an exercise for sim pilots -- a 1 G roll

[Tony]

About a year ago there was a spirited discussion about maintaining a 1
G 'straight into the seat' force while doing a roll (let's define a
roll as rotating the airplane, somehow, 360 degrees around its axis
with respect to the horizon). As I rmember the analysis, if you have
enough control authority if you accelerate downward at 1 G and pull
hard enough while doing a coordinated roll you can do just that. A
blindfolded passenger would know the roll happened.

Are there any skilled sim players out there who can do this? I'm
especially interested in what airplanes have enough (simulated) control
authority to pull it off.

[birdog]

"Tony" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> About a year ago there was a spirited discussion about maintaining a 1
> G 'straight into the seat' force while doing a roll (let's define a
> roll as rotating the airplane, somehow, 360 degrees around its axis
> with respect to the horizon). As I rmember the analysis, if you have
> enough control authority if you accelerate downward at 1 G and pull
> hard enough while doing a coordinated roll you can do just that. A
> blindfolded passenger would know the roll happened.
>
> Are there any skilled sim players out there who can do this? I'm
> especially interested in what airplanes have enough (simulated) control
> authority to pull it off.

Old time pilot (retired by age) and simulator dabbler.

I take it you are talking about a barrel roll. With the real thing, you feel
the roll in the seat of your pants. With the sim, I guess you'd have to do
it with instruments - i.e., coordinate with the ball, and a g-meter. Since
you can't feel it, I don't see how else you would know if you did it right.
Doesn't sound like much fun.

[mad8]

from the http://alexisparkinn.com/general_aviation_videos.htm

http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-7-10_Beech-Cocktail.wmv

would this be sort-of what we're talking about?

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> "Tony" > wrote:
>
> >About a year ago there was a spirited discussion about maintaining a 1
> >G 'straight into the seat' force while doing a roll (let's define a
> >roll as rotating the airplane, somehow, 360 degrees around its axis
> >with respect to the horizon).
>
> There was such a discussion - IIRC, it was mostly about
> barrel rolls and loops, not pure aileron rolls.
>
> > As I rmember the analysis, if you have
> >enough control authority if you accelerate downward at 1 G and pull
> >hard enough while doing a coordinated roll you can do just that. A
> >blindfolded passenger would know the roll happened.
>
> Did you mean to say the passenger would or would not know
> the roll happened?
>
> Regardless, if you let the aircraft accelerate at 1G
> downward (0 G), you can (theoretically) superimpose a
> constant 1G loop or a barrel roll with a 1G inward component
> and approximate what you are thinking of, but it's a long
> ways from a blindfolded passenger not noticing. For one
> thing, you are going to pick up a hefty sink rate during the
> falling 0 G loop that you can't get rid of if you keep to
> the 1G limit. You hit the ground shortly after this
> exercise. Another point is that your speed is increasing
> rapidly. Think of the center of the loop "falling" the
> entire time this maneuver is being conducted.
>
> Yet another point is that an aircraft must keep its fuselage
> roughly lined up with the relative wind, so the angle of
> this 1 G relative to the floor is changing as you end up in
> a high speed dive at the end. Finally, you can't get the
> roll started or ended without imposing forces on the
> passenger that he will notice.
>
>
>
> --
> Do not spin this aircraft. If the aircraft does enter a spin it will return to earth without further attention on the part of the aeronaut.
>
> (first handbook issued with the Curtis-Wright flyer)

[Blueskies]

"mad8" > wrote in message oups.com...
: from the http://alexisparkinn.com/general_aviation_videos.htm
:
: http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-7-10_Beech-Cocktail.wmv
:
: would this be sort-of what we're talking about?
:

Hoover wanna b's

[Mxsmanic]

It's possible to execute a roll with the acceleration vector
continuously pointing in the proper direction and with continuous
positive G forces, but it is not possible to do it with a constant
level of acceleration. That is, you can keep the acceleration
positive, but you cannot hold it at 1.0 Gs. As long as it is positive
and the vector is stationary (both of which are possible), passengers
will have only the sensation of slightly rising or falling in a
straight line during the roll.

I've seen Bob Hoover demonstrate this by pouring fruit juice into a
cup during a barrel roll. Others have probably done the same thing.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

birdog writes:

> I take it you are talking about a barrel roll. With the real thing, you feel
> the roll in the seat of your pants. With the sim, I guess you'd have to do
> it with instruments - i.e., coordinate with the ball, and a g-meter. Since
> you can't feel it, I don't see how else you would know if you did it right.
> Doesn't sound like much fun.

I've done it successfully as an experiment, out of curiosity, but you
are right, it's not much fun. It has the merit of being a very safe
maneuver.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Tony]

Here's what I remember thinking about when it was being discussed. We
all know if we skid into a turn using only rudder the ball swings to
the outside, and if we roll into it with ailerons the ball rolls
inside, so with the correct combination (since we are all expert
pilots, it's always like this for us) the ball is nailed to the center.
However, we will, if in level flight, feel increased g's -1.41 times
body weight at 45 degrees in a coordinated turn, you guys all know
that. However, if you while coordinating rudder and aileron you put
forward pressure on the yoke, you can take off those G's -- push hard
enough and you can probably go to negative g's and only have the seat
belt holding you down. So, there is some forward pressure that will
just compensate for the additional g's the coordinated level turn will
cause.

So, I can talk myself into the start of a roll (more barrel than
anything else) thinking I can keep the ball centered and the scale I'm
sitting on registering my actual weight. The engineering analysis can
continue from that point, saying at any incremental distance or roll
angle there's some combination of aileron, rudder, and yoke that will
result in an additional roll with one g postive force into the seat.

I remember someone running the numbers and concluding the diameter of
this descending barrel roll thing would be about 80 feet (not far from
a snap roll, huh?). That's nothing the little rudder and ailerons on
airplanes I know can do. The question is, is there a simulator jock out
there who can call up the parameters of a real life airplane that can
fly the thing? Do simulators allow the inclusion of a three axis G
force meter on the panel?

