Head orientation in turns--how is it taught for aviation?

[Mxsmanic]

When you make a coordinated turn in an aircraft, are you taught to let your
head tilt with the bank angle of the aircraft, or are you taught to keep your
head normal to the horizon?

[Bob Moore]

Mxsmanic wrote
> When you make a coordinated turn in an aircraft, are you taught to let
> your head tilt with the bank angle of the aircraft, or are you taught
> to keep your head normal to the horizon?

Head and body should remain perpendicular to the floor of the
cockpit. This comes naturally if the turn is coordinated.

Bob Moore

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> When you make a coordinated turn in an aircraft, are you taught to let your
> head tilt with the bank angle of the aircraft, or are you taught to keep your
> head normal to the horizon?

You are taught to step on the ball to keep it centered.

(Anxiously awaiting the usual arrogant, childish, arguements that real
pilots know nothing and are not to be trusted)

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

I generally keep my head parallel to the top of the computer screen. This
avoids falling out of the chair.

For steep turns, I tilt the monitor so it is parallel with the horizon.

Now, please proceed to impress us with your knowledge about the vestibular
system.

[Vaughn Simon]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
46.128...
> Head and body should remain perpendicular to the floor of the
> cockpit. This comes naturally if the turn is coordinated.

I usually avoid these threads but there is a safety issue here. I teach my
students to LOOK WHERE THEY ARE GOING.

Vaughn

[[email protected]]

FAA permits teaching of either method. See AC 61-104.

F--

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
t...
>I generally keep my head parallel to the top of the computer screen. This
>avoids falling out of the chair.
>
> For steep turns, I tilt the monitor so it is parallel with the horizon.
>

Isn't your computer table mounted on springs? C'mon...get with it!

[Mxsmanic]

Bob Moore writes:

> Head and body should remain perpendicular to the floor of the
> cockpit. This comes naturally if the turn is coordinated.

Interesting. When you learn to ride a motorcycle, you're taught to keep your
head normal to the horizon in turns ... because turning your head with the
bike as you lean into a turn results in disorientation.

Perhaps pilots would be less prone to disorientation if they kept their heads
normal to the horizon, even in turns (for instrument flight, this would mean
keeping one's head level with the horizon of the attitude indicator).

I note from in-cockpit videos of aerobatic pilots that they keep their heads
level with the horizon, not level with the aircraft.

[Mxsmanic]

Vaughn Simon writes:

> I usually avoid these threads but there is a safety issue here. I teach my
> students to LOOK WHERE THEY ARE GOING.

But you can look where you're going in both cases: with your head level with
the horizon, and with your head level with the aircraft.

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> Now, please proceed to impress us with your knowledge about the vestibular
> system.

I know that if it isn't disturbed, it isn't confused. I also know that if
your head is level with the horizon, you'll feel turns as a sideways movement,
but if your head is level with the wings (and the turn is coordinated), you'll
incorrectly perceive the turn as a climb or descent. I can easily see how
this latter policy would encourage disorientation.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> FAA permits teaching of either method. See AC 61-104.

I can't find 61-104; do you have a pointer to it?

[[email protected]]

On Jun 10, 1:33 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> I can't find 61-104; do you have a pointer to it?

Can't successfully Google anymore? Suicide watch for you.

F--

[[email protected]]

On Jun 10, 1:26 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Perhaps pilots would be less prone to disorientation if they kept their heads
> normal to the horizon, even in turns (for instrument flight, this would mean
> keeping one's head level with the horizon of the attitude indicator).

That means real pilots get disoriented in visual flight. Amazing
factoid. Here you go again.

F--

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> When you learn to ride a motorcycle, you're taught to keep your
> head normal to the horizon in turns ... because turning your head with the
> bike as you lean into a turn results in disorientation.

So what is the difference between a bike and a plane in a turn? And why would
your idea below lead to more disorientation in a plane, not less? You can
figure it out. Just try.

> Perhaps pilots would be less prone to disorientation if they kept their heads
> normal to the horizon, even in turns (for instrument flight, this would mean
> keeping one's head level with the horizon of the attitude indicator).

Ah, I was wondering what angle you would come up with this time to present a
really stupid idea as wisdom superior to what actual pilots do. You never fail
to deliver. I guess it requires some kind of intellect...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bob Moore]

Mxsmanic wrote
> I note from in-cockpit videos of aerobatic pilots that they keep their
> heads level with the horizon, not level with the aircraft.

Because they are not normally operating in coordinated flight.

Bob Moore

[Bob Moore]

Mxsmanic wrote
> but if your head is level with the wings (and the
> turn is coordinated), you'll incorrectly perceive the turn as a climb
> or descent. I can easily see how this latter policy would encourage
> disorientation.

The perception of a climb or descent is primarily through your butt
not the head.

Bob Moore

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Bob Moore writes:

> > Head and body should remain perpendicular to the floor of the
> > cockpit. This comes naturally if the turn is coordinated.

> Interesting. When you learn to ride a motorcycle, you're taught to keep your
> head normal to the horizon in turns ... because turning your head with the
> bike as you lean into a turn results in disorientation.

How relevant.

Next you want to tell us what you do in a sailboat?

> Perhaps pilots would be less prone to disorientation if they kept their heads
> normal to the horizon, even in turns (for instrument flight, this would mean
> keeping one's head level with the horizon of the attitude indicator).

You really are terrified by the thought of disorientation, aren't you?

> I note from in-cockpit videos of aerobatic pilots that they keep their heads
> level with the horizon, not level with the aircraft.

Did you bother to note whether or not the manuever was cooridinated or
do you think all aerobatic manuevers are coordinated 100% of the time?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Viperdoc writes:

> > Now, please proceed to impress us with your knowledge about the vestibular
> > system.

> I know that if it isn't disturbed, it isn't confused. I also know that if
> your head is level with the horizon, you'll feel turns as a sideways movement,
> but if your head is level with the wings (and the turn is coordinated), you'll
> incorrectly perceive the turn as a climb or descent. I can easily see how
> this latter policy would encourage disorientation.

And just how would you "know" this, simulator boy?

If a turn is coordinated, you don't feel a turn no matter how your
head is oriented.

Abrupt climbs or descents are perceived in your butt.

Continuous climbs or descents are perceived by the location of the
horizon relative to the nose of the aircraft.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> So what is the difference between a bike and a plane in a turn?

None, if the turn is level and coordinated, from a vestibular standpoint.

> And why would
> your idea below lead to more disorientation in a plane, not less? You can
> figure it out. Just try.

Explain it to me.

[Mxsmanic]

Bob Moore writes:

> Because they are not normally operating in coordinated flight.

Why would that make a difference?

What they seem to be doing is minimizing the tilting of their heads, just as
motorcycle racers, ballet dancers, and ice skaters do.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> And just how would you "know" this, simulator boy?

Because I know how the vestibular system works.

> If a turn is coordinated, you don't feel a turn no matter how your
> head is oriented.

Not true. If you hold your head normal to the horizon, you should feel the
sideways acceleration in the turn. If you hold it normal to the wings, you'll
feel it as a climb or descent.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Can't successfully Google anymore? Suicide watch for you.

I looked in the FAA archive.

[[email protected]]

On 10 Jun, 18:41, wrote:
> On Jun 10, 1:33 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>
>
> > I can't find 61-104; do you have a pointer to it?
>
> Can't successfully Google anymore? Suicide watch for you.

I can't find it either.

Regarding head movements, I am pretty sure that
I recall being told that military fighter pilots were
taught that turning their head and tilting it down
at the same time could result in dissorientation
- as in say moving from looking straight ahead to
looking towards a hip.

In the small amount of flying that I did
I think that it was strictly expected that
the head should be kept pretty much still
with respect to the airframe unless perhaps
looking at something inside the cockpit. I
am pretty certain that no side to side tilting
was allowed on pain of a rap on the back of
the head: -)

I would certainly fancy sticking to that
since it avoids the problem of what to
do when you run out of neck travel.
In some aircraft there will not be
room to move the head much.

Will watch the next Red Bull races
to see what happens there. My betting is that
the head stays with the airframe.

I have fairly recently started motorcycling
and I was not taught anything about head
movement however I have found that it
seems to help my visual perception
(depth perception?) if I keep my eyes
horizontal (wrt the horizon:-). My natural
action is to lean my head with the bike.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > And just how would you "know" this, simulator boy?

> Because I know how the vestibular system works.

But apparently not how real airplanes work.

> > If a turn is coordinated, you don't feel a turn no matter how your
> > head is oriented.

> Not true. If you hold your head normal to the horizon, you should feel the
> sideways acceleration in the turn. If you hold it normal to the wings, you'll
> feel it as a climb or descent.

Wrong, simulator boy.

If the turn is coordinated, there is no "sideways" force to perceive as
that is the definition of a cooridinated turn.

The only thing the human senses will perceive is an increase in apparent
weight which will depend on the turn rate.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> When you make a coordinated turn in an aircraft, are you taught to let
> your head tilt with the bank angle of the aircraft, or are you taught
> to keep your head normal to the horizon?
>


In your case they'd tell you to take it out of your ass first.



Not that thye could tel you anything at all.


Terrorist wannabe boi.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Vaughn Simon writes:
>
>> I usually avoid these threads but there is a safety issue here.
>> I teach my
>> students to LOOK WHERE THEY ARE GOING.
>
> But you can look where you're going in both cases: with your head
> level with the horizon, and with your head level with the aircraft



but not with your head up your ass, fjukktard


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bob Moore writes:
>
>> Head and body should remain perpendicular to the floor of the
>> cockpit. This comes naturally if the turn is coordinated.
>
> Interesting. When you learn to ride a motorcycle, you're taught to
> keep your head normal to the horizon in turns ... because turning your
> head with the bike as you lean into a turn results in disorientation.

Yeah, lkike you'd ride a bike,


Bull**** boi




Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>> So what is the difference between a bike and a plane in a turn?
>
> None, if the turn is level and coordinated, from a vestibular
> standpoint.
>
>> And why would
>> your idea below lead to more disorientation in a plane, not less? You
>> can figure it out. Just try.
>
> Explain it to me.

Why?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bob Moore writes:
>
>> Because they are not normally operating in coordinated flight.
>
> Why would that make a difference?
>
> What they seem to be doing is minimizing the tilting of their heads,
> just as motorcycle racers, ballet dancers, and ice skaters do.
>

You're an idiot.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> And just how would you "know" this, simulator boy?
>
> Because I know how the vestibular system works.
>
>> If a turn is coordinated, you don't feel a turn no matter how your
>> head is oriented.
>
> Not true. If you hold your head normal to the horizon, you should
> feel the sideways acceleration in the turn.

Nope, wrong again, moron.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> FAA permits teaching of either method. See AC 61-104.
>
> I can't find 61-104; do you have a pointer to it?
>

I do, send me $35 and I'll send it to you,.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Can't successfully Google anymore? Suicide watch for you.
>
> I looked in the FAA archive.
>

Oh goodie.

Bertie

[B A R R Y]

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:19:47 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
> wrote:
>
>but not with your head up your ass, fjukktard
>
>
>Bertie


http://www.lifeisajoke.com/pictures388_html.htm

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

B A R R Y > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:19:47 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
> > wrote:
>>
>>but not with your head up your ass, fjukktard
>>
>>
>>Bertie
>
>
> http://www.lifeisajoke.com/pictures388_html.htm
>

think i posted that on elast week!

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Bertie the Bunyip > said:
>Mxsmanic > wrote in
:
>> Interesting. When you learn to ride a motorcycle, you're taught to
>> keep your head normal to the horizon in turns ... because turning your
>> head with the bike as you lean into a turn results in disorientation.
>
>Yeah, lkike you'd ride a bike,

You think he could afford a car?


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"He's overweight, uninformed, and litigious. That's an American
hat-trick" - Lewis Black

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

(Paul Tomblin) wrote in news:f4hnca$aqj$2
@allhats.xcski.com:

> In a previous article, Bertie the Bunyip > said:
>>Mxsmanic > wrote in
:
>>> Interesting. When you learn to ride a motorcycle, you're taught to
>>> keep your head normal to the horizon in turns ... because turning
your
>>> head with the bike as you lean into a turn results in
disorientation.
>>
>>Yeah, lkike you'd ride a bike,
>
> You think he could afford a car?

I can just see him on his ducati trying to find control+alt+delete as he
comes flying over the handlebars over the hood of some SUV



Bertie

[[email protected]]

Like many A/C, my single tin-can has this aerodynamic thing where if
you really lean into the bank, it prevents her from wanting to return
to wings level. Normally not a problem, but I now suffer from
disorientosis. It stems from 26 yrs on MSFS since v 1.0 in 1983, where
like even in versions today, the airplane will stay at any bank angle
once set. See, I coincidentally make only $647/month like O/P, and
can't afford what they get for joysticks even off eBay. I use keypad
control. Reality in simming is for wusses; just do what the sim
programmer expects.

It got really bad when I was earning my IFR ticket, because I had to
use rudder under the hood, to let the thing slew back toward that
displaced,vertical needle thingy on an ILS. On my Baron in MSFS over
many years, it became ingrained to just use asymmetric thrust to do
that, due to high rudder forces. To maintain GS, I also just used
pitch in my Baron, cause you can't twiddle thrust and do too many
things at once, like also constantly reminding self to keep body erect
despite the efficacy of leaning. It's also just so unintuitive to bank
to fly a straight course, especially when you can't feel a bank, and
they persistently teach you to ignore senses anyway, and you're like
in solid cloud when it's 200-1/2 for real.

Disorientosis really set in when I got glider time, and that bird had
this silly piece of yarn taped to the windscreen. You step on the
ball, but opposite the yarn. But nobody even an ATP can remember that
in solid cloud near ILS minimums.

I did overshoot a rwy once in my actual tin can post an ILS in actual
to mins, using high power to make rudder more effective and pitch for
GS, and thence FAA wanted this 809 ride, whatever. The FAA guy was so
impressed with my technique, crossed needles down to the MM, he asked
me if I had disorientosis. Naw, I lied, but do you fly MSFS? He said
every day; real neat sim. Actual flyin' just don't get no better than
that.

F--

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> If the turn is coordinated, there is no "sideways" force to perceive as
> that is the definition of a cooridinated turn.

False. The aircraft is being accelerated to one side. If you keep your head
level with the horizon, you'll perceive the turn as a movement to one side.

> The only thing the human senses will perceive is an increase in apparent
> weight which will depend on the turn rate.

Only if your head is level with the wings, instead of the horizon.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> I have fairly recently started motorcycling
> and I was not taught anything about head
> movement however I have found that it
> seems to help my visual perception
> (depth perception?) if I keep my eyes
> horizontal (wrt the horizon:-). My natural
> action is to lean my head with the bike.

In the training I received, it was made very clear that your head must remain
level with the horizon. The reason? Because you'll suffer spatial
disorientation if you move your head. The same should apply in an aircraft.

This, incidentally, is also a good way to distinguish between a full-motion
simulator and a real aircraft. If you keep your head in the same orientation
in the sim, you'll notice that you hardly feel any movement at all, whereas in
a real aircraft the movement is just as obvious even with your head held still
(although its orientation may change).

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Run out of new questions, or have we just hit the summer re-run season?

A lot of my questions remain unanswered. Many pilots don't know as much as
they'd like to believe.

[TheSmokingGnu]

wrote:
> You are taught to step on the ball to keep it centered.

*lingua placed firmly in buccal cavity*

But what about the real possibility of twisting one's ankle while
attempting this obviously dangerous and ill-advised maneuver?

It's plain to see that the FAA has got it all wrong here, and that the
best solution is to either step _away_ from the ball, or else shut
yourself up in your room and simulate anything, lest one of those poor,
misguided pilots and their ill-maintained machines comes around with
this kind of hazardous training and actually does some flying.

:P

TheSmokingGnu

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-10 12:05:46 -0400, "Vaughn Simon"
> said:

>
> "Bob Moore" > wrote in message
> 46.128...
>> Head and body should remain perpendicular to the floor of the
>> cockpit. This comes naturally if the turn is coordinated.
>
> I usually avoid these threads but there is a safety issue here. I teach my
> students to LOOK WHERE THEY ARE GOING.
>
> Vaughn

Actually, both you and Moore are correct really :-)) The body should
remain straight and the head should not be "tilted" off the straight
axis, but turning the head to look where you're going is absolutely
correct. Turning the head while remaining straight up in the seat is
not the same thing as bending the body off axis away from the turn
which is I believe the main gist of the original poster's question.
Dudley Henriques

[RomeoMike]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
> I note from in-cockpit videos of aerobatic pilots that they keep their heads
> level with the horizon, not level with the aircraft.

I guess that explains why they decapitate themselves during a roll.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > If the turn is coordinated, there is no "sideways" force to perceive as
> > that is the definition of a cooridinated turn.

> False. The aircraft is being accelerated to one side. If you keep your head
> level with the horizon, you'll perceive the turn as a movement to one side.

> > The only thing the human senses will perceive is an increase in apparent
> > weight which will depend on the turn rate.

> Only if your head is level with the wings, instead of the horizon.

What is the ball in a turn and bank indicator or a turn coordinator?

It is a damped pendulum attached firmly to the aircraft panel and
level with the wings.

Where is the ball in coordinated flight?

It is centered.

What does that mean?

That there is no lateral force with respect to a line perpendicular
to the wings of the aircraft.

What does Mxsmanic's answer mean?

That the babbling, childish, idiot doesn't know high school physics, much
less how airplanes fly and has the unmitigated audacity to try to
tell real pilots how to fly.

What is the orientation of Mxsmanic's head?

Firmly planted up his ass.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > I have fairly recently started motorcycling
> > and I was not taught anything about head
> > movement however I have found that it
> > seems to help my visual perception
> > (depth perception?) if I keep my eyes
> > horizontal (wrt the horizon:-). My natural
> > action is to lean my head with the bike.

> In the training I received, it was made very clear that your head must remain
> level with the horizon. The reason? Because you'll suffer spatial
> disorientation if you move your head. The same should apply in an aircraft.

Except it doesn't and your prattle about motorcyles doesn't make it so.

<snip crap>

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Those of us who have flown seem to know how to orient our bodies and
heads in the cockpit. Tryng to explain that to someone without that
experience, but with an attidude, is difficult, isn't it? Hardly
worth the effort.

Wrong phrase. NOT worth the effort.

As we seem to learn time after time when dealing with the OP.

, On Jun 10, 6:25 pm, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > writes:
> > > I have fairly recently started motorcycling
> > > and I was not taught anything about head
> > > movement however I have found that it
> > > seems to help my visual perception
> > > (depth perception?) if I keep my eyes
> > > horizontal (wrt the horizon:-). My natural
> > > action is to lean my head with the bike.
> > In the training I received, it was made very clear that your head must remain
> > level with the horizon. The reason? Because you'll suffer spatial
> > disorientation if you move your head. The same should apply in an aircraft.
>
> Except it doesn't and your prattle about motorcyles doesn't make it so.
>
> <snip crap>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[B A R R Y]

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 16:06:02 -0600, RomeoMike
> wrote:

>
>
>Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>>
>> I note from in-cockpit videos of aerobatic pilots that they keep their heads
>> level with the horizon, not level with the aircraft.
>
>I guess that explains why they decapitate themselves during a roll.


That's why they have rounded canopies. It makes it easier to find
the head and snap it back on after the maneuver.

[RomeoMike]

B A R R Y wrote:

>
> That's why they have rounded canopies. It makes it easier to find
> the head and snap it back on after the maneuver.

Yep, but I think Sporty's now carries a swivel to connect head and neck
because some of those maneuvers are more complex, and many a pilot has
lost his head.

[BT]

>
> Perhaps pilots would be less prone to disorientation if they kept their
> heads
> normal to the horizon, even in turns (for instrument flight, this would
> mean
> keeping one's head level with the horizon of the attitude indicator).
>

And then disorientation occurs.. because the mind cannot believe what the
eyes see and what the body feels.

