval Fairbairn > wrote
> > Any airplane that can take 3G can be aileron rolled successfully. It
> > would be like watching an elephant dance.
>
> Why 3Gs? I don't recall any specific elevator input when doing
> aileron rolls back in my Navy aerobatic training nor more
> recently while flying a YAK-52. You aren't one of those people
> who confuse aileron rolls with barrel rolls are you? :) :) :)
>
> Bob Moore

Just in case there is a pooch waiting for you at the end.

[Dudley Henriques[_3_]]

On Friday, October 3, 2014 5:28:05 PM UTC-4, Robert Moore wrote:
> Orval Fairbairn > wrote
>
> > Any airplane that can take 3G can be aileron rolled successfully. It
>
> > would be like watching an elephant dance.
>
>
>
> Why 3Gs? I don't recall any specific elevator input when doing
>
> aileron rolls back in my Navy aerobatic training nor more
>
> recently while flying a YAK-52. You aren't one of those people
>
> who confuse aileron rolls with barrel rolls are you? :) :) :)
>
>
>
> Bob Moore

I'm fairly sure Orval means that the airplane should be capable of at least 3g's coming off the backside of the roll, especially for a non-aerobatic airplane. In an aileron roll in these airplanes you will be above 1g temporarily as you pull the nose up to a set point to initiate the roll. Once the roll begins you can of course unload the wing or go over the top at 1g as desired. But the back side recovery will be a rolling pullout with asymmetrical g loading on the wings. It's here you have to be careful in non aerobatic aircraft. The ability to handle at least 3g's would be a reasonable number.
Dudley Henriques

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> On Friday, October 3, 2014 5:28:05 PM UTC-4, Robert Moore wrote:
> > Orval Fairbairn > wrote
> >
> > > Any airplane that can take 3G can be aileron rolled successfully. It
> >
> > > would be like watching an elephant dance.
> >
> >
> >
> > Why 3Gs? I don't recall any specific elevator input when doing
> >
> > aileron rolls back in my Navy aerobatic training nor more
> >
> > recently while flying a YAK-52. You aren't one of those people
> >
> > who confuse aileron rolls with barrel rolls are you? :) :) :)
> >
> >
> >
> > Bob Moore
>
> I'm fairly sure Orval means that the airplane should be capable of at least
> 3g's coming off the backside of the roll, especially for a non-aerobatic
> airplane. In an aileron roll in these airplanes you will be above 1g
> temporarily as you pull the nose up to a set point to initiate the roll. Once
> the roll begins you can of course unload the wing or go over the top at 1g as
> desired. But the back side recovery will be a rolling pullout with
> asymmetrical g loading on the wings. It's here you have to be careful in non
> aerobatic aircraft. The ability to handle at least 3g's would be a reasonable
> number.
> Dudley Henriques

Another factor, not usually talked about is the lateral centrifugal
accelerations imposed on the engine pods -- both lateral from the
rolling and the coupled inertial forces between the rotating masses and
the airframe attitude changes.

An old co-worker described an autopilot test in the Convair 880:

He was applying a preplanned set of gains to the autopilot and reading
the aircraft responses when another told him to look outside at the
engines. He said that one of the engines was moving in a figure-eight
motion -- they immediately suspended the tests.

When you have such large, flexible structures flying in unusual motions,
you may see some unusual (and not always pleasant) sights.

[Dudley Henriques[_3_]]

On Saturday, October 4, 2014 1:35:03 PM UTC-4, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article >,
>
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Friday, October 3, 2014 5:28:05 PM UTC-4, Robert Moore wrote:
>
> > > Orval Fairbairn > wrote
>
> > >
>
> > > > Any airplane that can take 3G can be aileron rolled successfully. It
>
> > >
>
> > > > would be like watching an elephant dance.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > Why 3Gs? I don't recall any specific elevator input when doing
>
> > >
>
> > > aileron rolls back in my Navy aerobatic training nor more
>
> > >
>
> > > recently while flying a YAK-52. You aren't one of those people
>
> > >
>
> > > who confuse aileron rolls with barrel rolls are you? :) :) :)
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > Bob Moore
>
> >
>
> > I'm fairly sure Orval means that the airplane should be capable of at least
>
> > 3g's coming off the backside of the roll, especially for a non-aerobatic
>
> > airplane. In an aileron roll in these airplanes you will be above 1g
>
> > temporarily as you pull the nose up to a set point to initiate the roll.. Once
>
> > the roll begins you can of course unload the wing or go over the top at 1g as
>
> > desired. But the back side recovery will be a rolling pullout with
>
> > asymmetrical g loading on the wings. It's here you have to be careful in non
>
> > aerobatic aircraft. The ability to handle at least 3g's would be a reasonable
>
> > number.
>
> > Dudley Henriques
>
>
>
> Another factor, not usually talked about is the lateral centrifugal
>
> accelerations imposed on the engine pods -- both lateral from the
>
> rolling and the coupled inertial forces between the rotating masses and
>
> the airframe attitude changes.
>
>
>
> An old co-worker described an autopilot test in the Convair 880:
>
>
>
> He was applying a preplanned set of gains to the autopilot and reading
>
> the aircraft responses when another told him to look outside at the
>
> engines. He said that one of the engines was moving in a figure-eight
>
> motion -- they immediately suspended the tests.
>
>
>
> When you have such large, flexible structures flying in unusual motions,
>
> you may see some unusual (and not always pleasant) sights.