[Mxsmanic]

Tony writes:

> However, if you while coordinating rudder and aileron you put
> forward pressure on the yoke, you can take off those G's -- push hard
> enough and you can probably go to negative g's and only have the seat
> belt holding you down. So, there is some forward pressure that will
> just compensate for the additional g's the coordinated level turn will
> cause.

The additional Gs are unavoidable in a coordinated turn at constant
altitude. They arise from the fact that you are being accelerated not
only downward by gravity but also towards the center of the turn by
the aircraft's bank, which essentially uses part of the lift provided
by the wings to accelerate the aircraft inward. The bank insures that
the resulting acceleration vector remains normal to the wings (and the
aircraft's occupants), but its magnitude must increase.

If you do nothing to maintain altitude, you can stay at one gravity of
acceleration, but you'll descend in the turn.

In a barrel roll, you cannot avoid accelerations greater than 1 G at
some point. At some point, the aircraft must descend, and then level
out. At that point the acceleration will exceed 1 G.

You should be able to make the additional increment of acceleration
arbitrarily small, however, at least in theory.

> Do simulators allow the inclusion of a three axis G
> force meter on the panel?

Not that I've seen, but there are many simulators in the world.

In MSFS, you can do a barrel roll while monitoring vertical
acceleration. If the acceleration stays positive, you're good. If it
stays close to 1.0, that's better still.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[john smith]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>I've seen Bob Hoover demonstrate this by pouring fruit juice into a
>cup during a barrel roll. Others have probably done the same thing.
>

Water, not fruit juice.

Think.... why would someone deliberately pour a stickey substance onto
their instument panel/engine control cluster if there was risk of
spilling it into said instruments/controls?

[Tony]

There is no requirement to hold a constant level of acceleration or
level flight. The requirement is simply that the weight vector be into
the seat at 1 G. It is possible to take the airplane through a 360 roll
about its axis doing this, so such a flight pattern would NOT be
noticed by a blindfolded with hearing blocked PX. I do appreciate the
airplane will not end the manouver straight and level and will not have
its initial heading. Recovering those values may be physically
impossible -- it will be going down pretty fast, and I can't imagine a
flight path that take the airplane back to S&L without inducing more
than 1 G on the cockpit. The question I have is, does an airplane exist
that has the control authority to fly such a roll?



On Jan 2, 4:13 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> It's possible to execute a roll with the acceleration vector
> continuously pointing in the proper direction and with continuous
> positive G forces, but it is not possible to do it with a constant
> level of acceleration. That is, you can keep the acceleration
> positive, but you cannot hold it at 1.0 Gs. As long as it is positive
> and the vector is stationary (both of which are possible), passengers
> will have only the sensation of slightly rising or falling in a
> straight line during the roll.
>
> I've seen Bob Hoover demonstrate this by pouring fruit juice into a
> cup during a barrel roll. Others have probably done the same thing.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Kyle Boatright]

"Tony" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> There is no requirement to hold a constant level of acceleration or
> level flight. The requirement is simply that the weight vector be into
> the seat at 1 G. It is possible to take the airplane through a 360 roll
> about its axis doing this, so such a flight pattern would NOT be
> noticed by a blindfolded with hearing blocked PX. I do appreciate the
> airplane will not end the manouver straight and level and will not have
> its initial heading. Recovering those values may be physically
> impossible -- it will be going down pretty fast, and I can't imagine a
> flight path that take the airplane back to S&L without inducing more
> than 1 G on the cockpit. The question I have is, does an airplane exist
> that has the control authority to fly such a roll?
>

IF you allow me to start with the aircraft in a 20 degree climb, it is
possible, and I do it quite frequently in the RV-6. Without letting me
start in a climb or end in a dive, it isn't possible, because keeping one
"G" on the seat when you're inverted means the airplane is accelerating
downward at 2 G's - the gravity induced one and the one you're using to keep
your butt in the seat. You've gotta make up for that downward acceleration
somewhere, and the easy way is to start in a climb or end in a dive...

I routinely do 1.25 G rolls, including the pull-up before the roll and the
pull-up after the roll, which are what add the extra .25 G. Alternately, I
can skip either of the pull-ups, but that means I need to pull twice as hard
(or twice as long) on the other end of the roll.

KB

KB

[Mxsmanic]

john smith writes:

> Water, not fruit juice.

It looked yellow, as I recall.

> Think.... why would someone deliberately pour a stickey substance onto
> their instument panel/engine control cluster if there was risk of
> spilling it into said instruments/controls?

Perhaps there was no risk.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Tony]

The notion of starting in a climb solves a lot of problems, I had not
thought of that,

And if you start S&L and fast, you can enter the climb while in a
controlled deceleration, too, keeping that 1 G component down relative
to the seat, too.

How fast do you have to enter, and how long does the roll take?

Thanks!



On Jan 2, 8:10 pm, "Kyle Boatright" > wrote:
> "Tony" > wrote in oglegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > There is no requirement to hold a constant level of acceleration or
> > level flight. The requirement is simply that the weight vector be into
> > the seat at 1 G. It is possible to take the airplane through a 360 roll
> > about its axis doing this, so such a flight pattern would NOT be
> > noticed by a blindfolded with hearing blocked PX. I do appreciate the
> > airplane will not end the manouver straight and level and will not have
> > its initial heading. Recovering those values may be physically
> > impossible -- it will be going down pretty fast, and I can't imagine a
> > flight path that take the airplane back to S&L without inducing more
> > than 1 G on the cockpit. The question I have is, does an airplane exist
> > that has the control authority to fly such a roll?IF you allow me to start with the aircraft in a 20 degree climb, it is
> possible, and I do it quite frequently in the RV-6. Without letting me
> start in a climb or end in a dive, it isn't possible, because keeping one
> "G" on the seat when you're inverted means the airplane is accelerating
> downward at 2 G's - the gravity induced one and the one you're using to keep
> your butt in the seat. You've gotta make up for that downward acceleration
> somewhere, and the easy way is to start in a climb or end in a dive...
>
> I routinely do 1.25 G rolls, including the pull-up before the roll and the
> pull-up after the roll, which are what add the extra .25 G. Alternately, I
> can skip either of the pull-ups, but that means I need to pull twice as hard
> (or twice as long) on the other end of the roll.
>
> KB
>
> KB

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

"Tony" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> About a year ago there was a spirited discussion about maintaining a 1
> G 'straight into the seat' force while doing a roll (let's define a
> roll as rotating the airplane, somehow, 360 degrees around its axis
> with respect to the horizon). As I rmember the analysis, if you have
> enough control authority if you accelerate downward at 1 G and pull
> hard enough while doing a coordinated roll you can do just that. A
> blindfolded passenger would know the roll happened.
>
> Are there any skilled sim players out there who can do this? I'm
> especially interested in what airplanes have enough (simulated) control
> authority to pull it off.
>

It's not possible with my current setup. Maybe someone else will have better
luck.