I teach that the head is on a swivel.. keep the head and eyes moving.. ABCTs
of flying..
Airspeed, Bank, Coordination, Traffic (look for traffic, into the turn and
the other side too)

This is primary for glider students, I've found that students who try to sit
upright relative to earth and keep their "eyes on the level" have more turn
coordination issues. They cannot "feel the slip/skid".

In the words of the Jedi Master... "Use the Force Luke".. be one with the
aircraft.

BT

[B A R R Y]

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 16:48:51 -0600, RomeoMike
> wrote:

>Yep, but I think Sporty's now carries a swivel to connect head and neck
>because some of those maneuvers are more complex, and many a pilot has
>lost his head.

I heard this kid's father flew aerobatics:

<http://www.planet-familyguy.com/pfg/images/characters/freak.jpg>

[[email protected]]

On Jun 11, 7:08 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > And just how would you "know" this, simulator boy?
>
> Because I know how the vestibular system works.
>

No, you don't. If the turn is slow your vestibular system won't
register it at all, it's not a gyro but an accelerometer!

> > If a turn is coordinated, you don't feel a turn no matter how your
> > head is oriented.
>
> Not true. If you hold your head normal to the horizon, you should feel the
> sideways acceleration in the turn. If you hold it normal to the wings, you'll
> feel it as a climb or descent.

Wrong again.

Cheers

[[email protected]]

On Jun 10, 5:30 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> A lot of my questions remain unanswered. Many pilots don't know as much as
> they'd like to believe.

That's because pilots here really don't know much. Yet you continue
to ask.

And if you can discern probable good answers from suspect answers, it
suggests you know what the answer is.

F--

[george]

On Jun 11, 9:35 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> Actually, both you and Moore are correct really :-)) The body should
> remain straight and the head should not be "tilted" off the straight
> axis, but turning the head to look where you're going is absolutely
> correct. Turning the head while remaining straight up in the seat is
> not the same thing as bending the body off axis away from the turn
> which is I believe the main gist of the original poster's question.

and there I was, talking to the pax, checking the chart and scanning
instruments and the passing real estate.
Lots of head movement and body movement.
This is just another attempt by our pet pillock to sound like a pilot
instaed of a pile-it

[[email protected]]

> I can just see him on his ducati trying to find control+alt+delete as he
> comes flying over the handlebars over the hood of some SUV

LOL! Been there done that!

Cheers

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> That there is no lateral force with respect to a line perpendicular
> to the wings of the aircraft.

There is a lateral force with respect to a line perpendicular to the horizon,
however, and so if one keeps his head perpendicular to the horizon in a turn,
he will perceive the turn as a lateral movement (which it is).

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Except it doesn't ...

Why not?

[Mxsmanic]

Mxsmanic is a troll writes:

> It's truely sad leeching from usenet pilots is your ONLY source
> in aviation information ...

I agree.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> If the turn is coordinated, there is no "sideways" force to perceive
>> as that is the definition of a cooridinated turn.
>
> False. The aircraft is being accelerated to one side.

Nope, wrong again, moron.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> I have fairly recently started motorcycling
>> and I was not taught anything about head
>> movement however I have found that it
>> seems to help my visual perception
>> (depth perception?) if I keep my eyes
>> horizontal (wrt the horizon:-). My natural
>> action is to lean my head with the bike.
>
> In the training I received, it was made very clear that your head must
> remain level with the horizon. The reason? Because you'll suffer
> spatial disorientation if you move your head. The same should apply
> in an aircraft.
>

You're an idiot and you're a liar.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Run out of new questions, or have we just hit the summer re-run
>> season?
>
> A lot of my questions remain unanswered. Many pilots don't know as
> much as they'd like to believe.

Most don't want to tel you because you are a tit.


bertie

[[email protected]]

There was a thread a while ago about how not only could one stay with
the force into the seat, but actually maintain 1 G straight into the
seat through a roll. If one is flying coordinated, keeping normal to
the airplane makes sense. Those how fly aerobatics have a different
set of criteria. For what it's worth, watching the in cockpit cameras
of some moderatedly skilled pilots, like the Blue Angels, shows them
"upright" with respect to the airplane except when G forces sling
their heads around, but they do fly coordinated most of the time.

But what do they know?

On Jun 10, 8:35 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> > writes:
>
> >> If the turn is coordinated, there is no "sideways" force to perceive
> >> as that is the definition of a cooridinated turn.
>
> > False. The aircraft is being accelerated to one side.
>
> Nope, wrong again, moron.
>
> Bertie

[JB]

On Jun 10, 5:30 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A lot of my questions remain unanswered. Many pilots don't know as much as
> they'd like to believe.

Actually, Anthony, ALL of your questions remain unanswered because you
refuse to accept the answers when given. And ALL pilots know
infinitely more about aviation than you do because they took the time
to learn how to fly in a real plane and usually have years of
experience flying. You, other the other hand, have zero/nada/no
experience and never will. This makes you nothing more than a little
boy who sucks on his thumb while flying his little toy aeroplane. All
of your silly questions about tilting your head, coordinated turns
without a rudder, proper radio work when "talking" to ATC, and on and
on, are nothing more than insignificant drivel.

Go away, little boy. Go back to your mommy and your toy aeroplane and
stop clogging up this newsgroup and wasting everyone's time.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

wrote in news:1181521586.615094.119870
@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

>> I can just see him on his ducati trying to find control+alt+delete as
he
>> comes flying over the handlebars over the hood of some SUV
>
> LOL! Been there done that!

For real? Managed to avoid it thus far. God knows how.

It's amazing how the bigger the car the more likely it is to pull right
out in front of you...

And it's always, always the same type of driver and they always look
straight at you, wait 'til they' made eye contact, then wait til you
have to brake like **** to stop and then pull out right in front of
you.. Got one very old bike with tiny brakes I never ride in towns..



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> That there is no lateral force with respect to a line perpendicular
>> to the wings of the aircraft.
>
> There is a lateral force with respect to a line perpendicular to the
> horizon, however, and so if one keeps his head perpendicular to the
> horizon in a turn, he will perceive the turn as a lateral movement
> (which it is).

Nope, wrong as always, not that it makes any differnce to you, of
course.

you're a fjukkwit and will die a fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Except it doesn't ...
>
> Why not?
>

Doesn't matter, you won'ty understand it and you will never, ever, fly an
airplane.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Mxsmanic is a troll writes:
>
>> It's truely sad leeching from usenet pilots is your ONLY source
>> in aviation information ...
>
> I agree.
>

Snort, you don't even know what keeps an airplane up, do you?



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

wrote in
ps.com:

> On Jun 10, 5:30 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>> A lot of my questions remain unanswered. Many pilots don't know as
>> much as they'd like to believe.
>
> That's because pilots here really don't know much.

I do, but I wouldn't give him the steam off my ****.

Yet you continue
> to ask.
>
> And if you can discern probable good answers from suspect answers, it
> suggests you know what the answer is.

He can't though, can he?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

wrote in
ups.com:

> There was a thread a while ago about how not only could one stay with
> the force into the seat, but actually maintain 1 G straight into the
> seat through a roll.

You can't.

If one is flying coordinated, keeping normal to
> the airplane makes sense. Those how fly aerobatics have a different
> set of criteria.




Nope, I fly aerobatics.

Quite well, too.

The criteria is the same, only the level of undrstanding changes.


For what it's worth, watching the in cockpit cameras
> of some moderatedly skilled pilots, like the Blue Angels, shows them
> "upright" with respect to the airplane except when G forces sling
> their heads around, but they do fly coordinated most of the time.
>
> But what do they know?

Exactly. But fjukkwit won't buy it..



Bertie
>
> On Jun 10, 8:35 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote
>> :
>>
>> > writes:
>>
>> >> If the turn is coordinated, there is no "sideways" force to
>> >> perceive as that is the definition of a cooridinated turn.
>>
>> > False. The aircraft is being accelerated to one side.
>>
>> Nope, wrong again, moron.
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

JB > wrote in
oups.com:

> On Jun 10, 5:30 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> A lot of my questions remain unanswered. Many pilots don't know as
>> much as they'd like to believe.
>
> Actually, Anthony, ALL of your questions remain unanswered because you
> refuse to accept the answers when given. And ALL pilots know
> infinitely more about aviation than you do because they took the time
> to learn how to fly in a real plane and usually have years of
> experience flying. You, other the other hand, have zero/nada/no
> experience and never will. This makes you nothing more than a little
> boy who sucks on his thumb while flying his little toy aeroplane. All
> of your silly questions about tilting your head, coordinated turns
> without a rudder, proper radio work when "talking" to ATC, and on and
> on, are nothing more than insignificant drivel.
>
> Go away, little boy. Go back to your mommy and your toy aeroplane and
> stop clogging up this newsgroup and wasting everyone's time.
>

He's not wasting my time.



Bertie
>

[[email protected]]

On Jun 10, 5:29 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> In the training I received, it was made very clear that your head must remain
> level with the horizon. The reason? Because you'll suffer spatial
> disorientation if you move your head. The same should apply in an aircraft.

Parsing these sentences, your "training" wasn't in an actual aircraft,
ever. And your "trainer" a moron.

> This, incidentally, is also a good way to distinguish between a full-motion
> simulator and a real aircraft.

Q.E.D. You must think we're stupid.

F--

[[email protected]]

On Jun 11, 9:29 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> In the training I received, it was made very clear that your head must remain
> level with the horizon. The reason? Because you'll suffer spatial
> disorientation if you move your head.

No, you had to be told because you obviously didn't do the right thing
naturally. On a bike, as the lean angle increases a normal person
normally adopts an angle somewhere between the horizon and the normal.
At full lean ~50 degrees the difference between eye level angle and
horizon is obvious. Look at some photos of GP racers.
http://www.moto-station.com/ttesimages/sport/grandprix/GP2004/rossi_action2.jpg
It is also important to realize (!) that bike is _not_ doing a co-
ordinated turn. Now think, you can tilt you head maybe 45 degrees but
what would a pilot do for a 60 or 90 degree turn? Or are you saying
aerobatic pilots are disoriented? Susceptability to disorietation is
highly dependent on the individual and training.

>The same should apply in an aircraft.

Maybe the MS code for bike is similar to that of a plane but they are
not the same in _reality_.

Remember that.

Cheers

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > That there is no lateral force with respect to a line perpendicular
> > to the wings of the aircraft.

> There is a lateral force with respect to a line perpendicular to the horizon,
> however, and so if one keeps his head perpendicular to the horizon in a turn,
> he will perceive the turn as a lateral movement (which it is).

You aren't attached to the horizon while in an aircraft in flight,
simulator boy, you are attached to the aircraft.

The only force in coordinated flight is straight down, where "down"
is perpendicular to the wings.

Yet one more thing your extensive MSFS education failed to teach you.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[RomeoMike]

>
> I heard this kid's father flew aerobatics:
>
> <http://www.planet-familyguy.com/pfg/images/characters/freak.jpg>

There's the proof of what happens when you keep your head on the horizon.

[RomeoMike]

BT wrote:

>
> In the words of the Jedi Master... "Use the Force Luke".. be one with the
> aircraft.
>
> BT
>
>
You are preaching to the choir, but MX is not in the choir. He's solo in
another auditorium.

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-10 20:25:46 -0400, george > said:

> On Jun 11, 9:35 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> Actually, both you and Moore are correct really :-)) The body should
>> remain straight and the head should not be "tilted" off the straight
>> axis, but turning the head to look where you're going is absolutely
>> correct. Turning the head while remaining straight up in the seat is
>> not the same thing as bending the body off axis away from the turn
>> which is I believe the main gist of the original poster's question.
>
> and there I was, talking to the pax, checking the chart and scanning
> instruments and the passing real estate.
> Lots of head movement and body movement.
> This is just another attempt by our pet pillock to sound like a pilot
> instaed of a pile-it

Actually, on the student newsgroup specifically, almost anyone, even a
troll, can ask a question that can accidentally or even deliberately
meet the criteria worthy of a legitimate answer.
I usually deem this criteria as involving something posted that can use
clarification that legitimate student pilots might find beneficial.
If this criteria meets my scrutiny on a thread, I'll usually offer a
comment or two.
I will say however, that I make an effort to restrict this comment to
under-posting people I deem responsible and interested in flight safety.
I seldom if ever directly engage the person to whom you are most likely
referring here.
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Except it doesn't ...

> Why not?

Man up, suppress your terror of flying and go find out for yourself.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Viperdoc]

So here we go again- he asks an apparently innocent question, and then
argues with all of the helpful responses from experienced and knowledgeable
pilots. It's getting boring, although MX bashing is developing into an art
form.

The fact is- flying largely relies on visual cues, not vestibular (applies
to VMC flying). Of course, all of the aviation physiologists at flight
surgeon school could be as irrational as MX, but not likely.

After flying many hours of acro, I've never wondered where my head was! It's
all about coming out on axis, the right attitude and altitude- and you put
your head and vision where it's needed to see that the other stuff is right,
nothing more.

IFR flying on the other hand, particularly at night, is another story. Then,
of course, the focus is on the instruments, and needing to ignore any other
cues.

My most memorable example of this was in the centrifuge at FS school. We
started from 1g sitting still, to around 1.5g, but with the bucket now at 90
degrees. It was a strong sensation of getting pitched forward and inward. At
least I was able to do the 9g ride without a GLOC, and this is what it's all
about.

Who cares where one looks when all he's doing is sitting in a chair, and his
only option is to look forward at the screen? It's kind of sad and pathetic,
although annoying as well.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

RomeoMike > wrote in
:

>
>
> BT wrote:
>
>>
>> In the words of the Jedi Master... "Use the Force Luke".. be one with
>> the aircraft.
>>
>> BT
>>
>>
> You are preaching to the choir, but MX is not in the choir. He's solo
> in another auditorium.
>
Toilet, I think


bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in
. net:

> So here we go again- he asks an apparently innocent question, and then
> argues with all of the helpful responses from experienced and
> knowledgeable pilots. It's getting boring, although MX bashing is
> developing into an art form.
>
> The fact is- flying largely relies on visual cues, not vestibular
> (applies to VMC flying). Of course, all of the aviation physiologists
> at flight surgeon school could be as irrational as MX, but not likely.

No,it isn't likely.

Seen a cross bred Cairn terrior that was as irrational as him, once
though. Crazy bitch.


Berti e

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> Explain it to me.

Somebody talk to me, I'm looney.

[Maxwell]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.130...
>
> I can just see him on his ducati trying to find control+alt+delete as he
> comes flying over the handlebars over the hood of some SUV
>

I bet his dad wishes he had pushed control+alt+delete.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> That there is no lateral force with respect to a line perpendicular
>> to the wings of the aircraft.
>
> There is a lateral force with respect to a line perpendicular to the
> horizon,
> however, and so if one keeps his head perpendicular to the horizon in a
> turn,
> he will perceive the turn as a lateral movement (which it is).

You're clueless.

No wonder you never understood flying back through your own wake on a 360.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"Maxwell" > wrote in news:Ss2bi.176532$mJ1.33792
@newsfe22.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .130...
>>
>> I can just see him on his ducati trying to find control+alt+delete as
he
>> comes flying over the handlebars over the hood of some SUV
>>
>
> I bet his dad wishes he had pushed control+alt+delete.
>

Pervert! ;)


Bertie

[Maxwell]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> There was a thread a while ago about how not only could one stay with
> the force into the seat, but actually maintain 1 G straight into the
> seat through a roll. If one is flying coordinated, keeping normal to
> the airplane makes sense. Those how fly aerobatics have a different
> set of criteria. For what it's worth, watching the in cockpit cameras
> of some moderatedly skilled pilots, like the Blue Angels, shows them
> "upright" with respect to the airplane except when G forces sling
> their heads around, but they do fly coordinated most of the time.
>
> But what do they know?
>

That is either untrue, or real misleading. The Blues fly with a different
purpose, keep the aircraft on trajectory. When they are flying a knife edge,
they are hardly coordinated, as with many other maneuvers.

A 1g barrel roll can be done, but the required trajectory of the aircraft is
not going to be one that is necessarily eye pleasing for ground
demonstration purposes.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> Except it doesn't ...
>
> Why not?

They have bigger tires and carry less fuel.

[Maxwell]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.130...
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Mxsmanic is a troll writes:
>>
>>> It's truely sad leeching from usenet pilots is your ONLY source
>>> in aviation information ...
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>
> Snort, you don't even know what keeps an airplane up, do you?
>


I think he assumes Skyagra.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"Maxwell" > wrote in
:

>
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> There was a thread a while ago about how not only could one stay with
>> the force into the seat, but actually maintain 1 G straight into the
>> seat through a roll. If one is flying coordinated, keeping normal to
>> the airplane makes sense. Those how fly aerobatics have a different
>> set of criteria. For what it's worth, watching the in cockpit cameras
>> of some moderatedly skilled pilots, like the Blue Angels, shows them
>> "upright" with respect to the airplane except when G forces sling
>> their heads around, but they do fly coordinated most of the time.
>>
>> But what do they know?
>>
>
> That is either untrue, or real misleading. The Blues fly with a
> different purpose, keep the aircraft on trajectory. When they are
> flying a knife edge, they are hardly coordinated, as with many other
> maneuvers.
>
> A 1g barrel roll can be done, but the required trajectory of the
> aircraft is not going to be one that is necessarily eye pleasing for
> ground demonstration purposes.

Nope. the only thing you can do at 1 G is straight and level flight.

You can keep positive G around a barrel roll, but not 1 G


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"Maxwell" > wrote in news:NG2bi.176536$mJ1.2085
@newsfe22.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .130...
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Mxsmanic is a troll writes:
>>>
>>>> It's truely sad leeching from usenet pilots is your ONLY source
>>>> in aviation information ...
>>>
>>> I agree.
>>>
>>
>> Snort, you don't even know what keeps an airplane up, do you?
>>
>
>
> I think he assumes Skyagra.

Very Good.

I think he probably tried Viagra, but found it only made him taller.


Bertie

[Tom L.]

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:26:05 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Bob Moore writes:
>
>>>Mxsmanic wrote
>>> When you make a coordinated turn in an aircraft, are you taught to let
>>> your head tilt with the bank angle of the aircraft, or are you taught
>>> to keep your head normal to the horizon?
>>
>> Head and body should remain perpendicular to the floor of the
>> cockpit. This comes naturally if the turn is coordinated.
>
>Interesting. When you learn to ride a motorcycle, you're taught to keep your
>head normal to the horizon in turns ... because turning your head with the
>bike as you lean into a turn results in disorientation.
>
>Perhaps pilots would be less prone to disorientation if they kept their heads
>normal to the horizon, even in turns (for instrument flight, this would mean
>keeping one's head level with the horizon of the attitude indicator).
>
>I note from in-cockpit videos of aerobatic pilots that they keep their heads
>level with the horizon, not level with the aircraft.

Watch again and pay attention.
Here is a good example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NrJCkmDnr4

You'll see that in coordinated turns they keeep their heads with the
aircraft, not with the horizon. The hungaran pilot bends his neck a
lot, but not in coordinated turns.

- Tom

[Euan Kilgour]

On Jun 11, 5:26 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Vaughn Simon writes:
> > I usually avoid these threads but there is a safety issue here. I teach my
> > students to LOOK WHERE THEY ARE GOING.
>
> But you can look where you're going in both cases: with your head level with
> the horizon, and with your head level with the aircraft.