Orval, I take it you are referring here to Johnston's prototype roll over the Seattle yacht races?
If so, absolutely right on lateral g effect on the pods.
Word had it after the incident that Johnston studied what he wanted to do before the flight and decided the answer to all the issues combined was in getting the nose attitude high enough before he initiated the roll that
once initiated, diagonal yoke pressure would produce a 3 dimensional roll path with inside (bottom) rudder being released through the top to minimize the back side dish out.
In other words what he actually did was a loaded 3 dimensional roll using minimum g but held positive throughout the roll. By keeping it ball centered throughout the roll he kept the plane of symmetry in line with the velocity vector thus minimizing the lateral g.
The word was his biggest concern was keeping the scavenger pumps working.
It was a gutsy stunt for sure and Allen gave him holy hell :-) To keep everything going in the right direction (forward with no yaw) he was completely committed to the back side recovery arc with whatever the dish out would be coming over the top.
It sold one hell of a lot of airplanes for Boeing !
Dudley Henriques

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> On Saturday, October 4, 2014 1:35:03 PM UTC-4, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> > In article >,
> >
> > Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Friday, October 3, 2014 5:28:05 PM UTC-4, Robert Moore wrote:
> >
> > > > Orval Fairbairn > wrote
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > Any airplane that can take 3G can be aileron rolled successfully. It
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > would be like watching an elephant dance.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > Why 3Gs? I don't recall any specific elevator input when doing
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > aileron rolls back in my Navy aerobatic training nor more
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > recently while flying a YAK-52. You aren't one of those people
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > who confuse aileron rolls with barrel rolls are you? :) :) :)
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > Bob Moore
> >
> > >
> >
> > > I'm fairly sure Orval means that the airplane should be capable of at
> > > least
> >
> > > 3g's coming off the backside of the roll, especially for a non-aerobatic
> >
> > > airplane. In an aileron roll in these airplanes you will be above 1g
> >
> > > temporarily as you pull the nose up to a set point to initiate the roll.
> > > Once
> >
> > > the roll begins you can of course unload the wing or go over the top at
> > > 1g as
> >
> > > desired. But the back side recovery will be a rolling pullout with
> >
> > > asymmetrical g loading on the wings. It's here you have to be careful in
> > > non
> >
> > > aerobatic aircraft. The ability to handle at least 3g's would be a
> > > reasonable
> >
> > > number.
> >
> > > Dudley Henriques
> >
> >
> >
> > Another factor, not usually talked about is the lateral centrifugal
> >
> > accelerations imposed on the engine pods -- both lateral from the
> >
> > rolling and the coupled inertial forces between the rotating masses and
> >
> > the airframe attitude changes.
> >
> >
> >
> > An old co-worker described an autopilot test in the Convair 880:
> >
> >
> >
> > He was applying a preplanned set of gains to the autopilot and reading
> >
> > the aircraft responses when another told him to look outside at the
> >
> > engines. He said that one of the engines was moving in a figure-eight
> >
> > motion -- they immediately suspended the tests.
> >
> >
> >
> > When you have such large, flexible structures flying in unusual motions,
> >
> > you may see some unusual (and not always pleasant) sights.
>
> Orval, I take it you are referring here to Johnston's prototype roll over the
> Seattle yacht races?

No -- that was a previous poster.

The story I told was the experience of a former co-worker who was
working on the autopilot gains on the Convair 880 or 990. He was
plugging in a gain schedule and pulsing the autopilot and noting the
responses.

The pod dynamics are yet another issue rarely discussed outside
technical circles, but they can have major consequences.

> If so, absolutely right on lateral g effect on the pods.
> Word had it after the incident that Johnston studied what he wanted to do
> before the flight and decided the answer to all the issues combined was in
> getting the nose attitude high enough before he initiated the roll that
> once initiated, diagonal yoke pressure would produce a 3 dimensional roll
> path with inside (bottom) rudder being released through the top to minimize
> the back side dish out.
> In other words what he actually did was a loaded 3 dimensional roll using
> minimum g but held positive throughout the roll. By keeping it ball centered
> throughout the roll he kept the plane of symmetry in line with the velocity
> vector thus minimizing the lateral g.
> The word was his biggest concern was keeping the scavenger pumps working.
> It was a gutsy stunt for sure and Allen gave him holy hell :-) To keep
> everything going in the right direction (forward with no yaw) he was
> completely committed to the back side recovery arc with whatever the dish out
> would be coming over the top.
> It sold one hell of a lot of airplanes for Boeing !
> Dudley Henriques

I am not sure that Tex Johnson considered the pod issues when he did the
(in)famous roll over the Gold Cup races, but I agree that it sold a lot
of Boeings.

I briefly knew Harold "Trimotor" Johnson, back in the early 1960s. He
was reputed to have looped and rolled B-24s.