[Duncan (NZ)]

In article >,
says...
> birdog writes:
>
> > I take it you are talking about a barrel roll. With the real thing, you feel
> > the roll in the seat of your pants. With the sim, I guess you'd have to do
> > it with instruments - i.e., coordinate with the ball, and a g-meter. Since
> > you can't feel it, I don't see how else you would know if you did it right.
> > Doesn't sound like much fun.
>
> I've done it successfully as an experiment, out of curiosity, but you
> are right, it's not much fun. It has the merit of being a very safe
> maneuver.

Breaking both wings off in the simulator is also a very safe maneuver
isn't it? :)

-- Duncan

[Kyle Boatright]

"Tony" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The notion of starting in a climb solves a lot of problems, I had not
> thought of that,
>
> And if you start S&L and fast, you can enter the climb while in a
> controlled deceleration, too, keeping that 1 G component down relative
> to the seat, too.
>
> How fast do you have to enter, and how long does the roll take?
>
> Thanks!
>

Anywhere from 100 to 170 knots. The roll probably takes 4-5 seconds, but I
don't have the skill level to perform a roll and time it simultaneously.

KB

[Peter Dohm]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> >I've seen Bob Hoover demonstrate this by pouring fruit juice into a
> >cup during a barrel roll. Others have probably done the same thing.
> >
>
> Water, not fruit juice.
>
> Think.... why would someone deliberately pour a stickey substance onto
> their instument panel/engine control cluster if there was risk of
> spilling it into said instruments/controls?
>
It was iced tea.

BTW, Avflash recently provided a link to a YouTube video of it:
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/775-full.html#194120

[Tony]

Kyle, if the roll is completed in 4 seconds, that means the airplane
will be 'falling' about 75 knots after 360 degrees. Doesn't that mean
if you start the roll with a vertical velocity of 75 kts you'll come
out with a zero vertical speed component? With a 150 kt airspeed, that
means starting the roll with a 30 degree climb.

Interesting idea!

Thanks



On Jan 2, 10:21 pm, "Kyle Boatright" > wrote:
> "Tony" > wrote in ooglegroups.com...
>
> > The notion of starting in a climb solves a lot of problems, I had not
> > thought of that,
>
> > And if you start S&L and fast, you can enter the climb while in a
> > controlled deceleration, too, keeping that 1 G component down relative
> > to the seat, too.
>
> > How fast do you have to enter, and how long does the roll take?
>
> > Thanks!Anywhere from 100 to 170 knots. The roll probably takes 4-5 seconds, but I
> don't have the skill level to perform a roll and time it simultaneously.
>
> KB

[Mxsmanic]

Duncan writes:

> Breaking both wings off in the simulator is also a very safe maneuver
> isn't it?

No, it causes the aircraft to crash.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Duncan (NZ)]

In article >,
says...
> Duncan writes:
>
> > Breaking both wings off in the simulator is also a very safe maneuver
> > isn't it?
>
> No, it causes the aircraft to crash.

Any injuries?

How much did it cost for the new plane?

--
Duncan

[Mxsmanic]

Duncan writes:

> Any injuries?

All aboard are lost.

> How much did it cost for the new plane?

It depends on the aircraft, of course.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Duncan (NZ)]

In article >,
says...
> Duncan writes:
>
> > Any injuries?
>
> All aboard are lost.
>
> > How much did it cost for the new plane?
>
> It depends on the aircraft, of course.

Hmmm I thought MSFS had a reset key combination. Do you re-install
after a crash or do you pretend you're dead and not use it anymore?

--
Duncan

[Tony]

Duncan, the 'roll' I'm talking about would NOT be felt in the seat of
your pants -- it would be one G down into the seat throught the entire
roll. Kyle's observations in this thread are more on target. Done
correctly in an airplane it would feel exactly the same as it would if
it was flown while gaming it on a sim in your home office.


On Jan 2, 11:23 am, "birdog" > wrote:
> "Tony" > wrote in oglegroups.com...
>
> > About a year ago there was a spirited discussion about maintaining a 1
> > G 'straight into the seat' force while doing a roll (let's define a
> > roll as rotating the airplane, somehow, 360 degrees around its axis
> > with respect to the horizon). As I rmember the analysis, if you have
> > enough control authority if you accelerate downward at 1 G and pull
> > hard enough while doing a coordinated roll you can do just that. A
> > blindfolded passenger would know the roll happened.
>
> > Are there any skilled sim players out there who can do this? I'm
> > especially interested in what airplanes have enough (simulated) control
> > authority to pull it off.Old time pilot (retired by age) and simulator dabbler.
>
> I take it you are talking about a barrel roll. With the real thing, you feel
> the roll in the seat of your pants. With the sim, I guess you'd have to do
> it with instruments - i.e., coordinate with the ball, and a g-meter. Since
> you can't feel it, I don't see how else you would know if you did it right.
> Doesn't sound like much fun.