Sometimes I do keep my head level with the horizon in a turn to assess
bank angle peripherally while I clear ahead of the plane (this would
normally be when I am in a medium turn and are clearing in front of
the A pillar in a C172). I'm not sure if this is right or wrong, I
just do it.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"Maxwell" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .130...
>> "Maxwell" > wrote in
>>>
>>> A 1g barrel roll can be done, but the required trajectory of the
>>> aircraft is not going to be one that is necessarily eye pleasing for
>>> ground demonstration purposes.
>>
>> Nope. the only thing you can do at 1 G is straight and level flight.
>>
>> You can keep positive G around a barrel roll, but not 1 G
>>
>
> If you enter nose high (enough), and exit nose low (enough), you
> should be able to maintain close to one g. But then would it still be
> called a barrel roll.

mmm, nope. Not even close., If you fly it really accurately you might be
able to keep the entry end exit under two g, but I doubt it. If you fly
it very slack, you'll go, at best, Zero G over the top and probably
negative.
To keep positive G you need well over tow at entry and exit, to keep a
little over one as you pass 90deg, then you can probably keep a bit over
a half a G over the top and then pretty much the same down the other
side.


>
> I'll have to admit, I've never specifically watched the g meter while
> doing so, but if you are sloppy enough, it seems prettly close.

I have watched it. Quite a lot, in fact. I've been hearing this story
since I've been flying, It was wrong back then and it's wrong now. Even
if you dump the nose as you suggest on the way down, you're stil going
to have to pay for it eventually...... And on the way up, no way.




Bertie

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-11 00:21:38 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip > said:

> "Maxwell" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> .130...
>>> "Maxwell" > wrote in
>>>>
>>>> A 1g barrel roll can be done, but the required trajectory of the
>>>> aircraft is not going to be one that is necessarily eye pleasing for
>>>> ground demonstration purposes.
>>>
>>> Nope. the only thing you can do at 1 G is straight and level flight.
>>>
>>> You can keep positive G around a barrel roll, but not 1 G
>>>
>>
>> If you enter nose high (enough), and exit nose low (enough), you
>> should be able to maintain close to one g. But then would it still be
>> called a barrel roll.
>
> mmm, nope. Not even close., If you fly it really accurately you might be
> able to keep the entry end exit under two g, but I doubt it. If you fly
> it very slack, you'll go, at best, Zero G over the top and probably
> negative.
> To keep positive G you need well over tow at entry and exit, to keep a
> little over one as you pass 90deg, then you can probably keep a bit over
> a half a G over the top and then pretty much the same down the other
> side.
>
>
>>
>> I'll have to admit, I've never specifically watched the g meter while
>> doing so, but if you are sloppy enough, it seems prettly close.
>
> I have watched it. Quite a lot, in fact. I've been hearing this story
> since I've been flying, It was wrong back then and it's wrong now. Even
> if you dump the nose as you suggest on the way down, you're stil going
> to have to pay for it eventually...... And on the way up, no way.
>
>
>
>
> Bertie

Bertie is correct. Barrel Rolls are perhaps the most misquoted and
misunderstood maneuver done in an airplane.
Basically, you can do a barrel roll as loosely or as tight as the
airplane's flight envelope will allow. You can also enter a BR from
many different flight conditions involving many different g loadings.
The main thing to remember about barrel rolls is that they are a 3
dimensional maneuver through 3 dimensional space and that the common
denominator in a barrel roll regardless of the g used is that it will
remain POSITIVE all the way around. The one exception to this would be
after the pull and roll application, you can unload the airplane over
the top and drop the g to +1 if you like to loosen the roll rate, but
that g must be regained during the recovery.
Basically, you will be somewhere over +1g in the entry as you raise the
nose, then at some positive +g throughout the roll ranging from as
unloaded as you want to loosen up the airplane or as high a positive g
and tight a roll as the envelope will allow. As long as the airplane
transverses 3 dimensions through the roll, it's a barrel roll.
I've done them as loose as a 90 degree change of direction at the top
apex in a P51,the F8F, and several jets including the T38, and as
tight as a corkscrew in a Pitts S1Sl which was highly loaded with +g
and extremely tight.
Bob Hoover's rather famous Iced tea stunt in the Shrike is probably
responsible for much of the misconception about barrel rolls. He does
them fairly loose and with just enough positive g on the airplane to
keep the glass from spilling without stressing the airplane. The
"secret" to Bob's tea trick is simply his smoothness through the roll
as much as keeping positive g on the tea. It's really this smoothness
that makes this stunt possible, as although positive g will keep the
tea inside the glass. (You can actually POUR tea as you're rolling the
airplane but ONLY if you're as smooth as Hoover :-)
The reason smoothness is so necessary for the tea trick is that even
though you might have positive g on the airplane and in effect doing a
barrel roll, if you are not perfectly coordinated through the roll (any
excessive yaw for example) your tea will slide off the glare shield
laterally and you don't want that......not if you're Bob Hoover anyway
:-)
So it's positive g for the roll, and smoothness and perfect
coordination for the tea stunt.
Hope this helps a bit.
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> You aren't attached to the horizon while in an aircraft in flight,
> simulator boy, you are attached to the aircraft.

You aren't attached to either, and you have freedom of movement that allows
you to align your head with the aircraft or with the horizon, in anything less
than a 90-degree bank.

> The only force in coordinated flight is straight down, where "down"
> is perpendicular to the wings.

Then if your head is not perpendicular to the wings, you will perceive a force
that is not straight down. QED.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> A 1g barrel roll can be done, but the required trajectory of the aircraft is
> not going to be one that is necessarily eye pleasing for ground
> demonstration purposes.

Any maneuver that involves a change in altitude will involve forces exceeding
1 G at some point.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Parsing these sentences, your "training" wasn't in an actual aircraft,
> ever.

Aircraft are not used for motorcycle training.

> Q.E.D. You must think we're stupid.

See above. What do you think?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> It is also important to realize (!) that bike is _not_ doing a co-
> ordinated turn.

Yes, it is. If it were not, it would fall over.

> Now think, you can tilt you head maybe 45 degrees but
> what would a pilot do for a 60 or 90 degree turn?

Tilt his head 60 or 90 degrees, which most people can do without difficulty.

> Or are you saying
> aerobatic pilots are disoriented? Susceptability to disorietation is
> highly dependent on the individual and training.

And highly dependent on how much one's head moves.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> That's because pilots here really don't know much. Yet you continue
> to ask.

I don't have any other sources (there are some paying sources, but I cannot
afford them).

> And if you can discern probable good answers from suspect answers, it
> suggests you know what the answer is.

It suggests that I have a good idea, but I like confirmation. And in some
cases it's more a matter of opinion than established fact, and surveying
opinions is useful.

[Mxsmanic]

JB writes:

> Actually, Anthony, ALL of your questions remain unanswered because you
> refuse to accept the answers when given.

Not true. I do get useful answers occasionally. And acceptance or rejection
is not an issue.

I do occasionally ask questions to which I have the answers (albeit not this
one). If a "pilot" answers them correctly, I have reason to believe that he
knows what he is talking about, in which case he may be a useful source of
answers to questions for which I don't have the answers. It surprises me how
few "pilots" can answer the test questions correctly, and so I've had to write
off quite a few people in this newsgroup as blowhards.

> And ALL pilots know
> infinitely more about aviation than you do because they took the time
> to learn how to fly in a real plane and usually have years of
> experience flying.

That is a manifestly false assumption; it amazes me that so many pilots cling
to it. Since when does 40 hours of experience, mostly trial and error, make
anyone an expert at anything? I'm surprised by how many extremely-low-time
pilots there are around, too.

[Montblack]

("Viperdoc" wrote)
> Now, please proceed to impress us with your knowledge about the vestibular
> system.


Me. Me. Call on me. I know. I know.

I should know the answer - after all, I was an alter boy.


P-Mont

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Tilt his head 60 or 90 degrees, which most people can do without difficulty.
>

Things are getting better and better.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[[email protected]]

Actually, with respect to maintaining one g into the seat and doing a
kind of roll, you can, or at least Newton says so, but I'm not sure
the airplane exists that has the control authority to do it. If you
search the groups you'll be able to find the analysis, but the short
form is this. The airplane has got to accelelerate downward at 1 G,
then pull a G in a coordinated bank. It'll roll, but it won't be
pretty, and the pilot will feel 1 G into the seat.

The diameter of the roll is something like 80 feet! Almost a snap
roll.

Think of it this way, and you'll be able to see how it works. If you
roll into a level bank, you'll feel increasing Gs. If, on the other
hand, you push over, you'll feel decreasing Gs. Somewhere between the
two, a coordinated bank and a push over, you'll be able to feel 1 G.

Give it a try a few times when you're flying aerobatics, and I'll bet
you can get to 45 or even 60 degrees of bank in a decending term with
your G meter locked at one before you run out of control authority.



On Jun 10, 8:52 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote roups.com:
>
> > There was a thread a while ago about how not only could one stay with
> > the force into the seat, but actually maintain 1 G straight into the
> > seat through a roll.
>
> You can't.
>
> If one is flying coordinated, keeping normal to
>
> > the airplane makes sense. Those how fly aerobatics have a different
> > set of criteria.
>
> Nope, I fly aerobatics.
>
> Quite well, too.
>
> The criteria is the same, only the level of undrstanding changes.
>
> For what it's worth, watching the in cockpit cameras
>
> > of some moderatedly skilled pilots, like the Blue Angels, shows them
> > "upright" with respect to the airplane except when G forces sling
> > their heads around, but they do fly coordinated most of the time.
>
> > But what do they know?
>
> Exactly. But fjukkwit won't buy it..
>
> Bertie
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 10, 8:35 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> Mxsmanic > wrote
> >> :
>
> >> > writes:
>
> >> >> If the turn is coordinated, there is no "sideways" force to
> >> >> perceive as that is the definition of a cooridinated turn.
>
> >> > False. The aircraft is being accelerated to one side.
>
> >> Nope, wrong again, moron.
>
> >> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[[email protected]]

On Jun 11, 7:26 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > It is also important to realize (!) that bike is _not_ doing a co-
> > ordinated turn.
>
> Yes, it is. If it were not, it would fall over.
>
No, they do not.
A bike does not have to be co-ordinated, friction between tyre and
road.

-Kees.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Actually, with respect to maintaining one g into the seat and doing a
> kind of roll, you can, or at least Newton says so, but I'm not sure
> the airplane exists that has the control authority to do it. If you
> search the groups you'll be able to find the analysis, but the short
> form is this. The airplane has got to accelelerate downward at 1 G,
> then pull a G in a coordinated bank. It'll roll, but it won't be
> pretty, and the pilot will feel 1 G into the seat.

You cannot climb without exceeding 1 G, and you cannot stop a descent without
exceeding 1 G, either.

[[email protected]]

My I suggest you revisit Newton's laws of motion? Do the google search
I suggested, it's pretty clear there, but not, I would agree
intuitively obvious. Neither, however, is quantum mechanics.




On Jun 11, 8:57 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Actually, with respect to maintaining one g into the seat and doing a
> > kind of roll, you can, or at least Newton says so, but I'm not sure
> > the airplane exists that has the control authority to do it. If you
> > search the groups you'll be able to find the analysis, but the short
> > form is this. The airplane has got to accelelerate downward at 1 G,
> > then pull a G in a coordinated bank. It'll roll, but it won't be
> > pretty, and the pilot will feel 1 G into the seat.
>
> You cannot climb without exceeding 1 G, and you cannot stop a descent without
> exceeding 1 G, either.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> When you make a coordinated turn in an aircraft, are you taught to
> let your head tilt with the bank angle of the aircraft, or are you
> taught to keep your head normal to the horizon?

The position of my head was never mentioned in any flight training I ever
received with the exception once I was told to get it out of my ass after a
particularly bad crosswind landing.

[Stefan]

Gig 601XL Builder schrieb:
> The position of my head was never mentioned in any flight training I ever
> received with the exception once I was told to get it out of my ass after a
> particularly bad crosswind landing.

I was emphatically tought to really move my head around all axes to have
a complete look out in all directions, especially to look over my
shoulder before initiating a turn (coordinated or not), and even more so
while thermalling in a gaggle with ten other gliders.

Conversely, I tell first time passengers not to move their heads at all
and to concentrate at the horizon, especially while thermalling, to
enhance the chance of keeping that certain bag empty.

[ManhattanMan]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> I think he probably tried Viagra, but found it only made him taller.
>
>

Boom! Head shot! :)

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > You aren't attached to the horizon while in an aircraft in flight,
> > simulator boy, you are attached to the aircraft.

> You aren't attached to either, and you have freedom of movement that allows
> you to align your head with the aircraft or with the horizon, in anything less
> than a 90-degree bank.

If you aren't attached to the aircraft while in flight, you have bigger
issues than head tilt.

> > The only force in coordinated flight is straight down, where "down"
> > is perpendicular to the wings.

> Then if your head is not perpendicular to the wings, you will perceive a force
> that is not straight down. QED.

Nonsense.

This is no different than standing still on the ground and tilting your
head.

When I do that I feel nothing other than I'm tilting my head.

Down is still down.

Your brain wiring may, however, be different than the rest of the
human race.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > That's because pilots here really don't know much. Yet you continue
> > to ask.

> I don't have any other sources (there are some paying sources, but I cannot
> afford them).

> > And if you can discern probable good answers from suspect answers, it
> > suggests you know what the answer is.

> It suggests that I have a good idea, but I like confirmation. And in some
> cases it's more a matter of opinion than established fact, and surveying
> opinions is useful.

Nonsense, you just like to argue and see how much consternation you
can cause.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[PPL-A (Canada)]

On Jun 10, 1:26 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Bob Moore writes:
> > Head and body should remain perpendicular to the floor of the
> > cockpit. This comes naturally if the turn is coordinated.
>
> Interesting. When you learn to ride a motorcycle, you're taught to keep your
> head normal to the horizon in turns ... because turning your head with the
> bike as you lean into a turn results in disorientation.
>
> Perhaps pilots would be less prone to disorientation if they kept their heads
> normal to the horizon, even in turns (for instrument flight, this would mean
> keeping one's head level with the horizon of the attitude indicator).
>
> I note from in-cockpit videos of aerobatic pilots that they keep their heads
> level with the horizon, not level with the aircraft.

Normally I avoid engaging in the normal name-calling and slander that
attends almost all of your posts, but today I cannot resist. I will,
however avoid the temptation for infantile popping off at you, and
just answer the question as well as a few observations, and a parable
from the history of science ...

I will note immediately, that you do seem the use the word "But" far
too often for someone who is asking for factual responses to specific
questions about pilots' actual experience; of their training, or post-
training flying. For example, quoting you:

"But you can look where you're going in both cases: with
your head level with
the horizon, and with your head level with the aircraft. "


"But" implies that you are interested more in entering into a
discussion or argument about what "ought" to be true, rather than a
discussion of what "is" true in the experience of the people / group
you are asking questions of.

I should not have to quote you back to you again, however you did ask
"Head orientation in turns--how is it taught for aviation?", and:

"When you make a coordinated turn in an aircraft, are you
taught to let your
head tilt with the bank angle of the aircraft, or are you
taught to keep your
head normal to the horizon?"

Your response immediately below indicates that you are more interested
in exploring your own theories on this subject, rather than the actual
experience of people while they were being taught:

"Interesting. When you learn to ride a motorcycle, you're
taught to keep your
head normal to the horizon in turns ... because turning your
head with the
bike as you lean into a turn results in disorientation."

Unfortunately, this seems to be your most common approach, a form of
the bait and switch, you ask for experiences then seek to discount
these experiences with your own theoretical structure of how things
"ought" to be.

Descartes did this too, even in the face of the overwhelming empirical
(and theoretical) power of Newtonian mechanics. Descartes kept harping
on about the "occult" nature of the force of gravity (on the basis
that it "ought" not be true because it involved believing in forces
that act at a distance without a mechanism or particles for the
transmission of the force). Descartes himself had an extremely non-
empirical theory that involved whirling "vortices" of particles in an
"ether" ... strange his reluctance to embrace a complex and powerful
mathematical system such as Newton's universal gravitation, from such
a good mathematician as Descartes was.

Newton said "yes ... I have no mechanism, but I don't care ... it
works ... and very well". Rather than evaluate whether real
observations showed that universal gravitation "is" a good description
of the world, Descartes kept insisting that it "ought" not be true.
The fact that Einstein later supplanted Newtonian mechanics is
irrelevant ... Descartes' approach was still wrong-headed and failed
in its own time, and did not lead anywhere later either, as it turned
out.

Descartes was an idealist (that is, the belief that truth should
somehow be deducible from just the power of thought, without any
reference to the world outside of one's head). Idealism used to be
called the "French disease" (so was syphillis) by the English speaking
world, and it seems as if you might have caught it (the idealist bug
that is). Remember "is" and "ought" are very different things.

Back to your original question ... I will supply an answer of what
"is" ... I was (as you asked) taught during my ab initio flight
training to keep my head and body in a straight line, and not bend at
the neck, neither away from nor toward the direction of the turn.
Swiveling the head and/or moving the eyes to watch the patch of sky
you were heading toward is taught (of course). Swiveling the head in
the other direction is also taught to look for possibly converging A/
C. However, one is taught to NOT bend your neck during turns. The
argument is made that doing this makes you more prone to
disorientation, sloppy flying, and a phenomenon called "the leans"
after prolonged turns or during instrument flying.

And before you start ... spare us the inevitable "But, ...". Don't
argue with me about whether this "ought" to be true ... you asked "how
is?" and I just answered your question, from my actual experience of
private pilot flight training.

J

[Maxwell]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
news:2007061101084716807-dhenriques@rcncom...
>
> Bertie is correct. Barrel Rolls are perhaps the most misquoted and
> misunderstood maneuver done in an airplane.
> Basically, you can do a barrel roll as loosely or as tight as the
> airplane's flight envelope will allow. You can also enter a BR from many
> different flight conditions involving many different g loadings.
> The main thing to remember about barrel rolls is that they are a 3
> dimensional maneuver through 3 dimensional space and that the common
> denominator in a barrel roll regardless of the g used is that it will
> remain POSITIVE all the way around. The one exception to this would be
> after the pull and roll application, you can unload the airplane over the
> top and drop the g to +1 if you like to loosen the roll rate, but that g
> must be regained during the recovery.
> Basically, you will be somewhere over +1g in the entry as you raise the
> nose, then at some positive +g throughout the roll ranging from as
> unloaded as you want to loosen up the airplane or as high a positive g and
> tight a roll as the envelope will allow. As long as the airplane
> transverses 3 dimensions through the roll, it's a barrel roll.
> I've done them as loose as a 90 degree change of direction at the top apex
> in a P51,the F8F, and several jets including the T38, and as tight as a
> corkscrew in a Pitts S1Sl which was highly loaded with +g and extremely
> tight.
> Bob Hoover's rather famous Iced tea stunt in the Shrike is probably
> responsible for much of the misconception about barrel rolls. He does them
> fairly loose and with just enough positive g on the airplane to keep the
> glass from spilling without stressing the airplane. The "secret" to Bob's
> tea trick is simply his smoothness through the roll as much as keeping
> positive g on the tea. It's really this smoothness that makes this stunt
> possible, as although positive g will keep the tea inside the glass. (You
> can actually POUR tea as you're rolling the airplane but ONLY if you're
> as smooth as Hoover :-)
> The reason smoothness is so necessary for the tea trick is that even
> though you might have positive g on the airplane and in effect doing a
> barrel roll, if you are not perfectly coordinated through the roll (any
> excessive yaw for example) your tea will slide off the glare shield
> laterally and you don't want that......not if you're Bob Hoover anyway :-)
> So it's positive g for the roll, and smoothness and perfect coordination
> for the tea stunt.

I'm not talking about Bob's tea trick. Obvoiusly, positive Gs and
coordination is the key there. And I'm not sure I understand or agree with
your post. But I think it might be possible we having a terminology issue
here with the definition of a barrel roll.

I fully admit barrel rolls as defined by most pilots require more than
"exactly 1g", and usually a little negative, depending on the desired flight
path. Also, doing a near 1g roll as I mentioned, more than 1g will be
required to set up the manuver, and return to level flight afterwards. But I
disagree that it one needs to deviate much from 1g to roll the wings of an
aircraft 360 degrees if flying an arc. Depending on the arc and corkscrew of
your flight path, you can roll with very little if not no stress on the
aircraft.

[Mxsmanic]

PPL-A (Canada) writes:

> Back to your original question ... I will supply an answer of what
> "is" ... I was (as you asked) taught during my ab initio flight
> training to keep my head and body in a straight line, and not bend at
> the neck, neither away from nor toward the direction of the turn.
> Swiveling the head and/or moving the eyes to watch the patch of sky
> you were heading toward is taught (of course). Swiveling the head in
> the other direction is also taught to look for possibly converging A/
> C. However, one is taught to NOT bend your neck during turns. The
> argument is made that doing this makes you more prone to
> disorientation, sloppy flying, and a phenomenon called "the leans"
> after prolonged turns or during instrument flying.

And is this argument supported by scientific data, or simply folk wisdom? Why
would it be the recommended behavior for identical turns on a motorcycle, but
not for flying? Who's right, and why?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> My I suggest you revisit Newton's laws of motion?

My post is based on them.

How can you climb or descend from one altitude to another without any vertical
acceleration?

And since the acceleration due to gravity is constant, how can any positive
increase in rate of climb not result in total acceleration exceeding 1 G?

A simple example would suffice.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jun 10, 8:07 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> When you make a coordinated turn in an aircraft, are you taught to let your
> head tilt with the bank angle of the aircraft, or are you taught to keep your
> head normal to the horizon?

I can see where your question may come from if your experience of
flying is from watching TV. In real life the passengers remain in line
with the aircraft and only the earth banks outside. There are no
forces causing you to lean either way if the turn is coordinated.

-robert, CFII

[PPL-A (Canada)]

On Jun 11, 1:03 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> PPL-A (Canada) writes:
> > Back to your original question ... I will supply an answer of what
> > "is" ... I was (as you asked) taught during my ab initio flight
> > training to keep my head and body in a straight line, and not bend at
> > the neck, neither away from nor toward the direction of the turn.
> > Swiveling the head and/or moving the eyes to watch the patch of sky
> > you were heading toward is taught (of course). Swiveling the head in
> > the other direction is also taught to look for possibly converging A/
> > C. However, one is taught to NOT bend your neck during turns. The
> > argument is made that doing this makes you more prone to
> > disorientation, sloppy flying, and a phenomenon called "the leans"
> > after prolonged turns or during instrument flying.
>
> And is this argument supported by scientific data, or simply folk wisdom? Why
> would it be the recommended behavior for identical turns on a motorcycle, but
> not for flying? Who's right, and why?

Now now ... all you've done is substituted "And" for "But"! So I
guess I should have said "No 'if's', 'ands', 'ors', 'buts' or
'maybes'...". You asked how it's taught ... and that's how it's
taught ... give your head a shake and listen.

Why don't you write to Transport Canada and ask them for all of the
"scientific data" you seek? Every couple of months this agency
publishes a newsletter outlining the science (physics, and human
flight physiology for instance) behind a number of the basic
principles taught during flight training, and what happens when one is
forgetful, ill-trained, or foolish and/or argumentative enough to
disregard what you have been taught. Where I was trained you learn it
this way (from the "Flight Training Manual" - "Exercise Nine -
Turns"), or you don't fly. And from experience I can truly say that
doing it the other way does, after a time ranging from many seconds to
a minute or two, even at a gentle bank angle, lead to a very
uncomfortable feeling that my instructor told me is called "the
leans". You don't want to fly with the leans.

Also, I am not conceding that there is anything "identical" about
motorcycles and flying. I can think of so many things about the two
that are different it is not even worth comparing them any more
(although it did help a little bit around 1900 to compare the two, but
I wouldn't want to try to fly the Wright Flyer!). Nor is this a
motorcycle newsgroup. Why don't you trot out some real mathematical
physics right here and now and prove to all of us YOUR claim that they
are identical? Until then your comparison is a specious red herring.
Perhaps you are wrong, and BOTH claims can be correct, huh? This is
possible if we disregard your premise that they are identical.

Again ... the answer remains the same ... neck straight ... not bent.
It's safer this way, has been studied carefully (see above). The
onus, or burden of proof, to make any claims to the contrary, lies
entirely with you.

So get to it ... or enough already ...

J.

[Erik]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Bob Moore writes:
>
>
>>Head and body should remain perpendicular to the floor of the
>>cockpit. This comes naturally if the turn is coordinated.
>
>
> Interesting. When you learn to ride a motorcycle, you're taught to keep your
> head normal to the horizon in turns ... because turning your head with the
> bike as you lean into a turn results in disorientation.

How the hell would you know?

[Erik]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>
> I can just see him on his ducati trying to find control+alt+delete as he
> comes flying over the handlebars over the hood of some SUV
>
>
>
> Bertie
>


ROFL. Hahaha. RESTART! RESTART!!!!

[Mxsmanic]

PPL-A (Canada) writes:

> Again ... the answer remains the same ... neck straight ... not bent.

And the absence of data is still there.

[Erik]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> JB writes:
>
>
>>Actually, Anthony, ALL of your questions remain unanswered because you
>>refuse to accept the answers when given.
>
>
> Not true. I do get useful answers occasionally. And acceptance or rejection
> is not an issue.
>
> I do occasionally ask questions to which I have the answers (albeit not this
> one). If a "pilot" answers them correctly, I have reason to believe that he
> knows what he is talking about, in which case he may be a useful source of
> answers to questions for which I don't have the answers. It surprises me how
> few "pilots" can answer the test questions correctly, and so I've had to write
> off quite a few people in this newsgroup as blowhards.

1) You're an idiot.
2) Only people that give you answers that you expect are "pilots"
(note your ap coordinated turn thread)
3) Meet me in real life, I'll beat the living daylights out of
you just to make me feel better. Yep, violent, but who gives
a ****? I'll send Bertie the remains to grind up and feed to
the dogs.

>>And ALL pilots know
>>infinitely more about aviation than you do because they took the time
>>to learn how to fly in a real plane and usually have years of
>>experience flying.
>
>
> That is a manifestly false assumption; it amazes me that so many pilots cling
> to it. Since when does 40 hours of experience, mostly trial and error, make
> anyone an expert at anything? I'm surprised by how many extremely-low-time
> pilots there are around, too.

No, absolutely the case. I think that green tree frogs know more
about flying (and life in general) than you will ever figure out.
At least green tree frogs (haha, I just realized the "FROG"
reference) get laid periodically and move out of Mom's house.

Now, go stfu and get your extremely-no-time ass out of the basement
before you're so big you can't get out of bed, period. It's an
unhealthy way to live.

[Erik]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> He's not wasting my time.

When I can't sleep, I just think about beating the ****
out of him and it helps me relax.

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-11 12:39:10 -0400, "Maxwell" > said:

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> news:2007061101084716807-dhenriques@rcncom...
>>
>> Bertie is correct. Barrel Rolls are perhaps the most misquoted and
>> misunderstood maneuver done in an airplane.
>> Basically, you can do a barrel roll as loosely or as tight as the
>> airplane's flight envelope will allow. You can also enter a BR from many
>> different flight conditions involving many different g loadings.
>> The main thing to remember about barrel rolls is that they are a 3
>> dimensional maneuver through 3 dimensional space and that the common
>> denominator in a barrel roll regardless of the g used is that it will
>> remain POSITIVE all the way around. The one exception to this would be
>> after the pull and roll application, you can unload the airplane over the
>> top and drop the g to +1 if you like to loosen the roll rate, but that g
>> must be regained during the recovery.
>> Basically, you will be somewhere over +1g in the entry as you raise the
>> nose, then at some positive +g throughout the roll ranging from as
>> unloaded as you want to loosen up the airplane or as high a positive g and
>> tight a roll as the envelope will allow. As long as the airplane
>> transverses 3 dimensions through the roll, it's a barrel roll.
>> I've done them as loose as a 90 degree change of direction at the top apex
>> in a P51,the F8F, and several jets including the T38, and as tight as a
>> corkscrew in a Pitts S1Sl which was highly loaded with +g and extremely
>> tight.
>> Bob Hoover's rather famous Iced tea stunt in the Shrike is probably
>> responsible for much of the misconception about barrel rolls. He does them
>> fairly loose and with just enough positive g on the airplane to keep the
>> glass from spilling without stressing the airplane. The "secret" to Bob's
>> tea trick is simply his smoothness through the roll as much as keeping
>> positive g on the tea. It's really this smoothness that makes this stunt
>> possible, as although positive g will keep the tea inside the glass. (You
>> can actually POUR tea as you're rolling the airplane but ONLY if you're
>> as smooth as Hoover :-)
>> The reason smoothness is so necessary for the tea trick is that even
>> though you might have positive g on the airplane and in effect doing a
>> barrel roll, if you are not perfectly coordinated through the roll (any
>> excessive yaw for example) your tea will slide off the glare shield
>> laterally and you don't want that......not if you're Bob Hoover anyway :-)
>> So it's positive g for the roll, and smoothness and perfect coordination
>> for the tea stunt.
>
> I'm not talking about Bob's tea trick. Obvoiusly, positive Gs and
> coordination is the key there. And I'm not sure I understand or agree with
> your post. But I think it might be possible we having a terminology issue
> here with the definition of a barrel roll.
>
> I fully admit barrel rolls as defined by most pilots require more than
> "exactly 1g", and usually a little negative, depending on the desired flight
> path. Also, doing a near 1g roll as I mentioned, more than 1g will be
> required to set up the manuver, and return to level flight afterwards. But I
> disagree that it one needs to deviate much from 1g to roll the wings of an
> aircraft 360 degrees if flying an arc. Depending on the arc and corkscrew of
> your flight path, you can roll with very little if not no stress on the
> aircraft.

No. Barrel rolls do NOT go negative generally. If you went negative you
would change the roll arc and destroy the roll. You can unload to 0 g
through the top however without destroying the roll arc, but if you do,
you have to reapply positive g almost immediately as you pass through
inverted to regain the roll arc. As I said, you can do a barrel roll
at any positive g; as tight or as little as the flight envelope for
the aircraft will allow up to 90 degrees of flight path direction
change at the roll apex.
Generally the roll profile will be the application of positive g above
+1 from the roll initiation (either from level flight or from a slight
dive offset to gain energy if needed) followed by coordinated roll and
back pressure into the roll arc maintaining positive g with varying
back pressure to maintain the roll arc through the roll and through the
recovery back to the entry heading.
You can NOT at any time during a barrel roll, allow the g to go
negative as doing so will instantly destroy the arc of the roll.
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

Erik writes:

> How the hell would you know?

Because I took training in motorcycle riding, and I've driven motorcycles in
the past. Bicycles work on the same principle. And so, apparently, do
aircraft.

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> By already being in a climb at "one altitude" and maintaining it through
> "another".

At some point your vertical speed must change, and then your net acceleration
will change as well.

> Wrong!
> It's not!

It is constant for all practical purposes.

> If one G is defined as 32.2 ft/sec/sec, it can be done. I'll leave it to
> you to figure out how.

It cannot be done, and you cannot demonstrate otherwise.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Erik writes:

> > How the hell would you know?

> Because I took training in motorcycle riding, and I've driven motorcycles in
> the past. Bicycles work on the same principle. And so, apparently, do
> aircraft.

Let's see, airplanes free to move in 3 axis, orientation and velocity
determined by gravity, engine thrust, and aerodynamic forces on the
control surfaces.

Motorcycles, free to move in 2 axis, orientation and velocity determined
by gravity, engine power, coefficient of friction between the tires
and the surface, the surface itself, relative angle between front
and rear wheels, gyroscopic action of the wheels.

Yep, you're right, they're identical.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Tell you what. Sit at your sim, do things with the joystick, including
a roll.

What do YOU feel? I g straight down.

As it happens, rolls can be done the same way, but you don't have the
analytical skills to demonstrate that to yourself on paper, and for
sure are never going to experience it in real life.

On Jun 11, 4:13 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Nomen Nescio writes:
> > By already being in a climb at "one altitude" and maintaining it through
> > "another".
>
> At some point your vertical speed must change, and then your net acceleration
> will change as well.
>
> > Wrong!
> > It's not!
>
> It is constant for all practical purposes.
>
> > If one G is defined as 32.2 ft/sec/sec, it can be done. I'll leave it to
> > you to figure out how.
>
> It cannot be done, and you cannot demonstrate otherwise.

[george]

On Jun 12, 1:53 am, "ManhattanMan" > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> > I think he probably tried Viagra, but found it only made him taller.
>
> Boom! Head shot! :)

Or straight over the top :-)
You are awarded the kooks tail and both ears

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Let's see, airplanes free to move in 3 axis, orientation and velocity
> determined by gravity, engine thrust, and aerodynamic forces on the
> control surfaces.

In a coordinated turn, aircraft move in two dimensions, not three. They roll
into turns to keep the acceleration vector parallel to the yaw axis.

> Motorcycles, free to move in 2 axis, orientation and velocity determined
> by gravity, engine power, coefficient of friction between the tires
> and the surface, the surface itself, relative angle between front
> and rear wheels, gyroscopic action of the wheels.

In a coordinated turn, motorcycles move in two dimensions. They lean into
turns to keep the acceleration vector aligned with the center of gravity and
the plane of the rear wheel.

> Yep, you're right, they're identical.

Pretty much, in this context.

[Mxsmanic]

Erik writes:

> 3) Meet me in real life, I'll beat the living daylights out of
> you just to make me feel better. Yep, violent, but who gives
> a ****?

District attorneys do. You've established premeditation, for one thing. It's
a really bad idea to threaten people in writing, especially in written forms
that will be archived indefinitely and exposed to public view. It can work
against you in ways you may not at all suspect.

[Erik]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Erik writes:
>
>
>>3) Meet me in real life, I'll beat the living daylights out of
>> you just to make me feel better. Yep, violent, but who gives
>> a ****?
>
>
> District attorneys do. You've established premeditation, for one thing. It's
> a really bad idea to threaten people in writing, especially in written forms
> that will be archived indefinitely and exposed to public view. It can work
> against you in ways you may not at all suspect.

Yep. I'll be suspect number one if I ever fly into france and
you happen to disappear.

[Erik]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> writes:
>
>
>>Let's see, airplanes free to move in 3 axis, orientation and velocity
>>determined by gravity, engine thrust, and aerodynamic forces on the
>>control surfaces.
>
>
> In a coordinated turn, aircraft move in two dimensions, not three. They roll
> into turns to keep the acceleration vector parallel to the yaw axis.

Hey, asshole, airplanes move in three dimensions period.

>>Motorcycles, free to move in 2 axis, orientation and velocity determined
>>by gravity, engine power, coefficient of friction between the tires
>>and the surface, the surface itself, relative angle between front
>>and rear wheels, gyroscopic action of the wheels.


>>Yep, you're right, they're identical.
>
>
> Pretty much, in this context.

And that is why you're an idiot. Or, rather, proof there of, the
why is probably something very old and long surpressed.

[Erik]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> PPL-A (Canada) writes:
>
>
>>Again ... the answer remains the same ... neck straight ... not bent.
>
>
> And the absence of data is still there.

See, further proof. You were answered. You didn't like
the answer. It's not an absence of data, it's an absence
of brain.

[Erik]

PPL-A (Canada) wrote:

> Now now ... all you've done is substituted "And" for "But"! So I
> guess I should have said "No 'if's', 'ands', 'ors', 'buts'

So that excludes the ass from replying. I should have
thought of that before!

[Erik]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> RomeoMike > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>
>>BT wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In the words of the Jedi Master... "Use the Force Luke".. be one with
>>>the aircraft.
>>>
>>>BT
>>>
>>>
>>
>>You are preaching to the choir, but MX is not in the choir. He's solo
>>in another auditorium.
>>
>
> Toilet, I think
>
>
> bertie

AHEM.. Toilette

[Erik]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Bob Moore writes:
>
>
>>Because they are not normally operating in coordinated flight.
>
>
> Why would that make a difference?
>
> What they seem to be doing is minimizing the tilting of their heads, just as
> motorcycle racers, ballet dancers, and ice skaters do.

Nope, during any sort of flight, turns, straight and level,
whatever, a motorcycle racer, ballet dancer, or an ice skater
would still sit with a straight back and neck if they want to
continue a respectable level of flight. Hell, I do software
and IT and I sit the same as they would during flight.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Let's see, airplanes free to move in 3 axis, orientation and velocity
> > determined by gravity, engine thrust, and aerodynamic forces on the
> > control surfaces.

> In a coordinated turn, aircraft move in two dimensions, not three. They roll
> into turns to keep the acceleration vector parallel to the yaw axis.

Bzzzt, wrong answer.

In a coordinated turn, a real aircraft can maintain altitude, climb,
or decend.

Real aircraft operate in 3 dimensions.

> > Motorcycles, free to move in 2 axis, orientation and velocity determined
> > by gravity, engine power, coefficient of friction between the tires
> > and the surface, the surface itself, relative angle between front
> > and rear wheels, gyroscopic action of the wheels.

> In a coordinated turn, motorcycles move in two dimensions. They lean into
> turns to keep the acceleration vector aligned with the center of gravity and
> the plane of the rear wheel.

Motorcycles ALWAYS operate in 2 dimensions; the surface of the Earth
insures that.

You neglected the coefficient of friction between the tires and the surface,
relative angle between front and rear wheels, and gyroscopic action of
the wheels.

But you could care less since you only want to argue endlessly.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Any response to his posts one cannot resist, should contain MX's real
name. There's a chance any seeker of tour guide services in Paris
might Google the name up in quotes, and land upon hint of the kind of
personality a prospective payer of money will have to put up with.
This is not nasty; just consumer information w/o hint it's intended to
be. Only real hardball will make him go away. He wants to see his
awesome knowledge on the net so badly for that reason alone, he just
posted elsewhere:

"I directly suggested to London some years ago that they might be able
to use
groundwater to cool the subway by circulating a closed-circuit coolant
through
nearby groundwater and then using that to cool the subway. The system
would
gradually run out of cold, but it might last long enough to get
through the
hot period of the year. Then again, the "hot period" is getting
longer every
year, so it would not be a permanent solution."

F--

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Erik writes:
>
>> How the hell would you know?
>
> Because I took training in motorcycle riding, and I've driven motorcycles
> in
> the past. Bicycles work on the same principle. And so, apparently, do
> aircraft.

Wow, you have actually been trained to ride a motorcycle. Was it the same
school that teaches other monkeys to do so too.

Did you get a real certificate, cap and gown, trophy.

What a putz. That statement alone is suitable for framing.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> In a coordinated turn, motorcycles move in two dimensions. They lean into
> turns to keep the acceleration vector aligned with the center of gravity
> and
> the plane of the rear wheel.
>
>> Yep, you're right, they're identical.
>
> Pretty much, in this context.

AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're ****ting us! Really!

An airplane leans in to the turns.

I guess we've all been doing something wrong. Perhaps getting the wheels of
the ground.

What MORON!

[Snowbird]

"Mxsmanic" wrote ...
>
> In a coordinated turn, motorcycles move in two dimensions. They lean into
> turns to keep the acceleration vector aligned with the center of gravity
> and
> the plane of the rear wheel.
>
>> Yep, you're right, they're identical.
>
> Pretty much, in this context.

Disagree.

First, motorcycles don't necessarily move in two dimensions in a turn. They
are, however, bound to follow the road surface. Which may be flat.. or then
not.

Second, you might also want to ponder what the motorcycle driver vs. the
pilot is looking at.

Maybe the bike rider wants to look at the intended track of his bike on the
road, in order to spot any bumps. Or maybe he just wants to optimize his
turn to the available width of the road and looks at it more broadly. In
either case it would seem to make sense that the rider's sight perception
improves, if he tilts his eyes more parallel to the road.

The pilot, on the other hand, does not look at any road ahead. He's
interested in the nose vs. horizon sight picture as well as the instruments.
That's a different case and it's not self-evident that tilting the head
parallel to the horizon would improve the pilot's turn performance. On the
contrary, especially if the pilot uses the VSI and altimeter to maintain
altitude, it's probably easier to read them with the eyes level relative to
the instrument panel.