[Duncan (NZ)]

In article m>,
says...
>
>
> On Jan 2, 11:23 am, "birdog" > wrote:
> > "Tony" > wrote in oglegroups.com...
> >
> > > About a year ago there was a spirited discussion about maintaining a 1
> > > G 'straight into the seat' force while doing a roll (let's define a
> > > roll as rotating the airplane, somehow, 360 degrees around its axis
> > > with respect to the horizon). As I rmember the analysis, if you have
> > > enough control authority if you accelerate downward at 1 G and pull
> > > hard enough while doing a coordinated roll you can do just that. A
> > > blindfolded passenger would know the roll happened.
> >
> > > Are there any skilled sim players out there who can do this? I'm
> > > especially interested in what airplanes have enough (simulated) control
> > > authority to pull it off.Old time pilot (retired by age) and simulator dabbler.
> >
> > I take it you are talking about a barrel roll. With the real thing, you feel
> > the roll in the seat of your pants. With the sim, I guess you'd have to do
> > it with instruments - i.e., coordinate with the ball, and a g-meter. Since
> > you can't feel it, I don't see how else you would know if you did it right.
> > Doesn't sound like much fun.
>
> Duncan, the 'roll' I'm talking about would NOT be felt in the seat of
> your pants -- it would be one G down into the seat throught the entire
> roll. Kyle's observations in this thread are more on target. Done
> correctly in an airplane it would feel exactly the same as it would if
> it was flown while gaming it on a sim in your home office.

Top post corrected - I think the person you are replying to is
"birdog" - not me :)

--
Duncan

[Danny Deger]

"Tony" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> About a year ago there was a spirited discussion about maintaining a 1
> G 'straight into the seat' force while doing a roll (let's define a
> roll as rotating the airplane, somehow, 360 degrees around its axis
> with respect to the horizon). As I rmember the analysis, if you have
> enough control authority if you accelerate downward at 1 G and pull
> hard enough while doing a coordinated roll you can do just that. A
> blindfolded passenger would know the roll happened.
>
> Are there any skilled sim players out there who can do this? I'm
> especially interested in what airplanes have enough (simulated) control
> authority to pull it off.
>]

Has anyone else seen the video of the 707 doing a barrel roll. The test
pilot on his own did this maneuver when Boeing was showing off the plane to
potential customers. He knew the plane could do this maneuver, but knew he
would not be given permission to do it from management. He did it once,
turned around and did it again.

One key to the barrel roll is you are using aircraft pitch a lot to get the
nose around. Many airplanes with sluggish roll can do a barrel roll, even
though they can't do an aileron roll.

Danny Deger

[BDS[_2_]]

"Danny Deger" > wrote in message
...

> Has anyone else seen the video of the 707 doing a barrel roll. The test
> pilot on his own did this maneuver when Boeing was showing off the plane
to
> potential customers. He knew the plane could do this maneuver, but knew
he
> would not be given permission to do it from management. He did it once,
> turned around and did it again.

I heard the story at the museum in DC where they have that very 707 on
display.

The company execs didn't know he was going to do the roll either and
afterwards one of the execs told a manager to fire the test pilot. The
manager said that he couldn't do that because that particular pilot was the
only one who knew how to fly the plane at the time.

BDS

[Mxsmanic]

Duncan writes:

> Hmmm I thought MSFS had a reset key combination.

It is bad form to use any type of reset in simulation. If you have to
reset it, you've failed.

> Do you re-install after a crash or do you pretend you're dead
> and not use it anymore?

I usually restart the sim, depending on the aircraft. Add-ons don't
always restart gracefully.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Tony writes:

> Duncan, the 'roll' I'm talking about would NOT be felt in the seat of
> your pants -- it would be one G down into the seat throught the entire
> roll. Kyle's observations in this thread are more on target. Done
> correctly in an airplane it would feel exactly the same as it would if
> it was flown while gaming it on a sim in your home office.

Not quite. You wouldn't be at exactly 1 G throughout the roll, so at
times you'd feel as though you were rising or falling (though not
necessarily in a dramatic way).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[john smith]

Danny Deger wrote:

>Has anyone else seen the video of the 707 doing a barrel roll. The test
>pilot on his own did this maneuver when Boeing was showing off the plane to
>potential customers. He knew the plane could do this maneuver, but knew he
>would not be given permission to do it from management. He did it once,
>turned around and did it again.
>
>One key to the barrel roll is you are using aircraft pitch a lot to get the
>nose around. Many airplanes with sluggish roll can do a barrel roll, even
>though they can't do an aileron roll.
>
>Danny Deger
>

GOOGLE: "Tex" Johnson+Boeing

[Danny Deger]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Danny Deger wrote:
>
>>Has anyone else seen the video of the 707 doing a barrel roll. The test
>>pilot on his own did this maneuver when Boeing was showing off the plane
>>to potential customers. He knew the plane could do this maneuver, but
>>knew he would not be given permission to do it from management. He did it
>>once, turned around and did it again.
>>
>>One key to the barrel roll is you are using aircraft pitch a lot to get
>>the nose around. Many airplanes with sluggish roll can do a barrel roll,
>>even though they can't do an aileron roll.
>>
>>Danny Deger
>>
>
> GOOGLE: "Tex" Johnson+Boeing
>

The Google worked. It found this link that has a video
http://www.orizzle.com/htm/v/020.htm

Danny Deger

[Kyle Boatright]

You're on the right track. I'd guess my entry angle is 20-30 degrees nose
up and I typically end the roll between level and 10 degrees nose down.