Third, it just might be possible that the pilot's stereoscopic vision can
better help him maintain altitude in the turn by visual cues, if he keeps
his head still. When the airplane banks, part of his stereoscopic ability
is transferred to the vertical direction, which may improve his sensing of
climb/descent changes. Whereas the bike driver has no need to be able to
sense movement in the vertical plane, as he is bound to the road surface
anyway.

Fourth, a bike rider leans forward, while a pilot leans back in his seat.
Can have impact on how the head turns in a turn.

I'm not aware of scientific proof of the above, but neither of the reverse.
So until the opposite is credibly shown, I'll contend that a motorcycle is
different from an airplane.

[Maxwell]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
news:2007061116042375249-dhenriques@rcncom...
> On 2007-06-11 12:39:10 -0400, "Maxwell" > said:
>
> No. Barrel rolls do NOT go negative generally. If you went negative you
> would change the roll arc and destroy the roll. You can unload to 0 g
> through the top however without destroying the roll arc, but if you do,
> you have to reapply positive g almost immediately as you pass through
> inverted to regain the roll arc. As I said, you can do a barrel roll at
> any positive g; as tight or as little as the flight envelope for the
> aircraft will allow up to 90 degrees of flight path direction change at
> the roll apex.
> Generally the roll profile will be the application of positive g above +1
> from the roll initiation (either from level flight or from a slight dive
> offset to gain energy if needed) followed by coordinated roll and back
> pressure into the roll arc maintaining positive g with varying back
> pressure to maintain the roll arc through the roll and through the
> recovery back to the entry heading.
> You can NOT at any time during a barrel roll, allow the g to go negative
> as doing so will instantly destroy the arc of the roll.
> Dudley Henriques
>

No it won't, and yes you can.

[Maxwell]

"Erik" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Erik writes:
>>
>>
>>>3) Meet me in real life, I'll beat the living daylights out of
>>> you just to make me feel better. Yep, violent, but who gives
>>> a ****?
>>
>>
>> District attorneys do. You've established premeditation, for one thing.
>> It's
>> a really bad idea to threaten people in writing, especially in written
>> forms
>> that will be archived indefinitely and exposed to public view. It can
>> work
>> against you in ways you may not at all suspect.
>

Bull ****.

If you ever disappear the list of documented suspects will be so long, I
seriously doubt the authorities would even begin to look. You are clearly
the poster child for justifiable homicide.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"Maxwell" > wrote in
:

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> news:2007061101084716807-dhenriques@rcncom...
>>
>> Bertie is correct. Barrel Rolls are perhaps the most misquoted and
>> misunderstood maneuver done in an airplane.
>> Basically, you can do a barrel roll as loosely or as tight as the
>> airplane's flight envelope will allow. You can also enter a BR from
>> many different flight conditions involving many different g loadings.
>> The main thing to remember about barrel rolls is that they are a 3
>> dimensional maneuver through 3 dimensional space and that the common
>> denominator in a barrel roll regardless of the g used is that it will
>> remain POSITIVE all the way around. The one exception to this would
>> be after the pull and roll application, you can unload the airplane
>> over the top and drop the g to +1 if you like to loosen the roll
>> rate, but that g must be regained during the recovery.
>> Basically, you will be somewhere over +1g in the entry as you raise
>> the nose, then at some positive +g throughout the roll ranging from
>> as unloaded as you want to loosen up the airplane or as high a
>> positive g and tight a roll as the envelope will allow. As long as
>> the airplane transverses 3 dimensions through the roll, it's a barrel
>> roll. I've done them as loose as a 90 degree change of direction at
>> the top apex in a P51,the F8F, and several jets including the T38,
>> and as tight as a corkscrew in a Pitts S1Sl which was highly loaded
>> with +g and extremely tight.
>> Bob Hoover's rather famous Iced tea stunt in the Shrike is probably
>> responsible for much of the misconception about barrel rolls. He does
>> them fairly loose and with just enough positive g on the airplane to
>> keep the glass from spilling without stressing the airplane. The
>> "secret" to Bob's tea trick is simply his smoothness through the roll
>> as much as keeping positive g on the tea. It's really this smoothness
>> that makes this stunt possible, as although positive g will keep the
>> tea inside the glass. (You can actually POUR tea as you're rolling
>> the airplane but ONLY if you're as smooth as Hoover :-)
>> The reason smoothness is so necessary for the tea trick is that even
>> though you might have positive g on the airplane and in effect doing
>> a barrel roll, if you are not perfectly coordinated through the roll
>> (any excessive yaw for example) your tea will slide off the glare
>> shield laterally and you don't want that......not if you're Bob
>> Hoover anyway :-) So it's positive g for the roll, and smoothness and
>> perfect coordination for the tea stunt.
>
> I'm not talking about Bob's tea trick. Obvoiusly, positive Gs and
> coordination is the key there. And I'm not sure I understand or agree
> with your post. But I think it might be possible we having a
> terminology issue here with the definition of a barrel roll.

Nope. The thing is, you can`t do anything at all at one G except
straight and level flight.

Period, Endo fo story, finnito spaghettio. Nothing to do with
terminology or anything else. It's just a BS legend that has been
repeated so many times that it's dug it's own groove in the urban legend
record.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"Maxwell" > wrote in
:

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> news:2007061116042375249-dhenriques@rcncom...
>> On 2007-06-11 12:39:10 -0400, "Maxwell" > said:
>>
>> No. Barrel rolls do NOT go negative generally. If you went negative
>> you would change the roll arc and destroy the roll. You can unload to
>> 0 g through the top however without destroying the roll arc, but if
>> you do, you have to reapply positive g almost immediately as you pass
>> through inverted to regain the roll arc. As I said, you can do a
>> barrel roll at any positive g; as tight or as little as the flight
>> envelope for the aircraft will allow up to 90 degrees of flight path
>> direction change at the roll apex.
>> Generally the roll profile will be the application of positive g
>> above +1 from the roll initiation (either from level flight or from a
>> slight dive offset to gain energy if needed) followed by coordinated
>> roll and back pressure into the roll arc maintaining positive g with
>> varying back pressure to maintain the roll arc through the roll and
>> through the recovery back to the entry heading.
>> You can NOT at any time during a barrel roll, allow the g to go
>> negative as doing so will instantly destroy the arc of the roll.
>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>
> No it won't, and yes you can.
>

Nope.

You';re wrong dude.

That's OK, you can go on being wrong. I don't have to fly with you.
....


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> You aren't attached to the horizon while in an aircraft in flight,
>> simulator boy, you are attached to the aircraft.
>
> You aren't attached to either,

Well, you aren't attached to earth in any significant fashion anyway..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Maxwell writes:
>
>> A 1g barrel roll can be done, but the required trajectory of the
>> aircraft is not going to be one that is necessarily eye pleasing for
>> ground demonstration purposes.
>
> Any maneuver that involves a change in altitude will involve forces
> exceeding 1 G at some point.
>

Nope, wrong again fjukktard.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

wrote in
ups.com:

> Actually, with respect to maintaining one g into the seat and doing a
> kind of roll, you can, or at least Newton says so,


Yeah, but only if you do it in a zero G environment, i.e, off the
planet's surface.



but I'm not sure
> the airplane exists that has the control authority to do it. If you
> search the groups you'll be able to find the analysis, but the short
> form is this. The airplane has got to accelelerate downward at 1 G,
> then pull a G in a coordinated bank. It'll roll, but it won't be
> pretty, and the pilot will feel 1 G into the seat.
>
> The diameter of the roll is something like 80 feet! Almost a snap
> roll.

Also wrong.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Actually, with respect to maintaining one g into the seat and doing a
>> kind of roll, you can, or at least Newton says so, but I'm not sure
>> the airplane exists that has the control authority to do it. If you
>> search the groups you'll be able to find the analysis, but the short
>> form is this. The airplane has got to accelelerate downward at 1 G,
>> then pull a G in a coordinated bank. It'll roll, but it won't be
>> pretty, and the pilot will feel 1 G into the seat.
>
> You cannot climb without exceeding 1 G, and you cannot stop a descent
> without exceeding 1 G, either.

Yes, you can fjukktard.

You are, of course, talking straight out of your ass yet again



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> My I suggest you revisit Newton's laws of motion?
>
> My post is based on them.

No, it isn't


>
> How can you climb or descend from one altitude to another without any
> vertical acceleration?

Easy., I do it almost daily, fjukkwit.


>
> And since the acceleration due to gravity is constant, how can any
> positive increase in rate of climb not result in total acceleration
> exceeding 1 G?
>
> A simple example would suffice.


Reread your post fjukktard. Not that that will make any diference, but
you're talking about at least three different things here.

Of course, if you flew you would know that.

But you don't and never will.




Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> By already being in a climb at "one altitude" and maintaining it
>> through "another".
>
> At some point your vertical speed must change, and then your net
> acceleration will change as well.
>
>> Wrong!
>> It's not!
>
> It is constant for all practical purposes.

Nope.

>
>> If one G is defined as 32.2 ft/sec/sec, it can be done. I'll leave it
>> to you to figure out how.
>
> It cannot be done, and you cannot demonstrate otherwise.
>

I could if you would get into an airplane,

But you wont.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

george > wrote in news:1181596437.557910.199630
@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com:

> On Jun 12, 1:53 am, "ManhattanMan" > wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> > I think he probably tried Viagra, but found it only made him
taller.
>>
>> Boom! Head shot! :)
>
> Or straight over the top :-)
> You are awarded the kooks tail and both ears
>

Thenkew.

Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> PPL-A (Canada) writes:
>
>> Back to your original question ... I will supply an answer of what
>> "is" ... I was (as you asked) taught during my ab initio flight
>> training to keep my head and body in a straight line, and not bend at
>> the neck, neither away from nor toward the direction of the turn.
>> Swiveling the head and/or moving the eyes to watch the patch of sky
>> you were heading toward is taught (of course). Swiveling the head in
>> the other direction is also taught to look for possibly converging A/
>> C. However, one is taught to NOT bend your neck during turns. The
>> argument is made that doing this makes you more prone to
>> disorientation, sloppy flying, and a phenomenon called "the leans"
>> after prolonged turns or during instrument flying.
>
> And is this argument supported by scientific data, or simply folk
> wisdom? Why would it be the recommended behavior for identical turns
> on a motorcycle, but not for flying? Who's right, and why?

I'm right because I do both well.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Erik > wrote in news:136rah6icuumm42
@corp.supernews.com:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> He's not wasting my time.
>
> When I can't sleep, I just think about beating the ****
> out of him and it helps me relax.
>


Why dream? I do it daily.


He doesn't whine about it in public, but I know he's slobbering all
over his keyboard every time he reads one of my posts.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Erik writes:
>
>> 3) Meet me in real life, I'll beat the living daylights out of
>> you just to make me feel better. Yep, violent, but who gives
>> a ****?
>
> District attorneys do. You've established premeditation, for one
> thing. It's a really bad idea to threaten people in writing,
> especially in written forms that will be archived indefinitely and
> exposed to public view. It can work against you in ways you may not
> at all suspect.

Oow! Kookthrets!


God I luv usenet.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"Maxwell" > wrote in
:

>
> "Erik" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>> Erik writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>3) Meet me in real life, I'll beat the living daylights out of
>>>> you just to make me feel better. Yep, violent, but who gives
>>>> a ****?
>>>
>>>
>>> District attorneys do. You've established premeditation, for one
>>> thing. It's
>>> a really bad idea to threaten people in writing, especially in
>>> written forms
>>> that will be archived indefinitely and exposed to public view. It
>>> can work
>>> against you in ways you may not at all suspect.
>>
>
> Bull ****.
>
> If you ever disappear the list of documented suspects will be so long,
> I seriously doubt the authorities would even begin to look. You are
> clearly the poster child for justifiable homicide.
>
>

No no!
You'll not hurt my toy!

He's the only k00k I got at the moment!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> It is also important to realize (!) that bike is _not_ doing a co-
>> ordinated turn.
>
> Yes, it is. If it were not, it would fall over.

Not if you're doing it right, fjukkwit.

And I'd be pretty sure you wouldn;t be.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> That's because pilots here really don't know much. Yet you continue
>> to ask.
>
> I don't have any other sources (there are some paying sources, but I
> cannot afford them).

I know. My paypasl account confirms this.

>
>> And if you can discern probable good answers from suspect answers, it
>> suggests you know what the answer is.
>
> It suggests that I have a good idea, but I like confirmation.

Nope, you've never had a good idea.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> JB writes:
>
>> Actually, Anthony, ALL of your questions remain unanswered because
>> you refuse to accept the answers when given.
>
> Not true. I do get useful answers occasionally.

Nope, you never get a useful answert because for it to be useful you'd
have to use it, and you never ever will.



Ever.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Let's see, airplanes free to move in 3 axis, orientation and velocity
>> determined by gravity, engine thrust, and aerodynamic forces on the
>> control surfaces.
>
> In a coordinated turn, aircraft move in two dimensions,

Wrong again asshole.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"Maxwell" > wrote in
:

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Erik writes:
>>
>>> How the hell would you know?
>>
>> Because I took training in motorcycle riding, and I've driven
>> motorcycles in
>> the past. Bicycles work on the same principle. And so, apparently,
>> do aircraft.
>
> Wow, you have actually been trained to ride a motorcycle. Was it the
> same school that teaches other monkeys to do so too.

Bwawhahwhahhwhahwhhahwhahhw!




Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

wrote in news:1181602095.375518.70190
@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

> Any response to his posts one cannot resist, should contain MX's real
> name.

Hey, i'll put his name adress and shoe size in my sig file if you tell me
what they are.

haven't visited his web site yet. I'm saving it for a treat


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-11 19:00:00 -0400, "Maxwell" > said:

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> news:2007061116042375249-dhenriques@rcncom...
>> On 2007-06-11 12:39:10 -0400, "Maxwell" > said:
>>
>> No. Barrel rolls do NOT go negative generally. If you went negative you
>> would change the roll arc and destroy the roll. You can unload to 0 g
>> through the top however without destroying the roll arc, but if you do,
>> you have to reapply positive g almost immediately as you pass through
>> inverted to regain the roll arc. As I said, you can do a barrel roll at
>> any positive g; as tight or as little as the flight envelope for the
>> aircraft will allow up to 90 degrees of flight path direction change at
>> the roll apex.
>> Generally the roll profile will be the application of positive g above +1
>> from the roll initiation (either from level flight or from a slight dive
>> offset to gain energy if needed) followed by coordinated roll and back
>> pressure into the roll arc maintaining positive g with varying back
>> pressure to maintain the roll arc through the roll and through the
>> recovery back to the entry heading.
>> You can NOT at any time during a barrel roll, allow the g to go negative
>> as doing so will instantly destroy the arc of the roll.
>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>
> No it won't, and yes you can.

I'm sorry, but you are totally incorrect.
Dudley Henriques

[ManhattanMan]

Maxwell wrote:
> You're ****ting us! Really!
>
> An airplane leans in to the turns.
>


Well hell yes... When you want to turn an airplane, don't you just lean
over and it mysteriously goes there? Conversely, when you want to turn your
motorcycle at speed, don't you give the handlebars a good tweek in the
desired direction? What could be easier to understand? Unless you're a
narcissistic, arrogant, conceited, pious, prick..........

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"ManhattanMan" > wrote in
:

> Maxwell wrote:
>> You're ****ting us! Really!
>>
>> An airplane leans in to the turns.
>>
>
>
> Well hell yes... When you want to turn an airplane, don't you just
> lean over and it mysteriously goes there? Conversely, when you want
> to turn your motorcycle at speed, don't you give the handlebars a good
> tweek in the desired direction?

Actually, when you want to go quickly in one direction or other on a
bike, you tweak the handlebars in the opposite direction to that of the
turn.


bertie

[ManhattanMan]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> "ManhattanMan" > wrote in
> :
>
>> Maxwell wrote:
>>> You're ****ting us! Really!
>>>
>>> An airplane leans in to the turns.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well hell yes... When you want to turn an airplane, don't you just
>> lean over and it mysteriously goes there? Conversely, when you want
>> to turn your motorcycle at speed, don't you give the handlebars a
>> good tweek in the desired direction?
>
> Actually, when you want to go quickly in one direction or other on a
> bike, you tweak the handlebars in the opposite direction to that of
> the turn.
>
>


Now you spoiled Mx's x-spurt answer....... durn.........

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"ManhattanMan" > wrote in news:6zmbi.559096
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> "ManhattanMan" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Maxwell wrote:
>>>> You're ****ting us! Really!
>>>>
>>>> An airplane leans in to the turns.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Well hell yes... When you want to turn an airplane, don't you just
>>> lean over and it mysteriously goes there? Conversely, when you want
>>> to turn your motorcycle at speed, don't you give the handlebars a
>>> good tweek in the desired direction?
>>
>> Actually, when you want to go quickly in one direction or other on a
>> bike, you tweak the handlebars in the opposite direction to that of
>> the turn.
>>
>>
>
>
> Now you spoiled Mx's x-spurt answer....... durn.........
>

Trick is you have to go faster than about 20 mph for that.

Think he has?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"ManhattanMan" > wrote in news:6zmbi.559096
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> "ManhattanMan" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Maxwell wrote:
>>>> You're ****ting us! Really!
>>>>
>>>> An airplane leans in to the turns.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Well hell yes... When you want to turn an airplane, don't you just
>>> lean over and it mysteriously goes there? Conversely, when you want
>>> to turn your motorcycle at speed, don't you give the handlebars a
>>> good tweek in the desired direction?
>>
>> Actually, when you want to go quickly in one direction or other on a
>> bike, you tweak the handlebars in the opposite direction to that of
>> the turn.
>>
>>
>
>
> Now you spoiled Mx's x-spurt answer....... durn.........
>

Sorry, BTW, I should have known you were trolling him.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-10 22:41:49 -0400, "Maxwell" > said:

>
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> There was a thread a while ago about how not only could one stay with
>> the force into the seat, but actually maintain 1 G straight into the
>> seat through a roll. If one is flying coordinated, keeping normal to
>> the airplane makes sense. Those how fly aerobatics have a different
>> set of criteria. For what it's worth, watching the in cockpit cameras
>> of some moderatedly skilled pilots, like the Blue Angels, shows them
>> "upright" with respect to the airplane except when G forces sling
>> their heads around, but they do fly coordinated most of the time.
>>
>> But what do they know?
>>
>
> That is either untrue, or real misleading. The Blues fly with a different
> purpose, keep the aircraft on trajectory. When they are flying a knife edge,
> they are hardly coordinated, as with many other maneuvers.
>
> A 1g barrel roll can be done, but the required trajectory of the aircraft is
> not going to be one that is necessarily eye pleasing for ground
> demonstration purposes.

Actually, when the Blues or anyone else is in knife edge, they are
indeed in coordinated flight. You hold the aircraft in knife edge with
top rudder and forward neutral stick; this control pressure combination
has to be perfectly coordinated to maintain knife edge.
You are confusing coordinated with meaning the control pressures must
be complementary which is a common mistake often made.
The first lesson we teach in aerobatics is that "coordinated" has
absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the controls not being crossed.
Actually, any good flight instructor will teach this to a new primary
student during the first hour of dual :-)
Dudley Henriques

[ManhattanMan]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> "ManhattanMan" > wrote in news:6zmbi.559096
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> "ManhattanMan" > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Maxwell wrote:
>>>>> You're ****ting us! Really!
>>>>>
>>>>> An airplane leans in to the turns.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well hell yes... When you want to turn an airplane, don't you just
>>>> lean over and it mysteriously goes there? Conversely, when you
>>>> want to turn your motorcycle at speed, don't you give the
>>>> handlebars a good tweek in the desired direction?
>>>
>>> Actually, when you want to go quickly in one direction or other on a
>>> bike, you tweak the handlebars in the opposite direction to that of
>>> the turn.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Now you spoiled Mx's x-spurt answer....... durn.........
>>
>
> Sorry, BTW, I should have known you were trolling him.
>
>

No loss! Any answer would have been devoid of reality anyway - can't
imagine Mx doing more than 20mph on a moped, on the back seat, eyes shut,
tears forming, never mind............ :)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"ManhattanMan" > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> "ManhattanMan" > wrote in news:6zmbi.559096
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> "ManhattanMan" > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Maxwell wrote:
>>>>>> You're ****ting us! Really!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An airplane leans in to the turns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well hell yes... When you want to turn an airplane, don't you
>>>>> just lean over and it mysteriously goes there? Conversely, when
>>>>> you want to turn your motorcycle at speed, don't you give the
>>>>> handlebars a good tweek in the desired direction?
>>>>
>>>> Actually, when you want to go quickly in one direction or other on
>>>> a bike, you tweak the handlebars in the opposite direction to that
>>>> of the turn.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Now you spoiled Mx's x-spurt answer....... durn.........
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, BTW, I should have known you were trolling him.
>>
>>
>
> No loss! Any answer would have been devoid of reality anyway - can't
> imagine Mx doing more than 20mph on a moped, on the back seat, eyes
> shut, tears forming, never mind............ :)
>

True, true.

Maybe in reality, he's actualy Jerry Lewis..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Nope. the only thing you can do at 1 G is straight and level flight.
>
> Nope. I haven't worked out the vector math to see how many solutions
> exist for other scenarios, but there are an infinite number of
> solutions where the flight is straight but the aircraft is climbing
> (or descending) at a constant velocity. So there is no requirment that
> the flight be level.
>

OK, few excetions, but that's transient.


> A useful experiment is to check your weight on an elevator - once it
> reaches constant speed. (Obviously there are accelerations at the
> beginning and end of the ride where the perception of force is
> different than 1 G.)

Yeah yeah.


>
>> You can keep positive G around a barrel roll, but not 1 G
>
> It's more complicated than that. What you say is true for circular
> barrel rolls in level flight, but consider this scenario that also
> yields 1 G and definitely not straight or level:
>
> First, consider an aircraft in freefall.

Then that's not a barrel roll.



Bertie

[Maxwell]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
news:2007061120422616807-dhenriques@rcncom...
> On 2007-06-11 19:00:00 -0400, "Maxwell" > said:
>
>>
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> news:2007061116042375249-dhenriques@rcncom...
>>> On 2007-06-11 12:39:10 -0400, "Maxwell" > said:
>>>
>>> No. Barrel rolls do NOT go negative generally. If you went negative you
>>> would change the roll arc and destroy the roll. You can unload to 0 g
>>> through the top however without destroying the roll arc, but if you do,
>>> you have to reapply positive g almost immediately as you pass through
>>> inverted to regain the roll arc. As I said, you can do a barrel roll at
>>> any positive g; as tight or as little as the flight envelope for the
>>> aircraft will allow up to 90 degrees of flight path direction change at
>>> the roll apex.
>>> Generally the roll profile will be the application of positive g above
>>> +1
>>> from the roll initiation (either from level flight or from a slight dive
>>> offset to gain energy if needed) followed by coordinated roll and back
>>> pressure into the roll arc maintaining positive g with varying back
>>> pressure to maintain the roll arc through the roll and through the
>>> recovery back to the entry heading.
>>> You can NOT at any time during a barrel roll, allow the g to go negative
>>> as doing so will instantly destroy the arc of the roll.
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>
>>
>> No it won't, and yes you can.
>
> I'm sorry, but you are totally incorrect.
> Dudley Henriques
>

Certainly not. If you think you cannot roll the wings of an aircraft, and
remain in total control of the g loading, you are totally incorrect.

If you want to argue the proper name for this manuver is not a barrel roll,
that's another topic, and I would agree. Many people incorrectly refer to
all rolls as barrel rolls. But then we would just be nit picking, wouldn't
we.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"Maxwell" > wrote in
:

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> news:2007061120422616807-dhenriques@rcncom...
>> On 2007-06-11 19:00:00 -0400, "Maxwell" > said:
>>
>>>
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>> news:2007061116042375249-dhenriques@rcncom...
>>>> On 2007-06-11 12:39:10 -0400, "Maxwell" > said:
>>>>
>>>> No. Barrel rolls do NOT go negative generally. If you went negative
>>>> you would change the roll arc and destroy the roll. You can unload
>>>> to 0 g through the top however without destroying the roll arc, but
>>>> if you do, you have to reapply positive g almost immediately as you
>>>> pass through inverted to regain the roll arc. As I said, you can
>>>> do a barrel roll at any positive g; as tight or as little as the
>>>> flight envelope for the aircraft will allow up to 90 degrees of
>>>> flight path direction change at the roll apex.
>>>> Generally the roll profile will be the application of positive g
>>>> above +1
>>>> from the roll initiation (either from level flight or from a slight
>>>> dive offset to gain energy if needed) followed by coordinated roll
>>>> and back pressure into the roll arc maintaining positive g with
>>>> varying back pressure to maintain the roll arc through the roll and
>>>> through the recovery back to the entry heading.
>>>> You can NOT at any time during a barrel roll, allow the g to go
>>>> negative as doing so will instantly destroy the arc of the roll.
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>
>>>
>>> No it won't, and yes you can.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but you are totally incorrect.
>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>
> Certainly not. If you think you cannot roll the wings of an aircraft,
> and remain in total control of the g loading, you are totally
> incorrect.
>
> If you want to argue the proper name for this manuver is not a barrel
> roll, that's another topic, and I would agree. Many people incorrectly
> refer to all rolls as barrel rolls. But then we would just be nit
> picking, wouldn't we.
>

Dudley's right, you're wrong,. You're twisting the argument to suit
yourself, changeing the language and rules as you go...






Bertie

[Maxwell]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
news:2007061121444816807-dhenriques@rcncom...
> On 2007-06-10 22:41:49 -0400, "Maxwell" > said:
>
>> That is either untrue, or real misleading. The Blues fly with a different
>> purpose, keep the aircraft on trajectory. When they are flying a knife
>> edge,
>> they are hardly coordinated, as with many other maneuvers.
>>
>> A 1g barrel roll can be done, but the required trajectory of the aircraft
>> is
>> not going to be one that is necessarily eye pleasing for ground
>> demonstration purposes.
>
> Actually, when the Blues or anyone else is in knife edge, they are indeed
> in coordinated flight. You hold the aircraft in knife edge with top rudder
> and forward neutral stick; this control pressure combination has to be
> perfectly coordinated to maintain knife edge.
> You are confusing coordinated with meaning the control pressures must be
> complementary which is a common mistake often made.
> The first lesson we teach in aerobatics is that "coordinated" has
> absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the controls not being crossed.
> Actually, any good flight instructor will teach this to a new primary
> student during the first hour of dual :-)
> Dudley Henriques
>

Then define coordinated.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"Maxwell" > wrote in
:

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> news:2007061121444816807-dhenriques@rcncom...
>> On 2007-06-10 22:41:49 -0400, "Maxwell" > said:
>>
>>> That is either untrue, or real misleading. The Blues fly with a
>>> different purpose, keep the aircraft on trajectory. When they are
>>> flying a knife edge,
>>> they are hardly coordinated, as with many other maneuvers.
>>>
>>> A 1g barrel roll can be done, but the required trajectory of the
>>> aircraft is
>>> not going to be one that is necessarily eye pleasing for ground
>>> demonstration purposes.
>>
>> Actually, when the Blues or anyone else is in knife edge, they are
>> indeed in coordinated flight. You hold the aircraft in knife edge
>> with top rudder and forward neutral stick; this control pressure
>> combination has to be perfectly coordinated to maintain knife edge.
>> You are confusing coordinated with meaning the control pressures must
>> be complementary which is a common mistake often made.
>> The first lesson we teach in aerobatics is that "coordinated" has
>> absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the controls not being
>> crossed. Actually, any good flight instructor will teach this to a
>> new primary student during the first hour of dual :-)
>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>
> Then define coordinated.
>

All controls in the appropriate postion for the desired flight path and
attitude.


Bertie

[ManhattanMan]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> Maybe in reality, he's actualy Jerry Lewis..
>
>


Naw, JL already has been quasi-reincarnated in the form of Glenn Beck, a
talk show host on US TV (not knowing where you are to recognize that, ya may
be a bonefide Oz Bunyip!) - I expect him to break into fake french gibberish
speak anytime during an interview. d:~>))

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-11 23:05:47 -0400, "Maxwell" > said:

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> news:2007061120422616807-dhenriques@rcncom...
>> On 2007-06-11 19:00:00 -0400, "Maxwell" > said:
>>
>>>
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>> news:2007061116042375249-dhenriques@rcncom...
>>>> On 2007-06-11 12:39:10 -0400, "Maxwell" > said:
>>>>
>>>> No. Barrel rolls do NOT go negative generally. If you went negative you
>>>> would change the roll arc and destroy the roll. You can unload to 0 g
>>>> through the top however without destroying the roll arc, but if you do,
>>>> you have to reapply positive g almost immediately as you pass through
>>>> inverted to regain the roll arc. As I said, you can do a barrel roll at
>>>> any positive g; as tight or as little as the flight envelope for the
>>>> aircraft will allow up to 90 degrees of flight path direction change at
>>>> the roll apex.
>>>> Generally the roll profile will be the application of positive g above
>>>> +1
>>>> from the roll initiation (either from level flight or from a slight dive
>>>> offset to gain energy if needed) followed by coordinated roll and back
>>>> pressure into the roll arc maintaining positive g with varying back
>>>> pressure to maintain the roll arc through the roll and through the
>>>> recovery back to the entry heading.
>>>> You can NOT at any time during a barrel roll, allow the g to go negative
>>>> as doing so will instantly destroy the arc of the roll.
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>
>>>
>>> No it won't, and yes you can.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but you are totally incorrect.
>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>
> Certainly not. If you think you cannot roll the wings of an aircraft, and
> remain in total control of the g loading, you are totally incorrect.

Not sure what you mean here as your comment refers to me or what I have
said, but I can assure you that you most certainly CAN roll an airplane
and maintain complete control of the g. If a pilot can't do this, I
would strongly suggest that rolling the airplane not be attempted :-)
>
> If you want to argue the proper name for this manuver is not a barrel roll,
> that's another topic, and I would agree. Many people incorrectly refer to
> all rolls as barrel rolls. But then we would just be nit picking, wouldn't
> we.

Any roll performed by an airplane through 3 dimensional space is a
barrel roll by definition.
Not sure again exactly what you mean by your comment.
DH

[Maxwell]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.130...
>
> Dudley's right, you're wrong,. You're twisting the argument to suit
> yourself, changeing the language and rules as you go...
>
>


No I'm not.
Reference my post from this morning.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Maxwell" >
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: Head orientation in turns--how is it taught for aviation?


>
> I'm not talking about Bob's tea trick. Obvoiusly, positive Gs and
> coordination is the key there. And I'm not sure I understand or agree with
> your post. But I think it might be possible we having a terminology issue
> here with the definition of a barrel roll.
>
> I fully admit barrel rolls as defined by most pilots require more than
> "exactly 1g", and usually a little negative, depending on the desired
> flight
> path. Also, doing a near 1g roll as I mentioned, more than 1g will be
> required to set up the manuver, and return to level flight afterwards. But
> I
> disagree that it one needs to deviate much from 1g to roll the wings of an
> aircraft 360 degrees if flying an arc. Depending on the arc and corkscrew
> of
> your flight path, you can roll with very little if not no stress on the
> aircraft.
>

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-11 23:13:58 -0400, "Maxwell" > said:

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> news:2007061121444816807-dhenriques@rcncom...
>> On 2007-06-10 22:41:49 -0400, "Maxwell" > said:
>>
>>> That is either untrue, or real misleading. The Blues fly with a different
>>> purpose, keep the aircraft on trajectory. When they are flying a knife
>>> edge,
>>> they are hardly coordinated, as with many other maneuvers.
>>>
>>> A 1g barrel roll can be done, but the required trajectory of the aircraft
>>> is
>>> not going to be one that is necessarily eye pleasing for ground
>>> demonstration purposes.
>>
>> Actually, when the Blues or anyone else is in knife edge, they are indeed
>> in coordinated flight. You hold the aircraft in knife edge with top rudder
>> and forward neutral stick; this control pressure combination has to be
>> perfectly coordinated to maintain knife edge.
>> You are confusing coordinated with meaning the control pressures must be
>> complementary which is a common mistake often made.
>> The first lesson we teach in aerobatics is that "coordinated" has
>> absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the controls not being crossed.
>> Actually, any good flight instructor will teach this to a new primary
>> student during the first hour of dual :-)
>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>
> Then define coordinated.

Surely.
Coordinated as that applies to control pressures while in flight
defines ANY application of controls in ANY DIRECTION where the pressure
applied to each individual control achieves a specific desired
resulting change in the flight path of the aircraft .
A non slipping or skidding ball centered turn entry or exit is a
coordinated control movement. In this case the control pressures
applied are in the same direction and uncrossed.
Conversely, a deliberate slip or a slow roll is also a coordinated
control movement resulting in a specific change and effect in the
flight path of the aircraft. In this case the controls are not applied
in the same direction and are said to be crossed.
Again, crossed controls does NOT mean uncoordinated.
Dudley Henriques

[Maxwell]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
news:2007061123263150073-dhenriques@rcncom...
>> Certainly not. If you think you cannot roll the wings of an aircraft, and
>> remain in total control of the g loading, you are totally incorrect.
>
> Not sure what you mean here as your comment refers to me or what I have
> said, but I can assure you that you most certainly CAN roll an airplane
> and maintain complete control of the g. If a pilot can't do this, I would
> strongly suggest that rolling the airplane not be attempted :-)
>>
>> If you want to argue the proper name for this manuver is not a barrel
>> roll,
>> that's another topic, and I would agree. Many people incorrectly refer to
>> all rolls as barrel rolls. But then we would just be nit picking,
>> wouldn't
>> we.
>
> Any roll performed by an airplane through 3 dimensional space is a barrel
> roll by definition.
> Not sure again exactly what you mean by your comment.
> DH
>
>

Can you roll the wings of an aircraft 360 and hold 0g? How about 1g? How
about -1g?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"Maxwell" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .130...
>>
>> Dudley's right, you're wrong,. You're twisting the argument to suit
>> yourself, changeing the language and rules as you go...
>>
>>
>
>
> No I'm not.
> Reference my post from this morning.

Yeah right..

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-11 23:36:31 -0400, "Maxwell" > said:

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> news:2007061123263150073-dhenriques@rcncom...
>>> Certainly not. If you think you cannot roll the wings of an aircraft, and
>>> remain in total control of the g loading, you are totally incorrect.
>>
>> Not sure what you mean here as your comment refers to me or what I have
>> said, but I can assure you that you most certainly CAN roll an airplane
>> and maintain complete control of the g. If a pilot can't do this, I would
>> strongly suggest that rolling the airplane not be attempted :-)
>>>
>>> If you want to argue the proper name for this manuver is not a barrel
>>> roll,
>>> that's another topic, and I would agree. Many people incorrectly refer to
>>> all rolls as barrel rolls. But then we would just be nit picking,
>>> wouldn't
>>> we.
>>
>> Any roll performed by an airplane through 3 dimensional space is a barrel
>> roll by definition.
>> Not sure again exactly what you mean by your comment.
>> DH
>>
>>
>
> Can you roll the wings of an aircraft 360 and hold 0g? How about 1g? How
> about -1g?

I'm beginning to get this awful feeling that you and I just might not
be made for each other :-))
Let's just call it a day shall we. I really have no problem at all
allowing you to think I'm not as smart about aerobatics as you are and
I'm afraid we're getting fairly close to where I usually get paid for
this stuff. :-)
I have enjoyed our time together. Take care.
Dudley Henriques

[Maxwell]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.130...
> "Maxwell" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> .130...
>>>
>>> Dudley's right, you're wrong,. You're twisting the argument to suit
>>> yourself, changeing the language and rules as you go...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> No I'm not.
>> Reference my post from this morning.
>
> Yeah right..
>

No, you mean yeah, correct.

[Maxwell]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
news:2007061123501111272-dhenriques@rcncom...
> On 2007-06-11 23:36:31 -0400, "Maxwell" > said:
>
>>
>> Can you roll the wings of an aircraft 360 and hold 0g? How about 1g? How
>> about -1g?
>
> I'm beginning to get this awful feeling that you and I just might not be
> made for each other :-))
> Let's just call it a day shall we. I really have no problem at all
> allowing you to think I'm not as smart about aerobatics as you are and
> I'm afraid we're getting fairly close to where I usually get paid for this
> stuff. :-)
> I have enjoyed our time together. Take care.
> Dudley Henriques
>

Simple question. Can you or can you not.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 11, 5:37 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> It's a really bad idea to threaten people in writing, especially in written forms
> that will be archived indefinitely and exposed to public view. It can work
> against you in ways you may not at all suspect.

Precious. You've splattered more ridiculous drivel, archived
indefinitely, on the net to make you look foolish than any toss-away
physical threat here.

F--

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"Maxwell" > wrote in news:WMobi.97857$vE1.10405
@newsfe24.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .130...
>> "Maxwell" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> .130...
>>>>
>>>> Dudley's right, you're wrong,. You're twisting the argument to suit
>>>> yourself, changeing the language and rules as you go...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No I'm not.
>>> Reference my post from this morning.
>>
>> Yeah right..
>>
>
> No, you mean yeah, correct.
>

No, I meeant you're a fjukkwit in the same league as mxsmanic.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"Maxwell" > wrote in
:

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> news:2007061123501111272-dhenriques@rcncom...
>> On 2007-06-11 23:36:31 -0400, "Maxwell" > said:
>>
>>>
>>> Can you roll the wings of an aircraft 360 and hold 0g? How about 1g?
>>> How about -1g?
>>
>> I'm beginning to get this awful feeling that you and I just might not
>> be made for each other :-))
>> Let's just call it a day shall we. I really have no problem at all
>> allowing you to think I'm not as smart about aerobatics as you are
>> and I'm afraid we're getting fairly close to where I usually get paid
>> for this stuff. :-)
>> I have enjoyed our time together. Take care.
>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>
> Simple question. Can you or can you not.
>

Oops! you seem to have run out of people who give a fjukk what you
think.


Bertie

[george]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
> > Erik writes:
> >
> >> 3) Meet me in real life, I'll beat the living daylights out of
> >> you just to make me feel better. Yep, violent, but who gives
> >> a ****?
> >
> > District attorneys do. You've established premeditation, for one
> > thing. It's a really bad idea to threaten people in writing,
> > especially in written forms that will be archived indefinitely and
> > exposed to public view. It can work against you in ways you may not
> > at all suspect.
>
> Oow! Kookthrets!
>
>
> God I luv usenet.
>
I believe our pet kook might be slowly arriving at the realisation
that he isn't the flavour of the hour, the day, the week or the year.
Wet bus tickets at ten yards !

[PPL-A (Canada)]

On Jun 11, 3:56 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> PPL-A (Canada) writes:
> > Again ... the answer remains the same ... neck straight ... not bent.
>
> And the absence of data is still there.

Hey twerp ... I told you where to find the data ... you've just chosen
to clip out that part of the answer I supplied to you ...

Here it is again if you care to spend a moment seeking knowledge
instead of simply arguing ...

"Why don't you write to Transport Canada and ask them for all of the
"scientific data" you seek? Every couple of months this agency
publishes a newsletter outlining the science (physics, and human
flight physiology for instance) behind a number of the basic
principles taught during flight training, and what happens when one
is
forgetful, ill-trained, or foolish and/or argumentative enough to
disregard what you have been taught. Where I was trained you learn
it
this way (from the "Flight Training Manual" - "Exercise Nine -
Turns"), or you don't fly. "

But you might have to do the work to get it, not just beak off in this
group ...