KB

"Tony" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Kyle, if the roll is completed in 4 seconds, that means the airplane
> will be 'falling' about 75 knots after 360 degrees. Doesn't that mean
> if you start the roll with a vertical velocity of 75 kts you'll come
> out with a zero vertical speed component? With a 150 kt airspeed, that
> means starting the roll with a 30 degree climb.
>
> Interesting idea!
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> On Jan 2, 10:21 pm, "Kyle Boatright" > wrote:
>> "Tony" > wrote in
>> ooglegroups.com...
>>
>> > The notion of starting in a climb solves a lot of problems, I had not
>> > thought of that,
>>
>> > And if you start S&L and fast, you can enter the climb while in a
>> > controlled deceleration, too, keeping that 1 G component down relative
>> > to the seat, too.
>>
>> > How fast do you have to enter, and how long does the roll take?
>>
>> > Thanks!Anywhere from 100 to 170 knots. The roll probably takes 4-5
>> > seconds, but I
>> don't have the skill level to perform a roll and time it simultaneously.
>>
>> KB
>

[Tony]

On Jan 4, 3:38 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Tony writes:
> > Duncan, the 'roll' I'm talking about would NOT be felt in the seat of
> > your pants -- it would be one G down into the seat throught the entire
> > roll. Kyle's observations in this thread are more on target. Done
> > correctly in an airplane it would feel exactly the same as it would if
> > it was flown while gaming it on a sim in your home office.Not quite. You wouldn't be at exactly 1 G throughout the roll, so at
> times you'd feel as though you were rising or falling (though not
> necessarily in a dramatic way).


You are incorrect.

There is a flight path, taking into account roll, pitch, yah, and
thrust, that will result in a complete roll with an g meter indicating
1 G into the seat. Elsewhere in the thread someone indicated a solution
for the last part of the problem, namely if entered from straight and
level the airplane would be going down at about 75 kts at the end of
the roll.

The question I asked at the start wasn't if the flight path exists --
it does -- but rather, is there an airplane that has the control
authority to fly it.

My real life airplane, an M20, may not be flown at more than 30 degrees
pitch or 60 degrees bank, but those kinds of limitations do not apply
to someone who games on a flight simulator, or who has a suitably
certified airplane. My OP request was to have someone who is skilled in
simulated flight see if their simulated airplane had the control
authority to fly that flight path.







onogal balls ,
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jose[_1_]]

> My real life airplane, an M20, may not be flown at more than 30 degrees
> pitch or 60 degrees bank

Is this a regulatory limitation, or a control surface (laws of physics)
limitation?

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Tony]

On Jan 4, 8:29 pm, Jose > wrote:
> > My real life airplane, an M20, may not be flown at more than 30 degrees
> > pitch or 60 degrees bankIs this a regulatory limitation, or a control surface (laws of physics)
> limitation?
>
> Jose

It's a certification limitation, Jose. A skilled pilot can roll and
loop maintaining reasonable positive Gs -- even I can, in suitable
airplanes -- but FAA says don't do it.

I did have a friend who did a not too careful loop in his Mooney, and
on the way down he got to redline airspeed really quickly: for a spam
can, the Mooney class is very very clean and slippery. That big spar
that runs through the cabin was really useful to him on the pullout.
I'll bet they are a real bear in a spiral -- go from start to wingover
in a wink.

[Jose[_1_]]

> It's a certification limitation, Jose.

Ok, then your airplane may well have the control authority to do it, you
just (wisely) don't want to find out the hard way. However, when you
asked:

> The question I asked at the start wasn't if the flight path exists --
> it does -- but rather, is there an airplane that has the control
> authority to fly it.

it implies that you didn't believe spam cans could. Now I understand
the real question is whether the sim of such spam cans can, by which you
may infer that the real one can (or that the sim is inaccurate - I don't
know how you'd pick between them)

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Tony]

Jose, I suspect the physics the sims use for coordinated flight at
least is pretty reasonable. Since stall characteritics are a function
of rigging (I doubt two Mooneys with their laminar flow wings stall the
same) I'm not sure how well a sim game does that.

If a credible sim jock claimed his G meter stayed fixed at 1 when he
flew his 172, F16 -- or maybe his Harrier -- though a roll, I'd be
willing to say QED.



On Jan 4, 10:15 pm, Jose > wrote:
> > It's a certification limitation, Jose.Ok, then your airplane may well have the control authority to do it, you
> just (wisely) don't want to find out the hard way. However, when you
> asked:
>
> > The question I asked at the start wasn't if the flight path exists --
> > it does -- but rather, is there an airplane that has the control
> > authority to fly it.it implies that you didn't believe spam cans could. Now I understand
> the real question is whether the sim of such spam cans can, by which you
> may infer that the real one can (or that the sim is inaccurate - I don't
> know how you'd pick between them)
>
> Jose
> --
> He who laughs, lasts.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

Tony writes:

> There is a flight path, taking into account roll, pitch, yah, and
> thrust, that will result in a complete roll with an g meter indicating
> 1 G into the seat.

No, there is not. You cannot change altitude without a change in G.
Indeed, any acceleration of the aircraft, in any direction, will
change the G force. You can keep it normal to the pilot's seat in
many cases, but you cannot hold its magnitude constant.

> My real life airplane, an M20, may not be flown at more than 30 degrees
> pitch or 60 degrees bank, but those kinds of limitations do not apply
> to someone who games on a flight simulator, or who has a suitably
> certified airplane.

In theory, any aircraft can do a barrel roll, as long as the net
acceleration vector is kept downward.

> My OP request was to have someone who is skilled in
> simulated flight see if their simulated airplane had the control
> authority to fly that flight path.

I was able to do it in the default Cessna on MSFS, not very neatly but
with the G force always positive. It's supposedly an extremely safe
maneuver as long as that number stays positive.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Tony writes:

> If a credible sim jock claimed his G meter stayed fixed at 1 when he
> flew his 172, F16 -- or maybe his Harrier -- though a roll, I'd be
> willing to say QED.

It cannot stay fixed at 1.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Tony]

On Jan 5, 4:58 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Tony writes:
> > There is a flight path, taking into account roll, pitch, yah, and
> > thrust, that will result in a complete roll with an g meter indicating
> > 1 G into the seat.


No, there is not. You cannot change altitude without a change in G.
> Indeed, any acceleration of the aircraft, in any direction, will
> change the G force. You can keep it normal to the pilot's seat in
> many cases, but you cannot hold its magnitude constant.

In fact you are wrong. You may wish to look in the archives of this
newsgroup for the proof.

You can demostrate at least the early part of such a roll by starting a
coordinated turn and adding sufficient forward pressure on the yoke to
remove the additional G's a level turn would induce. One suce flight
path requires you to accelerate downward at 1 G.