So I'm not expecting much since you seem not only arrogant, but also
very lazy.

Not to mention you conveniently ignored my request to supply us with
some real mathematical physics, right here to prove your claims that
turns on a motorcycle are "identical" to coordinated turns in a
plane ... I'm still waiting ... "the abscence of mathematical physics
is still there."



J.

[Mxsmanic]

Snowbird writes:

> First, motorcycles don't necessarily move in two dimensions in a turn.

Neither do aircraft.

> Second, you might also want to ponder what the motorcycle driver vs. the
> pilot is looking at.

The driver of any vehicle needs to look where the vehicle is going.

> Maybe the bike rider wants to look at the intended track of his bike on the
> road, in order to spot any bumps.

No, that results in target fixation, and accidents.

> Or maybe he just wants to optimize his
> turn to the available width of the road and looks at it more broadly. In
> either case it would seem to make sense that the rider's sight perception
> improves, if he tilts his eyes more parallel to the road.

Motorcycle riders look where they want to go, just like pilots.

> The pilot, on the other hand, does not look at any road ahead. He's
> interested in the nose vs. horizon sight picture as well as the instruments.
> That's a different case and it's not self-evident that tilting the head
> parallel to the horizon would improve the pilot's turn performance. On the
> contrary, especially if the pilot uses the VSI and altimeter to maintain
> altitude, it's probably easier to read them with the eyes level relative to
> the instrument panel.

This is a VFR pilot?

> Third, it just might be possible that the pilot's stereoscopic vision can
> better help him maintain altitude in the turn by visual cues, if he keeps
> his head still.

Stereoscopic vision ceases to be a factor beyond around 10 metres, so it is
never important in the air--which is why full-motion simulators use
collimation to make everything seem infinitely far away, without bothering to
simulate 3D.

> Fourth, a bike rider leans forward, while a pilot leans back in his seat.
> Can have impact on how the head turns in a turn.

I was taught not to lean in any direction that isn't aligned with the bike.

> I'm not aware of scientific proof of the above, but neither of the reverse.
> So until the opposite is credibly shown, I'll contend that a motorcycle is
> different from an airplane.

Different in many ways, but very much the same in turns.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> No it won't, and yes you can.

I'm afraid he's right, and you're wrong. The arc of the roll is maintained by
lift towards the center of the roll, which requires positive G (relative to
the pilot).

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> Certainly not. If you think you cannot roll the wings of an aircraft, and
> remain in total control of the g loading, you are totally incorrect.

Unless you possess an antigravity device, you're never in total control of the
G loading.

[Mxsmanic]

Erik writes:

> Yep. I'll be suspect number one if I ever fly into france and
> you happen to disappear.

Are you married? Have a girlfriend? Ever apply for a job that requires
interaction with others, especially in close proximity or alone?

[PPL-A (Canada)]

On Jun 11, 5:58 pm, Erik > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > PPL-A (Canada) writes:
>
> >>Again ... the answer remains the same ... neck straight ... not bent.
>
> > And the absence of data is still there.
>
> See, further proof. You were answered. You didn't like
> the answer. It's not an absence of data, it's an absence
> of brain.

Thank-you Erik, for pointing out how the annoying little guy neglected
to clip the rest of the post where I provided an answer as to where to
find the data which he seems to be seeking ... but he might have had
to get off his arse and call people he doesn't know to get some books
he doesn't have, so that doesn't fit in his world view, and thus can
be ignored in favour of further misappropriation of posts and mindless
arguments.

J

[PPL-A (Canada)]

On Jun 11, 6:00 pm, Erik > wrote:
> PPL-A (Canada) wrote:
> > Now now ... all you've done is substituted "And" for "But"! So I
> > guess I should have said "No 'if's', 'ands', 'ors', 'buts'
>
> So that excludes the ass from replying. I should have
> thought of that before!

Thank-you ... (bowing) ... glad someone finally got that entendre ...
although its lost on MX SMAK NIK.

J

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> And the absence of data is still there.
>

Says who? You didn't ask for data. You asked how it was taught. You got
an answer.

You have not provided any factual basis for any "absence of data". You
have also not provided any back-up to your claim of motor cycle turns
being the same as airplane turns. And you haven't backed up your claim
that motor cyclists are actually taught the way you claim they are.

So, if there is anything absent here, it is any kind of factual
foundation for your blathering.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bob Moore]

Dudley Henriques wrote
> Any roll performed by an airplane through 3 dimensional space is a
> barrel roll by definition.

"Ah well...there you go again." Dudley.

Once again I am posting Wikipedia's (and mine) definition of a
"barrel roll". Now, would you be so kind as to post the source
of the definition that you use. BTW, William Kershner shares the
Wikipedia definition in his "The Flight Instructor's Manual.

Just point us at the definition.

Barrel roll
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In aviation, the maneuver includes a constant variation of attitude in all
three axes, and at the midpoint (top) of the roll, the aircraft is flying
inverted, with the nose pointing at a 90-degree angle ("sideways") to the
general path of flight. The term "barrel roll" is frequently used,
incorrectly, to refer to any roll by an airplane (see aileron roll), or to
a helical roll in which the nose remains pointed generally along the flight
path. In fact, the barrel roll is a *SPECIFIC* and difficult maneuver; a
combination of a roll and a loop. It is not used in aerobatic competition.

Bob Moore

[Maxwell]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.130...
> "Maxwell" > wrote in news:WMobi.97857$vE1.10405
> @newsfe24.lga:
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> .130...
>>> "Maxwell" > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>>> .130...
>>>>>
>>>>> Dudley's right, you're wrong,. You're twisting the argument to suit
>>>>> yourself, changeing the language and rules as you go...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No I'm not.
>>>> Reference my post from this morning.
>>>
>>> Yeah right..
>>>
>>
>> No, you mean yeah, correct.
>>
>
> No, I meeant you're a fjukkwit in the same league as mxsmanic.
>

Gotcha!

[Maxwell]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.130...
> "Maxwell" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> news:2007061123501111272-dhenriques@rcncom...
>>> On 2007-06-11 23:36:31 -0400, "Maxwell" > said:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can you roll the wings of an aircraft 360 and hold 0g? How about 1g?
>>>> How about -1g?
>>>
>>> I'm beginning to get this awful feeling that you and I just might not
>>> be made for each other :-))
>>> Let's just call it a day shall we. I really have no problem at all
>>> allowing you to think I'm not as smart about aerobatics as you are
>>> and I'm afraid we're getting fairly close to where I usually get paid
>>> for this stuff. :-)
>>> I have enjoyed our time together. Take care.
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>
>>
>> Simple question. Can you or can you not.
>>
>
> Oops! you seem to have run out of people who give a fjukk what you
> think.
>

Nah, Dudley just ran out of dance steps.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Certainly not. If you think you cannot roll the wings of an aircraft, and
>> remain in total control of the g loading, you are totally incorrect.
>
> Unless you possess an antigravity device, you're never in total control of
> the
> G loading.

What do you think the stick does dip****. God you're clueless. Learn to
troll.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> No it won't, and yes you can.
>
> I'm afraid he's right, and you're wrong. The arc of the roll is
> maintained by
> lift towards the center of the roll, which requires positive G (relative
> to
> the pilot).

Only when flying a desk.

[Stefan]

Bob Moore schrieb:

> Just point us at the definition.
>
> Barrel roll
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
....

Wikipedia is not more reliable than you and me talking over a beer. That
said:


"... a 360 degrees roll around the aircraft's zero lift axis, producing
positive g throughout, starting and finishing at the same altitude in
horizontal flight and parallel to the competition axis. For a perfect
result the rate of roll should be constant, although this is not a
universal requirement.

.... a mixture of a roll and a loop ...

The amount of g pulled, the extent (below 90 degrees) of displacement of
the fuselage axis, and the diameter and shape of the "tunnel" will
depend on he aircraft's speed and rate of roll: they do not form part of
the judging criteria."

Source: Eric Muller in "Flight Unlimited".

[Sierk Melzer]

Dudley,

I think you are mixing up the terms 'coordinated control pressures' and
'coordinated flight'. I have never seen a definition of coordinated flight
(in the context that we are discussing here - 'head orientation in _turns_'
or barrel rolls for that matter) that would mean 'coordinated control
pressures' as you define it.

From the FAA handbook of aeronautical knowledge:

"True, an airplane may be banked to 90° but not in a coordinated

turn; an airplane which can be held in a 90°

banked slipping turn is capable of straight knifeedged

flight."

An aircraft doing a straight line knife edge is not in coordinated flight.
It may even be argued if the term 'coordinated flight' is applicable for
non-turning flight but you can always interpret straight-line flight as a
turn of infinite diameter. In any case, the nose of the airplane is not
aligned with it's flightpath, the ball is not centered, the plane is not in
coordinated flight during a knife edge.

http://www.faasafety.gov/gslac/ALC/libview_chapter.aspx?id=6880&chapter=Zero+Slideslip

"Sideslip is the angle with which the relative wind meets the longitudinal
axis of the airplane. In all-engine flight with symmetrical power, zero
sideslip occurs with the ball of the slip-skid indicator centered. Pilots
know this concept as "coordinated flight." "

The conditions characterizing 'coordinated flight' mentioned in the text
above clearly do not apply to knife-edge flight: Ball not centered, the
relative wind is not meeting the longitudinal axis of the a/c at 0 deg.

Sierk

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
news:2007061123362943658-dhenriques@rcncom...
> On 2007-06-11 23:13:58 -0400, "Maxwell" > said:
>
>>
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> news:2007061121444816807-dhenriques@rcncom...
>>> On 2007-06-10 22:41:49 -0400, "Maxwell" > said:
>>>
>>>> That is either untrue, or real misleading. The Blues fly with a
>>>> different
>>>> purpose, keep the aircraft on trajectory. When they are flying a knife
>>>> edge,
>>>> they are hardly coordinated, as with many other maneuvers.
>>>>
>>>> A 1g barrel roll can be done, but the required trajectory of the
>>>> aircraft
>>>> is
>>>> not going to be one that is necessarily eye pleasing for ground
>>>> demonstration purposes.
>>>
>>> Actually, when the Blues or anyone else is in knife edge, they are
>>> indeed
>>> in coordinated flight. You hold the aircraft in knife edge with top
>>> rudder
>>> and forward neutral stick; this control pressure combination has to be
>>> perfectly coordinated to maintain knife edge.
>>> You are confusing coordinated with meaning the control pressures must be
>>> complementary which is a common mistake often made.
>>> The first lesson we teach in aerobatics is that "coordinated" has
>>> absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the controls not being crossed.
>>> Actually, any good flight instructor will teach this to a new primary
>>> student during the first hour of dual :-)
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>
>>
>> Then define coordinated.
>
> Surely.
> Coordinated as that applies to control pressures while in flight defines
> ANY application of controls in ANY DIRECTION where the pressure applied to
> each individual control achieves a specific desired resulting change in
> the flight path of the aircraft .
> A non slipping or skidding ball centered turn entry or exit is a
> coordinated control movement. In this case the control pressures applied
> are in the same direction and uncrossed.
> Conversely, a deliberate slip or a slow roll is also a coordinated control
> movement resulting in a specific change and effect in the flight path of
> the aircraft. In this case the controls are not applied in the same
> direction and are said to be crossed.
> Again, crossed controls does NOT mean uncoordinated.
> Dudley Henriques
>

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-12 07:38:47 -0400, Bob Moore > said:

> Dudley Henriques wrote
>> Any roll performed by an airplane through 3 dimensional space is a
>> barrel roll by definition.
>
> "Ah well...there you go again." Dudley.
>
> Once again I am posting Wikipedia's (and mine) definition of a
> "barrel roll". Now, would you be so kind as to post the source
> of the definition that you use. BTW, William Kershner shares the
> Wikipedia definition in his "The Flight Instructor's Manual.
>
> Just point us at the definition.
>
> Barrel roll
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> In aviation, the maneuver includes a constant variation of attitude in all
> three axes, and at the midpoint (top) of the roll, the aircraft is flying
> inverted, with the nose pointing at a 90-degree angle ("sideways") to the
> general path of flight. The term "barrel roll" is frequently used,
> incorrectly, to refer to any roll by an airplane (see aileron roll), or to
> a helical roll in which the nose remains pointed generally along the flight
> path. In fact, the barrel roll is a *SPECIFIC* and difficult maneuver; a
> combination of a roll and a loop. It is not used in aerobatic competition.
>
> Bob Moore

I see absolutely nothing wrong with the definition you are offering
here and also see no conflict with your Wikipedia definition and my
own, which is completely in line with Bill Kershner, a man whose
manuals I have used to teach students to fly for many years.
I think you are misreading me. Either that or you are misunderstanding
what I am saying about barrel rolls and 3 dimensional space.
Anytime you roll an airplane deliberately through all 3 dimensions you
have performed a barrel roll by definition.
You can spilt rolls down into categories that-consider aileron rolls,
slow rolls, barrel rolls, and snaps. The only roll that is DELIBERATELY
FLOWN through all 3 dimensions is a barrel roll. Aileron rolls are
initiated and flown on the longitudinal axis. Any movement in pitch is
incidental to maintaining altitude. The main thing about aileron rolls
is that the roll is MAINLY being flown with aileron. The elevators and
rudder can be used of course but are simply "trimming up" the roll.
An aileron roll is classified as a 2 dimensional maneuver through 3
dimensional space.
A slow roll is also flown on the longitudinal axis of the airplane and
is considered a 2 dimensional maneuver through 3 dimensional space.
A snap roll is in a category all it's own, but is basically flown again
on the longitudinal axis of the aircraft but with rudder application to
induce accelerated stall on that axis.
A barrel roll on the other hand, is DELIBERATELY FLOWN through 3
dimensional space by control application resulting in the aircraft
changing flight path on the vertical and longitudinal axis. Throw in
the necessary forward movement of the aircraft through the roll and you
have a 3 dimensional maneuver through 3 dimensional space which I
believe is exactly what I have said :-)
I have absolutely no objection at all to you verifying this with
another credible source and reporting back to us here if that is your
wish.
I would suggest perhaps a quick email to Navy TPS might do the trick :-)
Dudley Henriques

[El Maximo]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...

> And you haven't backed up your claim that motor cyclists are actually
> taught the way you claim they are.

That's taught in the 'how to not fall off your bike' class.

1) This is a motorcycle.

2) To prevent falling off this powerful machine, many newbies have found
that keeping their head vertical to the road prevents them from getting too
dizzy and falling off.

3) Please note: your motorcycle instructors are not newbies, therefore are
not likely to fall off their bikes, so you probably won't see anyone who has
made more than twenty-five left hand turns twisting their head like a dog to
keep it level with the ground.

So: the real question is: when using MSFS, should a newbie keep her head
level with the REAL horizon, or the Artificial Horizon?

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-12 08:40:42 -0400, "Sierk Melzer" > said:

> Dudley,
>
> I think you are mixing up the terms 'coordinated control pressures' and
> 'coordinated flight'. I have never seen a definition of coordinated flight
> (in the context that we are discussing here - 'head orientation in _turns_'
> or barrel rolls for that matter) that would mean 'coordinated control
> pressures' as you define it.
>
> From the FAA handbook of aeronautical knowledge:
>
> "True, an airplane may be banked to 90° but not in a coordinated
>
> turn; an airplane which can be held in a 90°
>
> banked slipping turn is capable of straight knifeedged
>
> flight."
>
> An aircraft doing a straight line knife edge is not in coordinated flight.
> It may even be argued if the term 'coordinated flight' is applicable for
> non-turning flight but you can always interpret straight-line flight as a
> turn of infinite diameter. In any case, the nose of the airplane is not
> aligned with it's flightpath, the ball is not centered, the plane is not in
> coordinated flight during a knife edge.
>
> http://www.faasafety.gov/gslac/ALC/libview_chapter.aspx?id=6880&chapter=Zero+Slideslip

"Sideslip
>
> is the angle with which the relative wind meets the longitudinal
> axis of the airplane. In all-engine flight with symmetrical power, zero
> sideslip occurs with the ball of the slip-skid indicator centered. Pilots
> know this concept as "coordinated flight." "
>
> The conditions characterizing 'coordinated flight' mentioned in the text
> above clearly do not apply to knife-edge flight: Ball not centered, the
> relative wind is not meeting the longitudinal axis of the a/c at 0 deg.
>
> Sierk


You could indeed stretch a point on this and you would be absolutely correct.
Pilots (and especially aerobatic instructors like myself) have a strong
tendency to teach coordinated control pressure to produce desired
result rather than any coined definition of coordinated flight. At our
stage of performance, the term "coordinated" must indeed be redefined
to include the extended envelope of the aircraft in which we operate.
For example, in going to knife edge, if the control pressures are not
perfectly timed and applied with the exact "coordinnated" pressure
necessary to change the aircraft's flight path from where it is to
where it must be to produce knife edge, the maneuver is blown. This is
coordinated movement producing the desired result. To us, this is
coordinated flight and is as normal a control application as a
coordinated turn entry with the ball centered might be to a pilot
flying within the normal definition for "coordinated".
I believe you are correct in defining coordinated flight as you are and
have no problem with that.
In turn, you should consider that there are "extended levels" in flying
an airplane where pilots must redefine the basic definitions for
coordinated flight.
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"Maxwell" > wrote in news:WMvbi.560843$2Q1.316920
@newsfe16.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .130...
>> "Maxwell" > wrote in news:WMobi.97857$vE1.10405
>> @newsfe24.lga:
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> .130...
>>>> "Maxwell" > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>>>> .130...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dudley's right, you're wrong,. You're twisting the argument to
suit
>>>>>> yourself, changeing the language and rules as you go...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No I'm not.
>>>>> Reference my post from this morning.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah right..
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, you mean yeah, correct.
>>>
>>
>> No, I meeant you're a fjukkwit in the same league as mxsmanic.
>>
>
> Gotcha!

No, you didn't.

Bertei
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"Maxwell" > wrote in news:vNvbi.560844$2Q1.322049
@newsfe16.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .130...
>> "Maxwell" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>> news:2007061123501111272-dhenriques@rcncom...
>>>> On 2007-06-11 23:36:31 -0400, "Maxwell" > said:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you roll the wings of an aircraft 360 and hold 0g? How about
1g?
>>>>> How about -1g?
>>>>
>>>> I'm beginning to get this awful feeling that you and I just might
not
>>>> be made for each other :-))
>>>> Let's just call it a day shall we. I really have no problem at all
>>>> allowing you to think I'm not as smart about aerobatics as you are
>>>> and I'm afraid we're getting fairly close to where I usually get
paid
>>>> for this stuff. :-)
>>>> I have enjoyed our time together. Take care.
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>
>>>
>>> Simple question. Can you or can you not.
>>>
>>
>> Oops! you seem to have run out of people who give a fjukk what you
>> think.
>>
>
> Nah, Dudley just ran out of dance steps.

No, he didn't. He gave you an accurate explanation which went over your
head and now you';re trying to dance your way out of it.


Fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Certainly not. If you think you cannot roll the wings of an aircraft,
>> and remain in total control of the g loading, you are totally
>> incorrect.
>
> Unless you possess an antigravity device, you're never in total
> control of the G loading.
>

Yes, you are.