This is actually a fairly simple classical physics problem -- at least
one poster solved it using a spread sheet.

You are quite correct, however, in stating most airplanes can be flown
in a loop or a roll safely with positive G forces, but nealy all
general aviation aircraft certified in the United States are not
certified for such flight paths.

I do think you didn't quite say what you meant when you stated you
cannot change altitude without changing G. What g force would you
expect it you were climbing at 500 feet a minute?




>
> > My real life airplane, an M20, may not be flown at more than 30 degrees
> > pitch or 60 degrees bank, but those kinds of limitations do not apply
> > to someone who games on a flight simulator, or who has a suitably
> > certified airplane.In theory, any aircraft can do a barrel roll, as long as the net
> acceleration vector is kept downward.
>
> > My OP request was to have someone who is skilled in
> > simulated flight see if their simulated airplane had the control
> > authority to fly that flight path.I was able to do it in the default Cessna on MSFS, not very neatly but
> with the G force always positive. It's supposedly an extremely safe
> maneuver as long as that number stays positive.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Tony writes:

> In fact you are wrong. You may wish to look in the archives of this
> newsgroup for the proof.

The archives of this newsgroup are proof of nothing.

You cannot change altitude without acceleration, and that changes G
force. You cannot execute any type of roll that involves any change
in altitude without a change in G force. This is basic physics.

If you roll the aircraft without a change in altitude, the magnitude
of the G force can be held constant. However, in that case, you
cannot keep the vector pointed in the same direction.

If you want positive G through the normal vector when moving through
the inverted portion of a roll, you _must_ accelerate downward at at
least one G at some point, otherwise gravity will reduce G to zero and
make it negative. When the aircraft is inverted, gravity produces
-1.0 G of acceleration on the pilot. The only way to counter this is
to accelerate downward at at least 1 G.

> I do think you didn't quite say what you meant when you stated you
> cannot change altitude without changing G. What g force would you
> expect it you were climbing at 500 feet a minute?

None, but you would experience greater than 1 G as you started the
climb, and less than 1 G as you ended it. You have to accelerate
upward to start a climb and downward to stop it. You cannot
accelerate without inducing G forces. The same is true in turns.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Duncan (NZ)]

In article >,
says...
> Duncan writes:
>
> > Hmmm I thought MSFS had a reset key combination.
>
> It is bad form to use any type of reset in simulation. If you have to
> reset it, you've failed.
>
> > Do you re-install after a crash or do you pretend you're dead
> > and not use it anymore?
>
> I usually restart the sim, depending on the aircraft. Add-ons don't
> always restart gracefully.

OK... so going back to your earlier comments:
> > Breaking both wings off in the simulator is also a very safe maneuver
> > isn't it?
>
> No, it causes the aircraft to crash.

> > Any injuries?
>
> All aboard are lost.
>
> > How much did it cost for the new plane?
>
> It depends on the aircraft, of course.

Are you a troll?

Why don't you head down to your local flight school and do a $100 trial
flight? You'll get a logbook and get to make your first entry in it.
You'll get to fly a real plane, hands on.

Yer a troll aren't ya :)

--
Duncan

[Tony]

On Jan 5, 6:51 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Tony writes:
> > In fact you are wrong. You may wish to look in the archives of this
> > newsgroup for the proof.The archives of this newsgroup are proof of nothing.


Ah, but if you are capable of the task, you can apply some classical
physics to the information provided in the archive and do the analysis
yourself.

If you are not capable of the analytical physics you might have to do
experimental physics. In your case if you have the skills those can be
gamed.

Or, remain ignorant, and wrong.

Again.




>
> You cannot change altitude without acceleration, and that changes G
> force. You cannot execute any type of roll that involves any change
> in altitude without a change in G force. This is basic physics.
>
> If you roll the aircraft without a change in altitude, the magnitude
> of the G force can be held constant. However, in that case, you
> cannot keep the vector pointed in the same direction.
>
> If you want positive G through the normal vector when moving through
> the inverted portion of a roll, you _must_ accelerate downward at at
> least one G at some point, otherwise gravity will reduce G to zero and
> make it negative. When the aircraft is inverted, gravity produces
> -1.0 G of acceleration on the pilot. The only way to counter this is
> to accelerate downward at at least 1 G.
>
> > I do think you didn't quite say what you meant when you stated you
> > cannot change altitude without changing G. What g force would you
> > expect it you were climbing at 500 feet a minute?None, but you would experience greater than 1 G as you started the
> climb, and less than 1 G as you ended it. You have to accelerate
> upward to start a climb and downward to stop it. You cannot
> accelerate without inducing G forces. The same is true in turns.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Tony]

The physics of this 1 g roll are nicely demonstrated at

http://www.stanford.edu/~siegman/one_g_roll.html


The question I had asked in the first posting seems to have been
answered by Kyle.


This was almost as much fun as the airplane on a treadmill thread --
thanks everyone.


Now there's an idea. Let's design a treadmill that follows the 1 g roll
path and sell it to Disney! It wouldn't be much fun for the kids riding
it, would it? ( I have one year from first public disclosure to file a
patent application, right?)

On Jan 5, 9:05 am, "Tony" > wrote:
> On Jan 5, 6:51 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > Tony writes:
> > > In fact you are wrong. You may wish to look in the archives of this
> > > newsgroup for the proof.The archives of this newsgroup are proof of nothing.Ah, but if you are capable of the task, you can apply some classical
> physics to the information provided in the archive and do the analysis
> yourself.
>
> If you are not capable of the analytical physics you might have to do
> experimental physics. In your case if you have the skills those can be
> gamed.
>
> Or, remain ignorant, and wrong.
>
> Again.
>
>
>
>
>
> > You cannot change altitude without acceleration, and that changes G
> > force. You cannot execute any type of roll that involves any change
> > in altitude without a change in G force. This is basic physics.
>
> > If you roll the aircraft without a change in altitude, the magnitude
> > of the G force can be held constant. However, in that case, you
> > cannot keep the vector pointed in the same direction.
>
> > If you want positive G through the normal vector when moving through
> > the inverted portion of a roll, you _must_ accelerate downward at at
> > least one G at some point, otherwise gravity will reduce G to zero and
> > make it negative. When the aircraft is inverted, gravity produces
> > -1.0 G of acceleration on the pilot. The only way to counter this is
> > to accelerate downward at at least 1 G.
>
> > > I do think you didn't quite say what you meant when you stated you
> > > cannot change altitude without changing G. What g force would you
> > > expect it you were climbing at 500 feet a minute?None, but you would experience greater than 1 G as you started the
> > climb, and less than 1 G as you ended it. You have to accelerate
> > upward to start a climb and downward to stop it. You cannot
> > accelerate without inducing G forces. The same is true in turns.
>
> > --
> > Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

[Steve Foley]

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message

> you can't change altitude without a
> change in G force, that's true, but only if you start from
> level flight. If you start from a climb, it's no problem.