Fjukktard.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Erik writes:
>
>> Yep. I'll be suspect number one if I ever fly into france and
>> you happen to disappear.
>
> Are you married? Have a girlfriend? Ever apply for a job that requires
> interaction with others, especially in close proximity or alone?
>

Are you a freak? Never married? No friends? Everr have any meaningful
interaction with others, espicailly in close proximity or alone?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Bob Moore > wrote in
46.128:

> Dudley Henriques wrote
>> Any roll performed by an airplane through 3 dimensional space is a
>> barrel roll by definition.
>
> "Ah well...there you go again." Dudley.
>
> Once again I am posting Wikipedia's (and mine) definition of a
> "barrel roll". Now, would you be so kind as to post the source
> of the definition that you use. BTW, William Kershner shares the
> Wikipedia definition in his "The Flight Instructor's Manual.
>
> Just point us at the definition.
>
> Barrel roll
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> In aviation, the maneuver includes a constant variation of attitude in
> all three axes, and at the midpoint (top) of the roll, the aircraft is
> flying inverted, with the nose pointing at a 90-degree angle
> ("sideways") to the general path of flight. The term "barrel roll" is
> frequently used, incorrectly, to refer to any roll by an airplane (see
> aileron roll), or to a helical roll in which the nose remains pointed
> generally along the flight path. In fact, the barrel roll is a
> *SPECIFIC* and difficult maneuver; a combination of a roll and a loop.
> It is not used in aerobatic competition.
>

Pretty much correct. Here's the IAC's definition...

The Barrel Roll is a not competition maneuver. I The barrel roll is a
combination between a loop and a roll. You complete one loop while
completing one roll at the same time. The flight path during a barrel
roll has the shape of a horizontal cork screw. Imagine a big barrel,
with the airplanes wheels rolling along the inside of the barrel in a
cork screw path. During a barrel roll, the pilot experiences always
positive G's. The maximum is about 2.5 to 3 G, the minimum about 0.5 G.

You're like the proverbial three blind men examining an elephant
(Mxsmanic would be the fourth examining it's pile of dung)


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Snowbird writes:
>
>> First, motorcycles don't necessarily move in two dimensions in a
>> turn.
>
> Neither do aircraft.
>
>> Second, you might also want to ponder what the motorcycle driver vs.
>> the pilot is looking at.
>
> The driver of any vehicle needs to look where the vehicle is going.
>
>> Maybe the bike rider wants to look at the intended track of his bike
>> on the road, in order to spot any bumps.
>
> No, that results in target fixation, and accidents.
>
>> Or maybe he just wants to optimize his
>> turn to the available width of the road and looks at it more broadly.
>> In either case it would seem to make sense that the rider's sight
>> perception improves, if he tilts his eyes more parallel to the road.
>
> Motorcycle riders look where they want to go, just like pilots.
>
>> The pilot, on the other hand, does not look at any road ahead. He's
>> interested in the nose vs. horizon sight picture as well as the
>> instruments. That's a different case and it's not self-evident that
>> tilting the head parallel to the horizon would improve the pilot's
>> turn performance. On the contrary, especially if the pilot uses the
>> VSI and altimeter to maintain altitude, it's probably easier to read
>> them with the eyes level relative to the instrument panel.
>
> This is a VFR pilot?
>
>> Third, it just might be possible that the pilot's stereoscopic vision
>> can better help him maintain altitude in the turn by visual cues, if
>> he keeps his head still.
>
> Stereoscopic vision ceases to be a factor beyond around 10 metres, so
> it is never important in the air--which is why full-motion simulators
> use collimation to make everything seem infinitely far away, without
> bothering to simulate 3D.
>
>> Fourth, a bike rider leans forward, while a pilot leans back in his
>> seat. Can have impact on how the head turns in a turn.
>
> I was taught not to lean in any direction that isn't aligned with the
> bike.

That's because your instructor was stuck with an idiot

We frequently use little zen things like that to keep the student from
doing something stupid. Mostly out of desperation when al else fails.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Snowbird writes:
>
>> First, motorcycles don't necessarily move in two dimensions in a
>> turn.
>
> Neither do aircraft.
>
>> Second, you might also want to ponder what the motorcycle driver vs.
>> the pilot is looking at.
>
> The driver of any vehicle needs to look where the vehicle is going.
>
>> Maybe the bike rider wants to look at the intended track of his bike
>> on the road, in order to spot any bumps.
>
> No, that results in target fixation, and accidents.
>
>> Or maybe he just wants to optimize his
>> turn to the available width of the road and looks at it more broadly.
>> In either case it would seem to make sense that the rider's sight
>> perception improves, if he tilts his eyes more parallel to the road.
>
> Motorcycle riders look where they want to go, just like pilots.
>
>> The pilot, on the other hand, does not look at any road ahead. He's
>> interested in the nose vs. horizon sight picture as well as the
>> instruments. That's a different case and it's not self-evident that
>> tilting the head parallel to the horizon would improve the pilot's
>> turn performance. On the contrary, especially if the pilot uses the
>> VSI and altimeter to maintain altitude, it's probably easier to read
>> them with the eyes level relative to the instrument panel.
>
> This is a VFR pilot?
>
>> Third, it just might be possible that the pilot's stereoscopic vision
>> can better help him maintain altitude in the turn by visual cues, if
>> he keeps his head still.
>
> Stereoscopic vision ceases to be a factor beyond around 10 metres, so
> it is never important in the air--which is why full-motion simulators
> use collimation to make everything seem infinitely far away, without
> bothering to simulate 3D.
>
>> Fourth, a bike rider leans forward, while a pilot leans back in his
>> seat. Can have impact on how the head turns in a turn.
>
> I was taught not to lean in any direction that isn't aligned with the
> bike.
>
>> I'm not aware of scientific proof of the above, but neither of the
>> reverse. So until the opposite is credibly shown, I'll contend that a
>> motorcycle is different from an airplane.
>
> Different in many ways, but very much the same in turns.


You're an idiot.

Talking to another idiot.

Bertie

[El Maximo]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> And so, apparently, do aircraft.

Hey, I tried duplicating flight with my motorcycle, but I ended up crashing
into the retaining wall at the end of the runway.

I plan to sue you.

Who is you lawyer?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"El Maximo" > wrote in
:

> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> And so, apparently, do aircraft.
>
> Hey, I tried duplicating flight with my motorcycle, but I ended up
> crashing into the retaining wall at the end of the runway.
>
> I plan to sue you.
>
> Who is you lawyer?

http://www.capcom.com/phoenixwright/

[Bob Crawford]

On Jun 10, 11:07 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> When you make a coordinated turn in an aircraft, are you taught to let your
> head tilt with the bank angle of the aircraft, or are you taught to keep your
> head normal to the horizon?

A couple of things to ponder.

If (contray to what real life pilots and CFIs have said here) pilots
were taught to generally lean/tilt their heads to keep it normal to
the horizon, wouldn't a fine simulator such as MSFS ("as real as it
gets") be designed to keep the horizon always horizonal across your
monitor and have the cockpit artwork rotate/tilt (since that would
present the same sight picture to a sim-pilot as a real pilot would
encounter)?

Have you ever felt the need to lean/tilt your head during coordinated
turns in a commercial airliner? If you forced yourself to lean in
such a situation you chances are you'd feel much more disorientated.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

El Maximo wrote:
> So: the real question is: when using MSFS, should a newbie keep her head
> level with the REAL horizon, or the Artificial Horizon?

The real horizon never moves in MSFS. <G>

[[email protected]]

On Jun 12, 11:52 am, Bob Crawford > wrote:
> ...
> Have you ever felt the need to lean/tilt your head during coordinated
> turns in a commercial airliner?

I don't recall ever sensing an airliner was in a bank while in solid
cloud. Like where I know they'd have to hang some healthy turns to
swing back to join the LOC on the ILS. Can't feel nuthin. The
carriers need to consult MX to see what they're doing wrong.

F--

[[email protected]]

On Jun 11, 5:26 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > It is also important to realize (!) that bike is _not_ doing a co-
> > ordinated turn.
>
> Yes, it is. If it were not, it would fall over.
>

Aha, I can see you don't know how/why a bike can turn a corner. It's
actually slipping and that creates the turning force. The lean creates
the couple that opposes the slip force. That is why it is not a
coordinated turn. Probably a bit beyond your high school physics tho'.


> > Now think, you can tilt you head maybe 45 degrees but
> > what would a pilot do for a 60 or 90 degree turn?
>
> Tilt his head 60 or 90 degrees, which most people can do without difficulty.

Yes sure, you have a broken neck. Try it looking in a mirror (if you
can stand the sight). Did you like the evidence showing an expert
racer with his head at less than the lean angle?

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

wrote in news:1181667955.336677.31070
@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com:

> On Jun 12, 11:52 am, Bob Crawford > wrote:
>> ...
>> Have you ever felt the need to lean/tilt your head during coordinated
>> turns in a commercial airliner?
>
> I don't recall ever sensing an airliner was in a bank while in solid
> cloud.

Oh I have! Feels awful.

Bertie

[Snowbird]

"Mxsmanic" wrote ....
> Snowbird writes:
>
>> First, motorcycles don't necessarily move in two dimensions in a turn.
>
> Neither do aircraft.

That was never the issue. An aircraft can control its altitude in a turn,
but a motorcycle must follow any ups and downs in the road.

>
>> Second, you might also want to ponder what the motorcycle driver vs. the
>> pilot is looking at.
>
> The driver of any vehicle needs to look where the vehicle is going.

But the motorcycle rider does not need to, and indeed can not, have control
in the vertical dimension. Consequently he has no need to look at visual
cues affecting the vertical dimension. The pilot, on the contrary, has.

>
>> Maybe the bike rider wants to look at the intended track of his bike on
>> the
>> road, in order to spot any bumps.
>
> No, that results in target fixation, and accidents.

Failure to notice bumps, potholes, or sand on the intended track causes
accidents.

>
>> Or maybe he just wants to optimize his
>> turn to the available width of the road and looks at it more broadly. In
>> either case it would seem to make sense that the rider's sight perception
>> improves, if he tilts his eyes more parallel to the road.
>
> Motorcycle riders look where they want to go, just like pilots.
>

Ever seen a motorcyclist turning onto a compass course?

>> The pilot, on the other hand, does not look at any road ahead. He's
>> interested in the nose vs. horizon sight picture as well as the
>> instruments.
>> That's a different case and it's not self-evident that tilting the head
>> parallel to the horizon would improve the pilot's turn performance. On
>> the
>> contrary, especially if the pilot uses the VSI and altimeter to maintain
>> altitude, it's probably easier to read them with the eyes level relative
>> to
>> the instrument panel.
>
> This is a VFR pilot?
>

This is not about simulator games.

>> Third, it just might be possible that the pilot's stereoscopic vision can
>> better help him maintain altitude in the turn by visual cues, if he keeps
>> his head still.
>
> Stereoscopic vision ceases to be a factor beyond around 10 metres, so it
> is
> never important in the air--which is why full-motion simulators use
> collimation to make everything seem infinitely far away, without bothering
> to
> simulate 3D.
>

The nose of the airplane is hardly 10 metres away.

>> Fourth, a bike rider leans forward, while a pilot leans back in his seat.
>> Can have impact on how the head turns in a turn.
>
> I was taught not to lean in any direction that isn't aligned with the
> bike.
>

So what?

>> I'm not aware of scientific proof of the above, but neither of the
>> reverse.
>> So until the opposite is credibly shown, I'll contend that a motorcycle
>> is
>> different from an airplane.
>
> Different in many ways, but very much the same in turns.

You're entitled to your opinion, even if it sucks. Both need about the same
bank angle, but the similarity ends there.

[Mxsmanic]

El Maximo writes:

> 2) To prevent falling off this powerful machine, many newbies have found
> that keeping their head vertical to the road prevents them from getting too
> dizzy and falling off.

Professional racers do exactly the same thing, and they are not newbies.

[Mxsmanic]

El Maximo writes:

> Hey, I tried duplicating flight with my motorcycle, but I ended up crashing
> into the retaining wall at the end of the runway.
>
> I plan to sue you.

On what basis?

[Mxsmanic]

Bob Crawford writes:

> A couple of things to ponder.
>
> If (contray to what real life pilots and CFIs have said here) pilots
> were taught to generally lean/tilt their heads to keep it normal to
> the horizon, wouldn't a fine simulator such as MSFS ("as real as it
> gets") be designed to keep the horizon always horizonal across your
> monitor and have the cockpit artwork rotate/tilt (since that would
> present the same sight picture to a sim-pilot as a real pilot would
> encounter)?

No. Sim pilots can turn their heads, too.

> Have you ever felt the need to lean/tilt your head during coordinated
> turns in a commercial airliner? If you forced yourself to lean in
> such a situation you chances are you'd feel much more disorientated.

I'm rarely aware of turns in an airliner, as I'm not flying the plane and
don't have to worry about where it is going.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> El Maximo writes:
>
>> 2) To prevent falling off this powerful machine, many newbies have
>> found that keeping their head vertical to the road prevents them from
>> getting too dizzy and falling off.
>
> Professional racers do exactly the same thing, and they are not
> newbies.

No, they don';t they are doing something entirley different, fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> El Maximo writes:
>
>> Hey, I tried duplicating flight with my motorcycle, but I ended up
>> crashing into the retaining wall at the end of the runway.
>>
>> I plan to sue you.
>
> On what basis?
>

Gross fjukktudiness.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in :

> Bob Crawford writes:
>
>> A couple of things to ponder.
>>
>> If (contray to what real life pilots and CFIs have said here) pilots
>> were taught to generally lean/tilt their heads to keep it normal to
>> the horizon, wouldn't a fine simulator such as MSFS ("as real as it
>> gets") be designed to keep the horizon always horizonal across your
>> monitor and have the cockpit artwork rotate/tilt (since that would
>> present the same sight picture to a sim-pilot as a real pilot would
>> encounter)?
>
> No. Sim pilots can turn their heads, too.

Must be hard when it's up yo ass.


>
>> Have you ever felt the need to lean/tilt your head during coordinated
>> turns in a commercial airliner? If you forced yourself to lean in
>> such a situation you chances are you'd feel much more disorientated.
>
> I'm rarely aware of turns in an airliner, as I'm not flying the plane and
> don't have to worry about where it is going.
>



So you just board them higgedly piggedly, do you?
Doesn't matter where it goes?


Bertie

[El Maximo]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> El Maximo writes:
>
>> 2) To prevent falling off this powerful machine, many newbies have found
>> that keeping their head vertical to the road prevents them from getting
>> too
>> dizzy and falling off.
>
> Professional racers do exactly the same thing, and they are not newbies.

A quick search of google images for 'motorcycle racing' shows you're wrong
again.

[[email protected]]

As moving just a little off topic, do you have any doubt that
Anthony's resume would show a large number of short term employments?

He'd present as an intellegent candidate, then demonstrate soon enough
an inability or unwillingness to take instructions.




On Jun 13, 5:55 am, "El Maximo" > wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > El Maximo writes:
>
> >> 2) To prevent falling off this powerful machine, many newbies have found
> >> that keeping their head vertical to the road prevents them from getting
> >> too
> >> dizzy and falling off.
>
> > Professional racers do exactly the same thing, and they are not newbies.
>
> A quick search of google images for 'motorcycle racing' shows you're wrong
> again.

[El Maximo]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> As moving just a little off topic, do you have any doubt that
> Anthony's resume would show a large number of short term employments?
>
> He'd present as an intellegent candidate, then demonstrate soon enough
> an inability or unwillingness to take instructions.
>

I doubt he would make it through many interviews. His complete lack of
social skills would turn up quickly. Looking at his website shows he has the
technical knowledge to use html, but nothing more. My guess is he was hired
during the dot-com era as a web programmer, but never really produced
anything. He probably was hired for some huge project at an exorbitant
salary, and dumped either when they realized he couldn't really produce
anything, or when the whole dot-com era crashed. That would also explain his
references to having 'been there - done that' and stories about going broke.
His blog shows he has no concept of cash flow management. I suspect he spent
all his money like a drunken sailor, and is still suffering the
consequences.

[Viperdoc]

And this comment comes from a loser who can't find or hold a job in two of
the most industrialized countries in the world?


"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Erik writes:
>
>> Yep. I'll be suspect number one if I ever fly into france and
>> you happen to disappear.
>
> Are you married? Have a girlfriend? Ever apply for a job that requires
> interaction with others, especially in close proximity or alone?

[Cubdriver]

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:26:48 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>But you can look where you're going in both cases: with your head level with
>the horizon, and with your head level with the aircraft.

I can't imagine a pilot would crane his head left or right in order to
stay oriented with the horizon. The natural thing to do is have your
spine straight up and down, perpendicular to your seat.

(Does anybody do it another way--in a real airplane, I mean?)

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
forthcoming from HarperCollins www.flyingtigersbook.com

[Cubdriver]

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:26:05 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Interesting. When you learn to ride a motorcycle, you're taught to keep your
>head normal to the horizon in turns ... because turning your head with the
>bike as you lean into a turn results in disorientation.

It didn't for me! I rode a bike for a couple years, and I leaned with
the machine.

I do the same thing with the bike-bike, though of course with pedal
power the lean isn't very radical.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
forthcoming from HarperCollins www.flyingtigersbook.com

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-13 11:31:15 -0400, Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> said:

> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:26:48 +0200, Mxsmanic >
> wrote:
>
>> But you can look where you're going in both cases: with your head level with
>> the horizon, and with your head level with the aircraft.
>
> I can't imagine a pilot would crane his head left or right in order to
> stay oriented with the horizon. The natural thing to do is have your
> spine straight up and down, perpendicular to your seat.
>
> (Does anybody do it another way--in a real airplane, I mean?)
>
> Blue skies! -- Dan Ford
>
> You are correct.

> Correcting any tendency to lean away from the turn is one of the first
> things any good instructor should address during the first hour of dual
> with any primary student.
Dudley Henriques

[Andrew Gideon]

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:21:12 +0000, Bob Moore wrote:

> Because they are not normally operating in coordinated flight.

I want to watch the in-flight video of someone doing a roll while keeping
his/her head aligned with the horizon.

<Laugh>

- Andrew

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-21 13:01:55 -0400, Andrew Gideon > said:

> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:21:12 +0000, Bob Moore wrote:
>
>> Because they are not normally operating in coordinated flight.
>
> I want to watch the in-flight video of someone doing a roll while keeping
> his/her head aligned with the horizon.
>
> <Laugh>
>
> - Andrew

This may be seen in the bed scene in the "Exorcist" :-)
Dudley Henriques

[birdog]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:21:12 +0000, Bob Moore wrote:
>
>> Because they are not normally operating in coordinated flight.
>
> I want to watch the in-flight video of someone doing a roll while keeping
> his/her head aligned with the horizon.
>
> <Laugh>
>
> - Andrew

Military style - according to an old P-51 combat WWII pilot.

They were taught to pick a point on the horizon and fly around it as a
training exercise. He flew me through several with virtual perfection.
Say a barrel roll to the left. With speed, turn about 45 deg. to the right,
pulling the nose up some 20 deg. and start the roll to the left. Rudder and
stick control as required to hold the nose equidistant from the point all
way around. Past vertical to knife-edge and begin right rudder for
coordinated turn 45 degrees back to straight and level. The point is
straight ahead. Obviously, he stared straight ahead thruout.

This is approximate, because after about 100 tries I never came close to
getting it right.

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-21 14:30:33 -0400, "birdog" > said:

>
> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:21:12 +0000, Bob Moore wrote:
>>
>>> Because they are not normally operating in coordinated flight.
>>
>> I want to watch the in-flight video of someone doing a roll while keeping
>> his/her head aligned with the horizon.
>>
>> <Laugh>
>>
>> - Andrew
>
> Military style - according to an old P-51 combat WWII pilot.
>
> They were taught to pick a point on the horizon and fly around it as a
> training exercise. He flew me through several with virtual perfection.
> Say a barrel roll to the left. With speed, turn about 45 deg. to the right,
> pulling the nose up some 20 deg. and start the roll to the left. Rudder and
> stick control as required to hold the nose equidistant from the point all
> way around. Past vertical to knife-edge and begin right rudder for
> coordinated turn 45 degrees back to straight and level. The point is
> straight ahead. Obviously, he stared straight ahead thruout.
>
> This is approximate, because after about 100 tries I never came close to
> getting it right.

You can do it. The initial setup for the roll is just a bit different.
You dive for airspeed and bank in an offset to the point, then you
begin the roll from that offset point with the visual point for the
roll kept equidistant all the way around.
It's a great training exercise.
Dudley Henriques