I believe you could decrease your altitude while banking and maintain 1G
from level flight.

[Jose[_1_]]

>>If you roll the aircraft without a change in altitude, the magnitude
>>of the G force can be held constant.
>
>
> Even this is only partly true - you do need to impose
> acceleration forces on the aircraft and pilot to produce the
> torque required to start and finish the axial rotation of
> the aircraft as it makes a roll.

Okay, but then...

> Unlike the impossible roll question originally asked, the
> loop problem is sort of interesting. Let's assume the
> pilot has to feel a steady unchanging 1G and look at what
> has to happen in the level flight start case. Initially he
> feels that 1G straight down. Now we want to start a loop.
> The 1G vector has to tilt back, so we have to reduce the
> straight down force of gravity by allowing the aircraft to
> descend.

Tilting the 1G vector back, the nose comes up. This requires rotational
acceleration just like the roll, only on a different axis. Sauce for
the goose and all. :)

> You just can't easily raise the nose and
> make the aircraft descend.

Reduce engine power, the aircraft descends. Raise the nose, the
aircraft ascends (at least in the short term). Do them both so that the
two cancel out, and you've achieved your goal.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Tony]

click on the url for the physics analysis. Newton's laws (or
approximations) says it can be done, as the analysis done at Stanford
suggests.

This is the neat part -- the sim flyers can actually do this thing and
claim to feel the same physical sensations real pilots do!

For those who dispute the physics -- please indicate where the url is
wrong.

On Jan 5, 10:14 am, "Steve Foley" > wrote:
> "T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
>
> > you can't change altitude without a
> > change in G force, that's true, but only if you start from
> > level flight. If you start from a climb, it's no problem.I believe you could decrease your altitude while banking and maintain 1G
> from level flight.

[Tony]

All who disagree with the physical analysis URL I provided are
encouraged to show where that analysis is incorrect. Waving hands and
shouting doesn't do much to change Newton's Laws, and the action
proposed keeps it out of relativistic physics.

Apply Newton correctly to the problem -- as I think has been done in
the reference I cited and elsewhere -- and you should come to the same
conclusion.

Kyle's very practical suggestion of being in a climb (and I can show
you how to go from straight and level into a climb maintaining one g
into the seat) at the start of the roll offered a solution I did not
see for overcoming the final downward velocity the flight path would
have taken had one started from straight and level.

People who understand the physics can understand how neat a problem and
solution this is.

Most of the number crunching seems to show in the airplane will be
flying a psudo barrel roll with an 80 foot diameter. That's really
yanking on the controls.





On Jan 5, 11:21 am, Jose > wrote:
> >>If you roll the aircraft without a change in altitude, the magnitude
> >>of the G force can be held constant.
>
> > Even this is only partly true - you do need to impose
> > acceleration forces on the aircraft and pilot to produce the
> > torque required to start and finish the axial rotation of
> > the aircraft as it makes a roll.Okay, but then...
>
> > Unlike the impossible roll question originally asked, the
> > loop problem is sort of interesting. Let's assume the
> > pilot has to feel a steady unchanging 1G and look at what
> > has to happen in the level flight start case. Initially he
> > feels that 1G straight down. Now we want to start a loop.
> > The 1G vector has to tilt back, so we have to reduce the
> > straight down force of gravity by allowing the aircraft to
> > descend.Tilting the 1G vector back, the nose comes up. This requires rotational
> acceleration just like the roll, only on a different axis. Sauce for
> the goose and all. :)
>
> > You just can't easily raise the nose and
> > make the aircraft descend.Reduce engine power, the aircraft descends. Raise the nose, the
> aircraft ascends (at least in the short term). Do them both so that the
> two cancel out, and you've achieved your goal.
>
> Jose
> --
> He who laughs, lasts.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Tony]

I made a mistatement in my prior post. I do not know how to get into a
30 degree climb from straight and level without experiencing a change
in preceived G forces.

[Mxsmanic]

Duncan writes:

> Are you a troll?

No.

> Why don't you head down to your local flight school and do a $100 trial
> flight?

In part because $100 is almost what I make in a week. In part because
there are no local schools. In part because I have no time or
transportation to get to a flight school. And in part because, even
if I enjoyed the flight, I have no resources to pursue any type of
real-world flying.

> You'll get a logbook and get to make your first entry in it.

Wow. Do I get small appliances after logging a certain number of
hours?

> You'll get to fly a real plane, hands on.

Wow.

Actually, I'd much rather have time on some full-motion sims.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Tony writes:

> Ah, but if you are capable of the task, you can apply some classical
> physics to the information provided in the archive and do the analysis
> yourself.

Acceleration is a change in velocity. Climbing from the ground (or
from any constant altitude) is a change in vertical velocity (since
the initial rate of climb is zero). Therefore climbing involves
acceleration. G forces are nothing more than acceleration. Therefore
climbing changes G forces. QED.

> If you are not capable of the analytical physics you might have to do
> experimental physics.

Nothing that complicated is required. See above.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

T o d d P a t t i s t writes:

> I do wish people would stop discussing the roll. A pure
> rolling motion cannot affect the force vector in any way
> relevant to producing 1 G into the seat.

It's certainly true that rolling alone does not change the magnitude
of the acceleration vector at axis around which the roll occurs.

> Mx is right, but I think he misses the point - there's
> nothing that says we can't start in a steady climb or end in
> a steady descent. Both have a steady 1G load on the
> aircraft.

Even if you start in a steady climb or descent, you cannot avoid a
change in G forces in any maneuver that requires a change in the rate
of change of altitude, which includes a typical barrel roll that
preserves positive G on the pilot.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> I believe you could decrease your altitude while banking and maintain 1G
> from level flight.

No matter what you do, at some point you will deviate from 1 G.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> Tilting the 1G vector back, the nose comes up.

Remember: Whenever the vector is not normal to the surface of the
planet, its magnitude will vary from 1 G, because it must always
contain a 1 G component that is normal to the surface.

This is why you cannot enter a 90-degree bank in a coordinated turn,
for example.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Tony writes:

> ... I can show you how to go from straight and level into a climb
> maintaining one g into the seat ...

Show me.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Tony writes:

> I made a mistatement in my prior post. I do not know how to get into a
> 30 degree climb from straight and level without experiencing a change
> in preceived G forces.

Ah, I am reassured.

In fact, any change in climb rate requires a change in G. So unless
your aerobatic maneuver can be executed without any change in your
climb rate at any point, it will involve a change in G.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Danny Deger]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Tony writes:
>
>> Ah, but if you are capable of the task, you can apply some classical
>> physics to the information provided in the archive and do the analysis
>> yourself.
>
> Acceleration is a change in velocity. Climbing from the ground (or
> from any constant altitude) is a change in vertical velocity (since
> the initial rate of climb is zero). Therefore climbing involves
> acceleration. G forces are nothing more than acceleration. Therefore
> climbing changes G forces. QED.

You are correct, but for typical climbing and decending the amount of G away
from 1 is so small that as a pilot it is still "1". Entering a climb or a
decent moves a G meter such a small amount, you can't see the needle move
and you can't feel the small difference in the seat of your pants. There
are small G changes in a barrel roll, but not enough to really feel. As a
pilot, the manuever is called "1 G". Keep in mind this is in comparison
with other aerobatic manuevers that go to routinely 3 to 10 Gs.

Danny Deger

[Tony]

Danny, you are correct when you say the actual deviation from 1 G is
small for climbs, but small isn't good enough. I wanted what we trained
in the sciences would call 1, an integer, not 1.00. The problem I could
not resolve in entering a climb is not getting the airplane to pitch up
30 degrees and maintaining 1 g into the seat -- it just has to
decelerate to do that. I just don't seem to have the degrees of freedom
that are needed.

Some - Mx is an example -- don't quite understand how to do the
analysis, and would rather argue than show where the math I cited is in
error. Too bad, it could have been a learning experience for them.

Do take a look at the neat family of curves in the citation: it's
interesting stuff, and guess what? If the equations of motion are
solved in closed form, G is 1, into the seat.



On Jan 5, 5:53 pm, "Danny Deger" > wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in messagenews:bfftp2t07l335t5qr0s08dsdb80vjr1bnt@4ax .com...
>
> > Tony writes:
>
> >> Ah, but if you are capable of the task, you can apply some classical
> >> physics to the information provided in the archive and do the analysis
> >> yourself.
>
> > Acceleration is a change in velocity. Climbing from the ground (or
> > from any constant altitude) is a change in vertical velocity (since
> > the initial rate of climb is zero). Therefore climbing involves
> > acceleration. G forces are nothing more than acceleration. Therefore
> > climbing changes G forces. QED.You are correct, but for typical climbing and decending the amount of G away
> from 1 is so small that as a pilot it is still "1". Entering a climb or a
> decent moves a G meter such a small amount, you can't see the needle move
> and you can't feel the small difference in the seat of your pants. There
> are small G changes in a barrel roll, but not enough to really feel. As a
> pilot, the manuever is called "1 G". Keep in mind this is in comparison
> with other aerobatic manuevers that go to routinely 3 to 10 Gs.
>
> Danny Deger

[Duncan (NZ)]

In article >,
says...
> Duncan writes:
>
> > Are you a troll?
>
> No.
>
> > Why don't you head down to your local flight school and do a $100 trial
> > flight?
>
> In part because $100 is almost what I make in a week. In part because
> there are no local schools. In part because I have no time or
> transportation to get to a flight school. And in part because, even
> if I enjoyed the flight, I have no resources to pursue any type of
> real-world flying.

So? Nothing ventured nothing gained.

> > You'll get a logbook and get to make your first entry in it.
>
> Wow. Do I get small appliances after logging a certain number of
> hours?

???

>
> > You'll get to fly a real plane, hands on.
>
> Wow.
>
> Actually, I'd much rather have time on some full-motion sims.

How do you know? Flown a plane already? If not, you have no evidence to
make such a comparison.

--
Duncan

[Mxsmanic]

Duncan writes:

> ???

I simply meant that I see no advantage to logging hours.

> How do you know? Flown a plane already? If not, you have no evidence to
> make such a comparison.

I'm already certain. A full-motion sim would be more fun than a
non-motion sim, in most cases, and it would have none of the drawbacks
of flying a real aircraft.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Tony writes:

> Some - Mx is an example -- don't quite understand how to do the
> analysis, and would rather argue than show where the math I cited is in
> error. Too bad, it could have been a learning experience for them.

I've explained the error. You cannot change your rate of climb
without accelerating. You cannot accelerate without deviating from 1
G. You cannot maintain a constant rate of climb forever, so you must
change the rate of climb from time to time. And any maneuver that
changes the rate of climb (which, in practice, is roughly the same as
saying any maneuver that changes altitude) will change the G forces.
It's very simple, and doesn't require any fancy physics.

> Do take a look at the neat family of curves in the citation: it's
> interesting stuff, and guess what? If the equations of motion are
> solved in closed form, G is 1, into the seat.

You can solve all the equations you want, but you cannot escape from
the reality I've described above.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.